tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 3, 2016 7:00pm-12:01am EDT
formulas, that could reveal how we gather information. i'm less worried about that. i think than many people are. but this is something that you have to discuss with the intelligence committees and the intelligence community. because they are very ferocious on this. sometimes correctly, sometimes not. but if you want to be fast and agile, you need to look in into that specifically. >> i think we should. mr. nugent. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and you don't paint a pretty picture as to how this is going to be resolved in the future. dynamics in the middle east are so diverse. we talked about, you know, in columbia, other states, we didn't have the two religious organizations that are the
largest in that area, the shia and the sunnis at odds with each other. so how do we ever resolve that issue, which i think, you know, is the underlying issue that percolates up through all of this, whether it is, you know, tribal, but it really goes back to their, you've got iran, the majority share, right, and the rest of the countries in that area, the majority is sunni. so how do we resolve that issue? is there a resolve and can we play a part in that? and mr. ambassador, you've had the ability to deal with those over the years. what is your take. >> i've had about 30 years counting turkey in the region or working on the region. i was just out there and talked to the leaders of israel, saudi arabia and turkey over the past month. i like the area.
it is fascinating, and it doesn't have to be what we see right now. and there are times when it hasn't. for example, the shia/sunni split, and the conflict that emerged, i put considerable time into it in my written testimony as an excel rent for terrorism in this region. whilitis been latent before, these people, sunni and shia arabs and other ethnic groups with that split have lived together in relative peace for most of the history of the middle east. it is something that can go back together. just like orthodox and muslims lived in peace in bosnia and other places in the balkins for centuries, and then bang, in the 1990s, what happened, a breakdown in order, an unwillingness of the international community to engage, and the evil forces that
are always latent, bubble up and become the present. we have that with a vengeance right now in the region. but again, while we can't go in and fix it per se, the region itself can fix it if given enough time. and given enough stability. our job from the outside and it is not something we can do alone, we need to do it with our european friends and our allies and partners in the region, is to dampen down the exploitation of this violence and insecurity by forces, beginning with terrorist forces, iran and at times, even our own friends who get carried away in responding to these threats. but that takes a very present united states. not with whole armies, not with hundreds of billions of dollars a year in expenditures.
but, the kind of prez that he knows over most the period stins 1970s, we've been able to do in the region with relative success. over the long-term, i'm optimistic, but i realize it may be a hard sell today. >> well, i mean, we tend to want to force our view of government on other governments. and i think we saw that with saddam hussein, all the dictators out there. we want to impose what we think is the proper form of government. and not every country or people are ready for democracy as we see it for a number of reasons. and iran, obviously, touched on it, iran is a huge player, and i agree with your testimony that we can't just leave a void there and allow iran to fill that. if we abandon the middle east,
what are we going to get? and i think we've seen part of it. and lieutenant colonel price, i'm interested, i have two sons that went to west point and your take in regard to what are we trying to impart upon our future leaders and leaders within the military as to how we go about this? we do have the ability, military to do certain things, but i don't know that, and we've talked about it, we don't have the will, in the united states nor the money to continue what is your take? >> very briefly, sir, one of the reasons why the organization that i lead was stood up was for that very reason. when i was a cadet, there was not a formal education when it came to these sort of topics, whether terrorism, counterterrorism, these are complex issues that our young and --
>> my son was -- he just finished his plea when the trade towers went down. sorry to interrupt. >> yes. so, a part of this is learning about these topics in a more academically rigorous session. things we've done is we've enhanced the academy's overseas programs to get more cultural education to our cadets, but at the end of the day, and this is not specific to the u.s. academy or others, but teaching the young military leaders how to think and not what to think. that's all. >> i appreciate it. i yield back to the chairman. thank you. >> thank you. mr. brianstein. >> thank you, mr. chair. ambassador jeffrey, you were our ambassador during the withdrawal from iraq. you were our ambassador to iraq. i wasn't in congress at the time, but i was in the military. what we were being told at the time was that there was no status of forces agreement
ratified by the iraqi parliament, and therefore, we had to pull out. that was the talking point that we heard over and over again. currently, we have 5,000 troops in iraq. did the parliament ratify a status of forces agreement, and if not, how do we have 5,000 troops there now? >> that's a good question, congressman. give me a second to track this back. because i was involved in this first in the white house in the bush administration and then on the field in the obama administration. as part of the -- we were -- our authorities in iraq up into 2008 were based on a u.n. security council resolution. the iraqi government in 2008 says this has to end. president bush went in and got a status of forces agreement that gave us immunities for our troops, but the cost of that was to get it through the iraqi parliament and everybody agreed it had to go through the iraqi
parliament to be legally binding. that was the end of 2011. obama administration came in and after general austin and i -- >> so in 2008 it, did go through what was -- >> it went through the parliament. that's right, sir. >> okay. >> then in 2010, general austin and i came to iraq and soon, we said hey, we don't want to do a withdrawal in 18 months. let's recommend we keep troops on. we went back and forth with the administration. president obama said we'll try to negotiate a new status of forces agreement. with one exception, all of his advisors and all of them at the top two tiers said yeah, we have to get one through parliament in a democrat system, what you are doing is saying you as a soldier or you as a soldier, congresswomen, are exempt from
the laws of the country. that's not something -- >> critically important. >> yeah, but it takes diplomatic status, which is a treaty or has to be legally binding in a state like iraq under that constitution, and that's the parliament. so our position was we need a status of force agreement. in the end, the iraqis said okay, we can put up with troops in country, but we don't want to give you a a status forces agreement that will go through the parliament, because the russians didn't need this. why do you need it. prime minister molkey said i'll just sign a document. everyone, with one exception, concluded it wasn't acceptable so we went without the troops at the end of 2011. then in 2014, under different emergency conditions, the president decided that he could live with essentially, and i haven't seen the document, but i know it exists, an executive agreement that our troops will have to the extent possible immunities.
i don't know the language. it is pretty thread bearer. the difference is, when you have an emergency where foreign horrific forests gobble up a third of your country and kill tens of thousands of your citizens, probably web send forszs in an on emergency basis without the legal because the country dramatically needs us. in 2011, when the troops left, congressman, there was almost no fighting in country. people were not, iraqis were not quite sure why we wanted to stay on. that was my concern that we would be harassed by, for example, sadras police, extremist judges, and therefore, we needed that protection. >> that's more clarity than i've had on that the entire time i've been here. thank you. that's a great answer. i want to, i've got just a few -- maybe a minute left.
colonel price, how important is human intelligence to winning this fight? >> i think it is absolutely critical, and i think that it has led to a lot of our successes since 2001. >> real quick, do you know offhand how many prisoners, how many isis prisoners we've captured? >> no, sir, i wouldn't be able to answer that. >> a couple of months ago, i asked secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs, and they gave me one. do you know if we've captured any more than that since then. >> i don't know, sir. >> is that important to be able to get human intelligence? >> sir, the question is taking prisoners is important to -- >> that's my question. >> getting intelligence. >> yes. >> yes, i think you can glean information from captured terrorists, yes, sir. >> okay. we've had a conversation about hard power and soft power. you talked about public/private partnerships. one thing i would like to get on record, are you familiar with the overseas private investment corporation? >> no, sir. >> anybody else on the panel familiar with it?
can you talk about whether or not that's important and if it is something that we as member of congress should make sure it continues. >> it is a really good bang for the buck. it's been a long time, i can't talk specifics, but it is the sort of thing we smile about when we hear about our government doing abroad as opposed to other things we're skeptical about, that are bigger and clumsier, and don't get money. >> absolutely. it is extremely useful in providing the assurance that we need, not to put aside insurance, but the assurance that investors need and traders need to make this work. i would agree with the ambassador. it is a big bang for the buck. >> that's good to know. i yield back. >> mr. burn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen. i think i'm the end here. that's the good news for you. i want to go to the topic of our allies in the middle east. if not implicit in your testimony, we can't do this alone. i'm concerned about the
relationships we have with our allies. some of us have been over there to talk to the allieallies. we've read things that they have said. they're worried we've gotten too close to iran at their expense. and so i would like for you to speak to this notion that we have to pick who we're going to be with, in other words, is it the situation where we can have a relationship with iran and cause problems with our other allies, our gulf allies, jordanian, egyptian allies, or can you thread that needle, where, yeah, you can have some sort of a relationship with iran and still have that very strong, important positive relationship with the allies.
some of us that are worried that we're leaving the girl we brought to the dance at the dance and going off dancing with another girl, and that's not a good thing. perhaps better to say that, we're in a fight and left our friends in the fight and gone to our adversary in the fight. i might also add, if you can, talk a little bit about how we're presently treating the president of egypt. mr. alcici, who in many ways has been strong in advocating our interests in that region. if you could speak to our relationship with the allies and also in the right place and whether it needs to change. >> if i could start, as i said, i've just been in the region and talked to prime minister netanyahu to the king of saudi arabia and president they want more american presence in the region, military, political, obviously economic, but they
focus on diplomatic and a stronger position against iran. now, i mentioned earlier both iran as a source of basically pushing the area more into terror, but also, as someone in iraq and elsewhere we have to deal with. and we do have to deal with it. we had to deal with in on the nuclear account and the presence in the region. here is where i draw the line. there are countries that support the international status quo and want us in the region. turkey is a good example, however, difficult. there are countries that while we may have to deal with them on things, ultimately don't want us there and want a different middle east. that's isis, that's iran. therefore, how we deal with them has to be different. we had relations with the soviet union for 40 years. we did agreement after agreement with them. but we never lost sight of the fact, they and we have totally different visions of the world. we in iran have totally different visions of how the middle east should be shaped up and lest we forget that, we open
the door to the problems you've described. >> let me underscore that. i think there was a sense of perhaps ill founded euphoria, when we signed the deal with iran that this would be the beginning and good relations. this was a deal. and the notion of some type of rashproshmont, strategic partnership in the reemg on is something that may be decades down the roads, if ever. it is not clear that the iran ans are interested in that at all. i think, in terms of dealing with our traditional allies, as flawed as they are in the region, i think we have caused them consternation, not simply
because of the arrangement with iran, but because of some of our constant behavior as we went through this turbulent arab spring, and that caused the -- >> red line, et cetera. >> various things. a whole list of things. so that the notion was their concern was if they face a threat, an overt obvious threat, we would probably come and assist them. a more insidious threat, we would probably give them a lecture on human rights and so on. so that caused them to be greatly concerned. i'm not saying we ought not to be committed to those things of human rights, of democracy and so on, but we also have to accept that these are not values that we can automatically export and impose on others, or demand as preconditions for any type of relationship.
therefore, i think that we have not been as successful as we could be in exploiting some of the initiatives that have come out of the local partners that we might do, including some of the gulf countries. >> thank you. my time is up. but i hate not to let colonel price respond to that. colonel, can you respond? >> i wouldn't have anything to add, other than what the other two panels have already said. thank you, though. >> ambassador jeffrey, you don't have to comment on this, if you don't have an opinion. but your conversation with mr. bridenstein on the iraq forces agreement leads me to think about an issue that we have before us now, and that is, the bill that allows victims of terrorism to sue in court other nations, conduct discovery, and so forth.
the united states has more people and more countries around the world than anybody else, and one of the arguments that concern, that leads to concern about that is that you, when you start eroding sovereign immunity, then that's a slippery slope that puts our people in greater danger. do you have an opinion about this? again, this is kind of out of the blue, but it -- if you want to, fine. >> i have a very strong opinion, mr. chairman. normally, i'm 90%, 10%, 70%, 30%, a few issues i'm 100% on. this is a really big mistake. this will open the door potentially to legal action against americans by, you know, criminal courts in other -- criminal in the sense of corrupt in criminal courts in other countries. it will risk the diplomatic immunity that people like me needed to work in very difficult
countries, communist, balgaria, for example, in the 1980s. i have seen up close what they were trying to do to us and how we wrapped ourselves in that immunity. this, i cannot -- totally apart from the importance of saudi arabia in the fight against terror and the competition with iran, against any country, this would be a mistake. it opens the door to extraordinary threats to americans of a legal nature around the world. thank you for asking me. >> well, no, i appreciate it. those are some of my concerns as well. one thing we hadn't talked about today, and in my memory, was the, you know, dominant shadow overhanging 9/11 and that was,
what if terrorists get their hands on weapons of mass destruction? we have seen isis use chemical weapons. it has been made public that al qaeda, among others, have worked on biological sorts of weapons. do any of you have any comments about that prospect, how that might change the way we view terrorism, et cetera? >> i think that any use by terrorists of chemicals biological radiological, let alone nuclear weapons would have a profound, profound effect on the -- on public psychology. i hesitate to call them weapons of mass destruction, because i think there is a range there, and when we look at what they were experimenting, the capacity, while it may be, chemical weapons may be more accessible, the capacity would be quite limited.
while radiological is one that is frequently mentioned, the so-called dirty bomb, and looking at that from an operational standpoint, the bomb part, that is, the explosion would be the source of casualties far more than the radioactive component, which is likely to be very small quantities of radioactive material. these are really weapons where the terrorist use them to achieve not so much physical effects, but maximum psychological effects. and so beyond taking all reasonable measures to try to ensure that they don't have that capacity, ranging from improving security as well as intervening in a preemptive fashion to ensure if we have any operational intelligence, that
they are moving in that direction, we head it off. beyond that, there is a real issue of how we would address such an event if it occurred, heaven forbid. and that has a lot to do with how we will handle the media, societal resilience. if we look at the psychological effects in our saturated median environment that we operate in and concerns of what has happened in even ordinary conventional attacks, whether it is orlando or the more recent events, one really worries about the kind of frenzy that would be fueled if they were to get these weapons. so i'm less concerned about the physical aspects of it than the psychological impact. which is what terror is all about. >> yeah, it is a great point. i guess leads me to my last
question, carl price. optimistic scenarios say that iraqi military with our help clears isis out of mosul and iraq. it is hard for me to see how they get cleared out of syria in the foreseeable future. as i mentioned at the beginning, isis says we may lose our caliphate, but we'll remain in the virtual caliphate. can you comment on that? does that mean a diminished danger? does that -- just how big a deal is that, if isis continues on in a virtual sense and are we equipped to deal with that? i mean, you've talked about the public partner -- private/public partnerships to fight the ideology, but talk about a virtual caliphate.
>> sir, this goes back to my earlier points regarding the difficulties and challenge of saying you're going to destroy the islamic state. while you can remove their military capability, their ability to inspire and potentially direct attacks with those that are outside of the theater of combat operations, poses a significant threat to others. mr. jenkins alluded to earlier, the pathways of radicalization are extremely complex. so this is an area where i think academics will need to do a better job of providing more policy relevant specific recommendations to bodies like this in that regard. the danger posed with the advent of the internet now is that there is no geographic limitations to where this threat can reside. so those are the challenges i see moving forward. >> okay, thank you all very much.
presidential debate, we'll look back at the candidates, virginia senator tim kaine and governor mike pence. >> i have seen this story before. i have turned on the television and seen the bad news of a shooting or weather emergency or famine. i have seen these stories. there will be more stories. there was something in the story that was different yesterday. it was you. in your dark day of optimism and community and hope. >> the presidency is the most visible threat that runs through the tapestry of american government. for good or ill, it sets the tone for the other branches and spurs the expectations of the other people. it's powers are vast and consequential. the requirements from the outset and by definition, impossible for mortals to fulfill without humility and the consequences.
>> a look at tim kaine and mike pence ahead of the vice president debate, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. watch anytime on c-span.org or on the v-span radio app. the next president making appointments to the supreme court of the united states will be president donald trump. >> with hillary clinton in the white house, the rest of the world will never forget why they have always looked up to the united states of america. >> c-span's campaign 2016 continues on the road to the white house with a vice president debate between republican governor mike pence and democratic senator tim kaine tuesday night live from longwood university in farmville, virginia. beginning at 7:30 p.m. eastern. at 8:30, the briefing for the audience. 9:00 p.m., live coverage.
the 2016 vice presidential debate. watch live on c-span. watch live and anytime on demand at c-span.org and listen live on the c-span radio app. randi weingarten on the federation for teachers and sylvia burwell talks about the law and combatting the zika virus. this is part of a washington forum. [ applause ] >> i came at this the long way. so, we have been working on teacher adviser for a bit of time. what stan talked about, stan is the head of the ibm foundation,
was a meeting we had at roosevelt house in new york a couple years ago, right? >> that's right. >> let me just say, this is the epitome of a big corporation and a teacher's union working together to actually help teachers. think about the 4:00 a.m. in the morning -- think about 4:00 a.m. in the morning. i'm not talking about those of you who take a plane somewhere and wake up at 4:00 in the morning. i'm talking teachers who wake up at 4:00 in the morning, with a teacher's plan and how to specialize. we talk about share my lesson. they can pull lessons. the difference between that and the teacher adviser is you can customize your lesson based upon the needs of your kids.
as sam said in the video, it gets smarter and smarter and smarter, by more teachers using it as kara and jody were talking about. maura will talk a little bit about what the technology is before anybody starts thinking this is big brother, what the technology is and what the tool really is and why we are so excited about it. >> thank you, randi and thank you for having me on the stage. my thanks to the atlantic and aspen institute for organizing such an important forum. it's a pleasure to be with you. let me talk about the technology. watson is cognitive computer. it's a form of artificial intelligence that depends on processing and machine learning. it's very different than programmable systems. it's actually a system that depends upon information being ingested and it gets smarter with usage. it's a very different engagement
with the user. it's kind of a partnership between man and machine or women and machine to come up with the feeding of information and surfacing evidence based answers. watson became pretty famous in 2011 when it played the game show "jeopardy." it's been a lot of places since then. it's working in oncology to help doctors, it's working in retail. it's working in legal and lots of other fields. we were asked to figure out how we might employ the power of watson in education. i represent the ibm foundation. obviously, we were interested in doing something for free that would make a contribution in the k-12 space. we assembled thought leaders like randy weingarten and other policy subject matters, practitioners, teachers, deans of school of ed et cetera. collectively, we talked about
this. what we were advised is teacher professional development could use help. there's not a lot of money to be made there. maybe this is where we ought to focus watson, so we did. and we started with elementary school mathematics, specifically third grade mathematics. it is very exciting because we are already seeing the difference it can make. randi talked about how you can customize lessons. we are seeing excitement in the eyes of teachers who say you developed this for me and involved me in the development. i have this all in one place and i can use it for free, 24/7. so, i'm the driver of this technology. >> so, both maura and stan, who you saw in the video, have incredible public school experience. and, so, when the teachers came to these original meetings and
said this is a powerful tool, but let's not make this mistake that all sorts of ed tech companies have made. it can't -- if you say it's about helping teachers, it has to be about helping teachers. it can't be judgmental or a value tip. that is the tool that ibm foundation and ibm has created. so, what it does, and this is why we are so excited about it. think about who teachers are. particularly elementary teachers. they are responsible for teaching the whole child everything in a very short period of time. many of them have 20 to 50 kids in their class. so, the customization, what becomes really important, particularly these days, they go to a colleague and say, okay, randi doesn't understand fractions. everybody else in the class does. she is not getting when there's
1/8, she's not getting the eighth. anybody have ideas about how to help her? help me help her. what happens is you have this tremendous bank of ideas that is in the watson technology. so you not only can talk to an individual teacher or a mentor or coach, but literally at 4:00 in the morning, you can get a customized lesson of someone who has done that already. that's why it starts with math in terms of third grade. it's not just mental. it's free. it's going to be on a mobile app. as the teachers told you about in the video, we are really excited about this. >> so, we cast a big net because it was important to us that we gain the trust of teachers, the ultimate users, our client. we also partnered with a foundation, karn gi and ford because this is a bigger effort
than the ibm foundation. we are destined to take it to other grade levels and math mettics. we will ask teachers and the advisory committee where to go next with the technology. it's very exciting. remember, it's exciting because we have had such an area of process feedback. there were four basic experiences in the watson tool so teachers can go on and look at the standards. you could be an experienced teacher, know the standards well, be new to the grade level and not read the standard. you want to know what it's about. commit to it through a numbering system or concept. look at preand post standards, which is very important as you do this differentiation. you move to the customization feature, which is important to pull in what you think will help
you differentiate your instruction. search on simple tasks that are activities like a work sheet or flew ensi activity. you can get help with teaching strategies, so we have ingested video that is are tagged content that will surface up interesting topics like, perhaps thirds grade multiplication or how to teach to diverse learners. the tool is going to continue to grow. what's important is the content is very seriously cu lly cur ra. teachers will trust it as a place that has the best content, their interest at heart. >> and, maura is not wrong. so many of us learn math by memori memorizing -- by memorizing equations and trying to apply them as if our brain was a mem
ryization vak. when you have a tool like this, it helps you figure out how to teach math by thinking it through, which is what we do right now. it's hugely important. many of us are not -- are, are, risk adverse and don't want to show what we don't know. so, having this tool with other mentors is really important. so, i just want to end, i think we really want to end, you are the first people, other than an article in the new york times, that are getting an introduction to watson. it is a process we are very excited about it. the reason we are excited is because people across the country right now, as you are all sitting here are in their classrooms, trying to figure out how they reach kids and meet the needs of children. what we are very appreciative in terms of ibm and the ibm foundation. they are not telling us what to
do, they are support whag we do and the latitude we need to teach. thank you very, very much for this process and for what you have done in terms of watson. >> thank you for your partnership, randi. >> thank you. thank you, everybody. [ applause ] next up, secretary of health and human services, sylvia burwell and jonathan karl. [ applause ] >> so, secretary burwell, let's start with the big news, you got $1.1 billion in zika funding. congress finally got around to passing funding. [ applause ] >> very excited. >> so, i guess the first question is, is it enough? i mean you guys said for a long time, $1.9 billion was essential to deal with this. is it enough? >> you know, we are happy to
have the money we have. the additional money we asked for it because it was important. it would go toward replacing the money we had from ebola, which is still something we have to watch in west africa. right now, what we are excited to do is take this money and continue moving forward on making sure that here in the united states we are as prepared as we can be, helping places like florida with the transmission. a mosquitoe is actually biting people. people have contracted the virus. we are working on a vaccine, which we think is the most promising solution. we are making progress. we have one vaccine in phasing trials. we worked with partners with another vaccine. it will take several to get it. we are working on diagnostics. this money will help with research. there are a lot of unanswered questions with zika.
