tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 11, 2015 8:00am-10:01am EDT
does he consistently demand? we received lengthy, often is monstrous terrorists from prison terrorists murdered her children, terrorists who murdered her parents terrorists who murdered our husbands and wives from prisons because they were murdered because they are jews. he demanded that from us. unfortunately the obama administration supported the demand and they blamed israel for not being sincere in our desire to make peace because he
said funnily enough is enough that we will not go through with acer red shippers in the releases of israeli citizen of arafat in this city who murdered us because we are jews. this we will not do. we would have done it though we didn't do it because mock murder boss refused to negotiate with us. still today we see we make concession after concession after fashion things that harm us things that endanger the lives of israeli citizens releasing terrorists from prison causes the murder of additional jews. and we know this. the statistical data and the recidivism rate of who we released from prison past he has the u.s. government in accordance with the demands we are supposed to negotiate partners. the moderate palestinian
leadership. jews have been killed. enough is enough. we never get credibility for showing our sincerity for peace. we get killed for showing our sincerity. [applause] and i just want to add. i don't believe as a jew that we should be the only true christians in the world and give her other cheek. i don't think that is our responsibility. our responsibility to our people and our responsibility to our future is to not get the other cheek, say excuse me but you cheated me once, shame on me. shame on you. you cheated me twice shame on you have a response ability.
my responsibility and then wait come and see whether we can talk. the entire tuesday formula is based upon the notion that israel is culpable, that it is our fault there's no piece of military people preaching to their children that they should murder ours that they should murder our children. this is what they are preaching to their children and teaching their children everywhere. we are the ones who are supposed to be making concessions. i say no. prime minister nathan yahoo! has also set out because the guiding concept of this two state formula is reciprocity. you want us to make concessions to you. make concessions to. stop the incitement to genocide.
their murderous other people. and when you do that, we can sit down and chat. so far 22 years of nonsense and nobody has told the palestinian people that israel is just that the jews are just, that they should make peace with us. [applause] >> caroline if i could -- >> i believe you might have some respond. >> sorry, i get a little worked up. [applause] >> 10 more seconds for you, ari bair. >> caroline, i totally share your feeling about the jews and
the fact that your people and your family was treated so badly by such large part and i definitely see anti-semitism and i see unfair purchase to israel and i do my best to fight them. by the way, i am in the frontline. sadly, your message, your line is totally different it comes to the friend tear. [applause] and let me say from the -- something serious about our community. we have to be very focused. we live in this jewish bubble. the bubble is strong because of
the extraordinary success by the american jewish community. once you collide at the bubble and talk to young people, and america is changing. the demography is changing. as passionate as i am about my truth is a jew i have to go out and commit people it's not enough to house all of the feeling of hate. this is what it's about. to go out in political warfare with a sense that we are just right and everybody hates us. we will lose out because we don't understand what is really going on. what inside the mall about. it was time not to sit anymore in the ghetto and shout. it is our responsibility to go
out and work in the real world. what cannot be different different in any other country than one in the democratic world. we cannot do that. it's suicidal. it is so nice to get the feelings of how just we are. we are just we have to be smart again as well. specifically, the terrorists out about. why would they release. and they will not let them go for this settlement freeze. so they were at least -- released via this is the main problem that we can't because of our history, because of our fundamental justice, because we
are fair and dangerous. we sometimes go into a pattern. when i talk about zionism that's what i talk about. the 67 war was never before and never since so strong. we have no-space, blessed the land we are weaker. that is not the component and national security. [applause] the problem with this approach
when you try to grab it all you lose it all. you try to grab it all you lose it all. when he planned have every right. we have to understand other people. we have to find a way to accommodate them to respect them. if we don't find a reasonable realistic way we are in danger of ourselves in every way possible. again the major fight now is how israel is perceived among us. [applause] i have no doubt for a moment we have to speak like david, think like david and act like david. rather than be perceived. this is the way we see the worst feelings against us.
so we have to go back to be this big, strong from every of the state and just david. i say to people, don't forget. fundamentalists historically are the underdog. this is our great success. but if we try, if we ignore the fact there is millions millions of others, if we jeopardize our bright it will not accept the fact he needs the own right to liberty. we will endanger our liberties. [applause] >> caroline, we're close to running out of time. if i could ask you to confine it to two or three minute. >> i think it's very important and i will make this very brief. there is just one aspect of what you are saying that i really
want to discuss and that is the issue of how we are among the nations of the world, how they perceive as though they can stand alone among the nations. i think this goes to the heart of anti-semitism and what it is really about. it was professor britt's wife who posited and correctly the notion of the democracy to withstand the test of time to retain the democratic character is in many ways and i shared by the tolerance and acceptance of the democratic society for jews that the litmus test of whether or not a country's democratic rule of law is going to be able to survive is a function of how that has been signed and how the society looks at jews because we are the most vulnerable people
and have been for thousands of years. so the issue of whether or not the democracy as vibrant as really directly correlated with the level of anti-semitism in that society. i remember her i had the privilege of interviewing shortly after they join the jerusalem post in 2002. right around the time to my first column was the first week of the operation. i interviewed him in jerusalem. anti-fanatic right likes of which we have seen throughout europe and the united states. they were very frightening. i asked him. i said so what do you say? what do you say to the jews of america in the diaspora that are
for the first time in their life having to do with the fact they are hated because they are jewish. i was blessed to grow up in a time when anti-semitism was still unacceptable in this country. what do you tell them. they are scared, confused. they don't know what to think. he responded to me. he said they have to ensure the most important thing in fighting anti-semitism is not to allow the anti-semites to define us. with the jewish people have always defined ourselves from the time we received the 10 commandments. we have always defined ourselves as the children of abraham isaac and jacob and we have to maintain our ability to define ourselves because the moment we gave that to define who we are and what we believe to our
haters do we cannot. they make us less able to maintain and continue on as jews. the most important thing when we deal with this kind of is to keep clear about who we are what we stand for and what we believe and not to think we have to change the way we do things in order to make a haters happy because we cannot resent people out of something they want reasoned into. anti-semitism fundamentally irrational because it describes to us positions in state and actions we never undertook. we are not denying the rights. since 1996 98% of the palestinians have lived under israeli control and when we say to ourselves that we are guilty of the projected to replace
tomas when in fact the guilt is in the hands of the palestinian authority, the bloody authoritarian rule of law destroying palestinian authority, we are in fact allowing semites to describe us and tell us who we are and i truly believe it's dangerous and wrong to put together a policy for content and all of it. [applause] >> you have three minutes for your sum up in concluding remarks. >> well, i think for our own soul and for our own future we must find a way to change the present condition. again, we should never be named. we are to regret was tried
before. between me the third wave approach that will lead us somewhere that is somewhat better. i'm deeply worried that the fact that the dynamics when israel and sometimes within the community are taking us further and further away from the blast. and we are here in this conference with the amazing organization. the great success of zionism throughout the year was based on this combination of we are just but we must be realistic and we must know about world we live. we are at a destroyed ourselves in our heads during. we have to be so cautious.
