so. and parliament is of course scrutinizing the proposal in the counterterrorism and security built as we speak. this important legislation will strengthen our powers to disrupt the ability of people to travel abroad to fight and control their ability to return here. it will also in the house -- answer the to do with those in the uk who pose a risk to a particular will announce the relocation of people subject to investigation measures to other parts of the country. in addition the prime minister has announced 130 million pounds over the next two years for the agency's police and others in addition to the more than half a billion pounds spent on counter terrorism casing of the year. and, of course, this government has done more to confront the ideology that lies behind the threats we face. i have excluded more hate speech of any home secretary before me. we deported -- we've reform to prevent the studies that tackles

nonviolent extremism as well as violent extremism, and we've invested more time, resources and money in counter narrative operations. mr. speaker we've always been clear that the police and security agencies must have the capabilities and powers they need to do their job and following the attacks in paris the prime minister has reiterated that commitment. unfortunately, it comes to communications data and intercepted communication, there's no cross party consensus and, therefore, no parliamentary majority to pass the legislation to give the piece and security agencies the security they need. but let me be clear every day that passes without the bozos and the committee patient data bill, the capabilities of the people who keep us safe diminishes. >> here, here. >> and as those capabilities diminish, more people find themselves in danger, and yes crimes will go unpunished and innocent lives will be put at

risk. this is not as i've heard it said letting the government snoop on your e-mail. it is allowing the police and the security services under a tightly regulated and controlled regime to find out the who, where, when and how to mitigation but not its content so they can prove and disprove alibis, identified associations between suspects and i suspects and victims to specific locations. it is too soon to say for certain but it is highly probable the communications data was used in the pairs attack to locate the suspects and established the link between the two attacks. quite simply, mr. speaker if you want the police and this the police and the secret service to protect the public and save lives, they need this capability. >> here, here. >> last weekend people of all nationalities faiths and backgrounds came out onto the streets of france and other

countries, to demonstrate their opposition to terror and to stand for democracy and for freedom. we must stand in solidarity with them, do all that we can to confront extremism and terrorism in all its forms. >> yvette cooper. >> here, here. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the attacks last week in paris demonstrated the savagery with which terrorists seek to divide us. the murders and tolerant bigotry that they pursue him to spread fear and also to sow division that they believe exists, us against them. perez has not let the terrorists win, and we ought not do so either. the french police have been praised for the action that they took. charlie hebdo is being published today. faiths have united a boring the anti-semitism and grieving for the victims of the attack on the supermarket. muslims across the world have condemned the attack which is not islamic and does not in the

name of their religion. and the brother of the french muslim police officer has said, my brother was killed i people who pretend to be muslims. they are terrorists that's it. the prime minister and the leader of the opposition rightly attended the unity rally in paris, along with the prime minister, and i joined people saturday. in the attack the terrorist targeted other peaceful religions but they targeted those whose job it is to keep us safe. in other words, they targeted both liberty and security. and the response of the democratic governments everywhere to these sorts of attacks must be to defend about. governments need to keep our people safe so the we can enjoy the very freedom that our democracy depends on. let me return to the specific issue in the home secretary's statement but i am concerned about the way the home

secretary's made a statement today as i did not see the statement before coming into the house, and i hope that she can set out what the reasons were what has changed in the home office position this morning that meant that the statement was a changeup such late notice but i welcome the action taken by the intelligence agencies and police to support their counterparts in paris, and i think the whole house will want to pay tribute to the work of our security and intelligence services, at the counter terror police could do so much to keep us safe. it is important that they have the resources they need, and i welcome the resources the home secretary referred to today. as she said about government counterterror bill going through part of the ripeness which was supported and continue to support, and which includes restoring the relocation powers, terror suspects that she abolished four years ago as we called for to be reinstated. she will know that the agencies have appointed to the threat in this country the ongoing threat

posed by the estimated 300 people returning from the conflict in syria. could she tell us whether any of those estimated 300 have been prosecuted? could she also confirmed that none of them are curly subject is to either these powers are supposed to be pretentious suspects? activity need to be restricted to keep us safe. can she tell us whether the security service and police are now reviewing all of those cases to see whether it could help them a special with relocation powers restored or whether there was anything further that needs to change to those powers which are different from the previous control orders? could she also tell us how money of the estimated 300 have engaged with the channel program, and does she agree that we should not make that compulsory for those returning which is something that counterterror bill does not yet do? on the issue of access to dangerous weapons to also know

there's concern about reduced custom and border checks, what action is she taking to increase border checks for dangerous weapons? mr. speaker, the home sector also raises the issue about communications data. technology is changing all the time and that means the law needs to step up both in terms of capability of the agencies to get to the final intelligence we need and in terms of the oversight that we need. in july legislation and should be agencies and police could maintaining vital capabilities. and this month they supported axing those powers to ensure that ip addresses are covered in same as telephone numbers. and in july all parties agreed to support the review i david anderson from the independent reviewer of terrorists into both the powers and the oversight needed to keep up with changing technology. the home secretary referred to the previous communications data built. that was rejected three years ago by the joint committee that was established by the

government to scrutinize it because they said then that it was too vague, too widely drawn and put too much power directly in the hands of the home secretary. they recommended that new legislation needed be drawn up in a far more limited way and that the government should provide more evidence and clarity about what they wanted to achieve. since abandoned the home secretary has not come forward any revised proposal but she has not come forward to meet to discuss them or put forward are postals to parliament. parliament. even though we have said would happen to discuss details with her. given the urgency she says there now is can i ask her why she did that come forward with revised proposals after the conclusion of the joint committee three years ago? in july she was happy to agree to the review by david anderson which is due to report for the election. today she has not mentioned that review. hashing out and started that statutory review or will she be