as a pregnant woman, if you get it in the third trimester, does it still cause the damage? we do not know if there's other damage such as hearing, sight or developmental issue that is may occur for children who don't present it. >> how far away are we in the best and worst case scenario from getting a zika vaccine? >> in terms of the best case scenario, probably 18 months. that is, if all goes well. >> i have seen recent reports that are really frightening about a transmission. the virus is evolving and it may be much more easily transmitted. the question in terms of the transmission, most people don't realize, in the united states, including our territories, puerto rico, mainly, 23,000 cases of zika. >> already. >> already. here in the 50 states, there are over 3,000 cases.
the other thing people don't realize is we have had 21 births in the 50 states and territory that is are children that are born with zika. the negative outcome we are fearful about, we are already seeing. >> how dire can it get? >> i think the question of transmission is transmitted two ways, through mosquitos. those are two different mosquitos that exist mainly in southern states, but there are some here in washington in terms of the mosquitos. it's also sexually transmitted, which people forget. the issue, what this is most dangerous for is pregnant women. 80% of the people aren't symptomatic, which is a problem. you could visit one of the 55 countries with outbreaks. you come back and don't know you have it and then the question of either you getting bitten by a
mosquitoe or sexually transmitting it. people that travel to these areas need to be careful for a period when they come back. >> most people watching congress go back and forth on this for months and months and months were horrified. you have this crisis, frightening and congress unable to get resources to deal with it. did that delay, cause harm? did it set you back? >> a number of things it did. we had to make decision that is were not what i would like to make as far as decisions. the first was to take money from ebola. most people don't realize, within the last two months, we had to send a team from our center for disease control and prevention back to west africa to make sure we weren't going to have additional outbreaks. taking care of ebola is quite important. the second thing we had to do and i had to do it in august because we expected it would be passed before and it wasn't. i had to take money from the
rest of the department like cancer research to keep the efforts going. at this point, there is local transmission in florida. we need to provide the help. we have teams in florida that are teams helping florida determine the cases, the number of cases, assist florida in fighting the mosquitoe. they are things we couldn't stop. >> did the administration of the white house make a mistake not accepting what the senate passed? >> with regard to emergencies and that question, that was not a zika supplemental. it had additional pieces and parts that were harmful to the issues especially in this case. because it's sexually transmitted and this is about pregnancy and women, contraception is important. that was a lot of that conversation. we are pleased we are where we are now. we have been working to be ready to spend this money effectively
and efficiently. stk affordable care act. this is your crunch time. open enrollment getting ready to start. what is your goal? what are we at right now? how many are in the exchanges and how many do you expect? >> when talking about the goal of the affordable care act, the marketplace is a very important part of it. the overarching goal is the one we focus on. that's creating access and affordability. the 20 million uninsured, that's the number we set in our mind. the marketplace is a contributor to that. >> the biggest part is the medicaid expansion. what do you expect? >> we are going all out this year in open enrollment. for this week, we had a millennial summit to focus on the young people to know affordable care and coverage is available. that's an important group to reach. we are working with partners, new partners and more digital partners than we have ever
worked with before. partners like lyft, the new economies to make sure we are reaching people where they are. we are focused on many of the people we want to reach use mobile. none of that, you know, enlarging the font or things like that. so, working to create a product that people are going to want and make it easy for them to be able to access it. >> you had money. it's been a tough year in terms o of the exchange. aetna pulled out, united health care was in 34 states now in three of the states. humana is reducing what is it? 30% of counties in this country? people are going to the exchange facing a single plan to choose from. >> you know, i think, again, this comes to what is the goal of health care in our nation. when we think about health care in our nation, 150 million people and most of the people in this audience have employer based care.
that's where the vast majority. another chunk are medicare and medicaid. in the marketplace, we have the 11.1 million. that overall picture, we learned two weeks ago, in that market, premiums and growth in that market, we have seen five of the last six years, the slowest growth in premiums in the employer based markets. we are focused on the overall health care. with regard to the marketplace, specifically, most places have more competition. there is reduced competition this year. we want to encourage more and more competition. we are working hard to make sure we are attracting the people, we are working hard to respond to the insurance companies concerns about the marketplace and going in together with them to reach more peechl. i think the other thing is, a number of players have actually expanded in the marketplace. in arizona last week, there were questions about a county. the company that went in, in their press release said we look
forward to how it will add to our profitability. a new market. different players are haven't different success z. we want to make sure as many as possible can do that and they are learning and it is a transition year. >> i covered the passage of the affordable care act. there's a lot more than just the marketplaces. one of the big goals here was to slow the growth of health care costs. in the marketplaces, anyway, it looks like -- i mean it seems like a failure. premium increases estimated at 11%. that's if you are willing to shop and switch your plan. kind of a best case scenario. >> i think, again, thinking about the overall, for the 150 million people, we had slower growth. we don't want growth at all. we need to work to continue the pressure. for the 150 million, slower growth. in medicare, medicare spending
has been $473 billion with a "b w"b" lower. in the marketplace itself, if they priced where cbo suggested and did estimates estimates on, was 15% higher. so in the marketplace initially, insurers basically underpriced for the market that they were trying to sefb. and that's not a criticism. they didn't have data. they didn't have information. but if you follow the line of where cbo, basic gross from the cbo premium to where we are now, you're about at the same point. so we probably wouldn't have this conversation if it started higher at the beginning. >> so are you concerned about the possibility of the so-called death spiral. cbo's estimates had a much higher target in terms of people in the marketplace. a higher target for the percentage that would be younger, younger people. >> so with regard to that, one of the things and this is one of the things about the affordable care act, cbo's estimates were
based on the fact that you would see a large group of employer-based people come together marketplace -- >> and cutting insurance -- >> that we haven't seen. there are a number of things we haven't seen, i think you know. first thing was unemployment. >> a haven't seen a lot of death panels for instance. >> no. we didn't see a lot of death panels. didn't see our unemployment rate go up, we saw it go down. that the first thing. and didn't see what employers said would be dumped into the market place. that didn't happen. third thing that everyone said we were going to see is everybody was going to increase part-time employees dramatically. in order to avoid -- to get below the numbers. and those were all things that we haven't. but i will say, confident in the marketplace but know that we have many things to do to make it better and make it stronger. and so what we want is a year
next year where there is more competition coming in. i think it's a transition year for pricing based on what happened before. we know we have work to do but the basic of your question, are we confident? >> yes. >> okay, the next question, we have an election going on. you've been busy. now what about the affordable care act with a donald trump presidency and republican congress? i see you are working on trump proofing the affordable care act. is this true? doing things to make sure it can survive? >> one of the constraints i face is called the hack act and that is talking about candidates in my official role want do, won't do. >> does it violate you having that restraint? >> let me answer the question in a form that i can, which is about the future of the
affordable care act in any scenario. i think you're asking can there be repeal, can we go back? the fundamental of this is, this isn't the fabric of our nation. what do i mean by that? if we asked everybody and if we just did it by phone and asked everybody, do you want preexisting conditions to be able to keep you out of your health care, whether your family member, do you know someone who had cancer, asthma, anything. and do you want to go back it a world where that can keep you snout i don't think people do. for the 20 million people now insured, i don't think we're going back in terms of having those people once again uninsured. for the seniors who were suffering from something called the doughnut hole, what had to do with their drug payments, there were 11 million of them that receive saved $23 billion. i don't think people want to go back it a world where you could have the annual limb knits your health care. i met a woman who delayed
chemotherapy before her affordable care act because she hit her annual limit. there are so many pieces and parts that i think many people don't realize is a benefit. so it is in the fabric at this point. >> but walking you through that, as you have also probably noticed, congress voted a time or two to repeal the affordable care act. >> i think over 40. >> so if you have a republican congress again and republican president who campaigned on repealing the affordable care act, willing to sign, if they sign it for the 40 of what number time, how do you prevent that? you think it's not possible? >> if something is not a reality and let's look at something that i'm not excited to reflect on but king versus burrwell. there was a court case we felt confident about, but it was a court case. what happened that point in time
when people, think oh, my and the damage it could cause. >> with the justices -- >> but the votes, i think everyone knows in the house, which is where these votes have occurred, that president will veto it. when you're faced with the reality, every district in the country has lowered their rate of uninsured. >> you think republicans would brink, if there were a republican president, willing to sign repeal, republicans would not go forward and fully repeal it again. >> i'm not getting into politics, but what i will get into is what you're saying, the point of the view of the american people and can you translate that and you're much more experienced than i am and transferring that to politics but i will say that i believe the american people will demand that the benefits and the changes in the advancements, we didn't even mention preventative care. so when i take our 6-year-old and 8-year-old in for annual visits, there's no additional payment.
this is because we want a system that encourages preventative care. going back for those things, i think the nation will dehend that's not the place we will be. >> let me ask you, another story that dominated in recent months is this whole surrounding the epipen. going from there are 100 to over $600. they are decreasing discounts et cetera. watching from afar, can you see this product company gaining a monopoly and then profiting off, you know, kids who have, you know, could be depending on this to save their lives. >> so access to drugs and affordable access to drugs, and when we think is priority when we have access in quality. we need to take steps in nation to make sure we do that. one of the tools i think would be most important that we have
asked for and it does require legislation, is the ability for hhs to actually negotiate. to negotiate on high cost and specialty, not all drugs, but just to negotiate in that space so we can use tools. we use the tools we have. right now, last year, fda approved more ne generic drugs than it had in the history of fda. they help understand how to work through the generic product. can you get faster approval. one of the most important tools we could gain is an ability to negotiate because that we don't have right now. >> could that have helped in this case? >> certainly these drugs are paid for by medicaid or medicare in certain cases. and so that's where we would have ability. >> we only have a couple minutes left. i want to give you a chaps, you've got this incredible job, one of the most complicated jobs in the federal government.
and i imagine you spent a fair amount of your time thinking about the future of health care. and there is so much exciting happening outside after law and all that in terms of a treatment and in terms of technology. what has you the most excited about what is going on. >> what has me most excited is we are really on a path about putting the consumer at the center of their care. that's both in prevention and treatment and hugh we provide that. that's everything from how the system works so your physicians are coordinating their care with your physical therapist, with others as we think about that care. to the use of prevention to changing how we pay. so we don't pay for a fee for a service. your doctor zpt pay for a test. your doctor paid for your wellness, your outcome. to the precision medicine -- >> how does that work? outcomes based on -- you pay more on your health -- >> so how it works, instead of
being paid, i will give you the specific example and now we put out mandatory bundles, are what they're called. think about your hip and knee replacement. your mom goes in for her hip and knee replacement. today the way it works is the person who goes to her house and says take down your dishes, take up this rug, paid for her services. anesthesia is paid for his. anesthesiologi anesthesiologist. surgeon. physical therapist. what we are doing is in order to get them to work together in a single outcome, we medicare will paid pay for the episode. from the point that person visits to her days of physical therapy. and what it means is you pay for the outcome. so you and the team of providers you work with will be paid for a quality outcome. in the united states the variation in cost in hip and knee replacements and quality outcomes is great. so this is how we get to a place where we pay for those
outcomeses that quality. >> unfortunately we are out of time. but thank you he vch be secretary burwell. >> go to c-span.org tuesday evening for the presidential debate on your phone or tablet. watch live streams defendant bait and video on demand every question and answer. use our tool to create video clips of your favorite debate moments to share on social media. not able to watch? listen to the debate live on the c-span radio app. it's free to download from the app store. or google play. live coverage of the vice presidential debate tuesday evening on c-span.org and the c-span radio app. >> as the nation elects a new president in november will america have its first foreign-born first lady since louisa adams or will we have a former president as first gentleman?
learn more about the influence of the america's presidential spouses from c-span's first ladies. now available in paper back. first ladies have a look into the personal lives and impact of every first lady in american history. first ladies is a companion to c-span's biography series and shares interviews with first lady historians. each chapter offers brief biographies of 45 presidential spouses and archival photo tres their lives. first ladies in paper back. published by public affairs. now available at your favorite book seller and also as an ebook. here on c-span 3 tonight, we'll here from agriculture secretary tom vilsack. then a look of what to expect from the supreme court as it begins a new term. and later, admiral john richardson talks about navel operation answers maritime security.
next, agriculture secretary tom vilsack talks about the biobased industry and its impact on the economy and talks about how the industry creating jobs for rural america. from the national press club, this is an hour. [ applause ] tom vilsack, a pittsburgh native and former governor of iowa is the only original member of president barack obama's cabinet still serving in the administration and he hasn't been quiet about food or politics. vilsack recently ran for the white house in the 2008 presidential race and was considered by hillary clinton as a potential running mate during election cycle. he endorsed clinton in 2008 and 2016. campaigning for her in the crucial state of iowa. earlier this year, appearing on nbc's "meet the press,"
comparing donald trump to bern made off. at the usda, secretary vilsack has a vast portfolio from food safety and secure it to healthy school meal coordination to coordinate the white house efforts to fight heroin use in rural communities. his efforts are generated in part from his own childhood. adopted as an orphan he spoke with his mother's struggle of alcoholism and how it motivated his concern for the less fortune, especially those in rural areas. also efforts to open cuba to exports and thinks biofuels can benefit small towns across the nation. i skipped a line there. act of support of the controversial 12 nation trade that both donald trump and hillary clinton oppose. he says without this deal the u.s. farmers are competitive disadvantage against china. please give a warm national
welcome to secretary vilsack. [ applause ] >> thomas, thank you very much. thank you. thomas, thanks very much. i appreciate the opportunity to return to the press club. it's always an opportunity and privilege to be here representing the department of agriculture and obama administration. i do want to make sure that i am clear about it because my colleague, shawn donovan, wants to remind me that he too is still part of the obama administration. he started with hud and now is b director. i wanted to specifically mention three people at the head table. certainly everyone at the head table is significant but i want to point out, good to see my good friends, krista harden, doing a great job at dupont and incredibly great job at department of agriculture in a variety of capacities. my chief of staff, the deputy,
did a fabulous job and good to see her. very good friend. close friend other johnson who represent a lot of the farmers that we're going to talk about today. people that can benefit from a bioeconomy. roger and the national farmers union have been incredible and people who can afford to expand the bioeconomy. and a tremendous partner with the in ethanol and biofuels is a strong advocate in url community. i'm here today to talk about the biobased economy and specifically the economic impact analysis that we are publishinging today of the u.s. biobased product industry. this is the suh second such study we have with the duke center for sustainability and the commerce and supply clan
chain. this industry add $369 billion impact on our ekpon my, helping to support nearly 4 million jobs throughout the united states. this is an industry about fuel production, but much more than that. it's about chemicals, plastics, cleaning textiles, lubricants, insulation materials and packing materials. virtually touches every aspect of our economy. this year's report suggest this a continues growed growing and growth industry. this report reflect $24 billion increase in the impact that biobased economy is having over the. it is supporting over 2,000 more jobs than last year at 4.2 million. this is an industry that helped move the unemployment rate in
rural america down from the high of over 10% to less than 6% for the first time in approximately ten years. also the industry helping to reverse the job loss that we saw in rural america during the great recession and we're now for the first time in a while beginning to see job growth. it's also one of the reasons we are beginning to see a stability to the rural population. no longer declining. and poverty rate reduction. a significant aspect of the rule economy and one that i think has tremendous opportunities to continue to grow. it's also an industry better for the environment. it's interesting to me that in the ten years of the renewable fuel standard, we have seen a remarkable reduction of admissions equivalent to taking 1 it 4 million off the road. if you're interested in rural development, interested in a strong american economy, you're interested in greater energy
independence. interested in a cleaner environment then you need to be interested in the biowaysed economy. it is one of four what we call pillars at usda, to revise and revap the economy. opportunity to expand local and regional food systems, conservation, not just for the sake of conservation but also as an investment opportunity for regulated industries to satisfy regulatory responsibilities through market and manufacturing returning to america through the biobased economy. as part of the white house rural council, department of energy and department of the navy, came together with the department of agriculture to address the need for our navy to expand and diversify its energy sources. in the past, when the pacific fleet was doing exercises in the pacific theater they would rely on energy supply answers fuel
supplies that came from the middle east. today we are beginning to expand an opportunity for domestically produced biofuels. to fuel our jets, planes, ships. to be able to allow for greater independent. greater flexibility. protecting the brave men and women who sefbness uniform. this is a result of tremendous cooperation between the navy to create a drop in aviation fuel industry. one that did not exist a few years ago. we recently invest fled a bioprocessing facility taking landfill waste, agriculture waste and turning it into a fuel that's not only of interest to navy but also commercial aviation interest. we will have the equivalent of 12,500 flights from lax this year. basically out lieding a plited fuel and alaska airlines says
they were fuelly committed to using biofuels. >> this is an opportunity for us to create a new ipd us try for the united states. this administration has taken a very comprehensive approach. all too often the conversation in this town has been about the rfs. as important as that is, there are other component to support. for example, we have really focused at usda on feed stock development. on moving away from eye alliance on just corn-based food and open up a wide variety opportunity. we have worked for example with nearly a thousand growers across the country. under our bioassistance program. to essentially pay those farmers to produce alternative energy crops on roughly 48 thousand acres. we have made sure that they understand we are puttinging the full force of by focussing on risk management tool that allow
them to have the same crop investment that majority crops have. we have invested over $300 million in research in feed stock and looking at genome research, how to be more creative, and more innovative. one of the reasons we've seen production fa facilities be more ready than in the past. we will give folks the ability to determine in their particular region what kind of food stocks meet the most sense. we have also worked with over 400 companies investing nearly $300 million in 47 states to encourage an expansion of this industry to include energy and fuel production as well as chemicals and textiles add i said earlier. we've been able to have these 400 companies produce a little
over 8.6 billion gallons of fuel. there is about 63 billion killa watts of power. this is incredibly exciting part of our economy. part of the clean energy economy we are now growing and developing in this country. we are also looking at major projects. large scale projects. we have financed six major processing facilities since i've been secretary, about $844 million in loan guarantees establish ped. we have also looked a the opportunities in our forest. biomass for the creation of these fuels and products and hope fund projects in the western part of the united states. we're looking for expanded markets in addition to creating more creative and innovative feed stocks. looking at ways in which we can process hem more efficiently and effectively. we are also looking at where we
can sell these product. we've had the best year of agricultural in buy why fuels anywhere in the country. in 2011 we reached number one year. so we have seen an expansion of exports. we have worked with the commercial aviation industry with the goal of producing 1 billion commercial aeration fools in the very near future. invested almost $1.5 billion in 12,000 businesses across the united states producing these new products from bio-based plant-based materials. we have worked with our commercial aviation industry and even looked at purchasing power of the federal government. ability of our purchasing power as federal agency, we've identified 15,000 products that are in a catalog that agencies can purchase that are biobase. we have seen a tremendous replacement as a result of these
purchases of nearly 6.8 million barrels of oil that would have gone into product we have traditionally purchased. and we want the american consumer to be engaged in this activity as well. we have developed a biobased labelling program. it started out small. just a couple hundred items labelled. now consumers have access to roughly 2700 product they can purchase off the shelf. they see a usda biobased label, it tells them that this is something that is supporting rural america. it is important for us to put in in the context of why all there is important. in addition to the clean energy aspect of this, this is about taking the natural resource advantage that we have in rural america and expanding its capacity. we relied simile op production agriculture and experts to
support the rural economy. it is incredibly more efficient and in my lifetime we have seen 170% increase in agricultural production. on 26% less land and 22 million fewer farmers. the challenge was that our country didn't ask the question as we were becoming more efishent in production agriculture. what are we doing with the 22 million families no longer farming? how can we create opportunities for them if they so desire to stay in their small community in their rural area. how can we create job opportunity for their children and grandchildren in this administration is asking that question and has put together a comprehensive effort. based on the four pillars to create multiple opportunities, seizing and utilizing our natural resource advantage. biobased manufacturing industry is one that holds out tremendous hope for rural america because of the nature of the bioprocessing that needs to take place. the quantity of biomass that we produce in this country is almost unlimited.