the approach is so dangerous. i am so passionate when i think about the founding fathers and mothers of zionism. it not only has a brilliant diagnosis, they saw us coming and try to prevent it. but they struck a balance. they know we live in a cruel world. but we have to find a sophisticated approach and the two leading principles. one was always to have a superpower on our side. first it was the british. then the french and then the great allies of the united states of america for which i'm so full of. when i heard the way some people talked about secretary lou the other day one of israel's
greatest threat this kind of dangerous approach among our communities not having enough revenue not having enough respect. we cannot survive a day without america. america is a democracy and the life is based on shared value. if we approach this but urged that we saw the other day. first of all i so feel embarrassed as an israeli and as a jew that this has happened to us. when we have differences we should express it. the with respect if we endorse an arrogant approach if there
are no other people, no palestinians, no progressive americans come in a latino americans we are in danger. believe me we will deal with the threats of the middle east. we are strong and sophisticated. we will deal with it. but that has to do with other principles. the other principle. ben-gurion was as tough as nails, that he always understood we must have the threat. we must reach out to peace even when peace is not there if it will go the other way and we will find ourselves on the wrong side of history. we are endangering this amazing achievement of putting
ourselves. so let's remember who we are. let's remember our values, our legacy the universal pride mentioned. we had a mission in this world and in a proud way in a jewish way let's see our soul our values, our democratic indemnity and our existence. if israel will not be jewish it will not be democratic and if it seems to be not enough democratic, it will not be jewish. so let us -- [applause] >> thank you. >> -- before it is too late, let us save ourselves build
ourselves to the glorious future we should and can have. >> thank you. [applause] >> caroline, final word. >> i think we been told and you cited in your way and we are told often times that the only way israel cannot a successful foreign policy the only way we can get along in this world is by continuing to maintain our commitment to the two state solution. the real question is how can we have a successful foreign policy how can we win the hearts and minds of the people of this country, the people of europe and beyond in asia and elsewhere if we are maintaining our loyalty to a foreign policy
that is based on a lie that is based on the lie that the plo hamas, the arab world as a partner in peace and that there is a peace process today. that is a lie. the palestinians are not partners. the plo was not a partner. mahmoud abbas is not a moderate and you know this. we are in complete agreement. this man has never accepted any compromise with israel, has never agreed to any compromise and will never agree to any compromise. he is not a partner in peace and yet the entire two state solution is based upon the notion we have a peace process is based upon the lie we have a partner. as a result, our foreign policy is based on the line. what is the basic assumption?
it is the assumption of israeli guilt and culpability for the absence of peace. that is the basis that the two state solution. you can't peace if you give up land. you will get peace so long as you hold onto it. it is your fault. you are greedy jews. you walk. you won't get afterwards someone. until you do you won't get peace and tell you deeply will continue to blame you and continue to say he didn't freeze jewish property rights, that you didn't aggregate jewish property right and you didn't let palestinian fighters out of prison. it is all your fault because the reason there is no peace in europe too much land. this is a lie. the longer we maintain support and loyalty for this anti-semitic paradox, we cannot go forward and explain ourselves to anybody because we accept as a basic assumption at
anti-semitic idea of jewish culpability. we are responsible for everything, guilty for everything. we confused as a result people's ignorance. secretary of state john kerry made several comments over the past year when his attempt to draw water from iran can make peace as somebody who has no interest in peace with israel. he said israelis are too wealthy, too successful, we don't have a sense of urgency about the peace process. we have marred in big telling us last week on israeli television that you people are rational because we don't move forward with peace. and even comments about our need to show our justice and morality and willingness to compromise to the hearts and minds is one of the terrible things the left has done, that they try to repackage to their audiences that the
ignorance of fact by some sort of moral failure on the part of the israeli people that we don't want peace and not. but we say the palestinians are in peace partners, when we say mahmoud abbas is not interested in making peace in israel, we are not saying it because we don't want peace. we say it because we are making a factual observation. we live in reality in israel. we die by reality and we have to deal with it. it is an insult to last come into the israeli people to present this observation of fact, the observation of reality is a moral failure as if we don't want peace. true morality -- let me just finish this. true morality is to live by the highest values in the world that
exists and israelis demonstrate our loyalty to the highest moral values every single day in the world in which we live. [applause] >> thank you. thank you both for your passion. [applause] thank you for your courtesy. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, that concludes our presentation. please make your way to your advocacy training lunch. [inaudible conversations]
has been done to the catheter that is being now positioned into diseased valve and a load be deployed in a second with the balloon being inflated in a new valve will be in third in inside the old calcified synodic files. as you can see here the delivery system is drawn in the wire will be withdrawn. what we've seen in this pic will display his replacement with the aortic valve that does not require open-heart surgery. we are trying to become smarter about predicting who will give diseased. we are trying to become smarter as to identifying the most effect needs to prevent or attenuate the disease and smarter about following up over a longer period of time. we are currently in an era where we are trying to harness the
promise of the human genome research project that is now in existence for more than a decade. with all of the informatics driven by the giants of the industry like google for example has information about sociology geography where he lives the railroad tracks come your likelihood to get diabetes on the keys of your educational background and your likelihood of developing something like diabetes or hypertension if you live in a certain part for you with access to that kind of food or instructions about sodium consumption. little things have an enormous impact on health. >> live now to the foreign relation remarks as gotland's first minister, nicola sturgeon.
she is just getting underway. >> often since i arrived is the fact that bonds for them very deep and go back from the discussion and debate between enlightenment thinkers since benjamin franklin to the modern exchange of university graduates in the connection between our technology companies, the relationship between our two countries is cultural. it is social. it is historic and of course economic as well. we hold that ties very highly. what i've seen on my visit this week is the ties are set to continue and indeed to
strengthen for years to come. it is a pleasure to be here at the council on foreign relations which for years has an exchange between the united states. i'm especially pleased to be speaking this particular time. i'm very aware there is strong interest here in political development not just in scotland but across the united kingdom as a whole and it is understandably an interest in these developments for europe and the way the international community. before we begin our discussion, i want to provide a brief overview of my thoughts on where the united kingdom and scotland stand right now. tonight i will talk about two
referendums and one election. i look back briefly at the referendum on scottish independence particularly brashear and also the u.k. general election that took place last month. i also look forward to the referendum on the united kingdom membership of the european union expected to take place sometime before the end of 2017 or the exact timing of the referendum is not yet known. as you're able to guess, the rough around him last september it didn't turn out exactly as i would've hoped it would. the world may not have transformed scotland's constitutional position. it undoubtedly transform scottish politics and i would ask you is that a transformation
effects on united kingdom politics as well. firstly, the referendum has made scotland one of the most politically engaged countries i would argue in the entire world. nearly everyone in scotland became intensely involved in a peaceful passionate debate about the kind of country they wanted to live in and that debate has had lasting consequences. for example the u.k. general election last month in scotland was some five percentage points higher than the rest of the united kingdom. many people who previously hadn't had any interest left with the weather and how the country was governed understand their voice really matters. they feel involved in decision-making in a way that hasn't happened before, certainly not in my state.
regardless of the result the referendum itself has been good for scotland. we are more energized ,-com,-com ma more informed and more empowered than ever before. the results also provided part of the context for last month u.k. general elections. the u.k. election is just a very clear result in the election of a majority to government and david cameron as prime minister. there is something striking and much more complex because in many ways there are actually four different elections taken place in the united kingdom last month in each of the different nations at the united kingdom and the selections teaches very different results.
