demonstrations spoke monday about the government security clearance process and recommendations for moving the system. from the wilson center, this is an hour and a half. >> good morning welcome bright and early on monday to the wilson center. i and jane harman, president ceo recovering politician for many many years, too many for some of my detractors. i spent time in the house of representatives working on security and intelligence issues and numbers of people sitting here are my friends on a bipartisan basis.
i'm very excited that we are doing something truly useful this morning, which is to host a panel discussion on security clearance, and nextgen overhaul. if you don't understand what nextgen means you probably should leave the room. today's problems are digital. too many of our policies and politicians are analyzed. anyone who has held a secret or top secret clearance knows what i mean. parts of our system fit the 19th century like the paper timecards we are stuck with it. not kidding. bottom line if we want a workforce with secure and talented our approach to security clearances needs an overhaul asap. the way we do business right now and at least three serious problems. first, we are not getting the right people in the door. more than ever we need individuals with language skills and cultural staff working in
national security but it's too hard for a native arabic speaker to make it to the fbi. we also need folks who know their way around the keyboard as fbi director james comey has said it's hard to attract that california's zero-tolerance for past where one is. second we are not catching the people that really deposed insider threat. but every think of edward snowden and i don't think well of edward snowden, if one can agree that was too easy for him to get the access he got. we have to get smarter about using big data, open source collection and behavioral analytics to fly possible security risks. we are getting smarter but are we getting smart enough? third come after people make it into the system we are not securing their information. that's a disservice to her dedicated public servants
including some who are in deep cover even as we speak. we must do better. but the right approach we can and we have a phone on the panel here to suggest 21st century solutions. introducing our speakers is a close friend, chris kojm. he recently -- a visiting professor at george washington's elliott school of international affairs. he also contributed to a fabulous book on intelligence oversight that we are putting together with nyu center's center on law and security that will be released in from oxford university press. chris, before that had 25 years and he just calculated that, quarter of a century with my
predecessor here served here for 12 years and before that all of you know the enormously valued chairman of the house foreign affairs committee and recently received the presidential medal of honor. chris was on the house foreign affairs committee for 15 years and worked on the iraq study group and was deputy director of the 9/11 commission. please join me in welcoming him now. [applause] >> thank you. with profound thanks to the wilson center and president hartman for sponsoring today's discussion. i believe deeply if we have a national debate on this question that the views you here today will prevail. the case is compelling. it's my honor and pleasure to introduce the members of the panel. first i want to start directly to my left the honorable charles e. allen who currently serves as
the security policy reform council chair of the intelligence and national security alliance and for the past six years has been a principal at the chertoff grew. it would be remiss for me to stop their. mr. allen has 50 years of government service. he served as undersecretary at the department of homeland security and assistant secretary before that. he was the assistant director of central intelligence for collection. he and i worked closely and i have the highest regard for him. further, to my left is the honorable joan dempsey. formerly she served as the deputy director of central intelligence for community management under president clinton and the executive director of the president for intelligence of advisory board. given her experience -- is the
director of national intelligence. moving to my right here immediately to my right is the honorable randall -- fort in the cyberdomain team at raytheon corp. and assistant secretary of state in the bureau of intelligence and research at the department of state, a very fine organization. all the way to my right is douglas thomas who is the director for counterintelligence operations and corporate investigations at lockheed-martin. he's the principle decade -- deputy, served as the principle deputy director for counterintelligence and the u.s. government. he has 35 years of service working on counterintelligence issues in the chair the national counterintelligence operations force. so the case i put two of you is
that the experience and the depth of perspective for those represented on this panel i think deserve attention. with that quietly began with the first question and the question is why do we need security clearance reform? just as simple and straightforward as that. i will ask everyone to speak for roughly three minutes for the question on i will begin with randy fort. >> thank you kristen thank you jane for hosting this event with a the think is an important dialogue to have. i'm curious people in the audience here how many of you drive a 1950s automobile today? anybody? does anybody in the audience have a 1950s telephone that you use? is there anybody here whose television set is a 1950s model? anyone? when you go to the dentist do you expect a 1950s dentistry or are you looking for something
a little bit more advanced? okay, so the 1950s as a business model is pretty much over except in the security clearance business area which is still mired in that decade in terms of the fundamental processes and mindset of how security is done. there is this hand tool, we will go around and knock on doors and talk to people who don't even know who you are an check those boxes and assume that somehow that is yielding something when it does not. and for many many years that process is all but oblivious to the changes in technology. it's not surprising the federal government was slow to recognize and respond to the revolution in the 1980s. they were slow to recognize and respond to the world wide web developments in the 1990s. they were slow to recognize and respond to the social media
revolution taking place in early 2000 and we are seeing the same pattern today when it comes to mobility so not a lot of ability to grasp and understand the impact of influences of these technologies which continue to double relentlessly in their capacity every 12 to 18 months. so we have a system today that is old, it is an efficient and it is ineffective. it is obsolete. it is slow, it is inaccurate and as we have learned with the opm announcements over the last several months is corrupt. we cannot even trust the information which is held in the various databases at this point because foreign powers have allegedly had access to that, not just thinking about whatever whatever -- whatever they been able to do to manipulate us so we are looking at a broken system. it's fundamentally broken and
unreliable so this should be the opportunity to recognize that it is 2015 and in a few weeks a would be 2016. we are 15% of the way through the 21st century and yet we still are relying on the system which is mired in the middle of last century. i think there there's a pretty good case to be made that it's time to start looking toward the future and new technologies and figure out a better way to do business. >> thanks randy and i just wanted to mention that we are live on c-span. next i would like to turn to charlie. >> thank you chris. the pleasure to be the wilson center again. i think what randy is just outlined sort of sets the stage iv the rest of the discussion here and abroad framework that we have to use new and better technologies. when i was at the cia the security clearance process is worked reasonably well, trying
to transfer an essay cleared officers and get them assigned to my staff. almost took intervention by the executive director or by john dempsey to make things happen. when i went to the department of homeland security where is the undersecretary to secretary chertoff i found the process different and very slow and difficult. so when i left government in 2009 it was my view that it was vital to the intelligence and national security alliance as the senior adviser through ellen mccarthy was president i really want to form a task force in that task force has turned into a more permanent body. why? because we found the problems were very difficult. we found there were greater efficiencies in the way we did business, that the cost for extremely high, bad weather and
government because the intelligence and perform in terrorism and prevention at the office of personal management in 2005 took over from the department of defense security services plus their responsibility for security clearances. the processes in government did improve because it did mandate some really expedited processes for clearing the government site that i found on the contractor's side we have tens of thousands of contractors. we would not have weapons systems and we would not have payloads in space if we didn't have contractors with great specialties. i found, we found that was extremely slow and very difficult and the government really was moving at glacial speed. part of the problem was people who had clearances, it was mandated that they have periodic investigations every five years
and we have a huge back log when the office of personal management took over the responsibility. it had been worked on hard by jim clapper who at that time was the undersecretary of defense and intelligence but it was improved. the government site in the contractor's side. and he given time, he published a paper in december of 2011 that said 10 to 20% of contractors who were to be put on a contract could not work because there are periodic investigations were out of date. that caused literally billions of dollars when you think of the vastness of the department of defense intelligence community and homeland security. i found it very staggering. i have one experience where we had a top-secret cleared officer from bia who was born, had relatives in vietnam. he had been polygraphed for
counterintelligence. i just wanted to transfer him from dia to the department of homeland security. we waited nine months to get that clearance past and approved by the director of security over at homeland security. that was when i arrived at the intelligence national security alliance, i had this earning a share in this burning issue now turned into a council. the current -- a permanent council subcommittees and i'm honored that we have both randy fort hira who has worked on this and doug thomas who is working today on a new subcommittee on the insider threat. so it has expanded in its become permanent and improvements have been made that we have oceans and notions of places to go before we have efficient policy and security do not align.
acquisition and security do not align. so that is sort of the background. i wanted to give a little history before we move on in our discussion. >> thank you charlie and i would like to turn to john please. >> thanks chris but i want to pick up on a couple of things but i certainly agree with the way randy put the challenges today in context. he's absolutely right, we need a new approach to personal security inside the government. i also want to pick up and get a couple of examples of what charlie allen was talking about. government like most successful organizations have to pay attention to costing cost is a big driver but the cost of personal security for a boy the government doesn't know what personnel security cost us so i have a couple of specific examples or want to give you this morning and while the story is true the name was changed to protect, well-made because it's privacy information but
everything else in the story is true. john smith is a technical expert in quantum computing. it's very hard to find american citizens who are willing to subject themselves to security clearances and work for the government. he then expert in quantum computing cleared at the information level within the department of defense and he is projected to be built for the government at $195,000 annually, very specialized skills, an individual with a very high clearance. that number breaks down to $15,000 per month, $3750 per weekend $93.75 per hour. john is scheduled to move from one intelligence community organization contract to a different organization contract. remember he is fully cleared. his clearance has been submitted to the gaming agency so that he
could be crossed over to work on a new contract. his company will carry the cost of employing john, roughly 15,000 mothers are set for this highly-skilled highly educated individual for the duration of the crossover. matt. who ultimately pays that though? of the u.s. government because that caused is embedded in the rate that the government pays for those individuals. the agency to which john is moving is only to execute a polygraph to move him. we estimated six months for the crossover. unfortunately it took to 10 months and we paid 150,000 to keep john on what we call the bench while we waited for his polygraphed to be scheduled, which it was but we didn't know during that time whether or not it would be so as a huge cost for one individual that was a fairly simple process. the second one is a little harder.