and there is a tremendous opportunity here because it's not as if you have one refinery like you do with the oil industry that servicees a multitude of state. the size and bulk of biomass requires that you have processing facilities every 75, 100, 150 miles. so it's an opportunity in virtually multiple locations and every state that has rural counties for us to bring manufacturing back. ability to construct, maintain, and operate these processing facilities can add 20, 50, 100 jobs to a small down. it can have a rippling effect through the economy. that's why it was important for this administration to take a holistic approach. looking not just at promote willing ethanol as important as that is, but expanding horizons. expanding the vision. understanding that we need to do more research and feed stock. understanding that we needed to help small companies that were in these rural areas helping to
produce more of these buy products and co-products. we could in fact meet the need of the defense department for one-half of all of its fuel needs in the navy being met from biofuel. that's tremendous new market opportunity. listening to commercial aviation and satisfying international air mission requirements. opportunity for us to help develop research at a variety of universities looking at natural resource advantage of each area of the united states. and allowing us to do an even better job of dealing with the changing climate that takes place and is changing the way in which agriculture is being approached and in terms of the changing climate and the ability to make sure we are constantly one step ahead of mother nature if you will as we create new opportunities expand on existing opportunities in rural america. in every speech i give, i often point out the importance of rural america.
and i'll finish with this before questions. rural america is the place where most of what we just consumed that wonderful meal came from. by a lot of hardworking farm families. rural america is where most of the water we have at our table today was ineffective. the lights that's on here and electricity transmitting this speech throughout the country. rural america is the place that is disproportionately send sons and daughters into the military. roughly 15% of america's population lives in rural america but nearly 35 to 40% of its military comes from rural america. rural america is also the place that has provided every person in this room and ef person listening to this who is not a farmer to make the decision in their life not to be a farmer. you see we have either consciously or unconsciously delegated the responsibility of
feeding ourselves and our families to countless number of people across the united states. who work hard every single day. to put food on our table. we are capable of producing enough to feed ourselves. we don't have to depend on any other nation in the world to feed our people. hardly anybody in the world can say that. rs and when we walk out of a grocery store, all of us have a little more money in our pocket in percentage to our income compared to every other place in the world because we only spend about 10% of our income on groceries and food. it is a tremendous gift we get every single day from this place called rural america. so it is incumbent on us to make sure that we preserve opportunities and choice for young people who grow up in these small towns and on those farms to live there if they choose. or for those who have left to come back just earlier today i had the opportunity to visit with six veterans of armed
forces representing every branch of the armed forces. they have just begun working for the united states department of agriculture. 1 of 11,000 veterans we've hired since i became secretary. they came us to because they wanted to get close to their roots. they wanted to take advantage to what they have in the military and give something back. it's an exciting new opportunity for the six individuals. and we are opening up that opportunity by creating a more diverse rural economy so that we continue to have young people live, work and raise their families in those rural community so it can continue it contribute to the greatest and strongest nation on earth. that's why we celebrate this report today. because it is an indication that it is a rural economy. there is a plan, strategy, investment and opportunity. i'm excited about that and this report to the extent we've seen significant growth in just one year should hold out hope for
all those concerns about the future of rural america. it's back. and despite the fact we're dealing with low commodity prices, i think the long-term future, long-term prospects and horizons for rural america are very, very positive. i want to thank the press club for giving me this opportunity and i want to take the opportunity to answer any questions that you can read. [ applause ] >> thank you, mr. secretary. let me follow up on the topic of your speech real fast. what kind of job training and education will be needed to kind of transition and improve and boost the biofuel production and what is usda doing to help with that? >> well, i think one of the things that we continue to do is to innovate and create new way to produce biofuels and make them more efish lint produced. there is a fre mendous amount of entrepreneurship in this industry. and the main source of training
is in our community college system. the ability of community college is to look at these new bioprocessing facilities located in their community and asking those who will be owning and operating these facilities what kind of workers do you need. i think it also will put a tremendous premium on those who can construct, those who can weld, those who can put structures together. i was in a small welding facility in lee county iowa not long ago, seeing an expanding small business that interestingly enough just opened up its new solar energy system that is eventually going to reduce its overall operating cost. and very proud they were that innovative. their work force, if you will, connected to the biobased economy. tied very critically to the community college system. we help community colleges. we help universities through a variety of ways.
loan programs and grant programs that help equip those schools and most of our research is funneld through our grant university system. so in way we are helping create the innovative approaches that will help require a new work force. once we send that signal to the marketplace then the marketplace send to community colleges. this is what we need. more welders. more foks who know how to operate these facilities. how to prepare the facility. there are, you know, a tremendous amount of technology and computer technology that's ignored. also it is important. that's why it is important -- we have done that and several projects but we need to make a commitment, i believe, that everyone has access to high speed broadband. >> you fit a lot into that answer. how expense sieve buy why fuel production compared to
traditional fuels. >> i will tell you this. that american consumers are benefitted from biofuels. there are a variety of studies depending on the price of actual at the point in time. but the lowest savings is about 25 cents a gallon on the gallon that you're purchasing at the pump and when gas prices are high it can be as much as a dollar a gallon. it reducing reliance on foreign oil. it has become far more efficient. i think part of the clael is that many of those who have concerns about it are basing those concerns on research that was done or on studies concluded decades ago. this is a much more efficient innovative industry than it has been. there's constant, constant efforts to improve the efficiency. one of the great things about the industry is not just the
fuel it produced but also the buy products. often times you will see one of these facilities providing co2 to a brewery, to a micro brewery. so there are tremendous synergies that occur within an industry like this in a bioprocessing facility. as we learn more about how to convert buy why pass into everything. plastics. everything in the economy can be plant-based and balance our reliance on fossil fuels. so it's very competitive with regularly produced gas and it results in a significant savings to the consuming public at the pump. >> this question notes the agriculture is extremely thankful with the usda economy but is usda disappointed that the be a you'll crops aren't low carbon and should be regulated as fossil fuels? >> i think part of the challenge
of an emerging industry that has a decade or two of history as opposed to one that has a longer history is we have to constantly reeducate and educate folks about advancements made. we're doing that. we're looking forward in the next month or two to putting out a study of land use in terms of biofuel production. i think it's going to surprise people in terms of the efficiencies that have occurred in this ind truss try. and i think it is part of our effort to do our job to make sure that decision makers both at federal and state level are aware of the most up-to-date research. most up-to-date information bp we did a literature search recently that compiled all of the new research that gives a much better picture, that establishes there is more energy produced for example with a gallon of ethanol than in the
past. from our perspective it is more energy efficient, if you will, than a barrel of oil. >> the airline ind us stray large user of fuel. can biofuel be use foed are commercial aircraft? if not, is there ways to adjust that so they can be used. >> not only can they, they are. that's why i mentioned the fact of the equivalent of 12,500 flight from lax are being fueled on blended by alaska airlines making the commitment. here eat challenge, this industry was going to allow your car or truck to use biofuel. we are now in the process of trying to encourage the industry at large to expand access to higher blend of ethanol. the challenge is to make sure that we distribute supply and we
have the distribution systems that will allow a consumer conveniently and easily get that higher bland. that's why we put $100 million behind in an effort to understand blending pumps. including in in texas. which has matched our $112 million in commitments to roughly command new distribution systems. you are dealing with a hundred thousand pumps and tens of thousands of gas stations. beauty of commercial aviation is 40 airports so 90% of the jet fuel. so that's why i think the long-term opportunities for this industry will be complimenting what we are doing for cars and trucks and expand on higher blend and appreciate the amazing opportunity we have on the commercial aviation side and on the defense department side. combination of those two things
i think suggest that this future is quite bright for this industry. >> since we're talking about this mr. secretary, i'm wondering if you personally or did you use in any form a vehicle that usees a higher blend of biofuel. >> the car that the federal government provides to me is a flexible car and consumes a lot of ethanol. my personal cars, one is nine years old and one is ten years old. one is a hybrid. other is a flexible fuel vehicle. we consume ethanol in both of our personal vehicles. >> do you want it name them just to give them a little product placement? we are all going to wonder -- >> a mercury mariner to longer in production and ford fusion i think is the car my wife drives. >> this question comes from the national farmer's un dwlon i believe. they say they appreciate the world you've done. i'm wondering what they can do to hech the next administration,
whoever is leading it, maximize the farmer's contribution to resilience. >> farmers stepped up in a very specific way before the president went to paris to negotiate the paris climate agreement. the ability of american agriculture to step forward and say, we think we can double the rate of emission productions which will allow the president more latitude in making a commitment of 26 to 28% reduction based on 2005 baseline. we have identified ten building blocks. everything from better soil health, better irrigation sift eps, rotational grazing with live stock, opportunities to use wood products more efficiently. newable energy to be expanded. 10 building blocks where we have emission each year that american agriculture can meet. these are baked into the american commitment of pair as and are going to contribute as
icy, up to it% of the over all production amount, 2% of the 26%. so it's a really significant commitment we made that empowered the president to go to the chinas and indias and say hey we're serious about it and you need to be serious amazing, the national geographic shows impakt on climate and green house and why it is important for chinas and indias to get in on the way. we are doing our part but we need cooperation. the fact that our september it is commitment that this country made. we have research efforts to be more adapting and more mitigating consequences of climate. they are on the front lines here. they see every single year the difference that climate and weather variability make in
their production processes. they know they have to deal with troud, the and because after warming circumstances. so they deal with this on day-to-day basis. imcon if i department that they will not just ask but demand that future administrations be very serious in helping them providing them the resources to do the building blocks so at end of the day we can make our contribution. it is a positive story for american agriculture. >> thank you. switching gears a little bit, some call you the secretary of fly-over country. how have you helped rural america fight poverty, drug abuse and crime. >> well they are two different questions. let me ask the economy question by somewhat reviewing what i just said. there are four strategies to rebuilding the rural economy. that's -- there's a natural resource base in the rural ekeehn my. that's what we have pch.
in the past we've been an extraction economy. extracted our natural resources. what what this administration is doing is creating a sustainability model. one that can be replicated. one that doesn't detract but renews. exports obviously we produce more than we need this in this country bp we have an opportunity to skpapd job growth and create a supply chain that meets the exports needs of the country. we've had eight best years offing aof agricultural export. it helps us keep jobs in big towns and small sissy. but it just do that. we have invested nearly 40 thousand separate inof thements and creating supply chain allowing small and midsize producer the ability to market
directly to consumer so they can dictate their own price. not dependent on the chicago board of trade or commodity price. they can dictate what we see pl it went from $5 billion about the time i started as secretary to now $12 billion ipd us try and is expected to go to to go to $200 million. conversation, we have a number of ache earns rolling conversation today. we need to basically help them finance these conservation practices. and one way to do that is to say by regulated industries we are corporations with a responsibility focused on conversation. coca-cola just announced they upped their commitment to reclaim the water they use in their coca-cola product. they'll work with usda putting
millions of dollars behind us. those millions of dollars go to farmers and ranchers and producers to expand on conservation opportunities. that's creating an ecosystem. water markets. habitat market. sole health. these are all opportunity then the buy why based economy. when you talk about 4.2 million. many of them mark those jobs in rural small town areas and we will just continue to see if growth in that type of opportunity if you stay with it. i'm confident, given the fact we are seeing results, given the fact poverty is coming down, we are better off since 2007. given the fact that this industry is creating new jobs, phenomenal. based on the study -- and to
continue investing in this new opportunity. >> you've been the man for opioids not going any further. what can we do with those addicted with them. >> is it starts with creating an economy so that young people can see that their tomorrow is bet are than today. if you think your tomorrow will be any better idea. you might be tempted to look for an escape. but number, on the open yad issue, and by starting with health care officials in rural areas are aware of the cdc kbied lines, and use opioids sparingly. the nature of work and life in rural areas often times leads one to have back problems for shoulder problems because it is physical in nature.
it is important for us to expand physical therapy and alternatives to opioids. it is incredibly important that we provide the resource to first responders, to police, to emts. to be able to have access to reversal drugs to that if there is a tragic overdose circumstance, that a life can be saved. recently i talked to a company that recently received permission from the fda to use nasal spray, a very simple one-dose things. it is an incredible relatively inexpensive. they have been willing to provide every school in the country free one of these, a dose or two of this narcan so they have it on-site. we need to take advantage of that kind of thing. third thing we need to do is expand access to treatment.
the mention was made at my mom's circumstance. my mom was a tremendous hero m in my life. she decided after several suicide attempts, after splitting up our family, afteri my life. she decided after several suicide attempts, after splitting up our family, after having some very vie leapt activity, she decided to turn her life around. but that not enough.leapt activity, she decided to turn her life around. but that not enough. this is a disease, an character flaw. not like if you toughen up and you exercise free will, you have to have help. just like if you're a cancer patient, diabetes, you have to have help. the help isn't available in those areas. over 1,000 service areas that provide that kind of help, only 25 are in rural areas. that's why the president is increase the budget to expand treatment in thousands of different locations. thousands.
and once have you the treatment, then you have to make sure that you have the transition that allows people to gradually sort ofry incorporate themselves into society. so if young people are having a difficult time with addiction you doipt put them right back immediately into the school where the temptation is great. you create opportunities for them to get themselves strengthened. if you have someone going through drug court basically don't put them back into the neighborhood where they came from. give them transitional housing. you give them education and training so they are stronger. and finally you have a criminal justice system that doesn't punish this, that understands this is a heal issue. this is a disease issue and we need to understand that and we can't cram nalize it. we can't jail our way out of this process bp we have to
create more support for mental health in this country. and then last but certainly not least. every certain personis in this, understanding this is a disease. an character flaw. it is no different than any of the other diseases. if i told that you one of my children had cancer, your immediate reaction would be oh, that's so terrible. what can't we do to help? why weren't we saying that same thing it parent who is has a child who is dealing with addiction. . >> we create ability to work with people what step forward. you know, rural folks, they are independent. it is hard for them to say to a loved one or myself has a problem. we need to create more com forward to come up from. they need to exercise which is
why we are trying to martial the faith-based community to have those conversation answers create meeting places for aa. i know that was incredible important for my mom. she today have somebody she could call everyday if she was tempted. she she'ded an e-mail seven-dayes a week if she doesn't have want to. you at least ought to have one or two sponsors can you call. so it is important i think from a rural perspective that we expand. to treatment and recover support services. >> sir, washington post recently reported you went to president barack obama and offed to resign because you felt like you had done what you could possibly do. but he asked to you head up this op open yad crisis and fixing it. >> i think is before crystal left. i had such good people working at usda that all of the problem challenges, all of the issues
that we have and we have numerous of them every single day, were being handled very well by our team. not as much was coming to my desk. i didn't have to make so many decisions because they were being made the right way and the can course staff was really made. there just went as much to do. and i had an opportunity with my grandson that made me stop and think about nings. ways home in iowa one day and early in the morning and i thut that was subcontractors working on the house. i open up the door and there is my of-year-old grandson, jake. they live kind of cater corner to where we are. i said, jake, what's up? he said, gran dad, i was just thinking about you and want to know if you want it come out and play. you know, it sounded really good. i said, buddy, unfortunately i
have work to do today bp but by the way, does your mom know you're here? no, i just took the pathway that dad made. we better go home and tell your mom where you are. >> we're walking back, he has his hand in my hand. we're walking back talking about things. he said you know gran dad, you're really old. but you know everything. and i had that experience that reality is that these jobs and you know, and i'm not saying this for me, i'm saying for everybody, who works it these jobs, it may seem glamorous and exciting and it may seem like it's just an incredible honor and all of that is true. but there is a sacrifice involved in it, especially if you're away from family. and you have to make sure that that sacrifice is balanced again your capacity and yir ability to make things happen and for you
to contribute to something positive. team was just incredible. incredible. the bright young people at usda, politicals, bright people. they are wonderful folks. doing a great job. they didn't really need me. that and that is what i was trying to convey, the present p. he said well in essence, there is stit work to be done. what about this and provided me with a list of options and the issue is one that is important to him. important to the country and one that had personal significance to me so it made sense to throw myself into that. we have cdc guidelines. warnings on. grants going out to expand treatment facilities. we've got the president's budget before congress and i hope that they see the wisdom of funding this as priority because there's a lot of conversation, a lot of
rhetoric in congress about this issue. as of today, not much in the way of resources. at the end of the day, to get results you have to get resources. hopefully when they finish their budget work there will be adequate resources to expand treatment options. i think if they do i'll be confident that the time i spent away from jake and ella and my grandson i saw this weekend, will be the perfect compromise. >> if hillary clinton wins will you serve as her chief of staff or any other place in the administration? >> i have to be careful answering this question. it's an official -- with all due respect, i don't think anyone should talk about what jobs are available and what happens after the election, i think everyone should focus on selecting their candidate of choice and at the end of the day people are proud of. we've got an amazing political system in this country.
and it's one that i think, i guess it's easy to be critical and easy to make fun of. but it's really hard running for office, let me tell you, it's run aing for hard. hard because your family has to watch those commercials that have nothing to do with what you actually are, but a perception created about you. hard it because it is physically exhausting. just on the way in here i was -- my scheduler chris, there he is. chris, good young man. i was giving him heck because i've had up with full day off in the last three weeks. that's me. and i'm not, you know, your remarks me being in the presidential campaign were about as long as the campaign itself. so the reality is, it's hard work. so you know, and then the question is, well you know, what
other system would you like to have? what other system would you like to be under? it's messy but it's the best that we've got. and it involved a government that far too frequently is criticized unfairly. 99% of what's happening today and every single department is positive. there are people working today to expand exports for farmers. there are people today making home loans to people in rural eara. that's government. there are farmers who are are struggling through tough economic times who were on a wait list because we dpt appropriate enough money for their credit needs. they get their loan today. that's government. there is something doing conversation work somewhere, preserving soil and water for
all of us, that government. there's someone inspecteding whatever it is we ate today. making sure when we consume it and our families consume it, it's safe. see reduction in food born illness this this administration. that government. there is somebody out there protect willing and tighting forest fires. putting themselves on the line in one of the most dangerous circumstances ever. that's government. protecting 70,000 community inner facing the urban wild land inner face. that's just one department. just think about all of the other things going on today. so with due respect to the question, public service is noble. and i will never apologize for it. and i will be proud of p. and anyone who has the opportunity to blessed. that sees up this question, sir.