waiting for its conclusion? this is an extremely important issue, and the details matter. the details about the powers that for our intelligence agencies need, but also the details about the safeguards and oversight that are needed as well. we agreed that the police and agencies do need to get the intelligence to keep us safe and lead updated legislation, and we also need safeguards and strong oversight to make sure the powers are effectively and appropriately used. but i would strongly caution the home secretary and the liberal democrats against setting up a caricatured argument between them about security on the one hand and a liberty on the other. because we need to protect both in our democracy and we need a responsible debate on getting the details right. the terrorists on that first they targeted both -- police

officers. charlie hebdo editor have police protection to protect his freedom of speech, that shows strongly between our security and our liberty in any democracy. mr. speaker, we know the most important thing to keep us safe in any democracy is making sure we have a cohesive community that prevent hatred is pretty good with supported extending prevent onto a statutory footing but i hope the home secretary will also now listen to the consent we have raised over some years, but more needs to be done to community led programs to tackle the hatred, to challenge the spread of extremism including through social media as well as in local communities and organizations. i hope she will work with local government to that effect. and can also ask her if she's working with the committee safety trust on tackling anti-semitism? we need to tackle all forms of extremism. terrorists try to silence us to

cower, and to divide us. harris has shown as millions marched as we stood in solidarity with them that we will not be silenced but we will not give into fear and we will not give into division as we defend our democracy. because although some were targeted in paris, we know this is about all of us. french[speaking french] >> may i apologize to the shadow home secretary for her late statement, and i apologized to her privately before came into the gym and i'm happy to redirect that apology on the floor of the house. can also joined her in being treated to our counterterrorist lease entity all our police but also our security and intelligence agencies. i think we cannot say it often enough that these are people who are working day and night to keep us safe and to protect us. and many of them unseen and

unknown, and for obvious reasons that are part of our security and intelligence agencies but we are grateful to them for the work that they do and they think we should assess a public -- a public recognition of the important role that they play. she asked me a number of questions covering a number of issues in this area. can i tell her that in relation to review, there is no suggestion so but because the review was not mentioned in my statement that we have anyway sidetracked that review. david anderson is doing his work. he's undertaking as far as i'm were a number of discussions with relevant parties about the issues that he's looking at. alongside our own parliamentary intelligence security committee is conducting its work in looking at the questions of privacy and civil liberties, and security. and these key reviews i think will come forward in a time that will enable this has to be take account of those reviews when it does the job which will be

necessary for it to do which is at least looking at the legislation which has a clause for 2016 but wanted to take accountable the aspects of come forward in those two reviews. in relation, of course government does publish on a corner basis the number of people who are under keep in and the question as to whether somebody should be put on that list is a matter for security service to initiate a request. i look at the request and if i agree that request there is then a judicial, a court process which has gone through in order to ensure that decision is reasonable. and as that this is a matter for security service to come forward with a proposal on the. the right i believe asked of making channels in the lead of the opposition also raised it in prime minister's question. we do believe channel does the does do important work and prevent does work with community groups.

but i'm relation to china, i think that is the as to whether an individual should be put into a channel program is one that should be taken on a case-by-case basis. we are clear and have been in the discussions on the security built in relation to the exclusion order way would be possible to ensure that people returning from syria are returning on our terms what that is about to be appropriate. but it may be that actions may be thought in relation to those individuals in the uk but that does did on a case by case basis as to what is appropriate for the particular individual concerned. in relation to the question of firearms i think there is an issue for us working with others and european union to look at the threat of firearms across the european union just the european union. with some of the toughest gun laws in the united kingdom but we have already seen major exercise is being undertaken by the national crime agency primarily in looking at the question of the of firearms in the uk and that has started

before we saw these terrible attacks take place in paris. on the communications director bill, there is a difference of opinion among policies in this house as to what powers should be taken by government. we did in fact respond to the proposals from the joint committee and we did in fact provide revised proposal in relation to those measures. i am clear the transfer is clear that this is an issue that does need to be returned to come and it is important i believe that we have the right powers that are available to be able to do with these issues. and, finally, she asked me if we speak to the cft. of course, we do speak with the cft on a regular basis and i had a number of meetings with them but also of course the police had meetings with them, discuss with them the whole question of the protected security that is available and protected the security had been stepped up once, when the threat level was raised which has been stepped up further.

>> as the been a various press reports that the director general of mi5 in his speech on the eighth of january called for new powers of surveillance for the agencies, will be home secretary confirmed that that is not, in fact, the case? that in a speech which the home secretary and as well as i attended in person, the main concern expressed by the director general was, and i quote, and changes in technology that people are using to communicate are making it harder for the agencies to maintain the capability to intercept the communications of terror. is that not indeed the prime requirement at the present time to ensure that the agencies are continuing to be able to exercise the capability that they have enjoyed for a number of years but which because of new technology is increasingly being denied to them? >> my ride of a friend is absolutely correct in his description of what the director

general of mi5 said in that speech but i think it is unfortunate that very often people mix up some of these aspects of communication data and sometimes people believe that what the government is trying to do in the communications bill was to expand the powers of the agencies. this is not the case. and, indeed as the director general of mi5 said come in the ability of access communication base is quite vital to our ability to protect national security, and unless we make it is capable of our ability to protect the country will be eroded. in maintaining that capability that was what the communication data bill was about and that's why we and others as evidenced by the quote think it is so important to do so. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as there has been a revolution in communication in the 16 years since i introduced a proposal which became the regulation of the power act of 2000 isn't it

beyond argument that the legislation including in this data has to be revised? will be home secretary agree with me that the series debate about the extent of the power is not remotely helped by the parity that these powers now being sourced our quote some kind of sleepless of chancellor? but i also say to her since i believe the distance between the two main parties in this house is actually very narrow on this issue, may we see the kind of close collaboration which which my honorable friend, the shadow home secretary, is speaking for? so that we we can resolve these issues as soon as possible. and can't ensure that intelligence and security agency and the police have the capability for today and tomorrow which they have had in the past under legislation which

has really been agreed by this house? >> the right honorable gentleman is absolutely right that it is important in the debate on this issue that the facts are properly presented and that the argument are properly presented. and sadly the terminology that has been used about communications bill, dated building a snoopers chart is not accurate which don't actually reflect what was being proposed. he's right that it is important of all of us in this house to actually look at this matter, and carefully and consider the powers that our agency meet people to maintain as were saying the capabilities which otherwise make it harder for them to keep us safe. ..