we had an individual who is also cleared by the department of information with a they polygraph but who was married to a foreign national. his wife was indian. he was in he was an advanced technology office at dod and we wanted to move him to an icy advanced technology office. now he had a bachelors of science in electrical engineering from the california institute of technology and a ph.d. in applied and engineering physics from cornell university. there aren't a lot of american citizens that have those qualifications. he was also the author of more than 40 technical papers with over 5000 citations. he was fully cleared, his clearance took 294 days to crossover because he had an indian born wife. she got american citizenship before his clearance crossed over and she started the process after we submitted his paperwork these are two individuals out of
the thousands of contractors who do highly specialized, highly-skilled information for the intelligence community. we have to fix this problem. with that i will turn it over to chris. >> thank you joan and doug. >> thank you chris. good morning. one thing we are going to see is that we need to start levering levering -- leveraging technology. i think one of the things that has changed, the threat environment has changed in 50 years. somebody mentioned earlier that scott is a big deal and ensures up my spine because this is about -- the bad guys have much more information than they ever have before. it's going to make our job a lot harder. i look at this panel and no offense anybody but its decades of experience in the government. looking at this problem i think
all of us could probably be a little bit embarrassed as to why we are where we are today because as randy said andis jones said andis charlie said we have been approaching this problem for 50 years now. it is time to start leveraging technology on the front end when you get clearance and throughout the whole process of having clearance. >> thanks doug and i will just finished up with a few points as to why we need reform. secret clearance costs $400. top secret security clearance costs $5000. the direct cost to security clearance in any given year are $1.6 billion. that's a lot of money. we do hundreds of thousands of clearances each year. if we use technology guess there will be a cost up front but the cost of doing those clearances and monitoring people going
forward is the cost of bank transaction. is it tiny fraction. that's the model we need to move to. okay, so let's start the next round and that i want to turn it back to doug. what changes do we have to make? doug is in the middle of making them so he is our speaker to start. >> i'm trying to remain optimistic. following the opm report the 90-day review study in the principles are being briefed from it this week, i'm hearing that they are going to stand up a new agency called the national investigative service agency. i'm not sure where it's going to land. it's going to have a new director and a new focus. i'm trying to remain optimistic about that. what really needs to happen is like a mentioned earlier on the front and we probably need
something before we hire somebody relative -- like the insurance companies do and the credit card companies do, give a risk score on somebody. i think what you need to have this continuous valuation of the people that you grant a a clearance to who by virtue of that has access to our -- it is not that hard. we have been been doing in an organization for the last few years and quite frankly some people might be concerned about the cost up front. they are not that big of a deal but the money you save over time with continuous evaluation 24/7 on your employee evaluation is phenomenal. >> okay. why don't we turn to randy. >> first of all let's acknowledge the government just needs to come its like going to aa or or something any technology or problems of the
problem is this terribly obsolete system which is simply ineffective. the second thing is to make a clear decision that we are going to move forward with the technology platform to solve this problem. the numbers that are being used here, hundreds of thousands or millions, something like a total of 10 million people government and contractor have some form of clearance. that number is a ballpark but when you go to the private sector that's a small number. 10 million is not a big number if you are a visa or an american express or mastercard or insurance company, fewer amazon or google. 10 million come if you were actually their system with papa would have to dumb it down to get to a number as small as 10 million. so this is something where there's a lot allergy that is available. we were hearing about the days, weeks, then sometimes years to get these issues done.
security clearances should take a fraction of a second. how long did it take when you take your visa card swipe at a point-of-purchase? you stand there and wait for a green signal to come back legs now, comes back later when you think of the night because the databases are being queried by sophisticated algorithms that are doing a lot of data correlation literally in fractions of a second. all this issue of crossover and periodic review, the delay of all these things, security clearances took one second and if they cost 1 cent then we could all get security clearances dozens of times a day because it would matter. we have to figure out how to use the technology to change the fundamental picture of the way the process is go forward. i think yes there will be upfront costs. you have to pay a certain upfront cost to come up with that i.t. layer two -- all of
the other technology companies have to do that. that's an investment. a 1.6 billion, i'm betting that's off by an order of magnitude. doesn't count for the delay in the downtime of all the people sitting in twiddling their thumbs waiting for their clearance to come through. that is billions and billions of dollars being wasted in time, value and money that's never catch elated. moving to complete digital platform and yes there will always be two or 3% of individual cases that will require some hands-on treatment if somebody went off in went to a -- when they were 22 years old and that will take extra attention. the vast majority of the population we are talking about could he done using in all of digital modern technology that would give you a considerably greater insight into the behavior and the future behaviors and algorithms are becoming predictable. google knows if you are getting
sick before you know you're getting sick. target knows you are pregnant before you know are pregnant and they know where your owing to be tomorrow based on where you are today based on data technology will keep doubling every 12 to 24 months as we move forward. the capabilities will become increasing glee predicted and we will be able to play is not an in the manning's not after they train over the court and have annihilated it. so we will actually and up with a much more secure outcome and security dividend once these things are implemented. >> thanks randy. >> joan. >> a lot of them have spent time and effort and money trying to do it. we have had a lot of reform initiatives but i think what we have never come to grips with his pc security as really a
supportive function. we don't see it as inimical to getting our job done or allowing us to get the job done if it's done correctly. if we treated personal security is a mission rather than as a demonstrated function that we have to deal with, then i think we would be able to spend the money and solve the problem. we are pretty good at solving mission problems in the ic but because we don't think of it as something that either hinders or helps our mission we don't treated with the same seriousness as we do mission issues, so i think that's philosophical issue really affects us and our ability to deal with this problem. >> thanks joan. charlie. >> i want to reinforce what has been said by other colleagues here. we are in a new era and we have the technologies. continuous monitoring is something the director of national intelligence supports.
certain agencies like the cia and nsa are moving ahead so that realm as well as others in the intelligence community and the department of defense of course which is a very vast population of people who are top-secret. but the progress is quite slow. i think we have to a line of policy level as well as the security levels as well as the contracting because today it's segmented, separated and the security officer or chief information security officer that monitors network seems far removed from some of the very rapid and more efficient ways we could do this. and i trust the judgment of essentially independent agency will be stood up to replace with the office of personnel management did pay the office of
personnel management did not have the infrastructure, capabilities or resources i think when this was decided back in 2004 and this responsibility in 2005 to execute this. they did not have the security. they did not have the counterintelligence expertise to handle the problems we face today. that is a given. it is my strong belief however that we have an opportunity now not to build then if there is an independent agency or assuming an independent agency all the vulnerabilities of the password policy, security and the whole practical business of doing security clearances seem to be separated and divided. they have to be a unified way. 2008 there was a performance accountability board established and under this administration there has been continuing efforts to find efficiencies.
the secret that isn't effective because people's behavior changes things happen to people over time there are changes in relationships, the drugs, alcohol, personality changes and in our current system there is no way to check on people unless it is a 10 year anniversary the system of continuous evaluation and others to identify problem employees frankly most of them will not be spies but people who have trouble in their personal lives that will lead them from verbal -- more verbal by hostile powers.
so to identify the problems so the health and services that you need to be back contract and to help protect our people we can protect our secrets better than we do today. >> moving on to the next round of questions what has to happen for these ideas to be successfully implemented by all parties? >>. >> to secure the never is critical. to enhance technology to
continue the evaluation throughout the entire process. we're not trying to find a cure for cancer not solving peace in the middle east this is not the dark by a heart problem at this minute to solve 99 percent of the problem and i have been contributing and of those have participated we have the solution set out. with continuous evaluation they figure how to into the privacy issues but if they
just took the lockheed model to implement it will agree orders of magnitude more secure today than yesterday. but for decades this is not this is not have to get to the moon and those that would be willing to do that. that is leadership we have to get senior leaders involved in the top two or three things they will do. for all those reasons every really do people are the most important asset to come up with a system that will
better protect the people with the challenges and threats better against them and if somebody has an issue to identify that early on to get a good person back contracts so we don't have to go through the worst case where we spend billions of dollars of damage assessment to take adverse action with the energy we burn up to do that. it is only because to better serve the people better working in these agencies or organizations for the that is the best reason to go forward and do so with alacrity. >> m1 to reinforce what they have said. it is a matter of policy but
meeting prior to this formal session to have to improve the business process with the security side so with strong great leadership will take intelligence and with this administration and the new one to begin to change just but i agree to do the checks on people when they're updated. so with that security policy reform council to demonstrate that certain crossovers some agencies to
[laughter] select everybody has captured this perfectly it isn't about reform and a fundamental change that is personal security is essential to accomplish but as a mission problem we can solve the problem. >> so how to successfully implement so when you have a background check to apply for security clearance you agree to have your background investigated the
nature of that investigation to the 21st century so instead of 127 pages of forms with your dead relatives to submit your neighbors and colleagues to move to a digital background investigation. it should only be publicly available data. at this endeavor looks to data records to assemble an integrated and analyze it is a powerful tool stoloniferous get their clearance as continuously as those mitt thereafter so on
she lovelorn if it is accompanied one of the true heroes in the security reform area from the u.s. army managed to get a pilot project undertaken to look at a subset of the overall population to look at their online behavior so once you do that you log on to another account there is no expectation of privacy. i will not get the numbers exactly right the 125 people that work with the five years because they found
serious violations but then to kill his wife from his military address another one said where can i score pot? there was an issue those ever instantly suspended for access because they took a look what is going on digitally the they had never looked at before that was one tiny example so these tools are very powerful. if we leverage this technology will get more insight. yes. absolutely so they have successfully resolved that.