>> do you see yourself getting involved in my politics in iowa. perhaps a seenate seat in 2018. >> well, you know, this is my theory, and it's only my theory. probably not accurate. but it is for me. i have been a mayor, state senator, governor, now a secretary of p here is what i know about myself. i'm an executive. i like it make decisions. i like to implement decisions. does that answer your question? >> you are saying there are -- >> there are people who are really good at legislating and compromising shape and bills and that kind of stuff. i just doesn't enjoy my six years as state senator as i did as eight years as governor and eight years --
>> do you use any private e-mail for government business? >> the reality is that a lot of folks who know you back home know your private gmail account or whatever account you have. >> which is? i'm joking. >> well, everybody's got it so they'll send you an e-mail. i got an e-mail the other day from a guy that's got water issues it's a construction site around they're pumping water into a wetland or something and he's saying, hey, what about this? that's government, right? you can't help that, but you transfer it to the usda account and then you delegate the responsibilities and because of the nature of people who have been in your life before you got this job, you're not naturally going to have e-mails like that.
>> can we switch subjects like that? global food security is increasing worry and going into the future will become more of a worry. what can americans do to help? >> the good news is when i started this job we had a billion people that were food insecure globally. today it's 875 million. that's 175 million fewer people that we're dealing with. the long-term is a challenge because we're going to have increase of food production. anywhere from 50 to 70% in the next 35 years to meet the growing world population but the first step and the one way the usda can provide help and assistance is to expand on the issue of food waste. a third of the food that we grow, raise and consume is wasted. it ends up in our land fills as solid waste. in our land fills food waste is the single most largest component of solid waste in land fills so first and foremost
america can stop wasting food. we can reduce portion sizes. we can have a more informed consuming public. usda is providing an app that allows you to go online and figure out if something has been in the refrigerator for a couple of days is it still okay to eat and that sort of thing and if we can't reduce it or refuse it we need to recycle it. we're working on that with the epa and 4,000 partners. we challenged all of us to cut in half food waste. secondly we can work as we do with our partner agency with what was referred to as food the future is successful. we can train farmers from around the world to utilize more productive agricultural practices. we can eliminate food loss, not waste but loss because the storage facilities are in need of significant enhancement. we can do research so that folks
can figure out how to grow more with less. whether it's drought resistant crops or things of that nature so they're engaged in that activity and making sure that we properly store and handle food in developing countries. the feed the future initiative has been incredibly successful in terms of the number of farmers that have been trained, millions, the number of children who have been fed. tens of millions and the number of opportunities to have a better understanding of what they need to do in order to meet their food needs and i think trade is also part of this and the reality is if you can move food one place to another through trade that's also going to make a big difference. >> can you discuss more the benefits of ttp and exports. >> 30% of american agricultural gross income is related directly to exports.
20% is directly related to exports. you'll have a difficult time in a foreign country. if we don't think it's today it will be significantly lower if not for the fact that we'll have the top ten trade exports even though it's down a little bit. certainly the 8 years have been over a trillion dollars in sales. so when you look at ttp, when you look at the asian pacific area what you see is a growing middle class consumer. you're talking about today 525 to 530 million middle class consumers projected to grow by 2.7 billion in the next 15 years. that's ten times the american population these are middle class consumers and these are people that want to buy and can afford to buy american products. that understand the american
brand of agricultural reflects great quality and safety and affordability in supply. why do we juan to cut ourselves off from that market? number one. number two, if we don't do this, we can't find the will to do these trade agreements, the rest of the world is not going to say oh, the united states is not going to do this so we'll just stop discussing trade and we'll all just sell to ourselves. that's not what is going to happen. what's going to happen is they'll go off and do bilateral trade agreements that don't include the united states we have one of the most open in the world today and we want the rest of the world to open up their markets. pretty tough to do without trade agreements we also want the world to do a better job on labor environment. well in order to do that you have to have provision and
agreements that are enforceable and in asia in particular the question is, if you had a choice between the united states leading that effort to a higher standards agreement and things of that nature or china, how do you feel more comfortable writing the rules of the future? us or china? because china is attempting to negotiate an all asia trade agreement that does not include the united states. so it's really important for the united states to be in the game here. i think there are direct benefits to american agriculture through trade and it's important for the united states to be engaged in that part of the world because that's where the action is and we need to be leading that effort. we can't be a follower on this
and frankly, the agricultural industry has done a tremendous swrob in advocating for trade. i think that the rank and file farmer out there understands and appreciates trade. now there may be a disagreement on specific trade agreements or specific aspects of a trade agreement but on the concept of trade american farmers almost universally say yes, this is a good idea. i don't think that the rest of american business and industry does as good a job as agricultural does promoting the benefits of trade which is why it's easier today for us to hear a lot of negative talk about trade. and the challenge, i'm sure that american business does a fantastic job. they haven't. it's easy to talk about a plan closing and that's a result of trade. and maybe has something to do with globalization on trade and it's easier to conceptionally
understand it. and another small business adds 10 jobs and it's not aggregated. it's not accumulated so therefore it doesn't carey wrat the headline. it doesn't create the news story. so the result is that american business has an even heavier responsibility to get out there and explain to the workers and the customers and to our supply chain, hey, we're all in this together and we rely for our economic future in part on trade. if they did a better job of doing that maybe these discussions about trade wouldn't be as difficult as they are today. >> thank you, sir. before i ask the final question the quick reminder it's the world's leading professional organization and more information about the club please visit our website at press.org. plus we'd like to remind you about a few upcoming programs.
on friday the director general of the world trade organization will speak here. on october 12 the secretary of the neighbor will address it. i think i'll need a step stool for that one. our traditional press club mug. >> thank you. >> you probably have a set of those now -- >> the last question. >> one for every member of the family. >> the last question as part of your tenure you had numerous appearances with children's characters such as elmo and alvin and the chipmunks. of the characters you have worked with, which one was your favorite. that's easy. it's one that the first lady is not going to be too happy about. cookie monster is my guy. >> thank you very much mr. secretary.
>> with hillary clinton in the white house, the rest of the world will never forget why they always looked up to the united states of america. >> cspan's campaign 2016 continues on the road to the white house with the vice presidential debate between republican fwov nor mike pence and democratic senator tim kaine tuesday night live from longwood university in farmville virginia. beginning at 7:30 p.m. eastern with a preview of the debate and then at 8:30 the predebate briefing for the audience and then live coverage for the debate the 2016 live presidential debate. watch live on cspan and live any time on demand on cspan.org and listen live on the free cspan radio a. >> our cspan campaign 2016 bus is traveling throughout new york this week asking voters what is the most important issue to you in this election and why?
>> i am a masters student at the university of albany from buffalo new york and i'm the president of the student assembly and trustee on the board. i'd like to see addressed in this campaign higher education. diversity of inclusion. mental health, student loan interest rates and campus safety are critical now more than ever. what are you going to do to ensure these issues are not only addressed but that the student voice is at the table? >> i'm a member of congress from the congressional district of new york and the most important issue in the election for me, the presidential election is the candidate's plans for economic growth and for america's place in the world. the united states is the most generous government in the history of the world and i think these are the kinds of issues that we need to discuss in a debate forum. >> i'm jonathan peters and i'm a student at the university of
albany. my biggest concern is who is going to take care of our foreign policies. i believe that both of our candidates have very opposing views on our ally with russia and china and issues going on in syria and i want to see a strong leader being able to take care of that effectively. >> voices from the road on cspan. >> joining us from capitol hill with the u. s. supreme court in the backdrop, lawrence hurly that covers the court for thompson reuters. good morning, thank you for plead guilty with with us. >> good morning. >> let me begin on a couple of points you have been making about the supreme court. you have to go back more than 100 years. 1864 when the court was last time not fully staffed. how does that impact the fall term. it was 1864 that we went into election day on the court so that does mean this is
unchattered waters for at least the current member of the court and never experience anything like this. going into the term it means that they have a sort of incentive not to take any issues in which they think they could split 44-4 because obviously they're just as short and they, you know, it's unclear yet when the next justice will be appointed. so it's a lot of uncertainty and more technical disputes on intellectual property. on the issue of ip cha cawhat c
chases will the court take up? >> the biggest case involves samsung and apple, they're fighting over a design patent for the iphone. that case will be argued next week. and the other ip cases are slightly less high profile. all of these high must be stakes is that one. one they took up last week is a trademark case. despite having a history of a rational slur. and trademarks and patented trademark and the historical connotations. and it's been a big story over the years here in washington defendant c.
what could the court decide what impact could it have on the nfl team? >> if they rule in favor of this rock band they would effectively strike down a law that prevents people from trademarking terms deemed to be disparaging. that would mean the redskins mean their case. >> and that's one that comes out with people posting videos of youtube and kids dancing to music and so on which i think a
lot of people have done and the issue is whether, when the record company told this woman to take down the video because she was using a prince song, whether they mislead her because they said she had to take it down when, in fact, you're allowed to use snippets of materials if it's not key to what the issue is. >> one of the issues the court decided not to take up resulting in a loss for ohio democrats. ohio is a key battleground state for democrats and republicans. hillary clinton is going to be there later today. what did the court decide not to do? >> well t courts actually had three emergency actions. one from michigan and one from north carolina and in all three the come mon theme has been caught wanting to stay out of
it. and split 4 to 4 and devicive issue like voting rights. they're keen to stay out of those. >> let me ask you about the nomination, i want to share with you what the washington post wrote about the president's choice of garland and the politics behind all of that. as another gop operative put it that was involved in the court fight, garland, quote, did nothing to inspire the left wing of the democratic party which was already vocal and restless while mitch mcconnell picked a fight and united his base. it's increasingly rare that the gop grass roots is united with party leaders but this did it. so talk about the garland nomination. why they chose him. and behind mitch mcconnell and what might happen after the election before the next
president is sworn in. >> it seemed like when judge fwar land was nominated maybe there was a sort of needle that the administration could thread that would have got him on the court it was a high stakes move where they thought if we picked someone uncontroversial and well respected moderate that that would put pressure on the republicans to let him through. senator mcconnell within hours of his death within february he said no way we're not going to appoint anyone this year and the next will get to choose and nothing the democrats have been able to do will dislodge that and most of the republicans stayed behind that message as well and it's just been hard going for them to kind of break through. and so, at this point it hasn't really worked in the short-term but, you know, in the long-term, still got the election to come obviously and the theory, you know, various people watching this say maybe if hillary
clinton wins the election and the democrats gain some seats in the senate then that might put pressure on the republicans to move in the lame duck session after the election before the next president takes office and that could be the next chance to get on. in that scenario. and hillary clinton is free when she takes office to pick whoever she wants. and can dems run out the clock. how if that were to happen, if the republicans say okay we're going to move on the garland nomination after the election before the next president is
sworn in what should senator mcconnell have to say to his republican colleagues. >> i think just speculating. and before republican members other than mcconnell himself but i'm not sure and republican senators and indicated at points that they would be willing to do something in the lame duck session after the election if hillary clinton wins because they all know who garland is. he is well-known. he's well respected and known as not plead guilty a particularly left wing judge. they might think that's a better option than having hillary clinton come in and potentially get to pick someone that's more liberal.
>> explain what this is all about? >> this is a case out of virginia and it's a national issue now and this case is to come up about a high school student that was born a girl but is now living as a boy and wants to use the boy's restroom and and the story i wrote was talking about the reasons they might want to skip it at this point partly because they have other cases that they can take up when they have another justice and also this case only effects this one student in virginia.
>> writing about the vacancy and what a hillary clinton presidency could mean. writing a win would set the stage for a liberal majority on the supreme court. something not seen since the retirement of chief justice early warren in 1969 and lead to a number of appointees by president richard nixon. your comment. >> that's right. and three are the others are 78
or older you can follow him online and he tweets at lawrence hurly. start of the new term of the u.s. supreme court. he is joining us from florida. good morning. good morning, you stole my thunder a bit. what hasn't been mentioned is the senate under mitch mcconnell has done something here that is on the face of it unconstitutional. there is nothing in the constitution that suggests a president cannot dominate a supreme court justice in his last year of office. it's important to remember that the senator that's not a fire breathing liberal indicated prior to this debacle that took place that garland was the best
nominee that the republicans could hope for and i'm also wondering about this court that approved citizens united. something has to happen to reverse this absolute aberration where corporations now are people and we have to, we have to cow down to this particular situation where billionaires control our elections. i'd like you to comment if you would sir on those particular aspects. >> ken, thank you from florida. >> so on the issue of who, you know, who gets to decide who the next justice is, obviously it's the president's job to nominate a justice but it's the senate's job under the constitution to advise and consent on those
nominations so the position of mcconnell and the republicans is the president can nominate whoever he wants and what they have done is not do anything on the nomination. it's also true that it's unprecedented to take the hard line hah no president can appoint a justice in an election year because it has happened in the past and has happened quite a lot in the past. so you know, both sides have their points and with these political issues there's no one to referee the disputes so it goes on to the election. >> let's go to lee in new york. republican line. good morning. >> good morning. i was up sit about the supreme court for one thing because the justice got on five different media out lets and demonized donald trump even though she
apologized later. we see where we're going there. as far as swris garland is concerned, even though he he is more respected, i understand that he is against the second amendment and he's more multiple epa rulings and it impose down the line with with loretta lynch and so forth with the irs investigated. and we were told that if there is any confidence and not a criminal offense when hillary clinton was investigated. they said that she was not liable for criminal offense either. and it seems that it's just going down the line. and in 2012 romney might have been the next president except for the irs. i'll take my comments off line. >> lee, thank you from grand
gorge new york. >> judge garland's record he has been on the appeals court from washington for almost 20 years. the court in washington he has a lot of administrative law case which is is a lot of regulatory cases so he ruled on things like environmental regulations and has been fairly supportive of government regulations over that time. as is fairly common among judges on that court of both party, nominees from both parties and his record on guns, the gun lobby has seized on one vote he had which doesn't really tell us a whole lot about where he stands on guns because he hasn't ruled or written an opinion and a key case that came before him. >> the arch bishop of washington d.c., that presided over yesterday's catholic mass, the traditional mass that took place
at st. matthew's cathedrals, he walked down the steps with john roberts joined by the chief justices and what is the history behind the mass and tradition? >> it's been going on for quite sometime where they have this kind of legal community kind of service before the supreme court term and in recent years the court has become more and more people by catholic justice or whatever reason. and it's 6 of the 9 so now it's five. so this is that strong tradition there. >> we'll go to david joining us from new jersey as we look outside just a few blocks from the white house. also by the way, the church where president john f. kennedy's mass took place in 1963.
go ahead david. >> thank you both. what's the most realistic projection of the number of supreme court justices that could be replaced within the first term of the next president. >> thank you. >> thank you david. >> as i mentioned earlier three of the current justices are over the age of 78 and obviously there's the current vacancy of the court. and one might think the justice could be thinking about stepping aside and then more difficult would be justice kennedy but he is the republican appointee so he may be more keened to be replaced by the republican president. justice bryer is the other one.
he's 78. and player on the court and might wish to continue doing that as will the justice. >> let me ask you about him as the chief justice of the united states. the on going question of cameras in the courtroom that don't appear as if anything will change in the short-term but has he been more transparent in what happens inside oral arguments? independent line. good morning with lawrence hurry
bush v. gore. >> it's interesting coming into the election with only 8 justices on the court where if something like that did happen you could be looking at a 4 to 4 split and when people look at these issues that can't be resolved in congress or the white house or the ballot box this year maybe the supreme court isn't going to be doing that. you have another branch of government that isn't going to be able to dissolve a dispute potentially. >> joining us next, good morning. >> how are you doing? >> we're fine, thank you. >> okay. what you normally consider when you're looking at the supreme court is liberal versus conservative. or that's what i always thought of. the people we have for president this year we need to be thinking globalist versus nationalist and that worries me.
>> we'll get a response. sue thank you for the call. >> i wasn't quite sure what the question was. >> let me ask you about the justices on the supreme court. we obviously see them publicly or hear them during oral arguments but most of the discussions of the meetings behind closed doors. what are the relationships between the justices. and a lot of it is behind closed doors and what i can say is in public they always talk about how they're all best buddies and thr respectful of each other. and in public, on the bench, and in their writing sometimes, there's some strong feelings that come out and the justice always say that's only in a small number of cases and but, you know, we can only go by what we see and what we see is sometimes, you know, some back and forth on the bench and
certain justices that perhaps don't see eye to eye with their colleagues too much. >> 202 is the area code. 748-8000 if your a supporter of hillary clinton. and you can send us an e-mail at email@example.com. join us on facebook or send us a tweet at cspanwj. i want to get your retox what senator mitch mcconnell said earlier this summer on the fact that senate republicans would not take up the garland nomination. >> we already made it very clear that a nomination for the supreme court by this president will not be filled this year. >> he has been addiment since february as you pointed out lawrence hurry. >> that's right. nothing has changed as far as mitch mcconnell is concerned and the only questions we discussed earlier is whether the election
result could change that. whether it's hillary chin on the winning the election and the democrats winning the senate or both and the question then is whether they're willing to hold out and see whether hillary clinton is going to reappoint garland or whether she'll pick someone else or whether they have second thoughts about this precedent. they have set a new precedent about filling supreme court vacancies in an election year or even going the other way if hillary clinton wins and the republicans retain control of the senate. whether they actually take their position they have now a step further and just say, you know, we're basically going to hold -- this is so important. we don't want to appoint any clinton justice and take it even further. >> and just follow up on something that we have been talking about during the course of the morning f there is a 4-4 tie how the lower court decision spans true. >> that's right.
so this happened four times last term after scalia died. it split 4 to 4 including the big immigration case where the obama administration was trying to revive it's imdprags plan. that split 4 to 4 which meant the government lost and it's the lower court decision remains in effect and there's no national precedent on it and in certain cases that means you might get a liberal result because it's more liberal leaning and sometimes you might get her the other result. and in some cases it's a decision about that an that stayed in effect. and this term coming up maybe we'll get some 4-4s and they could submit 4-4. >> how big of a void has the death of justice scalia been on the decisions we have been
seeing. and in his cases but his voice is descent or majority opinions. >> as everyone knows, justice scalia was a very lorful character and lively in oral arguments. and his voice was certainly notable by his absence and some of the big cases toward the end of the last term including the big abortion case and immigration case and one might have thought he would have been descenting in a couple of decisions that came out toward the end of the term and his vote was also notable by his absence on some of those cases although the abortion case actually because justice kennedy ended upsiding with the liberals it was a 5-3 decision and wouldn't have effected the outcome of that one.