they have very significant implication or how it is governed as a country. the scottish national party won the election in scotland. the electoral consistencies and scotland won the election and wales. the conservatives who are 60% and has always has had a very different system of party politics. so the world knew in uniform at results across the united kingdom. the multinational united kingdom voted in four very different ways. before the election i raised the question of what actually constitutes an electoral mandate in the u.k. than the nations are
pulling in very different directions. simply winning enough votes and seats in england can secure the majority. the government is achieved only by winning seats in the nation and the u.k. is the question arises what mandate is to except of course the right to form the u.k. and has indeed done that. far from it in fact. the legitimacy of the actions comes very clearly into focus. as i discussed with the prime minister after the election, what happens to the future of the united kingdom in the years ahead will at least in part depend upon how responsibly westminster deals with the reality that in constitutional terms the u.k. is not unitary
state. there is no independence referendum on the immediate horizon of course. i think it is a reasonable point to make it the united kingdom is attacked in the years to come, they must demonstrate very clearly that it can adapt to multinational and multiparty politics in a far more substantial than it has done in time. europe is used to the idea of 60 different governments making different choices about significant issues. that is not found being notwithstanding the u.k. has been a remarkably centralized state. but it's now increasingly clear for the united kingdom as a whole one size doesn't fit all and a one-size-fits-all approach
is not going to fit the bill for the future. of course a distinct political identities in different parts of the u.k. are relevant to the third point i want to talk about this morning the coming referendum on the membership of the u.k. union a huge significance. a considerable interest to people here as well. many people back in the u.k. -- the prime minister says you want to stay in the european union also the biggest u.k. parties say they want to stay in the european union. overwhelming support for european union membership in the westminster parliament. yet here we are in the united kingdom standing carelessly close to the exit door at the e.u. and the prime minister is
seeking to appease that that's their eurosceptic opinion and at some party with the united kingdom independence party are unlikely to be a piece by renegotiating membership of the european union. it is for the u.k. to exit the european union. effort in the u.k. as a whole and the approach seems especially odd to many people in scotland. the general election last month across the whole of the u.k. parties which were to leave the european union called around 12% of the popular vote. just this week we've seen an opinion poll showing 72% buy that to remain in the european union with 28% and that is not
surprising given the economic investment and there are some 300,000 jobs every via exports to the european union. membership of the union is that enormous importance. for many people in scotland a referendum on the e.u. isn't simply a priority. nevertheless it leads to the possibility that scotland could be taken out of the european union against our will and that is why the european question is directly linked to the question of how the u.k. is governed. the scottish referendum last year articulated powerfully campaigning against scottish independence was scotland is a value and equal partner in the u.k. family of nations.
so surely therefore as many people shouldn't be possible for scotland's voice to be overruled in the e.u. referendum and that is by the scottish government is arguing for a double maturity and if referendum or the u.k. could only did the e.u. with each of the nation. the asserted territorial requirement is often used in countries like canada and australia and i think it is time to apply to the united kingdom a multinational state to give meaning that the u.k. is the family of nations. i said last week in a speech to the european policies that have scotland does find itself taken out of the european union in scotland to remain thin, it could produce a demand for another independence referendum which will be unstoppable.
i would argue that government has it within their power to remove the possibility by agreeing the provision would put forward. the referendum legislation could demonstrate that the u.k. government has see the u.k. family of nations. that would be one clear way for which the u.k. could do what it needs to do to demonstrate that it could not to multinational multiparty system of politics within the united kingdom. within my opening remarks it is clear from observing the politics that these are momentous come exciting times for scotland and indeed for the u.k. as a whole. also a considerable opportunity. the coming months in coming years gives us a chance to
secure a powerhouse economy and ensure a more equal society. also an opportunity to secure better governments across the u.k. and you see a vote which i hope will be between scotland and the united kingdom within the european union. none of them are guaranteed. but require positive arguments and constructive negotiations from political leaders. i am determined the scottish government will make good arguments contributing to the negotiations because if we achieved these three object as it will be good for scotland. it will be good for every nation of the u.k. and europe in the world. it helps to strengthen our friendship and alliance is both
here and in the heart of the united states and right across the world. thank you very much indeed for looking. i'm looking forward to the discussion that will follow. [applause] >> first minister again welcome to thank you for talking with us. you said in your remarks he raised the question about whether the conservative party that terry is only one of the four nations that we are holding an election can be considered to have a mandate. my first question is if it is not a mandate, what is that? are you saying david cameron is not legitimately the leader of the u.k.? >> the constitution of the united nations is david cameron is the prime minister. he won the election and got enough votes and seats to form a government and that is what he has done.
the point i'm making is a point of political reality because of the relative size of england and the other government. that argument is he needs to accept that in the other city nations in the united kingdom and how he governs the country or something he should take account of and respond to the democratic issues addressed in scotland and wales and northern ireland. in many respects a bunch of the reality was determined in part to the united kingdom develops over the coming years. for people of scotland, we are watching quite carefully to see how the government responds. the message people take his
westminster is responsive, adaptable and has gotten better. >> are we to understand a new relationship between scotland and the rest of the united kingdom? >> scotland and the united kingdom are part of that regardless whether scotland becomes at some point in the future and independent country is integral. the united kingdom is not as and has never been a unitary state. a multinational family of four separate nation in recent years we've seen through devolution and asymmetry developed and how the united kingdom is governed. we seen it in each of these four nations. the relationship between the scottish government and indicted government and its a taste of
the united kingdom. it is an adaptable and responsive and can accommodate the different views in the different directions or will it prove to be unresponsive in which case perhaps the united kingdom will not continue as the construct. >> watching from the other side of the atlantic, many americans look at what's going on and said scotland was to break away that greatly weakens the united kingdom. but he said about? >> i've never held that view. one of the things i've been talking a lot about in the united states is a scotland had to become an independent country. the point i made in my opening remarks there is no second
independence referendum on the horizon. we're talking hypothetically at the moment. the united states for example would go from having one close ally to having two close allies, scotland and the remainder of the united kingdom. the united kingdom in an international context would always see as its closest allies defending the security of the united kingdom contributed the rest of the world as england and the remainder of the united kingdom. in many ways it strengthens the position in the united kingdom can be strengthened by demonstrating how it responds to the will of the people. >> in the meantime, while there is not an action right now to independence, there clearly are
ways to have scotland exert more authority over its own affairs. your executive later stewart hosey said last night the s&p is going to push or pull fiscal autonomy which as we understand it with you in complete control. is this something the s&p has decided to deal? >> short of scotland being independent -- you manage to get to scotland before i have. >> ever feeling that's not so. >> so yes that is the position of the s&p. as a default part of the united kingdom, there are restrictions on the devolution of the european rules for example would mean it could imply you added tax be set definitely in
scotland. there are some restrictions. we want maximum fiscal powers within the united kingdom. why do we want that? because the more powers we have the more fiscal responsibility we have come at the more ability we have to shake things like social security, the more evil we will be to make sure we do the things and policies that attract investment and jobs more sustainably. it empowers responsibility for a process that will make the arguments in the west was to parliament in the debate about autonomy for scotland continues over the weeks and the con. >> you are not seen it is happening imminently the push to have the fiscal autonomy? >> legislation to extend the
post of the scottish parliament in what i would argue a reasonably limited way. a part of the process we seek to make amendment for the economy and what you've been reading today is about a particular amendment we are pursuing in the house of commons to get the scottish parliament the right to move to fiscal autonomy. >> i'm sure you're aware of the analyses that shows that cost as much as $10 million a year cost scotland that much. is that a deterrent? >> no it's not. that looks at the fiscal position of scotland right now. scotland is and devastate the way the u.k. is in deficit and revenues are not large enough to covers ending and a position in many countries across the world are ran. that is what our analysis is
about. countries in the deficit want to pursue policies that have revenues through a achieving fiscal balance. what argument for fiscal autonomy is equipped the scottish government with greater responsibility to do just that and introduce the ability for us to tackle the fact we like many other countries right now or in a fiscal position. >> how much of a priority, is this the first thing he will push for the coming weeks and months? >> in terms of constitutional debate yes. the prime minister of scotland will make priority is the leader of any government will be the economy of scotland, how they grow jobs in scotland how we attract investments to make sure our public services are
performing well in delivering quality services. in terms of how the constitutional feature develops, we will be seeking to argue for as much autonomy as possible. >> is it a good thing if scotland has its own foreign policy? >> scotland has been an independent country with responsibility as part of that. we are not in the position of the policy is to be served with the united kingdom government. i do think it is an outward looking and internationalist country is the one diabetes to have a voice and seek to influence the direction of the u.k. foreign policy. we seek to do that in a very construct of way. there are some differences between the scottish government
in the u.k. government. there are many areas in which we share a few and in which the scottish government would be supportive of the position of the u.k. government. we will seek to have our voice heard and influence the policy as much as we can. of course it's the responsibility of the u.k. government. >> what is most important for us to understand to the extent it is important that all about where the similarities and differences when it comes to relations with the united states. he talked about the e.u. europe strong views the u.k. should say part of the e.u. how would you flesh that out? >> what i would say about my party and my government and how we conduct ourselves as we are internationalist.