for a half years into the job ahead failed. [laughter] but the very little mention of my former employer of the united states congress. how much does or how little can congress do to have the same vision ocher? >> that is a great question. and makes that a priority. with that to the first century platform it will drive the process. the problem is still a
little public discussion. no public debate. the public discussion help drive change semester a threat here at the wilson center. >> is great to be here with a terrific discussion for you are all aging gracefully [laughter] you made the point intelligence community is behind the technology curve by 50 years. i've that. put the issues we have known about this for least three years.
and some of those issues that you raise about the cost also the loss of expertise. we are working on that 25 years ago also. the point that i would make is we have slipped back from where we were because we're dealing with this strong headwind thy was surprised to learn the agencies don't except each other security clearance. and that adds to the cost. with a polygraph and the cia will not accept it.
discover to protect us is not worth the risk of changing. edison the alignment of leadership between the white house and the congress. congress doesn't pick up this issue. for the leaders of the intelligence community don't buy into the change that is necessary. >>. >> i will respond to what he had to say because he is spa on in this historically correct losing ground so to move at glacial speed to
issue on the komen security committee there is a lot of politics of those defensive republicans in the administration and here we have a major thing my wife to scott her letter from 0:00 p.m. on friday because as personally as identifiable information about her after putting in might s f 86 to what they talk about so strongly. >> you are absolutely right the other area of similar dysfunction affecting the
contractor world is on the acquisition side. both security and acquisition our rule based process and the environment it evolves over 56 years and it is very hard to get off of that with very important functions the government needs done. i would agree 100 percent i have seen it backfire with the bipartisan in a bicameral parts of the government working together you begin to despair we can do this. talk about entities and the white house and intelligence community you would be very
surprised how far along the companies are with regards to solving the problems that. >> the fourth amendment applies to the government's involvement with the citizenry not my employer's. there are things we can do in the private sector to move this problem further down the road. >>. >> a very important discussion with the topic of great concern regarding though lost of productivity of taxpayer dollars with a security clearance process.
so two years ago the reauthorization act for fiscal 2014 of title five if of authorization legislation requires the idea and i that the continuous monitoring takes place with clearance reciprocity. passed into law almost two years ago it is an item of concern on the hill. maybe that is akin to cybersecurity with the officer and not the ceo that is why until there is a breach and then the ceo has
to resign. and not know what else it takes to get that level of prominence and dash you pointed out to talk about the cost and maybe it is the new agency. maybe that is the first step with the bifurcation between the intelligence community that is concrete what congress can do. >> it is clear they have made their views known on this. with their needs to be an additional amendment to the
next authorization it could be done in six months so to allow for the usual crunch time. by june reversed of 2018 the intelligence community shall employ a fully digital, automated, secure background investigation system for government contractors. now this new agency of to start to walk this back what do i need to do today? syllable of saying it you know, you're going to be hanged you concentrate wonderfully. [laughter]
and the mine would become concentrated there was a date now they can stay with your team hearings how is it going on the deadline? anything we can do to help. iran i hate that i don't like congress to micromanage anything. and to do this because it is the right thing to do. and with risk aversion. don't you doing the same thing over and over. it can take some leadership
to be the action forcing event. recalling the legislation. the director of national intelligence believes strongly with various projects m process these we still don't move fast enough. but at the same time that we're planning a spring event and then to speak of the importance nmb will be in touch with you.
shortly after the breach happened a couple of us wrote the op-ed it had to do with what we were reading is seem to be much more on identity theft that had nothing to do with identity theft everything to do with the nation state and my concern with that but this is a 30 year problem to keep people excited about this breach it will be somewhat difficult. >> diamond attorney -- i am
an attorney. and i have known him the whole life. and sent an e-mail to congratulate him. he was pleased to be named presidential medal of freedom. i am happy to be here today i'm a victim of a process but i have testified some years ago before congress with the subcommittee of the process to do a background investigation on me. but they simply stopped the process so they created of
file that contains obnoxious information and i never got the chance are you a loyal american? and i have information to have the opportunity to comment that they simply stopped in mid stream. so those are the terrorists but someone like me it did not work for me there. i am a security risk? the cost are astronomical.
over the right to participate but i could put a face on what is wrong with the system. thank you. >> i am the beneficiary attacks defense intelligence community participant. but with some of those illustrations how much risk we are willing to bear. i've understand it will drive policy changes going forward but with those algorithms is the notion of risk and that deals with the
issue of trust that all your much of the notion of the ultra-conservative counterintelligence and how to overcome that if you drive that forward with automation. >> is a good question since hitting a program is not that much different. they have strong privacy concerns vided is set up a program with the privacy side is a team sport with a privacy at the top of that issue and what the program
does but doesn't do any profiling of people at all. and together we make a decision if we act on that. is all objective and publicly available the subject of intense and what do you do with that of affirmation and? we're trying to look out for the employee if you think of workplace violence the had behavior in somebody's life but looking up for that
behavior is to act on. >> can be transferred that thought process? >> left to its own devices we talk about risk management the most they will ever accept for personal security is zero every single time. with the executive leadership has basically listen and. so there has ben scorers of spies so there has always been failures fees and aberrant behavior that has gone on so to use at as an
excuse is going -- is ridiculous said to have real risk management said to have that decision based to attend those meetings once a month whether we willing to except? how does that allow us to have better insight to figure out to set the standards for these things. here is what we have decided what you think?
there always been those who slip through the net. right on down the list. it will also give us more truly security at the end of the day and you get on with the new process. >> if we do leverage these technologies we will see a change to talk about the ultra-conservative counterintelligence they have a real responsibility.
so with your so-called friend who doesn't like you had said during the interview process i am very surprised. it is very premature. you can set the parameters in the we won but to set that digital model is the big data sets with the much richer basis of data so anyone who has intelligence community access ended is
unique to you by is unique to me. so if you deviate from that norm than a light goes off why is that? there is the crisis you were called in. may be your supervisor says i don't know. so that is the situation. and for a deviation those patterns versus someone trying to buy a carolyn or ecstasy but you can't be
spoke those parameters that will have more clarity. and then to have a human but is trained to understand the technology to make human judgment were at the end of the day to have a due process. the only takes you so far down the road so plugged in end let her do her job. >> one of the success stories with those
adjudication for those who never had a clearance before. unless there's an extensive overseas time so those that we would like to have the cultural understanding it is almost impossible to get them through. to be strung along via the process. >> the reason i am here before you today because there was a boiling point with a grandmother in the former soviet union it did them for years to declarant's. that is not a good business model for government or
saw some post-mortem looking at what he was doing digitally. the warning signs that may have seen the nine there was clearly a pattern is somebody had that entire set of behaviors they may have reached a conclusion something is going on. need to think across the spectrum the wing from stupid to evil to see what happens when i click on this. then called the work goes down. those that will commit treason for many but he was clearly between psychopath in such a bad offenders assist with my view of the world.
but the duty is to set the parameters look at the data sets in terms of priority that is in such a big deal and to figure out how to integrate all of that that is very problematic. said the solution is the technology with that model of what has been done historically. >> you used the word evil but don't think that you meant that. i hate the phrase connecting the dots that is what we're doing. just because somebody has
at individual who is a contractor, they hold it inside, and then the initial investigation, whereas the private sector sometimes has -- and will have in the future far better insight on the employees and contractors and what they represent. your question is very pertinent. is there new loyalties toy today? are we word citizens versus the united states and a western civilization, et cetera? i think we have to have some new selectors that will try to differentiate and pull out the issues of loyalty. >> okay. so with that, i'd like to thank john dempsey, charlie allen, randy ford, doug thomas, and the wilson center, and thank you for your good questions and your attendance today. thank you. [applause]
[inaudible conversations] securities and exchange commission share mary joe white and consumer financial protection bureau richard cordray on capitol hill tomorrow, with a members of the national stability oversight council, testifying before the house financial services committee about the council's agenda. that's live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. then we're live the national press club for david escorten, talking about the smithsonian's operations and future.
>> an gill fillmore was the first first lady to work outside the home, teaching in a private school. she successfully lobbied congress for funs to create the first white house library. maim my eisenhower's hairstyle and pink created fashion specials. jacqueline kennedy was responsible for the creation of the white house historical association, and nancy reagan, as a young actress, saw her name mistakenly on the black hiss of communist sympathizers in. she appealed to ronald reagan for help and later became his wife. these stories and more are featured in c-span crazy book, first ladies, presidential historians on the live of 45 iconic american woman. the book makes a great gift for the ohio. giving readers into the personal live's every first lady in
american history. the book is based on original interviews from c-span's first lady's series and has received numerous reviews, including this one from a presidential historian and awe honor cho sis c-span is a national treasure and the series on america's first ladies is another rope why. judy woodruff. co anchor and manager editor of the pbs news hour says c-span performed another valuable service with the series on the first ladies. no elsewhere can anyone find such a useful look into the lives of these people who played a crucial role in our country, and james half. ton cook note thad c-span crazy first laidises a invaluable collection of rare insaying on the nation's first ladies and the important 0 role they played in shaping america. share the stories of america's first laid idea for the ohio. c-span's book "first ladies" is available as a hard cover or
ebook from your favorite book store or online book seller. order your company today -- order your copy today. >> up next, question period at the canadian house of commons with new prime minister justin trudeau. then secretary of state john kerry talks about events in the middle east and u.s. policy in the region, laterrer, senate veterans affairs hearing on cob sol -- consolidation of the va's health programs. canadian prime minister justin trudeau took questions on monday from the house of commons for the first time since taking office. they's ask the beside combating isis, the syrian refugee crisis some president obama's national address on terrorism. this is courtesy of canada's cable public affairs program. it's just under an hour. >> oral questions.