>> good morning. >> good morning. i'm wondering the supreme court and obama and biden has turned the pages out of the bible, our creator god said it's an abomination for men to sleep with men and women to sleep with women and we turned our faith so far away from god that the only hypocrites that can even bring the pastors in is when they open up the session to the senators of the house of representatives. he's out. there's no prayer. it's nothing but a crime to even mention the word jesus christ because obama's afraid we might make the muslims feel too bad or out of sorts. >> we'll get a response. >> well i think actually the supreme court in recent years has actually had quite a lot of
pro religon decisions pushed by christian groups including one on legislative prayer a couple of years ago. it's unclear how much that would change by scalia's death but it's quite possible it could continue in that trend because even if judge garland came on we don't know his position in those things. >> we begin our program this morning asking our viewers and listeners whether they can see on the court and how they vote in the 2016 election. obviously it's much more the supreme court and not politics but do you have a sense of how big of an issue or how small of a electorate. the supreme court is not mentioned by the candidate and that tells you something. this is not the key issue is sort of for a broad number of
people. i think there probably are small groups of people that do feel strongly about this as some of the callers you've had on the show have indicated some of the christian conservative people who have strongly want to have a justice that will be in the same line as justice kennedy. and people also very keenly aware of how the supreme court is because they have been following the abortion issue for so long. for a lot of the american people the supreme court is a lot less front and center in their daily lives and they tend to only pay attention to the decision that comes a few times a year in june and people aren't thinking chosely about how important the supreme court is and despite the efforts of how important the supreme court is and what a big
deal sit to have a vacancy on election day. it hasn't resinated that much with the american people. >> a live look at the outside of the u.s. supreme court on this monday morning and lawrence hurley joining us on capitol hill as the sun begins to rise behind him. also behind him the u.s. supreme court on our facebook page we're asking you that question whether or not the vacancy on the supreme court will impact your 2016 vote. you can join in on the conversation on facebook.com/cspan and jodie has this tweet. if the senate stays republican after the election can they go four to eight more years pfr a justice is seated if hillary is he elected? >> well, i mean, the assumption would be no. but just senator mcconnell has said before that the next president should get to pick the appointment so you'd think that means it would be hillary clinton if she is the president or donald trump if he is the
president. and with the abinstructionism that has happened in the senate and both parties have been in the senate and stop things happening. and it's interesting to see whether there's more of that to come or whether -- not just in this year but perhaps when the democrats control the senate and there's a republican in the white house they could site this precedent to block a republican president from appointing a justice and then it can escalate that way where it might be -- well, maybe not a year before the election. or 18 months before the election and could go from there. >> this is walter jackson. can the senate be forced by the courts to undertake the nomination process for the scalia vacancy. >> no. >> let's go to richard, democratics line, good morning. >> good morning, we're fine,
thank you. >> i want to say something off color from your supreme court that donald trump is using politics so he can break his opponents and i want to tell you something. i will take all my money and put it against him and then hillary will win the election. what bothers me is i saw mitch mcconnell over there saying that the only reason that he is postponing, i repeat, postponing the supreme court is because he doesn't want hillary to get in and the response from my constituents are the only reason that donald trump was so quite at the dinner party with 20 minutes of -- i've never heard them speak like that. obama ridiculing -- what's the guys name. donald trump is because he knew
he was right and politics couldn't save him. could you respond on that? >> richard from massachusetts, thank you for the call. any comment? >> i think just go back to mitch mcconnell. i think that it's true that they -- the republicans felt like their constituent sy cares more about the supreme court than democrats and it was more important for them as an election issue to prevent the nomination from going through to keep it open for the election. not just because it would help the republican nominee for president and also help senate candidates across the country. to show that they were going to stick up for their principals and try to keep the seat open for republicans to fill. >> this coming from another viewer. the supreme court is not supposed to run a political playbook.
it is the third branch. it's supposed to keep the other two in check. lawrenceville georgia. republican line. good morning. >> yeah, good morning. i would like to make an anlage. so the liberals will understand what i'm talking about. playing monopoly and follow the rules. and he wants to be the banker and then he changed the rule. he wants to buy a hotel. he can take money out of the bank and it's supposed to be technically a conservative branch and not supposed to be political. and supposed to keep the same rules and the person that called in and complained about citizens united. i would like to say that jeb bush proves that citizens united is not a threat.
and look at trump right now. he is hardly spending any money. and spending hundreds of billions to win this. and he is tied with trump so citizens united is is the dog whistle for the democrats. it's no danger at all. thank you very much. >> and thank you. >> i think on the supreme court, obviously people from each side of the divide always seems to find something political about the supreme court. and it's a case of what is in the eye of the beholder. >> lawrence hurley is joining us on capitol hill that covers for reuters. >> once again a citizens united thing in here. citizens united is not doing
anything. and the republican candidate now. and thank you dennis. did you want to respond. and citizens united obviously it's a decision as one of the callers mentioned and candidates from both parties can benefit from and there's another supreme court decision involving an aggregate campaign and some evidence that hillary clinton is approximate back from that and pams to different and totally legally and even though the democrats often complain about these decisions that they benefit from them just as republicans do. he has written for the baltimore sun and the daily record and the lflt a. daily journal.
het me ask you about the president's influence on lower court judicial nominees. how significant has it been. >> one of those little noticed elements of any presidential administration is that they do get to shape the federal judiciary even aside from the supreme court. the president that had two terms has had hundreds of judicial nominees confirmed including many to the appeals court and set new legal precedence and changed the law in a way that could influence how the supreme court rules or in the case of the court at the moment where it's split 4-4. if those decisions are left in place and that can set a new precedent thooes in that part of the country where it's covered by that appeals court. and in the transgender bathroom case and ruled in favor of the
transgender student. that was also the voting rights case in north carolina where a court with two obama appointees struck down the voter iflt .d. and if hillary clinton was to win the election you'd get at least another four years of democratic judicial nominees and you can really kind of shape the judiciary for a whole generation obviously because these are lifetime appointments. a lot of these nominees are quite young and they can approximate around for 30 years or more. >> j.d. joining us from spanish fort, alabama. good morning. >> good morning. great, great guest. your guest made the statement a minute ago that i disagree with. that the average american doesn't pay much attention to the supreme court until there happens to be a decision.
well i'll shopping at walmart and the people i talk to, every day america, i would say he's dead wrong. particularly this time around i'm hearing an talking to people, just every day people hike myself who are tremendously interested in the court and the reason is is they have begun to recognize that the court is essentially, so to speak in terms of politics. these people are there for quite awhile and can do tremendous damage or tremendous good for the united states of america. now he also referenced the issue of the roe v. wade decision. the life issue which is really regardless of whether obama has pretended that it's settled law which is categorically false, perhaps in his mind it is, but i can assure the president it's not at all. that's the wolly mammoth in the room and most people know it and they like to keep it quite but
it's here and we're not getting used to it. now we see, the question today for the guest is, who do we support? is it going to effect our decision? yes it is. because donald trump put out 11 name of justices that he will appoint if he is elected. now i don't like trump. i know a hot of people that don't. they find him morally reprehenceable but he's better than hillary on that issue. he will appoint strict interpreters of the constitution which is the task of a supreme court justice. not to legislate from the bench but to take the constitution and not find as they did in roe v. wade the law which is they declare a decision that is the shadow of the law. they made it up out of the right to privacy. the right of a woman to destroy an american. >> thanks for the call. let me take his point and move
it one step further lawrence hurley. if donald trump is elected president and the senate is controlled by democrats where does that put this fight? >> it would be back to square one again. obviously on the republican side there's nominees similar to d r merit garland which is saying they're conservative but donald trump is only going to pick from this list he distributed which helped to get senator ted cruz to support him. so he might be a little boxed in now assuming that he sticks to the list in terms of whom he would pick. so, you know, obviously a new congress and a new president resets the debate a little bit but so it's hard to know what would happen but it would be a
big fight. >> another hypothetical. hillary clinton is elected president, do senate republicans and democrats try to cut their losses and say let's move ahead with merit garland or will hillary clinton wait until january 20th of next year? >> regardless of when it happened i think garland would be back in the equation if the republicans retain the senate. because for hillary lynn on the it would be probably an easy lift to get him confirmed in comparison with someone that maybe would be more liberal and the republicans could block. so everything that mitch mcconnell and the next republicans said about being able to pick the nominee would help hillary clinton in that regard. >> let's go to catherine joining us from springfield massachusetts. dell cats line. lawrence hurley that covers the
court, good morning. >> good morning. >> i'd like to ask a question, was he talking to the supreme court or the constitution? who was he speaking to? >> and why do you ask that question, catherine? >> because he gave men laws to live by and if we live by his laws it wouldn't be all this mess going on. the first is our duty to him and then, particularly homosexual and the other is toward our neighbor and love one another. if a man set aside the laws, that's the reason this world is in a mess and i don't care who is giving that, it's not going to make no difference because he said the lowest of man and nothing is going to change and i don't think nobody should set aside his laws. and all these laws have separated us from our creator.
and that's the reason why this world is in a mess. he did it because they didn't want him to rule over him. they won a name for themselves and mankind still don't want the creator to rule over him. and i don't care who got in there. this world is coming to an end. if you all can't see it, it's pitiful. everything is gone. look around you people. have a good day. >> catherine from springfield massachusetts. just the passion some some of these issues. >> i think that's right. the caller that called in earlier about mentioning the supreme court being discussed among his people he knows, i don't disagree with that at all. there's obviously people that care very strongly about the supreme court but as you have seen from the presidential
campaign and the debates where it wasn't mentioned at all and there's a large segment of the pop withdrew lags and it's motte the key issue and that's also an opinion poll where people were asked what their key issues are. and people care more about health care and education and issues that effect them on a day-to-day basis where as i think the supreme court is maybe a little more abstract for a lot of people where they perhaps only really noticed what it's doing when it issues one of these big decisions on the front page of the newspaper. >> david is next from dudley, north carolina. independent line. >> yes, mr. hurley, i have a question for you and i wish you would tell the people what the constitution says is the responsibility of the president
and the responsibility of the senate and the congress when it come into the opponent of the supreme court. if you will tell these people what the constitution says because that is supposed to be american bible tell them what the constitution says. and let them go from there. because serve talking to everyone about different things. tell them what the constitution says is this supposed to be american bible. is this supposed to be american laws or is it a bunch of b.s. which ever one do you decide please tell the people of the constitution and quit blaming obama and hillary and trump and everybody else. >> i don't really get to decide what the constitution means. that's up to the justices mainly
but i think as i mentioned earlier the president gets to nominate people and then the senate has to advise and content on the nominee so the senate has a lot of power to either reject or as we've seen this year, to just not do anything. and there is not anything anyone can do about that. >> tj from little elm texas. good morning, republican line. >> good morning, mr. hurley and host. everybody has been aware of the things going on with benghazi and all of hillary's e-mails. if she would become president, isn't it a fact that she can pardon herself under article 2, section 3, clause 1, which means any related articles that would appear therein or thereafter
would be null and void. my question on that would be is there an override for a criminal misuse of that pardon power of clause -- i'm sorry. article 2, section 3, clause 1? >> thank you. the tj. >> that's a little above my pay grade, but as of the moment hillary clinton hasn't been convicted of anything. so there is nothing to pardon her for. >> david from cathedral city, good morning. >> caller: good morning. we're talking about the justice system and laws and how they affect us. i enjoy listening to these conversations because those of white house take the time to make a comment generally are paying more attention. but i want to address the issue about wealthy people not paying income taxes. the 16th amendment to the constitution was passed to get the wealthy people to put money
into our economy and help all of us. and we're rewarded for that because we become multipliers for income taxes. in a previous business, i had 100 employees. i had taken a risk to get up in the morning and make sure that those people got paid and got benefits. in exchange for that, i made it possible for 100 times my ability to pay income taxes to occur to benefit all of us. >> thank you, david. we'll get a response. lawrence hurley? >> again, i'm not sure if i can respond to that much. >> okay. i know you have to get over to the court and we're cognizant of your time. one quick call from robert in ashley, im. good morning. quick question for the guest? >> caller: it's crazy to sit there and think about how we've been running with eight supreme court justices for how long because the republican party has had it their way for eight years now. since president obama came in,
first thing mitch mcconnell says, we want to make him a one-term president. we will not vote on anything that he wants. an then they turn around and say look how bad the economy is, look how bad we are. we can't even get us a supreme court justice that leans more to the right than he does to the left. and your idiots on the republican party will not even put up a vote for him. >> robert, thank you for call. final comment, robert hurley? >> it's certainly a complicated and divisive political period with the court coming back today with only eight justices. and it's really up in the air as to when the next justice will be appointed. >> you'll be heading in for oral arguments coming up at the top of the hour. lawrence hurley, his work is available online at reuters.com. thanks for being with us. we appreciate it. >> thanks a lot. >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. and coming up tuesday morning, we're live from long wood
university in farmville, virginia, site of the vice presidential debate. ryan stauffer is assistant professor at longwood and joshua from purdue will be on to discuss the history and importance and importance of vice presidential debates, the outcomes and what to expect in the debate between senator tim kaine and governor mike pence. also halle parker, editor and chief for the rotunda. then jay alex halderman, a computer science and engineering professor will talk about voting machines, security and vulnerability. we'll also speak with w. taylor reveille iv. watch 7:00 eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. the next president making appointments to the supreme court of the united states will be president donald trump. >> with hillary clinton in the white house, the rest of the
world will never forget why they've always looked up to the united states of america. >> c-span's campaign 2016 continues on "the road to the white house" with the vice presidential debate between republican governor mike pence and democratic senator tim kaine tuesday night live from longwood university in farmville, virginia, beginning at 7:30 p.m. eastern with a preview of the debate. then at 8:30, the predebate briefing for the audience. at 9:00 p.m., live coverage of the debate followed by viewer reaction. the 2016 vice presidential debate. watch live on c-span. watch live and any time on demand at c-span.org and listen live on the free c-span radio app. now a look at naval readiness and maritime security with admiral john richardson, who is chief of naval operations. he talks about technological advances that are benefitting the navy and the u.s. role in helping to calm regional
disputes in the south china sea. from the center for strategic and international studies, this is an hour. >> my name is kathleen hicks. i direct the international security program here. i want to welcome you to our maritime security dialogue on maintaining maritime's priority. i want to share with you our building safety precautions. overall we feel very secure in our building. but as a convener, we have duty to prepare for emergency operations. so follow me should there be any fire alarm or something along those lines. the maritime security dialogue brings together csis and the u.s. naval institute, two of the nation's most respected nonpartisan institutions. the series is intended to highlight the particular challenges facing the navy, the marine corps and the coast guard from national level maritime policy to navy concept development and program design. we are very fortunate to have the series sponsored with sport from lockheed martin and
huntington ingles and we thank you them for that support. who better to talk to us than the chief of naval operations admiral john richardson. well look forward to comments from admiral richardson followed by a discussion between him and the chief executive officer of usni and my partner in crime pete daly. and thank you all of you for your attention today. and over to you, admiral. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. well, good morning, everybody. and i want to also just share my thanks to both csis and the naval institute for hosting today. admiral daly, thanks very much for all the work you do to kind of increase awareness of things maritime and this dialogue has been fantastic as a series of
interchanges, exchanges. you know, i was talking to somebody recently just sort of getting some advice about, okay, how you can be a lot better at cno if you just do these sort of things. and they said, you know, because listen, in terms of the messaging, you just can't do enough, right? because people understand armies. they generally understand air forces. but navys are just weird. you guys are different. so keep on explaining. so that's what we do. and i appreciate this venue. and i want to just start off rather than a general overview, which i am happy to do maybe during the q&a, something like that. i want to dive in and take a look, have a discussion about a particular issue. and, you know, i've been in my position now for a little over a year. and it's been a vertical learning curve. in fact, i'm starting to wonder when that will stop, you know. i've got to be sort of the
slowest kid in the class here because i'm just learning so much every day. and also relearn a couple of important things too. one of those is just the absolute critical importance of making sure your thinking is as clear as it can be. and that your communications follow. and they are a unambiguous and clear as well. and today i thought i would dive in to one important example. and i'll do so kind of in a -- i'll start it off with sort of a word association game. you know, when i say a word and you kind of give me a first word that comes to your mind. and so my word is a2ad. and so what word comes to your mind or what picture do you see? to many people, a2ad, anti-access area denial is kind of a code word. a code word that indicates that some nation has established some
kind of impenetrable keep out zone that forces can enter only at extreme peril to their existence, never mind their mission. to others, a2ad brings to mind some kind of portfolio or a basket of technologies. a particular suite of technologies. and then others will depict a2ad as a strategic approach regarding some employment of force or some national policy objectives or some kind of combination above the two. so in summary, a2ad for me is a term that is bandied about pretty freely and lacks the precise definition that it probably would benefit from. and that ambiguousness sends a variety of vague or conflicting signals depending upon the
context in which that term is used. either transmitted or received. i got to tell you that to me i appreciate everything through the absolute crystal clear lens of enhancing the navy's ability to conduct its mission, which is laid out in title 10 and discussed in a design for maintaining maritime superiority which states that the u.s. navy will operate at sea and be ready to conduct prompt and sustained combat to protect america from attack and to ensure the nation can project strategic influence around the globe wherever and whenever necessary in support of our national security objectives. and so ensure clarity in our thinking and precision in our communications, we in the navy are going to refrain from using the term a2ad as sort of a stand alone acronym that can mean all
things to all people or some things to some people or almost anything to anyone. i think that we just owe it to ourselves, to the country to be better than that. so i'm encouraging this approach really for four reasons. let me take each one of these in order. first, the concept of a2ad is not anything new. the history of military contests is all about adversaries seeking to one-up each other seeking to identify their foes at longer ranges and attacking them with ever more precise and destructive weapons. this is nothing new. as technologies change, tactics change toe react and leverage them. until relatively recently in our conversation about war fighting that we have discussed this trend as something new or something different. but history has much to teach us about maintaining perspective on these developments. and that will give us insight
into charting a path forward to address them. one only has to think of horatio nelson at copenhagen or the nile. admiral farragut at mobile bay. you can think of admiral nimitz and admiral lockwood in the pacific during world war ii to see that a2ad and confronting a2ad challenges is nothing new. indeed, controlling the seas and projecting power, even in contested areas is exactly why our nation invests in and relies upon a naval force to begin with. so that's the first reason. second reason is that the term "denial" as in anti-access area denial is too often taken as a fait accompli when in fact it really describes an aspiration. often i get into a2ad discussions that are
supplemented by maps, right, or charts. and these maps have these red arcs that extend off coastlines. and these images imply that any military force that crosses that red line into that arc faces certain destruction. it's a no-go zone, and we're just going to stay out of that place. but the reality is far more complex. it's actually really hard to achieve a hit. it requires the successful completion of a very complex chain of events. each link in that chain is vulnerable and can be interrupted. and so these arcs represent danger to be sure, right. something for to be thoroughly considered. and we're going to be thoughtful and well prepared as we address them. but the threats that they are based on are not insurmountable, and can be managed. and will be managed.