that should be a principle of you and the principle that the prime minister reiterated in prime minister's questions today. i would have hoped that would have been a principle that could have been held by everybody across all parties in this house of commons. certainly as far as i'm concerned, as far as the conservative party is concerned our manifesto would make it clear we'll introduce legislation needed to restore our declining communications capability and we'll use all the legal powers available to us to make sure where appropriate the police and security and intelligence agencies have the maximum ability to intercept the

communications of suspects while insuring that such intrusive techniques are of course properly overseen. >> mr. peter hayes. >> of course the secure services must have the necessary tools for the job but does she accept the priority is speak up, stand up against and where necessary confront islamophobia, anti-semitism, racism and the fascist groups like the bnt and their derivatives and spread this poison and also the vial prejudices of far too many representatives and members of? >> the right honourable gentleman is absolutely right we need to stand up and send a very clear message from everybody in this house, we stand for freedom, we stand for freedom of the press, we stand for our democracy and we oppose the vile views that lead to the sort of

incidents we've seen in paris. we must recognize if this country we've seen a number of terrorist attacks in this country over the years the most recent of course were in 2013 where we saw both rigby murder's murder but the murder of muhammad salim and attempt to plant a number of mosques in west midland and that was undertaken by a far right extremist. we must stand bense terrorism and extremism in all its forms. >> edward lee. >> one good thing come out of recent days the horrible events, the affection of the british people for france and i must say as chairman of our committee group between the two parliaments on behalf of our back again customers -- benchers i like to extend to the french colleagues and say now as for the last 100 years our two nations stand shoulder to shoulder against tyranny and

terror. >> we afree with the comments that my right honourable friend have made. we stand alongside france against terror and standing up for freedom and democracy. i have to say to him it was a very moving experience to be part of the march that took place in paris on sunday, to see so many people. i think it was nearly four million people across the whole of france, two million in paris itself and also reaction of the people alongside the march who were expressing constantly their support for all those who were standing for freedom, freedom of the press but also freedoms of our democracy. >> mr. angus robertson. >> scottish part would like to stand with all members of the house in condemnation with the terrorist attacks in paris and put on the record for appreciation for those who work so hard to keep our society safe. the home secretary in her statement went into great

detail, very welcome, about the cooperation with european union partners and with other countries. she didn't have the opportunity to update the house on the cooperation with the other jurisdictions within the united kingdom when it comes to policing and safety which is so important for us all us. no doubt taken the opportunity to speak to the scottish cabinet secretary since last week. could update the house what was discussed and how the u.k. government plans to cooperate with the scottish government, northern irish government and the welch administration? >> the discussions at official level takes place about the preparedness for a attack similar to that took place in paris. we have obviously we work very closely with the both administrations. we particularly close work with the scottish government last year in preparation for the commonwealth games and joint exercises and some joint work and i have to say that the cooperation and the interaction between scotland and these

forces in england and wales is very good when it comes across a wide range of matters but obviously the sorts of cooperation that takes place during these matters is very important. we'll continue to work with the administration at every level and ministerial and on these matters. >> is the secretary aware when the prophet muhammad moved from mecca to medina all those years ago to establish the islamic state did not establish a islamic caliphate you about rather create ad multiphased society where jews and christians were rights to worship and retain their faiths? >> i'm grateful to my honourable friend for pointing that out and elucidating that fact to the house but i think it is very clear and everybody is very clear that this is not the attacks we saw are not about islam and the voices that we

have heard from muslim communities here and muslim leaders here in the united kingdom and france and across the world are very clear these attacks were not undertaken in their name and that is a very clear message that we should reiterate. >> dobson. >> the home secretary satisfied with the capacity of the london fire and rescue service to respond to terror, any terrorist outrages that may occur in view of the current program of closure of fire stations including the fire station at clark which serves an area which includes major hospitals, major railway stations and major tourist attractions which may very well be the premier targets of terrorism? >> a very, very bite deal of work has been undertaken in recent years in looking at the operations of the emergency services in the event that a terrorist attack should take

place. work has been done as i indicated in my statement to bring together specialist teams from fire, you ambulance and across england and equivalence in scott lan and wales. we also introduced the joint emergency services interoperability program which is about insuring that it is easier for the three emergency services to work together in these circumstances and obviously we continue to update and to revise where necessary the protocals and the operational, the way in which these operations are conducted to insure that our emergency services are able to do the job we all want them to do should an attack take place. >> michael elliot. >> thank you very much mr. speaker. i sat on the communications data joint committee three years ago and it lasted for six months and we heard extensive evidence and it was abundantly clear from numerous sources that this communications data is crucial it will save lives it will save

those who threaten suicide. it will save children at risk and other types of incidents and dramas accidents crimes as well as terrorists. and help us catch terrorists. metropolitan police commissioner said it will save lives. the director of europol yesterday in the select committee said there was a gap -- >> order. >> i don't wish to be unkind to the honourable gentleman. he is a trained barrister. come on cut to the chase. a lost colleagues want to get in. short question and then sit down. >> thank you very much. is she concerned home secretary, that the labour party had not made it clear that they would support communications data? >> i'm grateful to, i'm grateful to my right honourable friend pointed out significant number of people in positions where they are aware of the impact of communications data who have