>> leader of the opposition. [applause] >> mr. speaker, last night president obama stated that -- are a career pillar in the cries we have seen the obama administration, germany, france, and the u.k., step up efforts. meanwhile the prime minister ordered our planes to stand down. why this the prime minister stepping back from the fight when our allies are stepping up? >> hear, hear. >> the right honorable prime minister. >> mr. speaker, canada has spoken clearly in this past election. they want canadians and our military continue to engage in the fight against isis and we're committed to continuing to do that. however we also made a clear commitment to withdraw the six cf18 fighter jets and engage in
a continued way militarily in a humanitarian effort and refugee efforts which we're continuing to too. i engage with our allies on these issues and they reassured me we are continuing to be helpful. thank you. [applause] >> the recordable leader of -- the honorable leader of the opposition. >> mr. speaker, let's be clear what isis is. they're a death cult. they've sell children and women into sexual slavery. they target and kill gays and lesbians and have murdered thousands of muslims, christians, yazidis and other religious minorities, yet the prime says here goes to take our planes out of the fight. just how bad does it have to be in iraq and syria for us to leave our planes there? [applause] >> the right honorable prime minister. >> mr. speaker, there isn't a canadian in this country who done think that isis are a group
of terrible terrorists who should be stopped. the question has always been, how best to engage. how can canada use its strength, the extraordinary strength of the men and women in the canadian forces are to support in the fight against isis. now, ongoing right now, continue to be airstrikes. we have continued -- we have committed to end those airstrikes and to transform our engagement in a different way, equally militarily, to ensure that canada continues to be a strong member of the coalition fighting against isis. [applause] >> the honorable leader of the opposition. >> thank you. mr. speaker, last night president obama also said his closest allies have stepped up their airstrikes, and then he went on to name france, and germany, and the u.k. but no mention of canada.
mr. speaker, that stepping back from the fight against terrorism is not stepping up. will the prime minister admit he is more midsted to ideologies than the fight against isis? [applause] >> just a couple of weeks ago i are sat down with president obama and discussed and confirmed that canada continues to be a strong supporter of the coalition against isil and continues to be engaged on a humanitarian level on, a refugee level, and indeed on a military level. and right now, we are in discussions with our allies about how best canada can continue to participate and to help in the fight against isil, since we are withdrawing our cf-18 aircraft. [applause] >> translator: mr. speaker, last night, president obama had some
harsh words for isil. he says the threat of terrorism is real but we can beat it. we will destroy isil and any other organization that wants to do us harm. think the prime minister assure us he shares president obama's views? the honorable prime minister. >> translator: obviously, mr. singher, canada and mid and the liberal party and the government of canada will continue resolutely in our desire and conviction to continue to combat isil, together with our international partners. what we won't do is keep talking about and it giving free publicity to isil because they use propaganda to spread. [applause] >> translator: of course,
mr. speaker, the prime minister is referring -- has referred to his meeting with obama, very strength that just a few days later, when talking about his trusted allies he talked about france, the u.k., and germany. we don't want slogans like, canada's back, how is the prime minister going to defend canadians against isil? >> translator: as i've always said, mr. speaker, canada is determined to combat isil. we will continue to remain committed and involved militarily, but we will withdraw our jet fighters because we have been talking about it for months with canadiens, and canadians trust us to continue to take strong action against ice -- isil in a way that's appropriate for canada. thank you. [applause]
>> translator: mr. speaker, i'd like to begin by congratulating the prime minister and be assuring him that the ndt will be an opposition that will seek to help the government fulfill its promises to canadians. but a lot of canadians are disappointed that the prime minister brought along in his suitcase to paris the plan and the targets of the previous conservative government around greenhouse gasses. can the prime minister commit here, today, in 2016, greenhouse gas emissions in canada will go down? yes or no. the right honorable prime minister. >> translator: thank you, mr. peeker. i'd like to congratulate my colleague on his selection. the fact is, we have -- we
brought a new plan to paris. during the election campaign we made commitments to the tunes of tens of billions of dollars in green infrastructure, green and clean energy, we have a whole plan to achieve what the previous government failed to do and that is reduce ghgs. [applause] >> translator: so, no plan to reduce ghcs next year. >> they're also hoping the change of tone will bring about a concrete change of direction. one -- decided on canada's target will this government make them binding by enshrining them into a climate change account able law here at home?
>> prime minister. >> one of the thing mist honorable colleague seems to forget from time to time is canada is a federation with ten province that have different approaches and different requirements. we have committed to sit down and engage with the provinces, listen to them and work out not just targets but a plan that ensures canada meets its international and domestic obligations to reduce climate emissions and develop a strong economy. applause. >> the body just said he had a plan. during the campaign the liberal leader said he would, quote, restore robust oversight, but last week the environment administrator says projects initiated under the conservative system will, quote, continue on that path. can the prime minister reveal whether pipelines, for example, now under review, will undergo a thorough assessment that
includes greenhouse gas impact? or will they simply continue to use the woefully inadequate assessment system left by the conservatives? >> right honorable prime minister. >> mr. speaker, the canadians know we need both a strong environment and a -- strong economy and a strong environment at the same time. what's thigh canadians want environmental assessments they can trust. we launch a public review of projects and modern nice the national energy board to ensure the composition reflects regional views and has sufficient expertise in environmental science, community development and indigenous traditional knowledge. [applause] >> the honorable member. >> translator: the pipeline projects will continue under the old conservative system.
during the election campaign the prime minister said, with reference to canada post, and i quote, we are committed to restoring door-to-door delivery, unquote. and yet there is nothing in the speech and his minister of public services said last week that the service would not be restored. so who is telling the truth? will the prime minister, the right honorable prime minister? >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> translator: the fact is we clearly committed to providing canadaans with the services they expect from canada post. we will work with canada post. we have imposed a moratorium on the installation of community mail boxes, and we'll keep working with the ministers and partners to ensure that canadaans get the services they
need. >> the honorable member from milton. hear, hear. [applause] >> mr. speaker, welcome the honorable member, the minister of finance to the house. i'm sure we'll have a lot of fun in the coming weeks. mr. speaker, the prime minister made two fundmental commitments to canadian. one, the deficit wouldn't go above $10 million per year and, two, any tax increases we be revenue neutral. unfortunate, mr. speaker, neither or these are true and seems as if we're leave these commit. s in the dust. my question is, how much will these broken promises cost canadians? [applause] >> the honorable minister of finance. >> well, mr. speaker, thank you very much. i'd like to thank the honorable member for her question. it's pleasure to be here and a privilege. we made commitments to canadaans
during the cower of campaign -- course of our campaign, the economy is growing slower then expected. we're going to make investment in our economy through infrastructure investments, reduce our gdp and we intend on getting to a balanced budget during the term of our mandate. we look forward to serving canadaans in this way. thank you. [applause] >> the honorable member from milton. >> mr. speaker, we're going to hold the minister to his promise. [applause] >> one way -- by increasing taxes and indeed this government already says they're going to increase taxes, but guess what, it's not going to pay for what is happening on the other end of the balance. there's no revenue neutrality here. so my question for the minister is this. will now he admit. now that he is going admit later on supposed he, that indeed this isn't going to work. will he admit that increased
payroll taxes-that increase tax on retirement savings and the complex reengineering how children receive support will not work and is also flawed. >> the memberster. >> mr. speaker, again i'd like to thank the honorable member and say i think this will be fun. i will say we're starting today with a very important part of our plane. we're starting today with medsle class tax breaks, key part of our -- [applause] >> mr. speaker, one thing for sure, this government is very good at giving out money but are they good at growing the economy? ' oil today is at $38 a barrel. we are understanding that 185,000 job losses in the oil and gas sector in 2016 are possible this fakes everybody who works in the sector, including those in alberta.
albert yas are hitting yet this sector what not mentioned even once. why is economic engine not a priority for this government? >> the honorable minister of finance. >> mr. speaker, we have inherited a situation that is more challenging than we had -- we are looking forward to making significant investments in our economy, to help grow the economy, because we recognize the challenges the canadians are facing across the country. we look forward to dog a better job for canadians in the years to come,. [applause] >> the honorable member. >> translator: thank you very much, mr. speaker. during the election campaign the prime minister made two major commitments. first, to run a deficit of
$10 billion. and to bring in tax cut that would benefit everyone. but today canadians wake up and realize that's not threw. it's unrealistic, can at the prime minister stand up and tell canadians directly how much these broken promises are going to cost them? >> mr. speaker, we aspire to be transparent and open with canadians. our goal is to give canadians a clear understanding of the fiscal situation from which we can make investments that will maker a long-term difference for canadians and we'll bring forward our plan to show canadians how to improve our collective future. >> the honorable member. >> translator: mr. speaker, the throne speech left out entrepreneurs, not a single word or concrete plan to help entrepreneurs and small business
and small manufacturing businesses. on this side of the house we think the real wealth creators are our entrepreneurs. why that he government left them out? why have the done nothing to help canadian entrepreneurs and wealth creators. >> the honorable minister of finance. >> translator: mr. speaker, i'd like to thank the honorable member and recognize we need to deal with all canadians. our goal otherwise help trips and help businesses by setting forward a plan that will allow it to invest in our country so we can make our country more product disand increase growth going forward, while helping those struggling to get by, which is exactly what we're starting with today. [applause] >> the honorable member. >> mr. speaker, liberals are already increasing payroll taxes, clawing back tax resavings accounts, and implementing a job-killing
carbon tax, and also planning to get rid of boutique tax credits without detail. can the finance minner still el who he plans to eliminate tax creditor first-time home beers, students, apprentices, family with christian the sports and arts or all of the above? >> the honorable minister of finance. >> thank you, mr. speaker. what we can tell the house today i that we are starting our program to help canadians. today is the day where we have said we're going to reduce middle class taxes by asking those canadians who are doing very well to pay a little bit more. this is an important first start in our tax program, a program that will make canada a fairer place for canadians and a better place for all of us to do business. >> hear, hear. >> fellow member. >> translator: thank you.