if scotland had voted to the independent this would've been absolutely picky. we would consider ourselves to be a key ally of the united states. we want to work constructively within the world community to make sure we are playing our part in resolving the conflicts and issues and challenge been met with in the modern world. we would want to be a continuing member of the nato alliance to play our part in collective security. the message we strongly articulated during the referendum and will continue to with nothing to fear from an independent scotland and we are not independent right at the moment if that happens in the future the international community would find a constructive ally in terms of the many issues we deal with. >> what do you make first minister of all the attention you've been getting since last
month? most of all the last few. >> i think it is good for scotland. there has been more international attention on scotland is a country in the past two or three years than i can ever remember before. last year we had a wonderful coincidence. we hosted the commonwealth games. a few weeks later we hosted the cut that glenn nichols with events that focus on scotland. most countries would've thought that was enough to be going on with for one year. we decided we might get bored so we had a referendum on independence in between those two events. all of that combined to put a spotlight on scotland but in many ways continues to this day. my view is a simple one. we should capitalize on that.
we should use that to encourage companies and business investments and the message had been taken around new york and washington this week is a great way to live and work in the business. if you see scotland on television, reading in the newspapers please come to visit. come to study because we are a fantastic country. >> finally before we take questions from the audience, are you getting done on this trip what you want to get done? >> yes i am extremely happy with how the trip has gone. let me just say firstly we had a fantastic reception from everybody weeknight in the united states, new york and washington, and we are grateful for that. the focus of the trip has been largely trade and economy.
in new york we met with two companies that were announcing new investments in scotland and from that point of view is very successful. the other process has been tuesday very directly to the united states audience that scotland sees itself as your allies and somebody who wants to work in a whole range of ways. and i hope the visit has been successful in getting that message across. ..
i'm an anglo scott. if i were to choose a passport i would choose a scottish one that i was also born in london. political legitimacy you mentioned regarding federal government of uk. london has a larger population and the conservatives lost the election in london as well. one question is are the conservatives legitimate rulers of london in the same way you mentioned scotland? and secondly my wife's family is from -- a small part of scotland, a self-identity. and if scotland were independent would it be legitimate to say they would be like to be independent from scotland? is your government illegitimate government given what you said about territorial differences in
terms of those folks? >> thank you for the question. [laughter] >> one of only three parts of scotland that didn't rule it simply as a general election but maybe in the future. let me be very clear. the government of the uk is legitimate. idle question that. i'm making a political point about the need for a multinational state of different nations voting in different ways ostensible government will be responsivresponsiv e to that. david cameron and his government will demonstrate, they understand whether you like or not people in scotland didn't vote for his government and their apologies and their approach and demeanor towards scotland. that's the point i'm making.
and london of course has its own mayors, its own government in that vein. this relates to your point. i want to make a very sharp distinction but most people would make this distinction as well between nations and regions of the united kingdom. scotland as a nation as in england, wales and northern ireland. i think that brings up a particular importance. i spent a fair time in shetland and the run up to the independence referendum. i've been there since there as well. there is no great appetite and shetland if scotland were to become independent for them to be independent from scotland. i'm not saying you will not find anybody there with that opinion the country, how it is occasionally presented in the united kingdom and scottish
media. what you do find within both of those islands another islands is the desire -- the government is in the process of looking at what powers and what's the we default from edinburg to other communities to give them greater autonomy and in a sense it in life to the believe we have been decentralized government and power lines. my point here is not to see david cameron is not a legitimate prime ministers outside of scotland. whether it i would be or not is neither here nor there. anticonstitutional since he is but the political reality means if he simply acts as if he's got the same -- in the uk for to thank you will be acting in a way that is drinking the uk or the country.