made the necessity of communications data well-known and public and i would say that i, as i've indicated i would hope that everybody in this house will understand and appreciate the importance of insuring that their, as far as possible, there are no safe spaces for the terrorists to communicate. >> home secretary were you aware that in the case of the london bombings and the brutal murder of lee rigby and now from earlier reports about both responsible for what happened in paris last week, those involved were all on the periphery of investigations that had already been undertaken? will the home secretary give a commitment that weville urgent talks with the security service and the counterterrorism police leadership about how we can get smarter about reviewing those cases that have appeared, those individuals and networks, that

have appeared on the periphery of previous investigations and clearly do pose a threat? >> well the right honourable gentleman is correct obviously the issue of those who appear on the periphery. it was an aspect that the intelligence security committee referred to in the report that they wrote on the murderer of fuse sill lear and rigby and woolridge. i have discussion with the counterterrorism policing and security services and it is a matter which i continue to talk to them. i think there are a number of issues we need to continue to look at, both those who apper at the periphery of various groups but also the questions of links between potential terrorists and criminal activity of various sorts. >> jenkins. >> mr. speaker can i add my voice to those who support the updating of our communications capability merely to keep pace with changes in technology that in order to maintain the

capabilities we already have but can i also invite the home secretary to use the latest incident as a case study to study what the journey is that a good islamic person that might take that finishes him up sass a terrorist? what is the psychological journey, what are the stimulants that create that terrorist and how do we get inside of that process in order to prevent it happening? >> it is of course important in looking at work that we do to try to prevent people from moving down the road to terrorist activity, preventing people from being radicalized, that we look at what are the factors that determine factors that are in play when somebody does become a terrorist or indeed is being, is radicalized. i say to my right honourable friend these of course are issues that are already looked at and every opportunity to taken where we can learn lessons to identify what that journey is for individuals so that we can

better insure that we are able to prevent that radicalization, prevent people from moving into terrorism but i also say to my honourable friend this will be complex, many factors involve and they will vary from individual to individual. >> keith bass. >> mr. speaker. is there any evidence of western europe spoke after security gap amongst police forces across europe to try to tack down online terrorists? terrorism has no boundaries, national boundaries, is she confident about the structures that currently exist and sharing of information across europe and indeed across the atlantic? also a action taken bit internet companies? should we not now be looking at organization like the internet watch foundation that will deal specifically with counterterrorism? >> i think the right honourable gentleman that the question of the sharing of intelligence and sharing of the information where

it is appropriate to do so across, between countries and particularly across europe is a matter that we discussed at the meeting that was held convened by the mr. cavener the french interior ministry on sunday. it's a matter where i think there is a role we looked at europol playing a role within that and of course we will work not only our other countries but also organizations such as europol to make sure we get the maximum benefit from the sharing of information that takes place so that we can have the maximum possibility ability to insure that these attacks do not take place because we can identify the terrorists in advance. >> i'm very keen to accommodate colleagues but i would remind the house it es opposition today with two well-subscribed debates. what i'm looking for now people who will ask a short question without preamble and home secretary will supply with characteristic pithy replies i'm sure. >> unwise response of previous

government as outrage led to iraq war and led to the failed i.d. cards. would she agree our response to this outrage must be one of sober wisdom, no the a rush to squander liberty against those violently wish to take them away? >> i say to my honourable friend it es entirely right we should respond in very sober and careful way and i say to my honourable friend and that what i and prime minister have done in the comments that we made. >> i'm sure the whole house is very pleased to hear the home secretary say reallies lame has nothing to do with these attacks in paris and therefore take opportunity decrying the statement rupert murdoch made over the weekend where he said all muslims were to blame? and also ask him to get a grip of stocks news and so-called terrorist experts who sat around insulting birmingham, london and everywhere else with their silly

comments? >> i, i agree with the honourable lady it is important that we do reiterate the message that this is not about islam. it is about a perversion of islam and that there are muslims in this country and other countries around the world who condemn these acts of violence and acts of terrorism. their voices are being heard. i think in increasing numbers their voices are being heard. as i said earlier they are sending a very clear message this is not in their name. i also say to the honourable lady at that freedom of the press means freedom of the press >> dr. phillip lee. >> thank you mr. speaker. extremism find fertile ground in communities not a simulated into the society. bearing that in mind i hope home secretary will support compulsory and written english to be part of british citizenship. i think shared values underpin a strong society that women in

such communities if emancipated would pacify young men who might tempt to copy extremist behavior so graphically seen in paris last week? >> i say to my honourable friend of course the government has increased the requirements in relation to english capability the ability to speak english and understand english for those coming into the united kingdom. he mentions the role of women in this. i share with him i think a view that it is important that we do hear female voices from the muslim community and can i command sarah what you know who once again -- khan spoken about this issue. very last part of last year i attend ad inspirational event she held and hashtag taking a stand campaign she was running with muslim women around the country saying they wish to take a stand against those trying to radicalize young people in muslim communities. >> mr. speaker will the home

second secretary rejecting new imperialism we hear after incidents like this which seeks to condemn the killings but somehow excuse the actions by blaming ourselves, in this case by saying that the cartoons in "charlie hebdo" were unnecessarily provocative? does she not aprethat we can not continue to absolve those engaged in terrorism of their responsibilities and that we must agree that responsibility for these actions lies scarily with those who kill innocent people? >> the only people responsible for terrorist attacks are the terrorists themselves. they are criminals and we should never let anybody forget that. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i welcome the statement today and press on my right honourable friend i welcome her words and states particularly tackling extreme ideology but ask her to be mindful and security services to be mindful of places of worship where often