third reason is that a2ad in my viewpoint is far too inherently oriented to the defense. it can contribute to a mind-set that starts with, since these red arcs are so stark and impenetrable, when you have to start with, you know -- are we going to start outside, are we going to think about how we're going to work our way from the outside in. but related to my last point, the reality is that we can fight from within these defended areas, and if needed we will. we'll fight outside. and yes, we'll fight inside out. we'll fight from the top. we'll fight from the bottom. it's starting to sound like churchill at this point. indeed, we'll fight from every direction, all right. and the examples that i've given, the historical examples show that this is nothing new and has been done before. finally, the fourth reason is
that the a2ad threat is already actually pretty well understood, whereas in my mind, the real challenges, the vexing challenges that we face are right around the corner. longer range, very precise and more powerful missiles coupled with isr systems that can detect with precision and for longer ranges, those have been with us for some time now. we understand that dynamic. and it's true that the systems, the system of system gets more and more capable. and one generation will beget a follow-on generation which extends that reach just a little bit further. and it's also true that these systems are proliferating. they're spreading. but the essential military problem that they represent is largely the same. and we've appreciated it and understood it for some time. and it doesn't mean, again, that they don't present a challenge. but if we fixate on a2ad, we're
going to miss the boat on the next challenge. we fail to consider that thing just around the corner that will entail a fundamental shift and takes the contest and competition to the next level. just as an example. what must be done -- this is a question we're exploring. what must be done to stay ahead of our adversaries when essentially any place in the world can be imaged in realtime on demand with video? right? that world is right around the corner. so for those four reasons, we're going to scale down just the independent use of a2ad. the lack of precision has real consequences. potential adversaries actually have different geographic features like choke points -- islands, ocean currents,
mountains. different geographies dictate a wide variety of concepts and technologies that enemies will use to fight in those different areas. this variety has a major impact on how u.s. forces best seize and maintain the initiative. while there may be some universal elements to the tactics, the technologies, the concepts that we might use, there are just as many differences. and so we have to resist the temptation to oversimplify this conversation. the specifics matter. so what should we say instead if we don't like a2ad. what do we say? i'm afraid i'm just not going propose replacing one acronym with another, right. this is going to disappoint many. that's what we tend to try and force everything into an acronym. and no matter what i say, we will eventually get to an acronym. but i will say since different
theaters present different challenges, the one-size-fit-all term to describe the mission and the challenges creates confusion, not clarity. instead, we'll talk about the specifics, the specifics of our strategies and capabilities relative to those of our potential adversaries within the specific context of geography concepts and technology. so our focus must always remain on maintaining maritime superiority with a deep understanding of the interplay between tactics and strategy against specific threats in specific locations to achieve that end. our superior equipment, our agile performing concepts, our teams will lead to better and faster learning, that will make us a better and more capable and adaptive force that will outpace
any adversary, especially in a time of rising complexity. this is where our advantages really start to open us up on the competition. but it must go beyond words. we must act. and we are acting. we'll continue to up our game through training, experimentation, war games, and introducing new technologies. our scientists, sailors and strategyists are doing remarkable things to push today's boundaries and develop new ways to maintain our edge. we're forging deeper partnerships in the private sector and reaching more deeply into the worlds of academia and industry to bring the best ideas to the table and do that faster than we are now. similarly, we're forging deeper partnerships with like-minded naval forces around the world. just about a week ago, we hosted the international sea power
symposium in newport, rhode island. a gathering of 85 chiefs of navy, over 100 navies represented with senior leadership. these sorts of efforts matter. the pace of change is accelerating almost everywhere we look, and the margins of victory will be thin. and more than ever before maintaining our edge depends on clear thinking coupled with decisive action that is focused on executing our mission against today's threats and against those in the future. so have no doubt the united states navy is prepared to go wherever it needs to go at any time and stay there for as long as necessary in response to our leadership's call to project america's strategic influence in a wide range of operational scenarios around the globe. so thank you very much. i look forward to the discussion. [ applause ]
>> thank you. >> well, admiral, thanks for those remarks. you already alluded to the fact that you've been on station as cno just about a year and a couple of weeks. and it's worth asking one time, you know, when you took command of different submarines and different boats and different commands, you're always subject to conditions as found. you change your ideas. and is there something that you can point to after this first year that was either a surprise or just something that's changed that has caused you to either reevaluate or modify your design? >> you know, the design was issued sort of as version 1.0, right. and this is sort of -- it's like when you watch the end of a movie and you can sort of see they're setting up for a sequel here, right. you can see that x-men, the next one is going to come down the road.
and we built the design with that type of iteration in mind. so as we look for next steps, i think that, well, one, we're going to say some things i think a little more specifically about acquisition, okay. we need to just focus on that a little bit more clearly in terms of executing a set of authorities. and certainly expectations in terms of the service chief's role in acquisition. also, as i've had a chance to go out and meet with senior industry leaders in our business and maybe just outside our business, we found that there is a great desire on both sides of that relationship to speed things up, to clean out, you know, the bureaucracy, those sorts of steps to get new technologies into the system faster. so i think we're going to be a little more focused on that with respect to the other lines of
effort, the things are sort of built the whole design on the presumption that the pace is quickening. the pace is a consistent theme. and so we anticipated that this pace would be quick. but i would have to say that the developments, even in the past year are probably quicker than we even anticipated. it just highlights that sense of urgency to get going. >> right. well, thanks. you know, there has been at least one study and some literature out there recently that suggests that the u.s. overall that doesn't exactly point just to the navy by any means, but suggests that the u.s. overall is being outplayed in the gray zone, the area between peace and war. and i wanted to ask you, has that -- has that caused you to take any additional actions?
you came on board obviously strong for the nuclear deterrent, the need to regain proficiency at the high end of the war fight, which i think is rightful and just. but now we increasingly find ourselves in this gray zone area as another term where unconventional -- unconventional means may be required earlier as a response. i just wanted to get your ideas on that. >> yeah. that's just a terrific question. and if you think about certainly that the entire spectrum of conflict or competition is really i think what we're talking about. and so just like, you know, much of my opening statement really highlighted some of the classics, you know, the fundamental nature of conflict and competition, you know, we've got competitors out there who are thinking.
they're studying us. and they are looking for everywhere they can to sort of exploit areas in our capabilities, technology, doctrine, what have you, that they can use to you know, advantage at their end of the competition. and this is one area where it's been described and the chairman, the joint chiefs of staff has been terrific in terms of highlighting this new form of competition which at any scale of competition, you know, and conflict is no longer regional. it's very difficult point to any kind of situation right now and say hey, that's purely a regional matter. everything is transregional if not global by virtue of the new war fighting techniques, the new war fighting domains that are not only on us, but people are becoming more skilled in practicing and competing in those domains than ever before.
so it's multidomain. it's transregional, if not global. and that gives rise to all sorts of different plays in the playbook that we need to confront. and so that's what we're doing. we're sort of developing those plays in our playbook that are something -- options for leadership that are short of what we would call classical phase 3 conflict. so that we've got some options for our policymakers and decisions to exercise in that gray zone type of competition. >> it's just one more question. then we'll open it up to the audience. >> i'm sorry, before we go on. >> sure. >> just a big part of that is that this is not a u.s. only thing. and so i think part of the solution must include regional security architectures and strengthening building capacity
and like-minded teams in different parts of the world. and so as we work with our allies and partners enhancing each other's capability, we can help them in some ways. they can help us in many ways. but overall strengthening the regional strength, the security architecture in these regions i think is another big way forward to try and be more resilient to this type of competition. >> thank you. just this last question before we open it up. so you're working on obviously high-end capability acquiring the navy of the future. and yet you still have this relentless drumbeat of deployments and deployment cycle that has to be met, the near-term execution. i dare say that the navy did not get the luxury of a time-out or a recess or a reset. it had to continue with a
heel-to-toe deployments that the navy has been doing for some 40 some years. so could you talk a little bit about that, about the concurrencesy of focusing on the future new capabilities, new plays for the playbook. and at the same time, having to meet the demands of 1500 today and how that's going. >> you just sort of outlined the job description for the chief of naval operation, right? how are you going to balance the need to modernize for the future versus those urgent needs that are pressing us today, readiness, throw the manpower piece in there and you've got it all. and so it is a constant dialogue that we have. part of the solution, again is working with industry in as collaborative way as possible to make sure that we're not missing any opportunities to bring that modernization to the navy and
the joint force as quickly and at the best price as possible. as i said before, i think there is a lot of opportunities. and many of those opportunities are actually being suggested to me by our industry partners in terms of hey, we could go faster and we could get it to you cheaper than the current system allows. so we're exploring those areas. part of it is looking at new operational concepts. how do you improve capability beyond just technologies, right. we're not going to be able to buy our way out of this thing, no matter what approach we take. so as you think of new combinations -- in fact, many of the revolutions in military affairs were not dependent upon a new technology. they were dependent on new combinations of current technologies. and so we're working particularly closely with the marine corps in this area to make sure our naval war fighting operations and concepts are as
creative as we can be, that we're not trapping ourselves with intellectual structures whose time may be past. and so the air force and us are starting to talk about these larger networks. and if you stitch things together, you allow more combinations of our current capabilities. and those combinations can be very agile, very capable, very hard to contend with. so from a mathematical standpoint, everybody talks about moore's law. and that's an exponential curve. but as you start to look at different common things, you start approaching factorial type of curves. and those can be exponential possibilities. i think this operational concept is one that we have to continue to be exploring. as i said, it's got to go beyond just ideas. you've got to get out there at sea. you've got to connect these
things physically, operate them together. and that's exactly what we're doing. >> okay. well, great. and i'd like to take a few questions, if i could. that gentleman right there with the blue tie. >>. >> thank you, admiral, and thank you dcsis as well for bringing us all together. admiral, i wanted to ask since you mentioned the navy changing to a more region-specific playbook, does the navy at this time have any plans for the arctic region? any future thoughts on how naval affairs are going to be changing up there. >> yeah, that's a great question, and one that comes up. so climate change has really focussed a lot of attention on the arctic. the arctic icecap is as small as it's ever been in my time in service, which is probably longer than you've been born. but the -- so what does that mean? well, from my standpoint, that
gives rise to transit lanes that are open more often now than they have been ever. it gives rise to continental shelves and the resource on those shelves that are accessible, right, that were not accessible before. so how do we address that? well, we do so. one that's inform beside i the pace of things that are moving up there. and so while there are a lot of opportunities, in fact, we just discussed this. we held our staff talks with the coast guard just last week. and a big part of those talks, a big topic on those was the arctic. and so it's important that while there are things changing up there, they're changing at a certain pace. and it's not like there is a gold rush up to the north pole right now. and so there is some time to do this smartly. and then we also have to be mindful that both the navy and
the coast guard teams, sort of the two maritime forces that are up there, the marine corps also exercising up there will maintain the ability to operate in the arctic, but we do so on a priority basis. and so if we think of the other threats that we confront, we'll get up there as we can to make sure that we remain capable of operating up there. we remain aware of how things are changing and are ready to respond appropriately. >> i have to ask did the word "icebreaker" come up? >> icebreaker, yes, it did, of course. we're working very closely with the coast guard to work forward that in that. >> okay. this gentleman right here on the aisle. >> sir, in your design, you have talked about achieving high velocity learning at every level. nine months into that, i'm
wondering, how do you think the state of that is going for every level? and do you have mile markers of success to know the navy is on a trajectory that you want to it have? >> yeah, of all of the lines of effort in the design for maintaining maritime superiority, that green line of effort that talks about high velocity learning is probably the newest thing, the strangest thing, and the least understood thing to be honest. and so as with so many other of the lines of effort in the design, we have taken this year to sort of talk a lot about it, right. i mean, it's sort of like putting commander's guidance out when you put a document out like the design. and while there was a tremendous amount of thinking and tremendous amount of collaboration to bring it together an issue it, there was a great ownership. certainly no surprises as we signed it out, as the navy's design for maintaining maritime
superiority, now it hits the fleet at large, if you will. and you read it. and the words are as clear as they can be. but there are still a lot of questions in people's minds. just like you would do with any other example of commander's guidance, you start to talk to people and they start asking well, what does this mean in this situation? how does this go? what are your expectation here is? so we've been doing that in all the lanes of effort. but because this one is the newest, and people are most curious about it, that conversation -- to gain everybody's real deep understanding has been going on. but probably the most rich conversation in terms of actually forging the way forward. and so i would say that overall, i'd have to give us maybe a c in that area. one, the navy, no doubt about it is committed to getting after this.
and so there is that. just like with all of the other lines of effort, they don't exist as independent variables there is a lot of overlap. an influence of one on the other. the green line of effort, this learning one permeates into every. but probably most into the goal line of effort in particular leader development, and how do we train leaders to go out and instill this fast learning. and then learning at sort of the division work center level is a lot different than learning at the fleet level. and so how about that? so we're exploring all those questions. but the enthusiasm is tremendous out there. people are really attaching themselves to it. i've got -- i've got this effort to reduce administrative distractions out there. in this area, i would have to give myself an f, okay. >> you really are a nuke. >> yeah.
so we just for whatever reason, we've been unable to get our mind around that and actually offer up some programs to kill. i started this when i was at submarine forces and then at navel reactors and now as cno. and there is a -- there is a hesitation or reluctance to identify those things. so we're going to go after that more aggressively. but i think that also is essentially intertwined with this fast learning thing. we've got to create space for people to go out and do these sorts of fast learning types of things, right, which involves a lot more doing than computing or writing or reading, that sort of thing. and so we've got -- i think that our thinking is much clearer now after discussing this around the force for a while. we've recently -- in fact, just last week, i had discussion up at the naval war college who is going to take the lead for this
line of effort for us going forward. and i have so many other tools at their disposal up there. first, the faculty is world class in this area. second, they run so many of our other leadership programs. the navy leadership and ethic center, the senior enlisted academy. i just spoke at the 200th graduation of the senior enlisted academy. and so bringing this all together, injecting this how do we learn into leadership development i think we'll start to make some progress very quickly soon thanks. >> robbie? >> admiral, thank you very much. rodney harris, former naval person. thank you for your comments. >> distinguished naval person, robbie. it almost goes without saying. >> a mic here for you. >> thank you, sir. thank you for your optimism regarding -- and i'll use the acronym. thank you for your optimism regarding dealing and overcoming
a2ad. we don't hear much of that optimism to be candid with you. >> it's inherently defensive sort of. >> so here is a question for you, so you know. rating your optimism, but is that optimism -- is that justified, assuming that the budget control act continues? and assuming that we have a navy somewhere between 270 and maybe 300 ships? >> okay. so let's talk about the bunt control act first and foremost. i think all assumptions and optimism are off the table when we start with budget levels at sequestration types of levels. so that would make things extremely difficult to execute any of this balance admiral davis talked about maintaining a force today while planning for
the future, organizing our people that all gets into the mix when we start to talk about that. with respect to the force level, we're doing an awful lot of thinking this summer. and in fact, it's all coming to a closure now. and we're sort of digesting it and marinating in it, what do we do with all of this data that we'll get at exactly sort of the balance that admiral daly described. some of it is talking about future fleet designs and fleet architectures to meet the challenge of the future. some of it is sort of hey, we have a lot of the fleet that is going to be around for a while. how do we make best use of that. what is our force structure that is required both in the near term and in the far term, dovetailing in those technologies as they become available. and so the force size, your question about 275 ships moving up to 300. we're on a growth path there as you point out. but more to follow in the near future in terms of how we're going to see our future and what
that may entail for force size and composition. >> if i could just jump in here. you talked about the level of the budget. and that is in itself an issue, especially when you have caps like the bca. how about just the fact that can you just talk for a minute -- i know you've testified to this. but how about what it does to you as the navy leader when you can't get an enacted and appropriated budget. >> these are two of the three whammies that i described when we started -- just describe the challenges that we face. the first one is the matter that you pointed out, which is that the fleet is running very hard. it has been running very hard for 15 years. and that has a consequence. that has a consequence on our people who are -- they've been at sea a lot. they're deploying a lot.
coming off of ten months' deployments in some cases. and then when you bring those systems back, the people are worn out. the systems are worn out. the material, our ships and aircraft, you bring them in for maintenance, and you find that hey, that job that used to be predicted to kind of be this size is now bigger because we've been going longer and harder than we thought. and so that throws off some of your assumptions. you spend more time in maintenance and that cascades down. so one whammy is that the fleet has been run hard for 15 years. and that has effects. that has consequences. two is the budget levels, and they've got to be adequate. and the fact that we sort of start our conversations with the bca and work our way up, that's just work that we have to do every single year. and then finally, i think your point about the predictability. >> yes. >> of the budget. we just went into year number
nine of continuing resolution. and that also has consequences. it injects a stutterstep into a system that really thrives by predictability and confidence. so when we talk about delivering things on time, when we talk about delivering things at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer, which i'm completely committed to doing, all of that gets perturbed in the wrong direction by these stuttersteps in predictability. these budget continuing resolutions. if you think about that, how behavior has modified over the course of now nine years, nobody puts anything at risk in the first quarter. nothing important happens in the first fiscal corridor because it's so vulnerable. try and be a fortune 10 company trying to compete out there
against your peers or near peers. throw on top of that we're talking about national security. and do that in three out of four fiscal corridors, very difficult. >> yes. especially for those big capital projects. >> of course nothing new starts on a continuing resolution. so there is no authorities to do that. but i'll tell you also, even things, our facilities, those have a lot of contracts associated with just managing those facilities. often you have to double the contracting load, right, because you have to write a brand-new contract just to cover that period of a continuing resolution. and then you come in with another contract to finish out the rest of the year. and so as we are all committed to reducing headquarters numbers and overhead, if you will, everybody is in on that. but these sorts of things, they make it hard.
i've just sort of -- i'm writing two contracts in many instances when one should have done. >> roger that. it's right behind you. >> it's wonderful to see you again, admiral. i'm missy worth. i'm with the naval postgraduate school. i'm a social anthropologist by training and was lucky enough to come to the navy 40 years ago. it's a little hard to believe that. but boy have things changed. >> i think this is where we do the emergency exit. social anthropologist comes to the mic! >> a word that has struck me that is now in the conversation that i just heard for the first time this year is called relationships. and i heard both the vice president and the secretary of defense use it he was speaking at cnast this spring. what strikes me is when i came to the navy it was always a competition between the services. now you recognize you need to work together. the word complexity is now very
much a part of the way you think about -- this is all so much harder. and i've said this to you before. if you want to have accelerated learning, i think you need to take the term from apple computer, the most successful corporation in the world, which is if you don't know, ask. we all learn together. now i've been to so many meetings with the military where they use your a2d2 terms and not everybody knows what it is and they walk out not knowing what they heard. so i think your whole idea of explaining in a way that nonexperts can understand will accelerate the learning for your entire team and the fact that you're working collaboratively really thrills me. >> mitzi, i have to ask you, because of our rules, would you ask a question, though? please. >> how will you do this?