i think he will be acting in a way that will ultimately weaken uk in that respect. >> over here. >> charlie stevenson i teach at sais such open the door to what scottish foreign policy would be what are your views on what the uk policy should be toward ukraine and iraq and syria? >> this is a good example on these issues whether scottish government supports the uk's position on ukraine and russia, were supported by the international community's position, supportive of the sanctions against russia and have been a voice of support in the uk for the government position on a voice of support wider net for the international committee position. similarly on isil and syria and iraq, we support the efforts of the international community. isil is one of the severest threats the middle east faces
because of the implications of that. do not think that snp and the scottish government takes a markedly different position from the uk government on the vast majority of international issues. we don't. we are a responsible participant participant, responsible voice when it comes to these matters and on both of these issues you will not find any great difference between our position and the position of the united kingdom government. >> can you see a point where you might see a difference? >> my party my party wasn't in government at this point in our recent history but my party took a very different view of the war in iraq in the invasion of iraq. we opposed that conflict. so the are some issues where we have taken a different view. there will be issues in the future where we take a different
view, but, you know, the war in iraq we would not with the international connections of the countries of the invasion of iraq followed on from that was the role the right direction today. we always have been and always will be a responsible voice in terms of these international issues. >> right here in the front row. >> thank you. i'm with northrop grumman. i think should there be in the future an independent scotland, i think one of the greatest concerns in the u.s. is how the defense structure would be disentangled. and wondered if he would speak about your vision for how defense, how defense would be handled if scotland were to be independent? >> we sent out in the referendum campaign last year in very
significant detail how an independent scotland would configure its defense forces and other defense forces would then work and cooperate with defense forces across the rest of the united kingdom, the european union and internationally. if you have interest in that i would happy to forward details and send you the work we did around that. an independent scotland if we had become independent would have established a defense forces army navy, and air force that would've taken a period of years to make the transition. but notwithstanding the distinct defense forces and independent scotland would've established they would have inevitably -- in an integrated way with the defense forces with the rest of united kingdom. the defense of scotland is important to the defense of england. the defense of england is important to the defense of scotland and it is
inconceivable in any future constitutional arrangement that the defense forces of each part of united kingdom would not work together. the difference of opinion between the scottish government and united kingdom government on defense, i respect the fact this is a difference of opinion between scottish government veteran government as well over the future of the uk nuclear deterrent. my party does not support the nuclear deterrent it does not support the renewal of the deterrent. partly that is an agreement, an honest disagreement in principle but in part it's also a very practical concern that we have about the implication of a decision. there have been significant reduction in the uk conventional defense over the past 10 years. there's a very current debate with the president of the united
states is interested in the% of gdp spent on defense and the united kingdom. the more defense expenditure is taken up with trident at the last expenditure we have on the conventional forces that the country really needs to secure itself and contribute to defense internationally. one example i often use which illustrates and highlights what i think is almost a neglect of our defense and -- defense forces that are modern hundred and as i said a moment ago, britain is -- scotland's maritime surveillance computer important come we've got a large oil industry, fishing industry. these are extremely important. uk doesn't have any maritime patrol. last year when there was suspicion russian submarine for potomac and our territorial waters we did not have with an armed forces the capability to
deal with it. we had to draw on help from elsewhere. so my view is we need a strong, appropriate conventional forces forces that are capable of defending the united kingdom but also contributing positively and appropriate international efforts as well. >> let's see. trying to go back and forth across the room. right there, yes. >> diana negroponte, the woodrow wilson institute. tanks, minister. with the decline of the hydrocarbon in the north sea and the decline in employment in the energy and energy services, what are the areas that you see as the potential sources of prosperity in the next five years? and how willing are you to accept new migrants whether they be from within the 28 or north africa, to participate in this new area of productivity
speak was okay thank you very much indeed. a very good question. scotland's oil and gas resources but resources resource of other countries are blessed to have those natural resources. they are finite resources. that said, oil and gas will continue to be a considerable source of revenues for scotland and the united kingdom for many many years to come. it's estimated to be up to 24 billion barrels of extractable oil rest in the north sea so it's an industry that has a huge strong future ahead of it. but you're absolutely correct that it is a finite resource. scotland is in the lucky position of course of not simply being an oil-producing country come would also happen to have some of europe's best and biggest potential around renewable energies. we also our leader when it comes to wind energy. wave and tidal energy and some of the new technologies, low
carbon energy sources. so that's a growth area for scotland and an area we are investing in and encouraging greatly. we also very lucky to have a number of strong sectors in our economy that i would suggest the key strengths of the scottish economy other than energy would be life sciences where we are -- which is cratered industries our food and drink exports which are enjoyed by many in the united states and many other countries across the world. one of the things i think is important understand about the scottish economy is not withstanding oil and gas tends to be there to sosa with the scottish economy. our economy is not dependent on oil and gas. we have a rich and diverse economy, and what -- in many of the state other than the growth sectors of the future.
i was, one of the companies i spoke about having met in your, anand investment in scotland as a united states company acting in the space sector, the manufacture nano satellites. they just announced a major investment in scotland because that's one of the other areas in which scotland is seen to through skills come everyone competitive advantage. one of the things we're doing which doesn't make us unique but it's an important come increasingly likely scotland has got -- more top universities in india the country in the world. we are in a good position in terms of the quality of our education but increasingly our universities and our business sector are working hand in glove jimmy choo were able to maximize all the competitive advantages we've got. briefly on immigration. scotland welcomes immigration. we welcome migrant workers to scotland to our considerable
numbers of the polish people and people from other european union member states living in and working in scotland. actually not withstanding the debate that is a very active in the uk so sympathy european union membership question the european union migrants to the -- make positive contributions to our economy and that is true of scotland as well. so we welcome immigration that can help with the task of growing our economy. we've got, actually got in scotland and organization called thousand scotland where that is -- talented -- to help companies look for talent that can can fill skill shortages. we have an open economy and with an open society and would welcome very much the contributions that workers can help take scotland meet our economy.
>> in the very back. >> good morning. does it rain but you but you are not -- while every member of the royal family is now and has an appointment speak was no. [laughter] know, not him i said early on and upset again can we have a fantastic reception in the united states this weekend. there's a courtesy shown towards me, towards the scottish government has been fantastic but also a genuine interest in scotland and where we stand within the united kingdom within the european, within the white house has been first class so i have no complaints and no wrinkles at all with anything associate with my visit here this week. >> let's see. write their third road back. >> nelson cunningham. a family legend has the
cunningham's are from -- but it's been some centuries am not going to ask about the independence movement there. instead my question has to do with monetary issues. what currency would independent scotland wish to have? >> icao from that region. my home in scotland is where come from so i can report back the independence movement is alive and well. [laughter] and prospering. there's probably think i'm crazy, independence referendum in an independent scotland continue to use the british pound and partly because it is our currency the currency, there's a reason why it wouldn't continue to be our currency in the future. some people see a hotly debated issue of independence referendum. i won't go into all of the ins and outs of it but many people
will see scotland and england as independent countries share a currency. look what's happened in the euro zone. i think the key point is and i'm oversimplifying here, but the problems in the euro zone come from partly the fact that there's the parts of greece and the richest parts of german and everything into have been shoehorned into one currency. that's not the same that would've been the case in the senate of an independent scotland the economy of scotland and england are very closely aligned. i believe then and now is not only conscious can't continue to use the pound if it became independent but it would be workable and viable and sustainable for us to do so. >> so that will not be a new scottish men's? >> we have our own scottish bank. the scottish bank -- produce
scottish bank has been kinetic and after the scotland you would get a talent worth exactly what you get in england but it will have its own scottish stamp on it. >> yes right here. second row. >> thank you first minister. fiona hill. you spoken eloquently on so many issues and i think there's one area where people are really looking to scotland within the united kingdom here and internationally. which is on this very issue that you expressed of being an open economy come and open society. and a country that's trying to pay a responsible role in governance and especially in conflict. as you all know there's a lot of scrutiny on scotland now about this very question that you raised in scotland being a nation and not just the region. there are elections coming up in spain at the end of this year with a question about catalonia and its independence. in fact, the confidence to check
the conflict between russia and ukraine is on. i think the question you would only was really getting about whether than just the legitimacy is how in the modern era were yet so much integration as you said scotland has a lot of immigrants come on people who wouldn't go back to anywhere. and scott's, is a migrants nation itself and united states and all over england it's not just scott's were born reason that many generation has moved about hundreds of years. how in this modern age was difficult to define a nation can it's not just language anymore. can scotland act applicable as a model of how to resolve many of these conflict and deal with these issues? on the big issue in the united kingdom itself is i think there's been a lot of concerns in ireland and northern ireland about the future of the peace process. and what would happen if scotland to become independent. i'm just wondering how you can address this issue? it's not a question being the nation. what is a nation mean in a
modern context and how can scotland be a model for a lot of these conflict globally? >> i think that's a very good question. the contribution of scotland can make in the areas they were talking about is not do anything or start to express opinions with us, should be independent or not but it should lead by example how you should conduct of these debates and that we seek to settle and resolve them as we did an independence referendum last year. to get to the heart of your question, scotland isn't happy position of its territory not being disputed the board of scotland, the nation well understood and well settled and agreed to any real disputes. the territorial limits of the nation of scotland are understood but, of course what is the most complex question. this is where scottish nationalism, if i can use the term which is often a pejorative term with negative connotations, scottish nationalism offers a
positive role model for the rest of the world because my definition of what it means to be scottish, a nation from the territorial, but what it means to be scottish in my view is whether or not you choose to live there. so if you choose to live in scotland come if you choose to make scotland your home, doesn't matter to me whether you come from england, the united states, pakistan and india, poland or any other part of the world. if scotland is your home computer live there if you work there, if you make a contribution, you are scottish and have as much right as ideal to influence the future direction of the country. so in the independence referendum polish migrant who are living in scotland had a voice. they were allowed to vote in the referendum just as people who live in scotland but were born in england or any other part of the european union have the right to vote. so that's the civic approach to nationalism that is absolutely it the hard of the snp's
approach to this question. and what does of that due to the rest of the world? it demonstrates and i think our referendum explains demonstrates very powerfully that you can resolve these conflicts questions of nationhood of governance, of identity in an entirely peaceful and democratic fashion. and that's the example we hold up to the rest of the world. the issues of scottish independence has been debated within ebb and flow of intensity for 300 years since scotland became part of the union. that question has never gone away. it's always been there as i said it's come and gone in terms of this level of intensity, but in modern times, in modern times not a single drop of blood has been shed in that debate on either side. a fantastic example to say for the rest of the world. so that's what we offer.