mainstream tolerant open opinion can often be marginalized what you do create a vacuum where extremism does thrive and create the roots of so much this poisonous ideology? >> i think i share with my honourable friend a concern that we are dealing with extremism in all its forms and where it appears and to be mindful of issues that he has raised. of course the government will be publishing in due course a new extremism strategy will go beyond the simply the counterterrorism strategy we published so far. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the acts that occurred in paris were not were carried out by terrorists and not in my name and not the religion i follow and i want to be set straight on that and these people are totally, totally undeservedly attacked they took. she had bills proposals, what

are they, where are they and when will we see them? >> can i first of all commend the honourable gentleman for the comments that he has just made. i think it is important that when somebody like himself stand up in this chamber and makes that very clear message about terrorism and that we, none of us, none of us support terrorism in this chamber. we condemn it absolutely. we did at the time prepare and indeed indicate to people the areas of the communications data bill where we were willing to make changes in response to the views that have come from the joint committee and indeed we said we were taking on board i think virtually all the comments the joint committee made. >> thank you mr. speaker. does the home secretary agree we should be serious about our internal security and safety and security of our borders including at dover? we need to promote integration and unity of integration over the division of multiculturalism. and also really important that we insure that our borders are

properly strengthened and security is maintained including at calle? >> my honourable friend is right, of course as i indicated in my statement in immediate response to the attacks in paris, the border and others at our borders took appropriate steps to increase the security and intensify the checks taking place of the it is right that we do maintain that appropriate level of security at our borders, both here in the u.k., and obviously juxtapose controls over elsewhere. and it is also important i think, that we recognize that within this united kingdom there are people of, a variety of faiths and peel of no faith. what is important that we all accept and tolerate people of different faiths and not tolerate, but recognize there are people of different faith who is have different beliefs and if we disagree with them,

and the way to discuss that is through discussion but it is important that we allow the freedom of people to be able to worship in the way they wish to, to be able to follow the faith they wish to be able to follow. >> mr. sawa. >> unjustifiable and horrific scenes in paris were just not an attack in france but an attack on peace freedom and indeed islam. this isn't a clark of civilizations. it is a street fight between right and wrong and between humanity and insanity. on that basis can i urge caution from the home secretary, the worst time to react is when it is raw. you can't defeat extremism with extreme reactions. finally can i say the true muslim that day was the policeman who lost his own life protecting the freedom of a publication to ridicule his own faith. and actually in his tragic story

received the obvious truth that freedom is the right to be wrong. it is never the right to do wrong. >> well i commend the comments that the honorable gentlemen has made and as the shadow home secretary pointed out to the in her statement the brother of the murdered policeman gave a dignified response and one we can all recognize and support and it is important that we do recognize that these people who carry out these attacks, these are criminal. they're terrorists, they are not doing it in the name of any religion and we should be very clear about the message that we give. >> julian smith. >> on the data gaps will the home secretary confirm she will be inspired by the patriotism of the noble lord evans and people such as the head of mi5 and avoid any consultation with the deputy prime minister on these issues who during the "today" program interview put party es

so disgracefully over national security? >> well it is, it is no surprise to anybody in this house that the deputy prime minister and i have a different opinion on the matter of the communications data issue and the communications data bill. i believe that it is important that we maintain those capabilities and i reiterate as i said earlier it is not a snoopers charter. >> dawn ab bottom. >> home secretary agrees there can not be sin sill la of the excuse of the attack we saw in paris last week and security must be paramount in the long run one of things that will make us safe is to be able to reach out to the marginalized communities in this country that mirror the marginalized communities from which those killers came and whether addressing education unemployment they can

and these are matters that we had to consider for everybody. >> mr. robin walker. >> thank you mr. speaker. as well as the muslim community which has been quick to condemn terrorism. and english language newspaper will be commemorating this year, does the home secretary agree, that the survival of that charter, over 800 years and recent events demonstrate the pen if properly defended can be mighty err than the sword?

>> i, pay tribute to my honourable friend and the constituency he represents and the links that he has as he says with the magna carter. it was a very important document. it is right that we celebrate the anniversary of that document this year. and, i think we can all recognize the importance of the words within that document and the fact that it has survived and those principles have survived over the centuries. i think it is indeed testament to the fact that the but also the response to the attacks and the murders of those cartoonists and journalists at "charlie hebdo," to make everybody absolutely clear that the pen is mightier than the sword. >> mr. sherman. >> mr. speaker, will the that the lessons of paris are our real strength is in unity and indeed in fraternity? we should keep together on this? there is not a big divide on this. we must keep together across

parties and also we must have a dialogue a conversation, with the vast majority of muslim people in this country, that are law-abiding and help us to defeat terrorism? >> well, i would say to the honorable gentleman he is absolutely right. the majority of people in muslim muslim people living in this country do want to defeat terrorism as well and want to insure they're playing a full part in our society and it is right we make every link we can with them in doing that. >> new organizations seeking own independent professional judgment as whether they reprint the cartoons of "charlie hebdo," while in their own eyes many were avoiding risk of offending some of their readers. in the eyes of jihadis some undoubtedly were viewed as intimidated into censoring that for me is reason enough to reprint. does my right honourable friend true free speech not illusion of this includes the right to insult and defend.

we don't defend free speech if that is truly what we want to do, by casting aside those who push at the boundaries of free speech? >> so i absolutely agree with my honourable friend and it should be the case. freedom of the press means that the press should be free to publish what they choose to publish, within the within the law of course, but as prime minister reiterated earlier, freedom of the press which we all believe in means that we should accept that they can publish what they wish to publish within the law. we should not set artificial boundaries on that. >> mr. speaker, can the home secretary update the house how will prevent is working to reaching people at grass roots to protect young people? whatever it does to protect the civil liberties of people through new legislation the security service can't be everywhere and that network on the ground is most important? >> i'm certainly happy to give the honourable lady some figures in relation to prevent.