>> the liberal government is now admitting their tax plan doesn't add up and they'd have to make changes. the new plan gives maximum benefits to wealth ya canadaans and giving nothing to -- propose constructive change to ensure benefits go to 90% of canadians. will the minister work with us to help millions more by fixing the government's plans and making the tax system more fair? [applause] >> the honorable minister of finance. >> mr. speaker, i want to first thank the honorable deputy for his question and say congratulations on his election. i will say that our plan, when looked at in totality over the coming months, will show that nine out of ten canadian families will be better off through the course of or mandate through our protection because of our changes with will also
raise 315 touchdown canadian children out of poverty so we'll reduce taxes and move forward to help canadians from coast to coast to coast. [applause] >> translator: mr. speaker, under the liberal tax plan, the median income earner gets nothing. but those earning between 90,000 and 200,000 get the maximum tax break. does the minister think that a median income earner is not part of the middle class? or will he work with the ndp to cover 90% of canadians? >> the honorable minister of finance. >> mr. speaker. we are looking forward to working together with all of our colleagues in this house, in trying to come up with policies that best help canadians move
forward. our plan we have enumerate during our campaign will help nine out of ten families be better off. it will raise 315,000 children out of poverty. we know that we can start with a tax cut for canadians in the middle class so they will have more money to help our economy and we can move forward with other initiatives that will help other canadaans even more. [applause] >> admitted their campaign promise to bring 25,000 syrian refugees to canada was not within their ability to achieve. the government of lebanon and jordan require exit permits to be issued to refugees before they can come to canada. given that are only 24 days left for the liberals to meet their diminished refugee target can the minister of immigration tell the how exactly how many exit permits have been issued by the
government ford refugees coming to canada since november 4th? >> the honorable minister of immigration, refugee for citizenship. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i congratulate my colleague for her re-election and rise to the noble post of immigration critic in the opposition, and i would simply say that we have pursued a totally open communication policy with canadians from the beginning, from the beginning we have said that, yes there are issues surrounding exit permits from lebanon. we are also dealing with jordan and with turkey, and we are working extremely hard on the grounds to secure those exit permits so we can -- >> the honorable member for calgary. >> mr. speaker, talking about rising to the occasion. i would say that -- have actually met reality here.
mr. speaker, given that there are only 4 days left before the end of the year, can the minister of immigration please tv the house, since he wasn't able to answer the question on exit permit, how many sear yap refugees have been identified for reset. ment to canada, the exact number, and how many canadian permanent resident visas hey before inissued to syrian refugees sense november 4 inflame. there's only 24 days left. >> a member of immigration. >> mr. speaker i'm delighted to answer that question. when i ask every provincial minister how many refugees from syria his province could receive, we were oversubscribed. if you take all the numbers presented by every provincial minister, that number exceeds 25,000. those people are not here yet. but it's a huge indication of early support and enthusiasm
from our provincial governments which spread across the whole country, mr. speaker. [applause] >> the honorable member from unionville. >> mr. speaker, even the liberals will require -- to achieve. still need to process application and other immigration streams including claims from other parts of the baltics. and basic visas can explain how diverting human sources to process syrian refugee applications will impact other immigration systems. >> the minister of immigration. >> mr. speaker, i asked my
department this question, and i was a little bit skeptical when i was told it would have no impact on refugees from other countries. so i persisted and they explained to me that while some resources are being diverted to the syrian cause, no resources are being diverted for other refugees. so i can say very clearly, other refugees will not be affected by this syrian situation. [applause] >> the honorable member for calgary. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it is -- that our government provide assistance to syrian refugees, but security on the ground is key to provide to those honorable people. mr. speaker, the government -- this important of both engaging
isis militarily and providing aid, but the new government has decided to sit on the sideline, on one plan, making it even more dangerous for the people. mr. speaker -- national development explain the logic of helping the victim of war while not engaging -- >> minister of international development. >> translator: mr. speaker, last week we announced that we would increase funding by $100 million to help with humanitarian needs in the field, to help unhcr support and accommodate a larger number of refugees and $90 million to help people in the camps, refugees who are currently in the
neighboring countries. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> translator: -- we salute the commitment and offer our full cooperation. after decade on broken promises this time, mr. speaker, must be the right one, but we're still waiting for the details of the $6.6 million promised during the campaign for education. can the minister tell us when the government will make its intentions known? >> minister of business affairs and development.
>> i thank him for all of the work that he has done on this issue, and particularly on the u.n. decoration of the rights of the indigenous people. you have taught us a lot, and so it is -- [applause] -- i look forward -- to the government it committed to a relationship and we'll begin the important work of reconciliation and will need the help of all members in the house. [applause] >> the mr. peeker, i'm heartened by the minister's language on reconciliation but she does know, as we do the reconciliation has to begin on the ground in communities, where children are facing bacterial infections from dirty water, and we all have a responsibility to change that. toso the prime minister is committed five years to ending
the boiled water advisory so i'm asking the minister could she tell us that's time line is for an action plan and will the action plane have clear guidelines and commitments so-so we can get results for these communities? [applause] >> the minister of indigenous affairs. >> his hard work and not only in his community but for been coast to coast to coast. as our government has committed to a nation approach, this means that we will have to work with first nations for us to be able to achieve this goal, and i look forward to working with the member to make sure that happens, and then we will have realistic timeline and goals and the budget. [applause]
>> the minister of public safety. >> mr. speaker i'm delight teed have my first question in this pour folio from that distinguished -- portfolio from that distinguished member. [applause] >> when people need to be removed from canada according to the law, one of the factors taken into consideration is whether that can be done safely. the most recent information available to us on the country -- berundi indicates that removals cannot be done safely, consequently the government of canada effectively has announces the canada border services agency has imposed an administrative deferral on all removals from canada to berundi. >> mr. speaker, in the speech from the throne the government
told the a -- we want a leader military and that is code word for cuts. the report on national defense spending: if the most significant cut owes cured in 1959 to 2004. that was under the previous liberal government. are we going back to the future? can the minister of defense tell us what he is going to be cutting? >> the honorable minister of defense. >> mr. speaker, first of all i just want to say it's a privilege and honor to be standing for the first time in this honorable house. [applause] >> our government is committed to the men and women of the canadian armed forces. we will be making sure the plan increases remain place and when we send our men and women to the important missions reasons the world they actually have the capable to achieve that mission.
thank you. [applause] >> mr. speaker, the throne speech was 1700 words and not one word was isis. and in the past few days we watched lied end of france, united king doom and the united states announce they're stepping up in the fight against isis. back here, the liberal government is stepping back. canada's back, all right, way back behind our allies in the fight against isis. why will the prime minister stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies in the fight against isis? [applause] >> translator: the honorable minister. >> the honorable member express the view of his party and our view is will well be more an tim mali effective with our allies to fight terrorist groups if we stop only two percent and focus
on what canada will make a real difference. [applause] >> translator: mr. speaker, -- [inaudible] -- last week the liberal government saidded would be streamlining our current forces capability. can the minister tell us instead of talking about faking our efficiency what the canadian armed forces will be faced budget cuts. >> the honorable minister of defense. >> mr. speaker, this government is committing to make sure that the canadian armed forces have the right capabilities. we want to make sure that every department needs to strive for ef-si -- efficiency, and making
sure we have the resources at the end where our men and women need it the most. thank you. >> i have to say that -- >> translator: the honorable member. mr. speaker, instead of supporting our allies in the fight of terrorists here and abroad our country will simply be staying on the sidelines and offering training. will the minister of defense tell us why canada is not being a leader in the fight against terrorism? >> mr. >> translator: mr. speaker, canada will do its share to fight the terrorism effectively by focusing on training, the train ago military forces, police forces, for governance, and -- [inaudible] and we will be doing this. [applause]
>> the honorable member from nanaimo. >> mr. speaker, 26 years after 14 women were murdered simply for being women, for daring to study engineering, violence against women remains unaccept blue high. working together we in the gdp believe we can work together to end violence against women. but federal leadership is required. the new government promised a strategy on gender violence, including an immediate inquiry into the terrible issue of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. can the minister please tell us when the government plans to call this important inquiry? [applause]
>> thank you nor the member's excellent question. we are excited to move forward on this file. murdered and missing indigenous women is a national tragedy that not only affects women but their families and their communities, and so we intend to move forward incredibly quickly and with respect and work with families and communities and national stakeholders to make sure with get i right the first time. thank you. >> translator: mr. speaker. 26 years after the tragedy too many women are still victims of violence because they're women. according to the women's shelter federation, 10,000 women were turned away last year alone.