it's not -- any other part of the world whether a particular people are particular nation should ought to do as we do in our seeking independent but in terms of the process of determining these things we should absolutely fly the flag for how we have chosen to do it spend what about the other part of the question, about the effect on the northern island of people? >> this was an issue occasionally was talked about during the referendum campaign. i do not believe, i don't think that many people in northern ireland or indeed across the rest of uk seriously have argued about for scottish independence would compromise the peace process, no. i don't want to undermine or diminish the challenges that northern ireland still faces and periodically will face, but the peace process fortunately and thankfully is very well established in northern ireland. and i think every part of the united kingdom happen to live in whatever our views on the constitution future of the
united kingdom are committed to making the peace process continues to be successful. one of the features of the peace process and if we could was establishment across the bridge i'll call the british isles council. i will be attending the meeting in dublin next week the end of next week. the british isles council came together from the republic of violent, the united kingdom scotland, wales and northern ireland and declared independence the, isle of man, jersey guernsey. that gives life to the british isles and how we seek to cooperate and foster dialogue within the british isles. interestingly, scotland has become an independent country. we would still be a part of the british isles and we still would've operate in that the we would've just confronting it evolved to an independent member. that is a very strong representation of how those
arrangements can work and itself was one of the outcomes of the peace process in northern ireland. it legacy is something i think we all agree on the importance of the peace process and continuation is gone and above any of these other debates. >> other questions. >> my name is given. i work for a notation called every child matters. and recently attended congress has been considering welfare reform and they've been leadership has been very open and looking into uk as a model particularly universal credit and allow the reforms by the concerned came and covered the sort of what is your perspective and what should u.s. policy makers be worried about them to unintended consequences of looking to the as a model? >> don't do it would be my advice. i think you can draw a distinction between the welfare reform and the united kingdom and the practice of welfare
reform. universal credit is bringing together all the social security benefits into one single payment and making sure that operates in a way that as people move into work they don't fall off a cliff in terms of the benefit. the benefits we get. so it's a good idea but it's not working that way in practice because the process of reform has been accompanied by a very significant cut on expenditures. what you found this new system come into play, the expenditure cuts have made some people didn't intend to benefit from welfare reform actually been some of the biggest losers. and the rest of the 19th government has been tough for people who don't want to work, people who want to shirk responsible and live in the bed all day. to get involved i don't think
these people should get any raised on the welfare system either. that's not the reality. there's lots of research are the people have suffered in the last couple of years, the most from welfare reform in the united kingdom have been people with disabilities and disabled benefits have been significantly cut the single parents and particularly women and those in employment with low wages, they have between them taken the biggest hit. he may have something in the theory of uk welfare reform. i would argue that you should shy away from some of the practical application from that. >> in the back. [inaudible] >> on your comments about scotland's independence movement being a model i'm just curious on your thoughts, did social media or the internet or technology put the ball that was different now than in the past?
>> it played, social media played a masterful and independence referendum in scotland. it was i do draw the margins perhaps --.com to the and second but it opened up comic helped to open up the debate to many, many more people than otherwise would've taken part to keep it in the referendum a population that was just naturally -- engage because is big issue and debate question and a big responsibility for everybody to decide how they're going to vote. you had the desire to be engaged. what social media did was give people the means to get access, information in a way that they could find exactly what it was wanting to know about and what we would otherwise have been able to do. people shared views and shared information and a way that wouldn't have been possible without facebook and twitter and social media generally. so it was a positive in my view the social media company this is not unique social media has a
downside because it gives to a minority it is a minority is scotland and the uk and ensure independent as well a minority of more extreme opinion that is not very tolerant of other peoples views. that minority of people have always been there but social media that gives them a platform to communicate with the way -- the world in a way to win if it. occasionally in the referendum it appeared that minority was bigger than it was. at times threatened to change the atmosphere. added to the a good overall but sometimes it was a danger. that's the downside of socially advantage -- i think it is usually outweighed by the policy. it did have a role in the referendum and to continue to have come the transformational role in terms of democratic engagement we are seeing in scotland around elections as well. >> we have time for one more question. remind everybody this is on the
record that i think that's an obvious but yes, right here. >> now you tell me last night. >> my name is jerry livingston. i'm not sure i should post this question. our family was benched in scotland in 1662 after the restoration of charles ii. but nevertheless my question relates to the scottish diaspora. is there more that can be done after -- to mobilize the scottish diaspora for the interests of scotland? the irish every good in this country and mobilizing. can scotland do the same speak with this. first knesset i'm very sorry you were banished from scotland. >> thank you spent as first minister i formally lift the ban, okay? [laughter] you are welcome back anytime you like. and i will greet you at the airport to underline that. it's a very good question. the diaspora, the scottish diaspora in the training alone
is enormous and hugely powerful and influential. i was joking last night at the embassy that somebody made it there are more people in this country who claim to be scottish band are in scotland. we've got a population of 5 million that are i think officials estimate. here it is that too many people in america that claim scottish connection. we were controlled hard to mobilize and use the talent and the skills and influence in the networks of the diaspora to fly the flags of scotland and capitalize. we have an office -- were so we're working very hard to do that. we've got a network on the trade side called global scots. if anyone here wants to be a global scots, please come forward to do that formally. but we are working hard in that and doing very well through
staff here. we can do much more to if anybody was scottish connection to scott bakker or you're just wishing you were scottish, please feel free to offer your services. we would be delighted to take you up on it. >> 's scots of america, rise up. please join me in thanking the first minister and -- [applause] >> and i would just ask you to keep your seats until she leaves the room. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> remarks by scottish national party had nicola sturgeon will be available to seek an letter to do on our website go to c-span.org or check the c-span
video library. the first minister is in the u.s. for four days of meetings of the world bank and the imf but a quick reminder to watch members of her party and other members of the british house of commons as they pose questions to prime minister david cameron on prime minister's question time live wednesdays at 7 a.m. and sunday nights at nine and midnight eastern. coming up in about one hour a hearing on the obstacles faced by federal government whistleblowers. that begins at 10:30 a.m. eastern live on c-span3. also live today a house committee would examine the state department report on cases of american children abducted and taken to foreign country. live coverage starts at 2 p.m. eastern also on c-span3. the u.s. house is in session today as members continued debate on a bill setting programs and policy for the pentagon. also expecting the first of today's a debate on trade policy