[ laughter ] >> thank you, pete. >> i tried to help. i tried to help. it didn't work. >> well, i -- in many areas in this learning line of effort, as we think about those things that we can do to stimulate the right type of mind-set and behaviors in the fleet, a lot of it, particularly for senior leaders comes down to going to the right places and asking the right questions. we're not going to just dictate solutions. and so how do we get at that? well, oftentimes, and i know this is going to shock many of you. but when i go visit a particular command, the commander or maybe, you know, three echelons above the commander will take me to the most bright and shiny area of that command. and then we will talk about all
the success that that space or that area entails. and that's fine. that's a part of the program for sure. but it's much more useful to me if that commander takes me to the area where he is having actually the hardest challenge, right. this is the area where i'm struggling the most. and then we can have a conversation well, why is it so hard? let's talk about that. let's explore that. and what are you doing about it? what is your first try? how is that going? and when will you know that you're making some progress? how can i help you? and if we all get comfortable going to those hard areas and having those conversations in an area that is not a climate that's not oppressive, that's just really focused on the solutions. and if we can get all of our senior leadership to do that, then we start to stimulate this conversation and set of behaviors that really gets at,
okay, let's go talk about the hard things rather than gloss over the hard things by taking us to the easy solutions, the successful things. [ inaudible ] >> some do, your are right. it's not a new idea. you know me well enough i'm not smart enough to have a new idea. i can find others with great ideas. then in terms of being clear thinking. we hoped that we set a good example of that with the design. and we had many languages to choose from to publish that. and we chose english. and so as you read it, i hope that it speaks in clear terms there are very few if any acronyms in that. you don't have to be ten years inside the beltway to get a sense of what it's saying. and then to your point about asking questions again here, i think an example is a very powerful thing. i rarely understand what an
acronym is. in fact you get to sort of do the days that i have, you'll see the same acronym come through four times and it will mean four completely different things. so i'm always stopping and asking. i don't want to make any bad assumptions that i know what you're talking about. could you explain that a little more thoroughly. and again i think senior leadership, just like with the questions go, to the hard places, ask the right questions. we can start to maybe turn this corner. >> do your sailors feel free enough to ask questions? >> yeah. i go to all hands calls. and i used to -- well, my first one when i was a rookie so, you know, i thought, well, geez, this team is just going to be riveted by my every word, you know. what i got instead was a lesson about how fast the united states sailor can fall asleep. when they're not interested.
it was not -- 90 seconds is about the average. so what we do now is really just highlight how much respect i have for that team because they have so many choices today. they're so talented. and then open it up to questions. and just like today there is sort of a microphone. usually they have standing mics. and in no time at all, every standing mic in the room is there is a line ten deep. and so they start asking questions. and it's not just that. it's the tone of the questions and the sophistication of the questions and the whole thing is just absolutely uplifting in terms of what your sailors are concerned with, what is on their mind, how much they want to get to a better place. and so yeah, i think that they're empowered to ask questions. we want to make sure that just
as they're ten deep at every mic at my all hands calls and other all hands calls, so they're empowered to speak up at every level of their chain of command. >> okay. let's spread it around here. this gentleman over here. >> admiral, my question, i'm ted kay, and i'm talking a little bit about information warfare and effects. and so my question is how would you define the capacity to engage when you're talking about the future family of ships? each ship's different capacity to engage. >> you mean -- how do you define engagement? >> it's a combination of the weapons system or the kinetic effect with the wb system? how does that work? >> what do you want, like a jane's fighting ship thing? >> no, sir. i'm coming from the same school. the issue is in order to get an effective weapon on target, for example, you need to have a kuku with which comes from a lot of
resources. they're all tied together. >> okay. we obviously exercise that a lot. and whether we do that at every level of evaluation. so some of these are just sort of tabletop, you know, do the systems talk to one another, is it physically possible. and then of course as you know, what might be theoretically physically possible in a classroom or a boardroom or some tabletop or a lab, you've got to get that out and get some saltwater mixed in, atmospheric effects, you know, the whole nine yards. so it's got to translate into fleet experimentation, fleet exercises. and what we're finding is that we're able to do more and more synthetically in a virtual environment. the models are much more sophisticated now than they were. we're validating those molds against real world performance. so that part of our education
and that part of our achieving that successful engagement and everything that is involved with it, more and more of that can be done in a synthetic or virtual environment. and that includes multiparty, right. and so we can stitch together different elements of that system, even though they're geographically dispersed in a very realistic scenario. but even with all of that, there are some things that can't be done, except by going out and doing them. and sort of my community, the submarine community learned a valuable lesson about that at the start of world war ii. it took us a year and a half two, years to get confidence in our torpedos that they would actually home and detonate as they were designed to do. and so we want to make sure we never get into that place again. and so we do enough of that type of testing to ensure that we've got the requisite confidence. so that's in the systems that we have. and then there are those new
possibili possibilities. as we mentioned, we can now look at new connections, new connectivity, new possibilities in terms of sensor platform/weapon combinations. so that's kind of the horizon we're exploring. and we're doing that very practically as well. this is not just something that is in a power point or something that is on a computer screen. we're actually at sea doing those things. and if you can start to think about that type of an approach proliferating, and you've got to make sure that you have the requisite security, the requisite reliability and all of those connections, all of that kind of comes with it. you know, i'm optimistic. and then of course you started with information warfare, i think. and a big and growing part of this is sort of information warfare, whether that be cyber, electromagnetic, spectrum type stuff. so it doesn't necessarily have to be kinetic in the traditional
sense. all of that is being explored. i remain optimistic. >> okay. far side here. >> hi, chris cavis, defense news. just as a communicator, anybody who wants to drop jargon is doing a great job. so bonus to you. now for all the reasons you just said, a2ad is a confusing term, people spend time trying to figure out what it is, come up with all different kinds of answers. what can you do about the third offset? >> well, just like everything else, you just continue to ask questions, right. and so i encourage everybody to continue to ask challenging questions about what exactly is meant by the third offset. and so it includes elements of a lot of different things. it includes -- and you've heard
secretary works speak about this as much as anybody, chris. some of the new capabilities/technologies right around the corner or the horizon or even here amongst us, things like artificial intelligence, things like new ways of man-machine teaming, all of those things are going to be part of that. but to me and secretary work and i have discussed this, and i think we're in agreement that we're in a period of time where no one idea is going to be king for very long, right. and so we may achieve an advantage, but if we're not thinking about the next three, four steps down the road to maintain that advantage, it's almo someone is going to catch up or surpass us very, very quickly. it's just the nature of the environment right now. technology proliferates very fast; information even faster. so if we're not thinking about pace, not only this idea, but
the next three moves, then we're going to be caught out of position. we're going to be caught behind. and so i think that this idea of pace of innovation, getting speed to the fleet is as much a part of the third offset as any single technology that is going to be part of that solution. >> okay. we have time for one more question. >> is the hour over already, pete? >> yes, it is. that lady far on -- my right. >> thank you. thank you very much, admiral richardson, and thank you for giving me the last question. my name is lynn kowalk, and i'm from brookings institution. i was wondering if you could turn your attention to the south china sea. can you give information on what activity the navy can bring to bear on activities that are over features on which sovereignty is
still disputed. thank you very much. >> okay, thanks. and that's, you know, a terrific geographical area, a very interesting that brings a lot of what we've talked about to very clear focus. talked about to very clear focus. i've had a chance to discuss the situation of the south china sea with my counterpart of the people's liberation army/navy, as well as other regional counterparts in that region. so one thing i think that is important to appreciate is that it's not just a bilateral u.s.-china thing down there. there are an awful lot of nations with huge stakes in how this comes out. and so watching that security dynamic play out with everybody participating is one thing that we must keep in mind. with respect to what options the united states navy can bring, with all of the partners in the region, including china, there
are many areas in which we've got common interest, even today. often those are glossed over. there's a lot of areas that we do have common interests, and we have to make sure that we pile in and reinforce those areas where our interests align. there are areas where certainly we have -- we don't agree. as we work towards a compromise, both -- i think everybody's desire in the region, all naval leaders especially would want to do so in a way that mitigates a risk of an escalation that would send us in the wrong direction. so the hope is that we'll reach an agreement that's acceptable to all players in the region, including the united states, china, and everybody else in a
way that does not involve conflict. so certainly we wouldn't want to do any deliberate conflict, but we would also want to make sure we don't do any kind of conflict that results from a miscalculation or a mistake. so one good thing that all the navies have adopted in that area is this idea of c.u.s.e. i talk about this quite a bit. it's such a great example of how we can manage our way towards dispute resolution without creating problems, particularly confli conflict. it's a code for behavior when we encounter each other at sea. all the navies have adopted it. it's been very successful. i was on the john c. stennis as the strike group deployed to the south china sea. we were there with a lot of ships from other navies, particularly the chinese navy. and there were many, many
encountering between u.s. navy ships and others. by and large, not 100%, but the vast majority were conducted right in accordance with these cues that allow us to use all the tools that the nation has, and all of the mentions of our influence and power to come through a conflict resolution. and so our job as a navy is just to make sure one, we're there, we're present there. don't have many option it is you're not there. so we are there, we're going stay there. we've made that very clear. we're going to continue to enhance these sort of rules of behavior, advocating for rules and norms of behavior that will allow us to peacefully resolve differences, and then it was very important, i think, that we have a dialogue, so that in the rare event or unlikely event of
something happening, we can get on the phone with one another and deescalate quickly and keep this thing in context so that we get to our -- an end state that is acceptable by all in a way that doesn't involve conflict. >> thank you. admiral, our time is up. but on behalf of csif and the u.s. naval institute, we thank you for your time today. we know it's precious. we also want to acknowledge once again our sponsors, lockheed martin and huntington engle. so again, we thank you and appreciate your time. >> i'm very grateful for the chance to be here. thank you all for your terrifically inciteful questions. thanks for the challenges. >> thank you. [ applause ]
>> tuesday, environmental attorneys and other experts discuss the epa's attempt to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, and how the plan is being challenged in appellate court system. that's from the bipartisan policy center. watch it live, 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. and later in the day, a look at outside efforts to monitor the upcoming general election, with representatives from the organization for security and cooperation in europe. they hold a news conference at 2:00 eastern. live coverage here on c-span3.
>> before the second debate between hillary clinton and donald trump, we're looking back to past presidential debates saturdays on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. this saturday, the 1992 town hall debate between president george h.w. bush, arkansas governor bill clinton, and businessman ross perot. >> you can move your factories south of the border, pay $1 an hour for hlabor, no pollution controls, no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a job sucking sound going south. >> if all the jobs were going to go south because of the lower wages, there's lower wages now and they haven't done that. i've just negotiated with the president of mexico, the north american free trade agreement. >> you have to increase investment, and reduce the deficit by controlling health care costs, prudent reductions in defense and asking the
wealthiest americans to pay their fair share of taxes. >> then the debate between george w. bush and al gore. >> our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we tried every other course, if we're sure military action will succeed, and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits. >> i would take the use of force very seriously. i would be guarded in my approach. i don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. i think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. >> in the 2012 debate between president barack obama and former massachusetts governor mitt romney. >> if we get us energy independent, north american energy independence within eight years, you're going see manufacturing jobs come back. >> we can't just produce traditional sources of energy, we have to look to the future. that's why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars. that means that in the middle of
the next decade, any car you buy, you're going to end up going twice as far on a gallon of gas. >> watch past presidential debates saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. watch any time on c-span.org and listen on the c-span radio app. now, a look at efforts to stop online sexual harassment. california congresswoman jackie speier outlines legislation she introduced in july that would make distributing explicit images without consent a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison. other speakers include the president of the national organization for women, and representatives from facebook and the federal trade commission. this is an hour and 15 minutes.
>> good morning, everyone. i'm daniel castro, vice president of the information, technology and innovation foundation. i would like to welcome you to our event. so the goal today is to discuss this problem of nonconsensual distribution of sexually explicit images, commonly referred to as revenge porn. the different responses we've seen from government and the legislative steps we can take to better protect victims. before we get into this, just a few logistics. this event is being recorded. if you want to participate online via twitter, we're using the #itifprivacy. we have a really fantastic panel today. to get into this discussion. but before we get do that, the reason we're having this discussion here today, and i mean that both in a general sense as well as a literal sense, is because we had the
prif liblg of he privilege of hearing from congresswoman jackie speier, she serves on the house armed services committee and the house permanent select committee on intelligence. she's a tireless advocate for women's rights and a champion for the safety, health, and rights of ordinary americans. this is why "newsweek" named her one of 150 fearless women in the world. one way she's demonstrated this is through the writing and introduction of the intimate and privacy act that takes on this issue of revenge porn. not only does this outline a responsible path forward for lawmakers but brought this discussion to the forefront and created an opportunity and space for us to have this type of a conversation.
so we're very delighted that you're here to talk with us about your motivations for the bill, the current status, and where you see things going from here. so please join me in welcoming representative jackie speier. [ applause ] >> good morning, everyone. and thank you to daniel and all of you for being here, because this is really a very important issue. special thanks to the information technology and innovation foundation for putting together what is a pretty impressive group of experts on this issue, and i really ahmad the panelists, all of whom -- for most of whom i know and really admire. i hope this doesn't come as a surprise to you, but the internet is not the same place for everyone. for the fortunate, it's the place for open and thoughtful debate. for really banter and cute cat pictures.
for some, and this includes mostly women and ethnic minorities, it can be a place of unrelenting sexism, racism, verbal abuse, and even death threats. now, as a public person, i sort of expect some of that. and believe i get plenty of it on the internet. for the average person, this is not what they expect. take the recent experience of actress leslie jones. for doing nothing more than starring in a remake of a movie about fighting ghosts, she was subjected to a never-ending stream of racial epitaphs and sexualized threats. she left twitter, but the abuse didn't stop there. it culminating in her personal web page being hacked and intimate photos being posted publicly.
jones' case is regrettably typical of the experience that many women, and especially non-white women have on the internet. for them, the internet has become a new age sewage pipeline carrying the worst material imaginable in endless quantities. and as social media proliferates, so too these opportunities to destroy people's lives. several years ago, i started reading chilling stories of young people committing suicide because their image was being distributed without their consent. audrey pott, a sophomore in san jose, committed suicide after photos of her sexual assault were passed through snap chat. another girl killed herself after photos of her gang rape
were posted online. tyler clemente, a college freshman, killed himself after his roommate used a webcam to stream him having a sexual encounter with another man. christy chambers seriously considered suicide after her ex-boyfriend posted intimate photos along with her name and personal information to more than 35 different porn websites. earlier this year, anisha voera spoke at a press conference i held. she described how she deactivated her facebook account, changed her phone number, dropped out of school, and moved out of state after her ex-boyfriend posted private images that ended up on more than 3,000 websites. she was stalked by strangers, including one man who pushed his way into her family's home and
made it almost to her bedroom because her ex-boyfriend included a diagram of the house with her address, along with false claims that she had rape fantasy. it should come as no surprise then that more than half of victims of nonconsensual pornography report having suicidal thoughts. this kind of abuse is widespread. the economists has reported there are as many as 3,000 websites as millions of images and videos that feature non-consensual pornography. terry goldberg, who is here today, is representing hundreds of victims of this abuse. these groups have been contacted by thousands of victims seeking help and
justice. but these numbers, so appalling, are just the tip of the iceberg. that is because nonconsensual pornography can stem from cases of revenge, to images and videos of sexual assault being shared from purient entertainment as tyler clemente's case. there are even particularly disgusting cases where trusted caregivers have shared images they came across in their duties. one study found that 35 incid t incidents since 2015 have occurred of nursing home staff posting graphic photographs of residents with dementia and other ailments. it makes you wonder what will people stoop too? as this continues to spread, survivors have often been left with nowhere, absolutely nowhere to turn.
celebrities have hired high-priced law firms to demand that websites remove the material and individuals with financial means to hire lawyers have sought civil damages against those sites that profit from posting this pornography. but even in these rare cases where they have the resources to do that, the images off still can be found on the internet. you can make a full-time job out of searching the internet on 3,000 websites to see if there are non-consensual photos of yourself being posted. a few revenge porn sites operators like hunter moore have faced criminal punishment. but that's only after they committed wrongful acts of extortion, blackmail, and hacking. not for disclosing the images. across the country, 34 states have adopted their own bans on
nonconsensual pornography. some of these laws lack important elements, such as explicit first amendment protections. still, others only punish nonconsensual pornography when the perpetrator is motivated by a desire to harass the victim. which leaves perpetrators only interested in greed or voyeurism, to continue to commit the crimes and abuses that we seek to address. this patch work of regulatory schemes creates great uncertainty for victims and tech companies alike. all victims, all victims deserve recourse. not just those in some states, and all companies should be able to set policies that will apply nationwide. only federal legislation can address all of these concerns. it was clear to me that there was a need for a federal law to address this behavior. but i knew it was not going to be easy.
some of you may know that the long path to the ippa has taken over two years. i need to get something done on this complicated issue. i needed to draft a bill that had teeth, yet could withstand constitutional scrutiny and that would garner broad support in the advocacy community and from the tech companies. i also knew that we would need substantial bipartisan support from my colleagues. now, most of this would not have happened without the talented chief of staff to help thread the drafting of this legislation. so i want to say to josh conley, who is on this panel, without him, this would not be a bill that we are addressing today. after many revisions and with the help of professor marianne franks in drafting the bill, we started vetting the legislation
with constitutional scholars and legal organizations. after a lot of work, we lined up strong support from legal organizations such as the national association of assistant u.s. attorneys and the national district attorney's association. and 12 heeding constitutional law scholars, including the dean of uc irvine school of law. the dean has literally written the book on constitutional law, and argued five cases before the supreme court. his take on our bill sums up the constitutional question well. he says, and i quote, there is no first amendment problem with this bill. the first amendment does not protect a right the invade a person's privacy by publicizing without consent nude photographs or video of sexual activity.
i never get tired of reading that quote. we also brought together a broad coalition of supporters, including online businesses like facebook. i want to thank facebook for being here today. and twitter and victim's right groups like cyber civil rights initiatives and the national organization of women. if past, ippa will punish individuals and websites that knowingly post private, intimate material while providing a safe harbor protection for websites that don't advertise such contacts. ippa contains strong exceptions, ensuring that disclosure of private this was that's been voluntary made public would not be criminalized. most importantly, it would end
immunity for revenge po pornographers who continue to do their "craft" because ippa does not exist on a federal level. we have more work to do to get the bill passed. six republicans have joined in this effort. i hope when i introduce the legislation in the next congress, presuming i'm re-elected, that we will have numbers that are extraordinary in support of this legislation. and that we will be able to get it to the floor. today, with smartphones and endless social media platforms, there is no difference between online and offline life. it's all just life. the same technology that gives numerous ways to improve our
lives gives us numerous ways to destroy them. the supreme court -- and this is very important to underscore -- the supreme court has noted protecting privacy is often vital to protecting free speech. when people live in fear that they are -- they might be private information that can be disclosed to the world with devastating consequences, they cannot express themselves freely. the first amendment does not require us to stand idly by as real lives are destroyed by virtual action. not only do they deserve justice, society must hold perpetrators of this vicious form of abuse responsible. a civilized society cannot shrug its shoulders and say oh, but there's nothing to be done. of course there is something to be done.
that's why we must do something now to address this issue. it is already out of hand and it's time for congress to act. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you, congresswoman. now, there's a lot there that we want to discuss, and i'm very pleased to hear your expectation and next year we're going to see this bill move swiftly and with great bipartisan support. so we have a tremendous amount of expertise in the room. we also have a tremendous number of people in the audience. so we do have some seats in the back. if you're coming in, you can just fill in back. let me briefly introduce our panelists and we'll get right into this discussion. starting on my far left is josh conley, who is chief of staff for representative jackie
speier. to his right is terry o'neill, who is president of the national organization of women. for women, excuse me. to her right is mark icorn. tiffany davis, who is head of global security at facebook and she also worked for the state attorney general. i'm going to be asking for some views on some of that work, as well. finally to my left, terry goldberg, founder of a law firm specializing in internet abuse. so thanks to all of you for being here. let's just start off, terry,
you've been working with a lot of the victims that this law is intended for. can you talk about what you're seeing in your practice, what are the experiences that you're seeing with your victims, and the challenges that they have today. >> sure. so i'm basically the lawyer that i needed when i was under attack by a malicious ex. so i started my law firm focusing on online and offline sexual violence, because i couldn't find a lawyer and i was in family court and being told by a judge when i asked for an order of protection that i had a first amendment issue. so what i'm seeing is that victims come to me and they're absolutely so distraught. their images are all over the internet. often times they've been targeted by somebody known to them. and the images are spread from device to device, usually ending
up at some point on a social media site. and my clients are 13 to 65, 90% women. but most of them are on the younger side of the scale. and they do not know what to do. they're absolutely terrified that they're never going to get control back of their reputation. at this point in time, nobody can get a job or a roommate, even a date without being googled. so you have to think about how would you feel if the first five pages of your search engine results are images of you fully exposed and naked, images that you never wanted anybody to see. so my clients are distraught. they're afraid of their future. >> thank you. terry, let me bring you into
this conversation. this problem affects both men and women, but women have been disproportionately affected by this. can you talk about the gender nature of the problem, as well as what you're seeing. >> you know, by the way, thank you to representative jackie speier for bring thing legislation forward. this is another tool that domestic abusers use to stop women from leaving. there's an intimate photo taken and she doesn't think it's going to be shared with win because she's in love with him and trusts him. yet when she decides to leave, he holds this out and says if you leave me, i have expose this to the world. it's absolutely a tool of intimidation that is available in domestic violence. also a tool of intimidation in the workplace quite frankly. and think in terms of -- for
example, modeling agencies or dare i say it, beauty pageant contestants. there are girls as young as 14 years old that come to work for modeling agencies and you can imagine that it's entirely possible for photographs to be taken of these girls. they're lied to about what will be done with these photographs and then that material is utilized to control them. it's a common tactic in sex trafficking. it's a common tactic in other forms of exploitation of women. so what we are -- what i'm very excited about, this legislation, since this is a federal crime, that it can result in serious penalties and that the women themselves know that the country is behind them and that we will use all the power of the government to stop these abusive behaviors. >> thank you.