when i worked in the sector i, too had to turn women away, women who are victims of violence must have access to the services. can the minister tell us when our government will invest in shelters? >> the minister for the status of women. >> thank you, mr. speaker and thank you -- thank you for the excellent question, a former executive director of a homeless shelter in thunder bay that's north more -- it's my honor to be able to work on this file and ensure that when women need a safe place to say, barriers will be eliminated and move forward to transitional housing that eliminated the need for shelter. [applause] >> thank you-mr. speaker, the
newly minute. ed minister of trade confuses canadian by says ail not her job to promote trade and is not ratify thing tpp until the americans do. this is gold standard on environmental chapters 'when we she stop stalling and sign this deal? >> minister of international trade. >> thank you for the question, mr. speaker. our government supports free trade so strong through i couldn't wait to answer question. how important it is for middle class prosperity. we also understand on a deal this big it is essential to consult canadians and have a full parliamentary debate but the colleague is mistaken when
he suggests we could be signing the deal now. the deal is not open at the moment yet for either signature or ratification, and he might want to have a coffee with the honorable member from abbotts forward who is well versed in at the details how trade deals work. [applause] >> translator: mr. speaker, the government is closing its eye to the problems facing farmers. there was no mention of it in the throne speech. not a word on agriculture. the liberals bend the word -- banned the wording a crew culture, agrifood, from the dictionary. producers want to know if the grandma on compensation under the tpp will be respected.
can the minister of international trade clarify her position with respect to this? >> minister of international trait. >> translator: thank you, mr. speaker. our government supports free trade and we understand the importance of international trade for the economic growth of this country, and for middle class prosperity. as regards the tpp, we will be transparent, fully transparent, and a full debate in parliament. finally, we will disband -- all farmers and their -- canadian farmers with our -- my colleague, the minister of agriculture, i have already met with farmers on this subject. this is the commitment we need, mr. speaker. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. the world trade organization
ruled that the united states country of ore general labeling was blatantly protectionis-it of this rule cost families over $3 billion. our government was prepared to move expeditiously as soon as the ruling came out. i wonder, the invisible minister of agriculture has been invisible on this and other files if wonder if he will finally do his job and defend the interests of farm families. [applause] >> minister of international trade. >> thank you for the question, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the discriminatory legislation was in place for eight years during the previous government's rule and they -- [inaudible] -- i welcome the ruling by the wto. the first time the wto ruled in our favor with a record $1 billion quan tim. we are pursuing this matter.
i welcome the fact that the house of representatives has repealed -- we're calling on the senate to do the same. snort pat roberts today called for repeal of quote -- i would like to say at the -- >> honorable member from vancouver center. >> mr. speaker, this morning the wto sided with canada for the third time on the matter of discriminatory u.s. legislation the wto arbitrator found that the nullification and impairment under -- cost canada a billion dollars a year and cost mexico 228 u.s. annually. will the minister tell us how this ruling will affect canada's pork and beef products?
>> i thank the honorable member for the question, and i am delighted be back in the house with my cherished colleagues. we welcome the wto ruling. this is a vindication of the canadian position. we are working very hard in washington with the senate and we are very pleased congress has already repealed this, and i do want to say to canada's beef and pork producers, the minister of agriculture is a former farmer. i'm a daughter and granddaughter of ranchers. we are on the side of canada's producers. we're in cower corner, and if we have to retaliate, we will. [applause] >> the honorable member for cam loops. >> mr. speaker, this new government was elected in -- canadians expected diligence.
on un2 when the truth and reconciliation report was released the current prime minister pledged this unwaivering support for all representations, the full list no exceptions. can the minister of indigos affairs give us the full cost? >> mr. speaker issue thank the member for her response in caribou, for her question and for the work we will get to do together on this really important file. we are so pleased to see that already the provinces and at thes have taken up those calls to action that are there. the university haze committed to help with the thing that are there and we will be able too do this. it was inappropriate for us to cherry-pick out of the 94 recommendations and with political will and leadership and partnership, nation to nation, we'll get this done. [applause]
>> thank you, mr. speaker. >> translator: campaign people wanted to keep their own mail delivery service in my region, 50,000 families lost their home mail delivery, including 20,000. but the minister is going back on their commitment. i think there will be no further mail in the mail boxes installed cross the country. >> minister of public services and procurement. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my honorable colleague for her question. we can commit there will not be anymore roadside mail books installed. we put a stop to that.
which meant that anyone with roadside mail boxes would get door to door delivery resumed. we committed to home delivery. we are going to have a complete review of canada post, and they will determine the next step. [applause] >> member for yukon. >> translator: thank you, mr. speaker. again represent the people of the yukon. >> canadians made it clearly they not only want a new tone in leader shown in a ott would and -- ottawa and want a more accountable go. the prime minister made a commitment to implement a prime minister question period. now ask mr. speaker if the prime minister could please update this place on the status of this important promise. >> the honorable prime minister. >> mr. speaker, canadians voted for change and we're committed
to delivering that change. we're committed to open, honest, transparent government. i have asked the government house leader to work with other parliament tearans to reform question period so all ministers, including the prime minister, can be held to greater account. the house leader already initiated discussions with a parliamentarians on the opposition and i look forward to participating in the prime minister question period sometime in the future. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the past 15 years problems on election reform and all three voters rejected mow pose sals so seems a bit undemocratic or antidemocratic for the government to aseater cert in the throne speech that 2015 will below the last federal election conducted under the current system. wouldn't it make more sense for the government, once it is edie signed a new system to follow
the example of british columbia and allow canada yaps to vote directly for or against the new proposed system? [applause] >> the minister of democratic institutions. >> mr. speaker, i thank the honorable member for his question. in this election canadians were clear they are expecting us to deliver a change. this will be the last federal election in our history and we have committed to listening to canadians, not just in british columbia, but coast to coast to coast, and including them in a process and in the conversation that will change the history of this nation's democracy. [applause] >> translator: mr. speaker, my question is for the prime minister.
last week's speech the government would undertake -- put in place a new health care agreement. during the campaign the prime minister sent a letter -- the 2004 health care agreement in quebec. will the prime minister respond to the request and establish the increase in health transfers for the right to opt out with full compensation. >> the minister of health. >> mr. speaker, very pleased to speak about the canadian healthcare system which has provided health care to canadians now for well over half of a century. in offering universal publicly insured health care, something that canadians hold dear. on the matter of the canada health act we sincerely uphold the act and its principles including universality. i have already had the wonderful opportunity to be able to speak with my provincial and territorial counterparts and we
are meeting in january to discuss a new health accord which will provide ongoing health care for canadians in the years to come. [applause] >> translator: mr. speaker, my question is for minister of health. the quebec national assembly adopted legislation that would make it possible to include medically assisted dying. in accordans with the will of a person who is in the terminal phase of life. the prime minister even lauded quebec's legislation. can the minister of health guarantee that the six-month extension will not be a detrimental to become part of quebec's legislation? >> the minister of justice.
to the united states. with the extraordinary efforts our government is taking tooa protecting americans to combat terrorism and home and abroad and the president is l right to say but first we should do is close the loophole to lecter suspects by assault weapons.bama seven democrats support the plan to protect america. to believe to put thousands of troops on the ground reduce support givenrast strategy with the coalition partners targeting the leadership with local forces on s the ground and to hold w their ground senate
democrats understand it is automatically we can do more to address the threats with a series of proposals to com enhance protection of her tenth here at home.ered here is so remus do tofede combat isis terrorism.e one person is fully empowered we did it with the goalie can do with this. i am pleased the president has taken a first dip to a targeted air strikes were
against isis. we support the middle east and facing the unprecedented number of migrants almost 1 million this year. s our goal would respond to europeans request to improve border security. it will help the president of the migrant crisis with 4 million people displaced bill pass legislation with those with the conflict in syria.
these are just a few really committed that democratic plan the there is a legal loophole that bin buyers are not fbi terror suspects. in the vatican wanted to purchase ammunition that is wrong. costs with the tools needed with this sale bin to a suspected terrorist.is t misspoke to the floor and that is what it should be.
inspector 73 workers havemo links to terrorism.st and that was the most important. that would isis and al qaeda with 2300 sites around the united states.la our legislation requires a new plan like hospitals.rror our legislation was to occur in office of komen security. i counting extremism.ew by directing the national
academy of sciences with a new encryption technology to make shows policies are not a cross purposes and so now to provide law enforcement with active shooter situations to a critical firstha responders and this isde a plant that is comprehensive with the security to depend on the steps that we take now. with those logical reforms
thank you very much for this very generous introduction i apologize your starting a few moments late. i am delighted to be here with distinguished members of congress. with my former colleague and longtime friend is out there somewhere. thank you for everything you have been doing. i am pleased that i could come here to be with you before i head back to paris where on monday we get into
that ministerial period of negotiation. but he bested literary decades of his career turning over every stone to help the israelis and palestinians for the path of lasting peace. a lot of people recoil to say how can you talk about those words in the middle of this? and their remains the cuesta college ministrations the incite to our collective efforts to also paid tribute
to somebody we wish you be with us today city was a friend with the give and take of politics and foreign policy with foreign interest and worked literally all the time to do what was marked in what was right. i talked to susan yesterday at the services with is clear the legacy will want into our. and also to thank my friends for your tremendous gift to all of us.
this is nice to think and in person but this forum reflects their deep commitment and it is the premier venue. the place to generate of u.s. policy towards the middle east that is why i came here two years ago and last year in today i consider this a very important opportunity to have a critical conversation the united states has an abundance of programs in the region with the rule of law and vocational training to public-private partnerships and we believe profoundly i
see you're a good ambassador losing weight by the day but for all the right reasons that we are very aware that he reminds me the pace of progress on improve security we understand that so to have a security for us a major goal of american foreign policy less month prime minister netanyahu was crystal clear to speak of the savagery the aggression and the turmoil that has displaced millions of people across the region.