and, there are certainly authority areas currently classified as prevent priority areas and there are 40 more supported areas, all of which are, eligible for funding for prevent projects and since early 2012 local projects have reached over 45,000 people. so this is an extensive piece of work that is being undertaken. obviously we continue to look at prevent and how we help to insure it is doing its job better, hence the safety and security bill. >> on monday the leader of the house and myself met with parents and governors of matilda marks kennedy at the school in my vicinity. the discussion of the attacks on paris was raised. can the home secretary take opportunity to allay fears of some of those parents and indeed many other people who weren't at the meeting about the anti-semitic attacks how indeed we can keep their children safe while in school? >> this is very important.

as i indicated earlier, i do meet, i have met on a number of occasions with the cst and other jewish community leaders. my last meeting with them was shortly before the christmas recess. we are committed to insuring that the work of the trust and others is supported in keeping jewish communities safe. as i also indicated earlier, the police also do talk with cst and with others and indeed with individual institutions about the protective security that can be provided and have been providing extra as i understand it some extra patrols in certain areas to insure that there is greater support that is given. but i'm very clear that nobody should feel that they are likely to be subject to the short of -- sort of anti-semitic attacks we've sadly seen in the united kingdom over the past year and it is important people are able to live in the country to follow their faith and live a life free

from fear. >> mr. samuels. >> last week while these men were rampaging through the streets of paris a leading muslim spokesman in northern ireland, dr. al wazir was telling the bbc that the west brought this about because of their foreign policy. will the tear of state join me calling those within leadership muslim community and say and do nothing which would give any justification for people to believe that terrorism in the name of their faith is ever justified and to realize that words such as this only bring and create division? >> it is absolutely right it is important for those in leadership roles in the must plim community as many have been doing to make it very clear that these terrorists attacks are not about their religion their faith and they are not in their name. and it is also very important

that we insure that very clear message is sent that the only people responsible for terrorist attacks are the terrorists themselves. >> madam deputy speaker. if liberal democrats will not support what is needed for defense of our nation, will my right honourable friend, necessary legislation to fill capabilities gaps and will be taken forward as soon as possible within the next parliament. >> i'm very happy to give my confirmation on that to my honourable friend. we are very clear we'll take this legislation forward. >> jim shannon. >> thank you mr. speaker. there has been significant raise in coordinated anti-semitic attacks in london, glascow and can the home secretary tell us what steps have been taken to stop the coordinated action and

stop attacks on people across the united kingdom and northern ireland. >> i have am happy to happy please that i have meetings with police and jewish communities and groups and obviously the cst and role they play in providing protective security for various synagogues and jewish schools and so forth and looking a the this we also looked at number of other aspects. i had a meeting recently which also involved the director of public prosecutions and chief executive of the college of policing looking at the advice and guidance available to insure that the police and prosecution service respond properly when anti-semitic attacks are undertaken and prosecution is possible it is taken forward. >> thank you mr. speaker. the government task force on radical extremism chaired bit prime minister recommended in 2013 a new order for groups

fallen short of legally termed terrorists but undermined democracy and penalties that radicalize others. could you home secretary can be excluded from terrorism because they are blocked by liberal democrats? if so, given comments from the shadow home secretary and in light of recent events in paris would it be good to revisit recommendations made by the prime minister's task force which will be most welcome? >> my honourable friend is, raises these issues. i've been very clear, it has not been possible to take those particular proposals forward on a government basis but i was also very clear and indeed i said this in the speech that gave at our party conference last year, that it is the conservative party's intention to take those proposals forward. >> thank you madam deputy speaker. -- is key to prevent radicalization and given new roles and responsibilities at

schools, colleges and universities, can the home secretary state what proportion of the 2015, 16 budget is allocated to these organizations to implement that and what support is provided to principals? >> the funding for prevent has increased over recent years but further money will be made available as part of the 130 million-pound that the prime minister announced last november that was going going to be available over the 2014, '15, '16 years. a majority of that will be for agencies but, other funding is for the home office which will include funding for prevent but will also include funding for ct policing and obviously discussions are taking place how that is most appropriately spent. >> stephen mostly. >> thank you. like a couple of earlier speakers in 2012 i was a member of the joint committee looking at communications data draft bill. we supported the need for new

legislation but also proposed a number of safeguard we felt would improve the bill. would my right honourable friend confirm in any future legislation those safeguards would be considered and hopefully included? >> i'm very happy to be concerned with that. the joint committee came back with a very well-considered and detailed response and the government was clear that we would take on board the recommendations, certain recommendations that the joint committee put forward and that continues to be my view as home secretary but obviously as a conservative politician looking at the prospect of conservative government bringing this legislation forward. >> gregory campbell. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the home secretary referred to the capabilities of people keeping us safe diminishing. in the context of the security of the people of entirety of united kingdom how central does she think the national crime agency and how important is it that that national crime age is

fully operational in all of the united kingdom, particularly in northern ireland? >> i believe national crime agency does play an important role. obviously its es clear focus is on serious and organized crime, but border crime and child exploitation and online protection. i think it's a valuable agency. i think it has already shown the benefit of setting up the national crime agency and operations it has already undertaken. i consider it would be appropriate, it would be beneficial if it was possible for that agency to operate in northern ireland as it does in other parts of the united kingdom. >> bob black. >> thank you, madam deputy speaker. number of anti-semitic incidents on the rise but sure say surveys demonstrate a greater public acceptance of anti-semitic attitudes. what can the right honourable friend to the jewish commune and we have zero tolerance of ant at the symphony tim and we need to

educate the public that such attitude should not exist in this country. >> my right honourable friend is right, we should be very clear we can't tolerate anti-semitism. we can deal with this in a number of ways. it is important we provide advice in protective security for those at threshold of being subject to anti-semitic incidents. but i think it is important for us to give a clear message as a government from this house that we will not accept anti-semitic incidents and work led by department of communities and local government and the task force they brought together on anti-semitism plays an important role. >> thank you madam deputy speaker. i previously was on the civil libertarian side on these arguments but given recent events not just in france but also where i've come to the conclusion that the home secretary is absolutely right in what she is doing.