giving congress a second administrations international trade deal for a vote on final passage expected to more. see the house live this went on c-span at 10 a.m. eastern. the senate also begins its session just under half an hour. members will continue working on defense programs and policy. live coverage on c-span2. is look at some of yesterday's debate on a bill. >> mr. president, class we've learned of the latest in a string of massive breaches of private information from cyberpenetration. this time government personnel records held by the office of personnel management. in its annual worldwide threat assessment the intelligence community this year ranked cyber intrusions and attacks as the number one threat to our nation's security. cyber attacks and threats are also a major drag on our economy, with the theft of billions and billions of dollars of intellectual property and
actual money from our nation's diseases. quite simply, cyberattacks are a major and growing threat to every aspect of our life. and it is with that background that senator burr and i began working early this year on a new cybersecurity information sharing bill. it is a first step bill come in that for sharing company to company or sharing site with information directly with the government the company would receive protection and, therefore, feel free to have this kind of constructive interchange. and senate select intelligence committee produced a bill in the last congress but it didn't receive a vote. chairman bert and i have been determined not only to get a vote but to get a bill signed into law. and it should be evident to everybody that the only will get this done is if it is
bipartisan. with significant compromises on both sides we put together the cybersecurity information sharing act a bill improved -- approved in march by our intelligence committee by an overwhelming 14-1 voter that bill has been ready for senate consideration for nearly three months but it does not yet been brought to the floor. last attack underscored why such legislation is necessary. the democratic leader told me many weeks ago that this issue is too important for political wrangling. that it would not seek to block or slow down consideration of the bill, and would work to move the bill quickly. so the bill is ready for floor consideration. now a number of my college would like to propose amendments as is their right come, and i expect
i would support some of them envoy to post some of them. but the senate should have the opportunity to fully consider the bill. to receive the input of other committees with jurisdiction in this area. now, unless we do this we will not have a bipartisan vote i believe. because like it or not no matter how simple and i've been through two bills now this is not an easy bill to draft because there are conflicts on both sides. filing the cybersecurity bill as an amendment to the defense authorization bill prompted a lot of legitimate and understandable concerns from both sides of the aisle. people want a debate on the legislation and they want an opportunity to offer relevant amendments. and to do this as an amendment and when senator burr discussed it with me i indicate i did not
want to go on and make that proposal come and i think it's a mistake. i very much hope that the majority leader will reconsider this path and once we finish with the defense authorization bill, the senate can take up consider and hopefully approve the cybersecurity legislation. i think to do it any other way we are in real trouble, and this is a product of experience. and so i very much hope that there can be a change in procedure, and that this bill, i know our leader will agree could come up directly following the defense bill. i thank the chair, i yield the floor. >> i'd like to say a few words about the burr amendment, 1921 which is now been made pending. and thank both chairman burr and
vice chairman feinstein for their leadership pick the language of this amendment, of which i am original cosponsor was overwhelmingly approved by a 14-1 vote in the senate select committee on intelligence in march. implement legislation to address along with of cyber threats that have become all too common is among my highest priorities hit earlier this month it was the office of personnel management in the army. a few weeks before that it was the pentagon network, the white house and the state department. he for that anthem and sony. that's just to name a few. i'm pleased we are able to consider this amendment on the defense authorization act. this volunteer information sharing is critical to addressing these threats and ensuring that the mechanisms are in place to identify those responsible for caused and crippling cyberattacks and ultimately deter future attacks.
our current defenses are inadequate and our overall cyber strategy has failed to deter cyber adversaries from continued attacks, intellectual property theft, cyber espionage against the u.s. government and american companies. this very to develop a meaningful cyber deterrent strategy has increased the resolve of our adversaries and will continue to do so a growing risk to our national security until we demonstrate that the consequences of exploiting the united states through cyber greatly outweighed any perceived benefit. this amendment is a crucial piece of that overall deterrent strategy. and it is long past time that congress move forward on information sharing legislation. this legislation again, 14-1 from the intelligence committee, compliments a number of critical cyber provisions that are already in the bill that will ensure the department of defense
has the capabilities it needs to deter aggression from defend our national security interests. and when called upon defeat our adversaries in cyberspace. the bill authorizes that such a defense to develop, prepare, coordinate and when authorized by the president, conduct a military cyber operation in response to malicious cyber activity carried out against the united states or a united states person by a foreign power. the bill includes a provision requiring a second and defense to conduct by any exercises in respond to cyber attacks against critical infrastructure. it limits 10 million in funds available to the department of defense to provide support services to the executive office of the president and to the president said the integrated policy to deter adversaries in
cyberspace which was required by the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2014. it authorizes $200 million for a directed evaluation by the secretary of defense of the cyber vulnerabilities of every major dod weapons system by not later than the summer 31st 2019. it requires an independent panel and dod wargames to assess the ability of the national mission forces of the united states cyber command to reliably prevent or block large-scale attacks on the united states by foreign powers with capabilities comparable to those expected of china, iran, north korea and russia in years 2020 and the year 2025 it establishes a $75 million cyber operations procurement fund for the command of your cyber command to exercise limited acquisition
authorities. it directs the secretary of defense to designate department of defense entities to be responsible for the acquisition of critical cyber capabilities. now thank you madam president cybersecurity bill was passed through the intelligence committee because it is clearly in many respects and responsibilities of the intelligence committee. but i think it's obvious to anyone that the department of defense is a major player. i just outlined a number of the provisions of the bill which are directly overseen and related to the department of defense. so my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be all port of about the fact that this cyber deal is somehow should be
divorced from department of defense. i know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very aware that just in the last few days, 4 million americans 4 million americans had their privacy compromise by a cyber attack. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has stated that we are ahead in every aspect of a potential adversary except for one, and that's cyber. and there is great threats that are now literally to america's supremacy in space and many other aspects of the technology that has been developed throughout the world and is now part of our daily lives. so i'm not quite sure why my friends on the other side of the
aisle should take such exception to legislation which addresses our national security and the threat to it which literally every expert in america have agreed as a major threat to our ability to defend the nation. so i not only i think that if my colleagues who are not on intelligence committee and are not familiar with the provisions of this bill it clearly is not only department of defense related, it's department of defense centric. funds available to dod to provide services to the executive office of the president. 200 million directed cyber vaudeville is at every major dod weapons system. an independent panel in dod wargames, on and on.
it's department of defense related, and the whole purpose of the defense authorization bill is to defend the nation. to leave cybersecurity out of it, yes there are some provisions in the underlying bill but this homes and refines -- hones and refines the requirement that we are in bad need of to give the president to limit the damage which is occurring as we speak. i want to repeat. i believe my colleagues from indiana who is a member of the committee, i believe i would ask them, was it 4 million americans recently were compromised i cyber attack speak was in response to my friend from arizona -- >> ask unanimous consent to engage in colloquy from the senator from indiana.