also speaking of the commitment to the vision of two states and to people living side-by-side with peace and security. had that not become a slogan or a pro a phrase that it is a policy of what it is meant to be. in that same spirit the support for the builders as opposed to the destroyers that informs every single aspect of policy for the region and holds the components of the strategy together and yes there is. we know how they chatting heads can command the dash because that sells and
polarizes to create a self selecting audience. that doesn't mean it is wisdom. with that coalition against terrorism to halt the sudden outbreak of violence. the striving to put in place new foundations and our strategy is to help ensure the builders have the chance they need to accomplish their task. that the outcome is vital to our security interests. that is why we support the transition to help the leaders to reconcile differences the nation's
borders. i was there for a few weeks ago was retiring -- strategic dialogue to support democratic procedures that is why we're in the alleged effort to forge national accord of libya. we united states have called together to ask other nations to join us to go with urgency to rome so we can help the people find the common purpose to kabul a legitimate government we can organize future efforts that are essentials to push back of those that seek to fill the vacuum. that is why we encourage all parties in yemen to reject
and make sure killers and kidnappers and these and apostates of medieval thinking with modern weapons to wage a savage brand of war to conjure up a theory raping on muslim women and girls to be condoned by god as a former of prayer. they butchered teachers him burn books shut schools destroyed secret bases including that -- including the tombs of the profits seizing the director of antiquities made him neil in the public square and cut off his head left his body tied to a poll. 83 years old. yet been in charge of preserving the cultural heritage for more than 50 years.
dash executes people not for anything they have done but for who they are. to what they believe fighting against everything our ancestors fought for one in particular the 20th century with a contempt for decency ruth law, maternity law, maternity, and portrait. so with is to become the over to declare a threat to the interest of the united states and the aggression is fuelled a refugee crisis and now all of europe is a profound impact on europe itself in recent weeks we
have seen in paris in egypt in beirut the evidence of their desire to come up to inspire murderous acts whenever they can. that is why at the very outset remote the moment we saw coming into iraq he declared we must defeat dash reno increasing the pace to do so. to exhilarate to work diplomatically every single country the beginning of the syrian revolution has said there is no military solution that has to be political if you're not looking for it space did you
have to stumble upon a. the third leg of the strategy is the instability does not spread further beyond the borders. with any country negatively impacted. our strategy is to attack the organization and its core we have said from the beginning a multi-year fight that we can already more measure launching air strikes in iraq and syria the number is rising every day for the past half year working with iraqi forces
now 100,000 now they return to begin their homes will have liberated some jar and we have supported that to remove terrorists commanders from the battlefield. hitting oil facilities particularly hard including 400 tanker trucks have then destroyed pushing dash add of the territory once controlled now we're intensifying the pressure of commodity on finances are recruiting and propaganda and to begin to launch strikes of their own germany is stepping up with support an increasing the capacity of the united states special forces.
meanders stand the fastest way to you defeat dash is the al flow of refugees to bring an end to the war does with a second core element is political with a renewed diplomatic initiative to reconvene with the more action oriented effort last month the serious support group who came together in an effort between the government and moderate opposition even just now driving over here talking about what is happening with
the saudis to is convening the opposition to have them choose their negotiating team and their platform to be ready to go to the table. russia and iran at the table for the first time to join with us in this communique that was unanimous in which they agree there has to be a transition. what they will meet later this month to move the process forward. to facilitate a transition that they support a unified syria. with its own leadership in the future to be supervised by the united nations under the highest standards with fair full transparency and
accountability for the diaspora to vote for future leadership the purpose of this transition is to have governance within six months including the drafting of a new constitution the internationally supervised elections within 18 months and i cannot promise everybody will make it happen but the legitimacy of the effort will exhaust diplomacy to call on all of us to make the choices we need to make to end the war. and then to begin the initial process. to take the pressure off of refugees that would further isolate the terrorist to enable the coalition with
greater unity and power. of one to declare. we are not naive with this diplomatic effort is difficult it was easy it would have happened a long time ago. many ways it has been going on for centuries. it does that mean it cannot be changed with the international community regarding syria and we have of this size from the onset to the syrian implemented the real so solidly unprecedented degree on the
need to implement a political transition. turkey egypt and iran at the same table for the same purpose. representatives from government to do not agree on much else but come together to support the process. make no mistake this is the most promising political initiative we have had in years and deserves to be preserved to the fullest also the third pillar to replaced on the neighbors today we have contributed more than 4.5 billion the largest contributor of humanitarian relief causally encouraging other countries to open their own wallets
because the help that is needed far outweighs the supply also helping lebanon and jordan through external threats policy is to support the builders not the destroyers. there are other elements to the strategy. to succeed have to be shielded as much as possible from potential danger. bed as well have the negotiated solution through the program. some of you here i know you have concerns no one is
enough for a dozen bombs. that is where we were when we began. experts told us that iran could obtain all of the fissile material that it would need for a nuclear weapon in as little as two months. compare that to where we are now. under the joint comprehensive plan of action every single one of the pathways to obama's blocked, uranium pathway, plutonium pathway, covert pathway. due to massive cuts and reductions in enrichment capacity all of which the iranians agreed to -- people forget, we already have two and a half years of compliance under our belt. we had the interim agreement which rolled back there program, and under this the breakout time will now stretched to 12 for at least
a decade. and because of the unprecedented monitoring and verification requirements that we negotiated which are an integral part of the plan we now have 25 years of day-to-day complete visibility on every ounce of uranium that is mine, milled, put into yellowcake centrifuged, gas to centrifuged. day-to-day, 24 hours we have that tracking. we will know if iran tries to break out. i'm not telling you they might not, but i am telling you that we will know. the reason is that we will know, if iran did decide to try to get around its technicians would have to do more than barrier reprocessing facility deep beneath the ground. they would have to come up with a complete and completely secret nuclear
supply chain from start to finish.finish. and our experts and the experts of france, germany, britain, and china and russia, four of whom are nuclear weapons countries agree they would never get away with such a deception, such a complete supply chain. and although some of the specific limitations apply for ten years, some apply for 15, some for 20, some for 25. the for 25. the basic monitoring and verification provisions are in effect for the lifetime of the iranian nuclear program. under the agreement iran will be prohibited from pursuing a nuclear weapon forever so if it ever steps out of it is in contravention of the agreement and the nonproliferation treaty. so signing a deal and implementing one are
obviously two different things. we have given one of our most capable foreign service officers and the messengers the day-to-day 247 job of leading and interagency effort to ensure iran lives up to every single one of the commitments and continue to consult closely with congress and our allies as the process goes forward. i want to be clear, the agreement was considered on its own terms. it was not part of some opening the door trade shift or some speculation about behavior. it was the right thing to do whether it leads to cooperation are not. any effort to roll back the iranian behavior is a heck of a lot easier if they don't have a nuclear weapon. they are not making any assumptions because we base our policy on observable facts, actions that we can
see and verify. the fact is to iran's policies are major reason why we work so closely and supportively with our partners in the region and nowhere is that more evident than with our friend and ally israel. prime minister netanyahu and israeli defense and intelligence officials we have engaged at an unprecedented level, military intelligence and security cooperation. the defense minister said yesterday that those relations were superb command they are. we are determined to help israel to address new and complex security threats because it is changing. we understand. and we are absolutely determined to guarantee that there is a qualitative military edge.
we work with israel every day to enforce sanctions, prevent terrorist organizations such as hamas and hezbollah from obtaining the financing and weapon that they seek whether from iran or any other source. we will stand with israel to stop its adversaries from once again launching deadly and unprovoked attacks against civilians. since 2009 we have provided $20 billion in foreign military financing call more than half of all the military assistance we have given worldwide. over and above that we have invested some 3 billion in production and deployment of iron dome and other missile-defense programs and saw how and israel's last conflict lives were saved because of that assistance. we have given privileged access to advanced military equipment such as the f3 five joint strike fighter. israel is the only nation in the middle east to which the
united states sold this fifth-generation aircraft. earlieraircraft. earlier this year the president authorized a massive arms resupply package featuring air to air missiles and other advanced munitions. diplomatically our support for israel also remains as rocksolid as we continue to oppose any effort to delegitimize the jewish state or to pass biased resolutions against it and international bodies. i have personally been on the phone lobbying whether it is a human rights commission or counsel for individuals, you name it, we are constantly fighting the battle command i will get to something in that a little bit in my comments. just last month i went to new york and spoke at a moving event commemorating the extraordinary speech 40 years ago denouncing the un general assembly infamous zionism is racism resolution. one of the finest beaches i have ever heard.
patrick moynahan called it the day of infamy when the abomination of anti- semitism was given the appearance of international sanctions. and to equate the national movement of the jewish people for racism, nazism, and the resolution was not only absurd but it was a sad day for the united nations itself. it brought people together to seek nothing less than to grant a global license to hate. and i am delighted that mushy herzog is here. we are your father because he spoke the truth, and so must we. anti-semitism is there today , threat today in europe, the middle east, parts of asia and every part of our body politic. the imperative to identify it no matter what the euphemisms are that are used to mask it comeau rebutted and defeated, it is our
responsibility to accept it. it. that, my friends, is a lesson taught to us by history. which we must never ever forget. but history also teaches us the importance of piece. because piece is ultimately the best guarantor of security. the united states is deeply committed to securing israel's future as a jewish and democratic state, and we are also committed to an independent and viable palestinian state or palestinians can live with freedom and dignity. the only way to achieve that is there a negotiated solution that creates two states, two peoples living side-by-side in peace and security. i know how complicated it is. i have been out they're enough times.