can i return to the subject of the jewish community. the home secretary has seen the front page of the independent today, the shows that huge amounts of jewish people have apprehension living in the united king do. i welcome statements she made to other members but can she make a statement about anti-semitism but the positive contribution that the jewish people bring to this country and inorder to ensure they feel proud of living here? >> i share my honourable friend's concerns. i think it is would be a matter of deep concern to all in this house when people from the jewish community as surveys suggest are feeling it less easy to live in the united kingdom. we've seen over the years people leaving other countries in the european union as a result of anti-semitic incidents. i never thought we would see the day when surveys were showing this sort of feeling for people, jewish people here in the united

kingdom. it is absolutely right not only that we are clear in our condemnation of anti-semitism but we give protective security and other support i referred to but also we do send a very clear message that members of the jewish community play an important and significant role in our communities in their contributions to our society. we should welcome them here of the we should applaud what they, the contributions that they make and we should insure that they all feel able to stay living in the united kingdom and making their important

>> congresswoman cathy mcmorris rodgers and senator john thune were chairing the conference will talk to reporters at 1145 am eastern and we will have live coverage also on c-span. >> the heritage foundation held its conservative summit this week. up next congressman matt salmon talks about cybersecurity and government oversight. >> i'm going going to introduce matt salmon t-wall. matt salmon was elected to congress first 1994. pretty important year, a year

that looks very fondly on. during his service, matt was named watchdog of the treasury for six consecutive years. he earned the taxpayer hero award from citizens against government waste and he could make a faithful, remained faithful to self-imposed term limit pledge and retired his seat, now he is back. what's really great about having congressman salmon back is he's kind of able to take a lot of these young guys and teach them how to organize and teach them how to be conservatives in congress and teach them what they need to do to be an effective legislator. we need a lot of that perspective right now because i think as conservatives we have an opportunity, that so we're talking about here and opportunity in 2015 to pass the kinds of pieces of legislation that will influence the conversation in 2016 and that will result in a mandate of 2017. so that's what we're working towards right now. so one of those pieces of legislation is what congressman

salmon will talk about this morning, or this afternoon. this bill would ensure that the american people would have the ability to communicate with one another electronically without the government listening in. it's a very basic but important idea. it's in our communications with one another, loved ones family friends, colleagues that we share our ideas and passions and in so doing for those associations inside that make up civil society. government big enough to put a chill on these kinds of communications wireless and integrates dangerous things is dangerous to the health of our nation. we will talk about how this legislation would relate to that. so please join me in welcoming matt salmon to the podium. [applause] >> you know, the fourth amendment to the constitution is such an important issue that my

republican counterpart, or my republican supporters, excuse me, in arizona just had their organizing meeting. maricopa county arizona to scan in arizona, that's what phoenix has come and one of the bylaws they adopted when we organized was actually that members who are elected to congress and state legislatures all across the country are to be reminded how important the fourth amendment to the constitution is. and i'm one of these guys that is very, very mistrusting of government. always have been, believing that government is always looking for an opportunity to further its interests at the exclusion or harm of the regular people. and then thinking about how sometimes law enforcement, you know, there's a quote on my office wall that my wife stenciled for me. if any of you ever come to an

office at rayburn you will see it and it is a quote that says from benjamin frankly, those are willing to trade their freedom for security will probably lose both and deserve neither. that's on my wall in the office and a look at it everyday when i wake up. but as i was driving over here with my staff, i'm thinking how our law enforcement people are just so gung ho to do the job and everything, and when we are driving your there's this young man standing up on a wall right by the western side of the capitol with his pants and his underwear down mooning the world and this girl was taking his picture, and the d.c. police, the capital please are about 20 feet away and they were not doing anything about it. i'm like wow maybe i have to change my speech. that was quite an eiffel, i'll tell you, and i was next emotion for the should take a picture or not for posterity, not for posterior, for posterity. anyway i did not take a picture i did see it and it's a true

story. anyway, last year i introduced a bill on the heels of the irs establishing a policy regarding a 180 day rule that if an e-mail have been out there for 180 days that they didn't need a warrant that they could go in and inspect these kinds of e-mails without having to go through the judicial process. so anyway, michael takes the necessary steps to make sure that that 180 day rule is sent off into oblivion. that it eliminates the 180 day rule, strikes that role and requires a warrant to access any and all electronic communication held within an electronic storage. it also requires a search warrant, requires a government to provide the customer with a copy of the world within 10 days if they are a law enforcement agency, and three days if it is another government agency such as our beloved friends at the

irs. it requires disclosure of all customer records and it outlines the details of how and what information they have had to go in and secure. so that we have some transparency and we know exactly what they're using that information for and that it is for the purposes that they say they're using it for. and then finally it requires to gao, government accounting office, to issue a report that includes an analysis and evaluation of all of the customer team edition and records that they aborted gotten through ward so that we know that they're doing exactly to say they're going to do. i know with what happened recently with sony and the hacking of their system and some of the cyber warfare that's going on by russia now north korea and others got a lot of big government tried use this as