>> is there objection? without objection. >> this is a serious breach, and there is more to the story to be told. it shows the extreme position that we are in here as americans, as those who want to take this country down those who want to invade the privacy of americans have the capabilities of breaching this. in the legislation before some of the recent why it is brighter now him and help the attached to the defense because this needs to be done now, not later. how many breaches do we have to hear about whether it's the private sector a whether it's the government sector before this congress and the senate will stand up and say we have the capability of preventing some of these things from happening, but we need the legislative authority to do it. and to delay and not even allow us to go forward with this on it that more and more millions of
americans at risk whether they work for the government or whether they are in private industry spin it isn't true, i would ask my colleague from indiana that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff recently stated that in the potential of our adversaries to threaten our security, we have a definite superiority in all areas except for one indication of cybersecurity can is that a isn't that correct? >> i think it's is obvious because clearly while we have the capability to address some of these issues, we are not allowed to use the capability. this legislation gives us the opportunity to have a cooperative effort and some of those who resisted the use of this because they think it was potential breach of privacy now understand that the breaches are occurring from outside the united states. for those who are enemies of the state, those who are criminal groups those who are terrorist
groups. and while we may have the capacity to deal with this without this legislative authority we are not allowed to use it. and so what an irony. what an irony that some of those were saying we can't trust the government bond is to help us this is part of this is the fans. it's like saying we can't trust the department of defense come you can't trust the army or the navy to protect us from attack because it's government run. well now they're saying there are some operations in government here that are part of our defenses they can't be used until we have the authority. and the irony is is that people's privacy are being breached by all these attempts. and we are denying the opportunity to put the tools in place to stop that from happening. >> kind of ask my colleague again, 4 million people whose privacy was just breached, 4 million americans, what damage can what potential damage is it to those individuals individual
american? >> well, we are just learned what damage this isn't how it can be misused in any number of ways. some of this information is classified. i can say to my colleague from arizona the chairman of the armed services committee this puts some of our people and some of our systems in great peril and it's something that needs to address now, not push down the line. >> so it seems to me that to those 4 million americans that we owe them that it is our responsibility in fact our urgent responsibility to try to prevent that same kind of the breach be perpetrated on 4 million or 8 million or 10 million more americans. if they are capable of doing it wants to 4 million americans, watch the keep them from doing the same thing to millions of americans more?
if we stay there idly by and do nothing on the grounds that the objection is that it's not part of the department of defense bill, which seems to me almost ludicrous spent welcome since the department of defense is one of those entities is being attacked, i would surely think this is appropriate attachment to a bill that hopefully, we are given the opportunity here by our friends across the aisle hopefully we will be able to pass here in the senate and move on to the house and get it to the president so that these authorities can be in place. ascended to mention 4 million. a company whose headquarters is in the state of indiana and some insurance the company -- turn 11 insurance people it was 89 people on the rolls. that's almost a third of all,
every american has had their private information reached by a cyber attack. and not to mention the threat that comes from a cyber attack on our critical infrastructure. what is a take on the financial system of one of our major banks or of several of our banks? what if they take on the financial transactions that take place on wall street every day? what if they shut down electric power grid in the middle of february wind and temperatures in the northeast are in minas fahrenheit temperatures? are when it's 110 degrees in phoenix and you lose your power educators on an air-conditioned? people will die. people will be severely impacted by this. and to not go forward and give authorization to use tool to try to better protect americans safety is i think not only unreasonable but it's a very
serious thing spent i thank my colleague from indiana for his outstanding work on a very difficult issue that poses a threat to every american and citizens throughout the world. madam president, i yield the floor. >> mr. president, whether i am very excited about this bill which is really, this amendment which is committing an overwhelming show of support, the reality is that if we do not vote on this bill itself and pass it out of this chamber, at the end of this month the charter for the ex-im bank will expire. this vote has nothing to do with the charter for the ex-im bank. this is nothing to prevent the charter for the ex-im bank from expiring. this is at a time when china and india are pumping billions of dollars into their export credit
agency to this is at a time when we have $50 billion worth of credit waiting to move to the ex-im bank do we create jobs here in our country, jobs for american workers. and we are stalling the bank. and so when we had this discussion during tpa when the vote on tpa, we wanted to have a vote that would guarantee that we would have an opportunity to prevent the accident bank from expiring, the charter from expiring the that's not this vote today. and where i'm extraordinarily gratified by the show of support from what he really doesn't tell us come if we bring up an xm bill on its own become an extension on its own, we will be able to prevent something from happening that could have a catastrophic economic result in this country. and so i would urge this body to find a path forward to prevent the ex-im bank charter from from expiring, cannot afford to honor our commitments that were made
during an earlier vote so that we can have a vote and actually move this bill forward, and not simply of the vote to show support but actually pass a bill. and so with that you -- >> will the senator yield for a question speak with cs student i would like to thank the senator for her comments and ask a question. fully understand the procedure that just took wisdom was an amendment offered that would've extended the ex-im bank and any motion to table it and at least 60 members or more voted against the motion to table which shows a positive sentiment about extending the ex-im bank. and after the vote the sponsors of the amendment at withdrew the amendment from this bill. so at this moment in time i would like to ask the senator for absolute clarity. we had nothing before us that would extend the ex-im bank either in this bill or in any other manner before the end of june when it expires.
>> that is absolutely correct. >> and it correct. >> and decorated his advantage for businesses in illinois. i'm sure in north dakota in terms of exports jobs that are less we do take this seriously and quickly are going to be jeopardized. >> i think the other thing it does also signal is to all those countries that we are competing with, whether it is china, whether it is india is that we are out of the business and that opens up a wide path for them to be in the business of exports. so this takes us out of the business of financing exports which is going to have and will have catastrophic results. we don't have a path forward. the charter of the bank expires this month, at the end of the month. and without a path forward we are opening up an opportunity for our competitors to take those exports and to take away opportunity to have those jobs. and so i think this is albeit
very gratified by this number, i think it signals to support. so when you get this kind of support from the trended senate almost vetoproof support, maybe we ought to move the bill. people will say there isn't an opportunity to do that. there's no path forward that me tell you, there's no in the country who believes that true. if there is a will but as a way. we have to have a vote on the export-import bank by the end of the month. get it over to the house to so the house can support it and move this forward or we will be playing chicken with the export of the united states of america stood with the senator yield for another question? >> yes. >> senator ayotte in offering this intimate talked about a forum in new hampshire at the general election were number of small businesses participate. senator cantwell and i were at that forum and one of the things we heard was testimony from an employee of a company which
makes large printing presses and competes mostly with the germany but with countries around the world. one of the things you don't do it is a $15 million, and if those don't get approved and i can be able to create 45 new jobs that they're talking about has being able to create as part of that deal. so if the authorization for xm expires, not only will they have trouble with those jobs but companies across this country are going to lose jobs that would be created if those financing deals could go through. isn't about the case? >> in fact the case is -- >> that debate from yesterday. we will leave it here and we'll likely hear more on the ex-im bank of as the senate comes in. care about the gavel and in just a moment to continue work on
programs and policy for the defense department. no votes are expected for today and the number of amendments are pending. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2 ask lawmakers are about the taliban to begin today. -- about to the gavel and to begin the day. . the president pro tempore: the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god, in this quiet moment may a holy hush come over us, giving us a sense of our dependence on you. may our senators not trust too much in their abilities to solve
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on