>> you've obviously been looking at the broader sphere of online safety for a while, and you've seen a number of challenges in this phase. how do you look at this issue, and how have you seen the issue grow. because we are talking about it more now opposed to ten years ago. >> so we've always had policies against this type of behavior. we don't allow people to bully or harass. but a couple of years ago, we saw an increase in this type of activity and we made it much more explicit in our policies that you cannot do this type of harassment. >> have you seen this issue -- i guess how would you quantify the issue, if you can? because that's always been one of the biggest challenges. you have so many clients, but still you're only one lawyer. we know this happens outside when people never even hire a
lawyer. >> i would say the question is in some ways not how we quantify it, because one single person having this devastating effect on their lives is enough to make it worth solving. >> josh, let me bring you in on the conversation here, too. there's obviously this kind of question when should government get involved, and when should the federal government get involved. what was the kind of thought process you guys had between saying that this is the point where we need to step in and talk about federal law, opposed to maybe state law. >> good question. congress is not always the best at forward thinking technology policy and implementing it. that's no secret. so we were very careful and deliberative. but we just heard story after story of how destructive this is, and really how no legal remedy was in place. and obviously technology and the
internet doesn't adhere to state borders. we also looked at a patch work of state laws, some good, some bad, some just down right ineffective. so it really seemed appropriate to address this at the federal level in a way that was -- that took into account both the realities of the tech industry and just the sheer volume of information that they're going through, and to put in place something that really had teeth and that would serve as a deterrence. >> i know in your website, you track some of these state laws and have been working with a number of these states in terms of responding for victims. how do you see the differentiation between states and their responses and the availability of recourse? >> so we have 35 states plus d.c. that have criminal laws.
and we also have 35 dates plus d.c. that have different criminal laws. there's so much variation between the laws. we have another 15 states that are completely holding out. in those states, it's perfectly legal to take an image of somebody else's genitals and post it online. it's legal to do that there. so the need for a federal law, just to protect -- i mean, to protect everybody is so necessary, particularly in the state where is there is nobody, no lawmaker protecting them. no lawmaker that sees the value in sexual privacy. >> just in terms of online privacy, we traditionally have addressed that through federal law, not state law. can you talk about some of the work that has gone on in the past in terms of children's privacy or other types of online privacy that might be a lesson as we're looking to move forward
here. >> we have actually supported the legislation at a state level in over a dozen states. but we also saw the need to support federal legislation, as we've done here. i think if you look at children's online privacy, we have federal legislation to deal with these types of issues. i do think that it provides an additional piece of arsenal for going after people who are committing these crimes, which is extraordinarily important, especially in those place where is you have victims that are in states that don't have protection. >> the s.e.c. has been involved in this, as well. can you share with us what their involvement has been? >> sure. i'm just speaking for myself today and not for the commission or any commissioner. so probably most relevant was our case against craig britain,
who was running a revenge porn website. we are a civil enforcement agency and our section five of the ftc act gives us authority over unfair acts or practices. so under that authority, we brought an action against craig britain and obtained a settlement. this man was allegedly soliciting photos from people through means such as he would pretend to be a woman seeking a woman on craigslist and then basically solicit photos from women with the promise he would send his own in return. then he would post those with their personal information on the website. so as keri talked about, and when you have the personal
information in combination of the photos, it makes it searchable online and they start to come up and be associated with you, so we challenged his conduct as both deceptive and unfair under the ftc act. in part, he was also pretending to be an unrelated third party and challenging a significant amount for removal from the site. this affected more than 1,000 people. so that was an action we brought up a couple of years ago. we also have been involved in related areas. we brought a case against a key logger called remote spy that was advertised as something that could be used to -- you could
trick somebody into downloading it and it would get on their and capture information from them and report to you about location and passwords and things of that nature. so that's some of what we've been doing. there's a lot of other types of cases that we brought, as well. i guess one thing i would say is that a lot of this debate is colored by the fact that there's an assumption that these photos were originally taken consensually in the first place, even though with a limited scope so that the individual had the idea, well, i'm sharing it with you but i'm not planning to pubbish it fpub i publish it for the world. a lot of our cases -- we brought a case against -- well, trend
net, which was an internet based ip camera that you could hook up. and due to poor data security, even though you could set your feed to private, hackers could get around that quite easily, and they made feeds for some like 800 cameras available online. another case that we brought was the designer wearer case where people who were getting rent-to-own computers were, without their knowledge, getting the computers preloaded with software that allowed the rent-to-own franchises to determine their location, but also use the camera of the computer to take pictures of them without their knowledge or consent.
so those are some of the things we've been doing. >> yeah, where are you seeing the fcc hands are tied? or maybe you see victims, you see cases where you want to get involved. obviously the fcc is only one agency, but are you guys not able to act? >> for one thing, we're a commercial agency, so anything we challenge has to be in commerce. so in the craig briton case, this was an individual who was making money allegedly through this scheme and running the website, as well as sort of directly soliciting the photos himself. so if you had an example of someone who was like an eventual ex-boyfriend who was just sort of posting it to some website,
you know, without a commercial motive, that wouldn't be something that we could respond to for example. >> terry, i think one of the things that is kind of maybe a defining characteristic of this type of problem is that there's so many different motivations or trajectories for how this happens. and i think -- i mean, so there's the angry ex. there's the pure entertainment value. and so the responses have been so diverse, but the problem with that is, it creates a lot of -- it's a heavy cost on the victim or the person affected by it to figure out how do i deal with it. is it a copy issue, a commercial issue. so maybe you can talk a little bit about that type of -- probably because we see this in other areas. >> you know, i really think it comes down to a consent issue. the question is whether the
victim consented to this particular use of intimate images of her or of him. you could think of two analogies. one is the privacy of medical records. clearly, people consent to the sharing of medical records, right? you want one doctor to share with another doctor, but you don't want those records put out on the internet. because that information could be used to interfere with your ability to keep your job. that information may be something that is so private to you that it is crippling in the sense of people really can't continue to function when they think, oh, my god, this is out there. people see this about me. so there's a real analogy between nonconsensual publication of intimate pictures
and medical information. i bring up that analogy, because i am very sympathetic to the first amendment "problems" with the idea of criminalizing the nonconsensual publication of intimate pictures. i think that when we think about the first amendment, we need to think about why is it that it's okay under the first amendment to prohibit publication of private medical records pu not to prohibit publication of private, intimate images and photographs and videos. i also think there's another analogy, and that is sexual harassment back in the workplace. in the '90s, the first amendment was used to resist title 7 of anti-discrimination laws, to stop sexual harassment in the workplace. the argument was, these are just guys being guys. just because they put
pornographic photographs of the woman on the locker, they need to be able to express themselves and they have a first amendment right to say i don't want women in the workplace and i can harass them with these images of a sexual nature. ultimately when anita hill testified about her experiences, with this sexually harassing behavior by her boss, that is when people began to understand that the first amendment does not give carte blanche for people in the workplace to stop an individual from being able to perform her regular job duties. i think the same thing is here. we are all online a lot of the time, so i think the first amendment argument is really quite frankly that comes from
privilege, and people who haven't experienced it. who are much more likely to be worried about the first amendment problem. those who have experienced the total shutdown that can happen to victims are much more willing to say no, no, this is -- we don't have a first amendment right to do this to an individual. >> let me open it up to the whole panel, this discussion about where basically you draw the line. i think that's been the single biggest hurdle towards moving forward, because most people recognize it's a problem, but they say should we be concerned about how this could go awry. and it becomes this kind of -- if you don't care about the issue, maybe the first amendment trumps it, and that's been a big roadblock until we have really seen a movement for a number of reasons.
>> i think ultimately critics have basically said this should be structured as a harassment statute, and something inherent in this to hold congressional -- or constitutional muster would have to be harassment. it's -- this is arguably more destructive to people's lives than an x-ray getting out or someone's social security getting out. it's just the reality of the time we live in, this is a very real and pervasive threat to people's lives. and we see it as solidly that it can withstand constitutional scrutiny. i don't know if this becomes
law. i don't know if secretary clinton -- maybe this will be the first bill she gets to sign into law. but we'll see if it will be challenged in the courts. >> it's interesting. what i would say on people's ability to share and speak, we see that people don't feel safe, they won't share. so for us, it's very important to create a space that they can feel safe and share. so i think rules like this help, legislation like this helps people to feel safe to communicate in a way they normally would. >> one of the things that is bizarre about this situation, after the case with craig
briton, who was the video took action against, he was using a law to try and de-list search results for his name. so someone like that is more likely to be successful almost in protecting this completely truthful, legal government public information about them than getting this more sensitive information removed that nobody else really had a right to have out there. keri, i know you've been thinking about this, as well. >> i just think it's a problem for us to see this, marly the intimate privacy protection act as pitting privacy against free speech. that's a false tension, and if we really saw that play out in the hulk hogan versus gawker case, where there were so many headlines talking about this
issue between privacy and free speech. and they're just not diametrically opposed. to think about what we've said all along, if so much speech would be silenced if everything was considered a public matter. in the gawker case, the question raised wasn't about privacy at all. it was about whether it was news worthy. and we have case after case in court finding that sex tapes are not news worthy. even if they include famous participants. >> so also we have seen these -- the hulk hogan case, the celebrity iphone leak, hack, where we had a turning point in
culture. where one, this issue is more recognized. maybe that's the kind of anita hill issue for this moment, that something really seems wrong. again, i want to open this up to the panel. how have things changed in the past two years since we've had these high profile cases, high profile victims speaking out. how that shaped how we approach this policy and how can it help? >> i wanted to tell you from my perspective, there's a growing movement among women online and women in tact to push back against a lot of the quite gendered harassment and bullying that you find online. i think gamer gate sparked an incident in which a number of women who are developing video games, which is a very male dominated part of online
industry, they began to be attacked very viciously and were "doxed," which is a little like what happens with politician's intimate pictures. their home address, all of their information was put online. simply because they were women who were invading the space of gamers. women began to organize and push back against that. and i think that there's a growing awareness, sort of generally, online of be the existence of this kind of bullying and how gendered it is, how it impacts women. so when you see this incidents, for example, leslie jones and other victims of intimate -- of publishing intimate pictures, it comes -- it hits people with a
cognitive face. so i think it fits this new bill. i think this is something that people will recognize, describes a problem that people will very much recognize. >> yeah. josh, i know you reiterated this is not the gawker bill. >> yeah, some have interpreted that our bill was somehow a reaction to the gawker case. in fact, it was not. i think a more interesting example is some news organizations calling into question, well, what about abu ghraib, would that photo be prohibited or expos them to criminal liability?
just look at -- one, we don't dispute it was in a very important story and a very important picture. but when you saw most news agencies, i haven't seen any news agencies that didn't do this. they blurred out the faces of the individuals that were naked and their genitals. and i don't think that detracted from the power of that image or its importance, or the effect. but i think it would be gratuitous and unnecessary to not put those people's faces out that would essentially we victimized them. and in no way would create any sort of -- i think the public interest question is a real one, but if you look at common sense and look at where the courts come down on some of these cases, i think it would easily be interpreted.
>> i think there's been such a huge cultural shift in the last three years. i mean, not only have we gone from 3 to 35 states that have laws and we've had some of our most celebrated celebrities come out and talk, like "vanity fair," about being a victim. and we've had several cases that resulted in large judgments. we just had a new one for $500,000. we've gotten the ftc to bring a case against a revenge porn operator. we have several outcomes against other operators, and all this happened in the last year. i think it's all given the media the okay to be writing about it, which never happened three years ago.
now there's articles from the perspective of the victim and it's really educating the country about this. >> we have a little time, to talk about what victims can do right now and what's available. so can you yo talk about the mechanisms in place on facebook, how you see that kind of -- walk us through how you would have crafted the policy and maybe how it's played out in practice. >> on facebook, as i said earlier, we do not allow this kind of sharing of intimate images. we make it very easy to report. when people report it, we will remove it immediately. >> can you talk about what that removal process is? is there somebody reviewing it? >> yes, we have a multitude of
people around the world reviewing these reports 24-7, in over 40 different languages to remove them. i think there's something that happens with this particular type of sharing that is devastating to victims. that is it's shared across multip multiple platforms. another thing is we've worked very closely on guides to give people the resources that they need when they are the victims of something like this. so they can go and find, can they reach out and what are the local resources in their area, and we've been testing a reporting flow where those resource also be provided
immediately upon reporting that. >> great. keri, you can talk about this, as well and how you see this. >> we're continuously talk about what victims should do. you know, but what we should be talking about is how we deter the offenders. that's why we really need the criminal laws. offenders are not afraid of being sued for a copyright infringement or being take on the civil court. they're not usually people that have money. they're often abusive exs. they would love to get back together with their victim. but what people are afraid of are going to jail. and having something on their public record. so it just -- there's such a need for the criminal laws.
victims don't have to think about what to do, because they won't be victims, because offenders won't offend at the same rate that we're seeing. >> that's a very important point. mark, that's part of the fcc's role. in terms of your enforcement actions in general, the fcc doesn't go after everyone. do you think that's been set through thing shuns? are you seeing a change and what people are willing to do commercially that affects individuals? >> i think that her actions probably have the most effect in sort of hike the legitimate company space, frankly. and so we do a lot of anti-fraud work and so forth. and work of this nature against sort of basically individuals. we certainly hope that will have
a deterrent effect. but some of these people, if you're -- i mean, a lot of this is not necessarily rational behavior in the first place obviously. it's driven by a lot of really ugly emotions or even you wonder about mental illness or other things going on. so it's harder to defer that. i just want to go back to one more things about helping victims, which is that we, on monday, put out a piece on stalking apps. we do a lot of consumer and business education, and this is a piece for women who sort of -- sometimes an ex will sort of basically know where they are at every moment, and be able to track them and maybe even brag about i know you went here and
there. and just about the fact that these stalking apps can exist and sort of how you might be able to find out that your phone has been jail broken and that these apps might be on your device and sort of what to do about it. so that was something we put out just this week. and then we have another information online. for example, there's another piece for victims of domestic abuse and so forth, advice for them. >> terri, maybe you can talk about it, this is a digital representation of issues that have long existed. but the traditional response from individuals, if they feel like someone -- if something is illegal, they call the police. one of the problems we saw when we looked at this, a lot of local police aren't going to know how to deal with this issue, even if they escalate it
to the fbi, because it's cross border or they call it an internet crime, they're still not really that same type of response that you would have for other types of domestic violence or sexual violence or anything like that. are you guys thinking about how this fits into that broader set of resources that are being made available? >> you know, it really is a problem, like victims of sexual assault who are immediately not trusted initially, that what they often find, they go to the police and they're subjected to, we don't trust you, you were lying, what were you drinking, what did you say. all the reasons why the victim might have been at fault. i think what you have in this -- in publication of intimate pictures is the same kind of victim blaming. there's a lot of shaming, why did you allow that picture to be taken in the first place?
you should know to protect yourself at all times. so we do see a lot of the same kind of victim blaming and there's a spectrum of perpetrators, that perpetrators really do follow a spectrum of motivations for why they're doing what they are doing. sometimes it's revenge, sometimes it's just control. sometimes it's a predator using photographs to control individuals. very much true in the sex trafficking world and in the world of domestic violence. so when you're dealing with a predator, it's particularly important to have the criminal law of the united states of america behind you. >> josh, let me go to you now. i think what we should do, i want to open it up to questions, but i want to spend a few more minutes talking about the law itself. can you walk us through maybe in
a little more detail how you have thought through some of these different issues and put it in the bill. and then we can -- i want to open it up to the panel for their reaction. >> yes, we looked at a lot of stuff. we looked at digital copyright act, the process of notice and takedown of copyrighted material, we looked at child pornography to try to come up with a model for some sort of notice and takedown regime. and this -- neither solution seemed to really work. so what -- we really wanted to go after -- te wanted to deter the really bad actors, these folks that are uploading the contempt. and we wanted to get after the revenge porn sides.
-- sites and how they're get thing content is they're knowingly so less fitting or advertising for this content. so basically, we define what this content is. we carve out police activity for investigation and the bona fide public interest, to say that if you're knowingly uploading or share thing content, that you -- with reckless disregard as to whether the individual contented for it to be distributed, that you would be held criminalably liable with a maximum penalty of five years up to prison. then we don't touch section 230, which is like the third rail of this issue and many others to ba basically, if you touch it, you break the internet as people say. so the good actors like
facebook, it's not only in their self-interest to be vigilant about taking this content down, but do a pretty good job of it. so again, we really wanted to go after the bad actors, both the folks uploading it and the ones trading and benefiting and profiting the websites from selling this content. >> i know everyone here has looked at the bill. your reaction to the measures and anything you're particularly pleased about, anything you would like to see changed if it's reintroduced? >> i think the most important piece of it is that it shows that the united states government is on the side of women who are struggling with this issue. it's extremely important to get the word out that women will have resource, that we needed a
bill, as josh said, as congresswoman jackie speier said, we needed a bill with teeth. and this is something that women really can use. and i think it sets a tone. along this spectrum of people who might not be the predators deliberately creating tools that theek use to control individuals in the sex trafficking, go on the other side of the spectrum of people who might be oh, i'm going to get back at her, a true revenge porn situation, a criminal law could deter that and i think will in many cases. >> i'm a fan. i was pretty active in working with josh to draft this bill and we think it's terrific. >> we're fans, too. and in all seriousness, this is
a very serious crime, the behaviors that people who are sharing nonconsensual intimate ima images, it is devastating to those people in the photos, and we felt it was very important to support legislation at the state and federal level. >> and i also want to say that the exceptions that are in there, i think very much take care of all of the first amendment issues, and to -- and i think that what antigone said earlier is extremely important. the free speech of victims is dramatically increased by this bill. the ability of women to be able to say -- to be able to be out there, to be online without fear, to know that the internet can be a safe space for them. but it's not just actual victims of nonconsensual porn, it's bystanders who fear that they
might become victims who shut down, don't want to go online, are fearful of it. so this bill opens up great deal of free speech, not for those who are privileged and they're using the internet, but for those that need to be on the internet. >> one thing i didn't point about in the beginning, you know, a lot of this goes back to this idea that we've always advocated nor the idea that technology is designed by choice and we should be thinking about what type of technology we should be creating, what this vision is, and how we can promote more innovation. that only happens when you create the space that people want to participate in. that has a government and private sector component. i guess the last question i have, before i open it up to the rest of the room, we have probably some state lawmakers who are going to be watching
this event. we only have 30 something states with these laws. what's the takeaway for them? should they be taking a step back, moving forward, do we still want 50 states with these laws? what's the message to them, anyone? >> i would say better -- something is not always better than nothing, but i would point them to the illinois state law, which i think is really sol it. not crafting it as a harassment statute but a privacy one and making it a criminal offense. >> i think the advantage of moving forward and trying to get laws like this passed in all the states is that it educates prosecutors throughout the -- up and down the levels of government, and it really gets the word out there to all of law enforcement that this is in fact a crime. >> yeah, we absolutely still need to maintain state laws and all 50 states need them.
the fbi is not going to be looking into every single case. we can't expect them to. they have much more discretion about what case to take, so we need our local law enforcement to be stopping nonconvenn chsen porn on a local level. we would recommend that the 15 remaining states look to the illinois law. the other trend we're seeing more and more is civil remedies. so we've been talking about how criminal laws really deter, but we should all have options. and so if a victim wants to take matters into her own hand, then there should be civil liability. and the good civil laws allow victims to keep their anonymity and to get injunctions to stop