i think ii think i understand it. the united states remains deeply committed to having the parties realize the vision that we just articulated, the prime minister and everyone has accepted, vision that we put out there not for our sick but because it is the best hope for both israelis and palestinians. but ultimately it is up to both sides to take the necessary steps to make this possible. today i want to talk about some of the difficult questions and hard choices that everybody faces. because there are no easy answers here. it will take leadership, courage and both sides must make decisions that could have a profound impact on their future and on the future of the entire region. first, violence must stop. nobody should ever be
subjected to attacks as they go about their daily lives, and there is no justification for violence targeted against civilians now or ever, and we condemn these outrageous attacks in the strongest possible terms. president obama has made clear israel has not only the right but the obligation to defend its citizens. we have worked hard to try to find a way to end the violence, stressed the importance of refraining from inflammatory rhetoric, to refrain from steps that obviously we will have an impact on other people's perceptions. i have called on the leadershipleadership publicly and privately to do everything possible to combat excitement and explicitly condemn terrorist attacks. i have urged israeli leaders
to bring those responsible for terrorism against palestinian civilians to justice and upon the recent arrest that was made in that regard, and we worked with leaders to lower the tension surrounding the temple mount that were fueling the violence. last week because of our concern i again visited jerusalem and the west bank. the terrorist attack had tragically claimed the life of ezra schwartz and 18 -year-old american student from my home state. president obama and i both talked to the parents. that brought homethat brought home to us the tremendous and comprehensible and unfathomable level of grief, loss of a child particularly under those circumstances. it also brought home the urgency of the loss of more innocent lives.
i heard prime minister netanyahu described the fears on daily basis and his solemn obligation to provide them with basic security and president abbas spoke more despairingly that i have ever heard him about the sense of hopelessness and have been traveling since the 1980s. and i have spent hours israelis believe the palestinians will never accept israel's right to live in piece in their teaching hate and that a piece agreement would turn the west bank into another gaza. the palestinians believe the government will never give
them a state and that their land is being systematically taken away by the daily indignation's of occupation without end and that there is impunity. that is what they believe. the israeli -- the current path is not leading to a more peaceful future. unless significant efforts are made to change the dynamic it will only bring more violence, heartbreak, and despair. that is a fear, not a threat. and changing course will require real courage, leadership, and difficult choices. the palestinians must decide what kind of future they want for their people. this form focuses on us israel relations, but i, but
i want to highlight some of the key questions facing the palestinians. how was ceasing security coordination and cooperation and dissolving the palestinian authority, how would that bring them closer to piece? isn't it the palestinian people who would then suffer most? boycotts and efforts to delegitimize israel or pass by us resolution i going to help them achieve a palestinian state? president abbas has long been committed to nonviolence. but our palestinian officials, impossible to prevent all forms of incitement. don't these terrorist attacks against innocent civilians deserve public condemnation? and how can israelis be assured that the palestinians are truly
prepared to end the conflict and allow them to live in peace as part of a two state solution? how do they address israel's concerns about not creating another situation like gaza and the west bank? israel also faces important questions and difficult choices, and there are answers for the issues of gaza and the west bank. all kinds of security and other kinds of steps that can be taken and buffers and guarantees and oversight in cooperation, countless answers if you want to find them. israelis are appropriately debating some of these issues, some officials have argued that it is not in israel's interest to have a palestinian authority. prime minister netanyahu makes clear he does not wish for the collapse because despite serious differences he recognizes that the alternative would be worse.
somehow dismissed the possibility, but circumstances force us to consider it seriously because there are valid questions if the current situation continues. mark my words. remember, there are some 30,000 palestinian a story's -- palestinian security forces and the egg knowledge the key role in preventing the situation from spiraling out of control including during the turmoil of three wars with gaza. did not blow up in the west bank. the idf could be forced to deploy tens of thousands of soldiers in the west bank indefinitely to fill the void. our israelis prepared for
the consequences this would have for their children and grandchildren who serve in the idf? the inevitable friction leads to confrontation and violence. one of the financial and strategic costs when israel now already facing new threats in the region? our israelis ready to accept the heightened risk that chaos, lawlessness, and desperation allow terrorists and extremists to take hold and fill the vacuum and take advantage? without the pa israel would responsibility for providing basic services, including maintaining schools, hospitals command line order are theyare they ready to make up for over a billion a year and assistance that the pa would no longer see provided? what about the additional billion in development related assistance, most of which goes to the west bank? what would happen if aa
collapse under the pressure and there was widespread unemployment and poverty? this brings us to a broader question. if there is a risk that the pa could collapse, and it collapse, and it is in is drilled to come in israel's interest to survive as the prime minister suggested, should more not be done to help sustain it? this really goes to the heart of a bigger debate because the truth is that many of those arguing against the pa simply don't believe in two states. the prime minister has been clear that he does not want a binational state and that he remains committed to the vision of two states for two peoples, but at the same time many current israeli ministers have been equally clear that they oppose the palestinian state not just now whatever. so my friends, we have to be clear eyed.
we cannot come to a form like this still have meetings, go back and forth and maintain and pretend. we must be honest about whether a one state solution first, no one should be lulled into a forced complacency that the pa would still be there under those circumstances. in fact the chances that it would collapse increase over time every day. and it would collapse sooner than later under those circumstances. let's focus on a few other critical questions. i am just asking questions. how does israel possibly maintain its character as a jewish and democratic state when from the river to the sea they were not even be a
jewish majority. then next question would millions of palestinians be given the basic rights of israeli citizens including the right to vote: they be relegated to a permanent underclass? with the israelis and palestinians living in such close quarters have segregated roads and transportation systems with different laws applying? would anyone really believe they were being treated equally? what would the international response be? a decision to unilaterally annex large portions, how could israel ever have true piece with its neighbors? as the arab piece initiative promises and as every arab leader i have met with in the last year reinforces to me as recently as the last month that they are prepared to do, how will they do that
if there is no chance for a two state solution? and wouldn't israel risked being in perpetual conflict? i think the answer will make it clear to all. the one state solution is no solution at all for a secure jewish democratic israel living in piece. it is simply not a viable option. and no less a statesman than the man i admire the most in the world, one of the great warriors for piece, as shimon perez put it himself, anyone who rejects the solution won't bring a one state solution. they will bring one more not one state. my friends, that brings us
to a broader question. what more can actually be done to advance it? these are important questions for all of us who care deeply about israel, and i do care deeply. a 100 percent voting record and i remember fondly every visit. great friends. great friends. but i asked people to answer this question honestly as possible. this is not an abstract issue. the status quo is simply not sustainable. the fact is that current trends, including violent, demolitions are imperiling the viability of a two state solution, and that trend must be reversed in order to prevent this untenable one state reality from taking hold.
i cannot stress this enough, enough, terrorist attacks are devastating the hopes of israelis who want to believe that piece is possible and violence must stop. yes. the palestinian hopes are being dashed by what they see happening. they are focused on the reality that few ever see, the transition contemplated by the oswald process has been reversed. nearly all of areas see is effectively restricted for any palestinian. much of it claimed for israeli state land or settlement counsel. we understand there was only one granted for all of areas see. and they are regularly being legalized demolition of the palestinian structures is
increasing. you get it? at the same time the settler population has increased by tens of thousands over just the past five years including many in remote areas. we are clear about that. the continued settlement growth raises honest questions about israel's long-term intentions and will only make separating from the palestinians much more difficult. there are no easy answers, but we cannot stop trying to find solutions that move us closer to piece. that is why president obama is called on both sides. a genuine commitment. suggested steps on the ground that would reverse current trends and resume the oslo transition in ways
that do not affect israel's security at all. and i want to stress that point. increasing palestinian civil authority does not happen at the expense of israeli security. the economy will enhance security. and the palestinians must also meet their commitment. including combating violence improving and building institutions. these steps can be an important beginning. but these steps could help begin to reduce tension, restore measure of hope, open up new possibilities and hopefully create some political space for people
to be able to make bigger more critical decisions. again, i repeat i know these are difficult decisions. i understand why israelis feel deceived. i understand why they feel there is no hope. there will always be a reason not to act. but you have to keep those questions i put to you in front of you every moment. now is the time to see beyond the politics and the pressures of the moment. both sides need to act in the long-term best interest of the people, not as a kind of concession. it is not a concession to be doing things that make you safer. broaden the political space to make choices. and begin to give justice a sense of rectitude to agreements which have been
signed. and if everyone keeps waiting for the other person to move 1st the situation spirals downward. the obviously hope that both sides will choose the path that leads towards piece. we want both to show they are serious and we will be there every step of the way in every way possible to support them in that effort. we are ready to bring jordan , egypt, the rest of the gulf states for regional security arrangement that includes israel and will make the entire region safer , and i no that many in the region are absolutely committed to recognizing israel and a way that israel wants to be recognized and move forward to make the region of financial hub. they are waiting to help
realize the vision of the true piece. we all no this is not an impossible dream. it is achievable, but it demands of we never lose hope and we all draw strength from those who sacrificed so much for piece. itzhak is the example of that. the prime minister dared to take risks and make bold initiatives to end the conflict because he knew answers to some of those questions i posed. because he knew the alternative, believed it was essential for the future security and prosperity of the jewish democratic state of islam and because he understand beyond all the complicated factors that influence the events in the region that this is a
struggle it transcends any distinction of national and religious identity, start overtime people who are intent on opening wounds versus those that want to close them. the legacy endures as a challenge, and then his memory i asked everyone to try to find a way that we commit to use our words and actions to advance the cause of piece. [applause] [applause] >> wonderful to have you here.