an excuse to come in and usurp more and more and more authority. while i do want security just as much as the next person from allah to make sure that we do it within the confines of our constitution, whether dealing with sispa the patriot act which by will the people that was with justin and others to try to get the patriot act redrafted to interestingly enough last year we were able to get a rewrite of the patriot act that i think satisfied our needs and came out of judiciary unanimously and what happened was the leadership changed it around is something none of us could vote for. after it already came out of the judiciary committee unanimously and guys like justin and other support a, then they changed it to do something that we can support. and so with all the calamity, the terrible things that happened across the world there is a rush to go in and i think

two things the wrong way. i think we can have our cake and eat it too. that's where founding fathers envisioned. they envisioned a free society. after all, if we give away our freedom to protect our freedom what's it worth? i think we have to fight the fight and do everything we can with vigilance. we all want for the bad guys to be apprehended, but by the same token we are not willing to trade away our freedom for secure or false security. so i really appreciate the opportunity to be here today. i was hoping to be part of the panel, but i don't know if they did this on purpose, me being a conspiracy theorist i am but we have the votes in just a couple of the site to get back to the hill. hopefully the government has his pants up by the time i go back to anyway, thank you very much. it's a thrill to be here applause like. >> -- [applause] >> you all notice that are scheduled this afternoon maybe a

little bit moved around because there are lots of votes this afternoon, suddenly popping up. i would right now what we do is i would like to invite walter lohman, attractor of our study here, he will moderate a panel. i would invite walter up here and fellow panelists. and walter, you can be the panel. thanks. >> all right, good afternoon. hope you'll forgive me for being as efficient as possible with this panel. we don't have a lot of times i'm not going to waste much time with overarching thoughts and long introductions of our panelists. what we wanted to do is just get right to several issues that are major priorities of the heritage

foundation. one in the trade field. claude barfield will speak about tpa and tpp and any other trade issue that he wants to head on. as you know heritage has long been a strong supporter of free trade and free trade agreements. rupert hammond-chambers is here. he's going to talk about taiwan another major interest of heritage over 30 years since the founding of our asian studies center. rupert is president of the u.s.-taiwan business council. i should mention clock is resident scholar at aei a frequent partner of ours and collaborator. david is also with heritage, he's a research associate for homeland security cybersecurity issues, he's going to talk about these away for but is also available to answer any questions you might have about our positions on the issues that

representative salmon just discuss. so without but returned over to claude to get it started each panelist will talk about five or seven minutes. >> thank you walter, and heritage for money back to the heritage foundation. seven minutes and i want to just talk about the trade agenda this year. let me make two points so you will remember before i get into little bit of weed. with seven minutes, not too many but i think one of the things to note is that 2015 quickly will be a banner year for trade. in terms of trade agreements trade policy in the united states. there's the trans-pacific partnership which is coming to agreement with 11 other nations in the pacific, which is close to the end and we will know one way or the other in the next couple of months. there is an agreement which is much less farther along with

europe. and then in the wto the world trade organization, the two agreements, one of information technology and one of services which have a fair chance of coming to fruition i think sometime during 2015. even though the doha round has crashed, wto is quietly moving along in other areas. so that there's a lot on the plate. i should say that i don't think with the u.s.-european there's any chance at all it will be finished this year. we can talk more about that but i think it will move along. so it's a large agenda, the largest agenda since the early 1990s when they have the nafta agreement and then followed by a big agreement in the world that created the world trade organization with the uruguay round. so that's really what is on the plate. the second thing that i should note, turning to the politics of trade, and this would cause causes may harbor and a little

bit and maybe people in this audience it is not a bad thing actually in terms of trade policy whatever we think about president obama and the democratic administration, it is not a bad thing to have a democratic president hu is in favor of trade agreements, whatever his checkered background on trade policy, but now i think is fully committed to tpp and to the u.s.-european and to the wto routes to that on the one hand with a republican congress on the other. the difference being that if you look back to the bush years the democrats were so adamantly opposed to anything that the president did, there was something about osha himself itself may be and the other questions of foreign policy, true i think with any republican president the is a chance i think that obama will pull in a small segment of his party because he is the president and he is in favor of this. we will come back to this in questions. the thing i forgot to mention that is got to trigger all this

is the -- sorry the congressman had to leave because it would've been interesting to see what it said about this that congress not to give the president so-called trade promotion authority to kick things off. i'm not going to go into detail about this. trade promotion authority is a grandmother going back to beginning of the nixon administration which came about because our trading partners said we need assurance if we put our bottom line on the trade agreement, that the congress will agree to it. in the '60s congress had not agreed to several things that the kennedy administration had put forward and in other cases they had just bottled and done nothing to what the congress did and continue to our own time is past, come back to what this actually is it's not a regular piece of legislation, passed new rules that the congress told the president that we will give you instructions and we want you to follow them.

if you do follow them, we will promise you a vote within 90 days of the time this comes up to us up or down without a minute. that has been true since then. i know just in passing that some some conservatives and i was telling walter, i think there's some conservative groups meeting today worried about the grant of authority to the president. i'm not going to go into detail. i'll be happy to answer the question for those of you who are worried him consider yourselves quite conservative, this has come up before. i remember in 2002 ancient sim borg talked to ed meese, to write pieces but why is force a concern was not too great a grant of authority to the present. i will leave it at that. the only other thing want to talk about for a few minutes is the tpp. the trans-pacific partnership. as i said it is in the final stages, one way or the other of

negotiations. serious negotiation began 2010. since then we had 24 of actual negotiating rounds if you will. 11 nations besides the united states. the tpp has been called the first, 21st century agreement. what people mean by that is that for the first time much of the trade negotiation is not the things that happen on the border, tariffs are taxes things of that nature, but actually barriers to trade and investment that are inside a nation the border. the kinds of things that stop a lawyer in the united states from working in japan or construction projects because of different rules and regulations. it is covering such things as the rules for state-owned enterprises, public monopolies

health and safety regulations international property, services regulation. i mentioned i think construction lawyers, telecommunications, banking finance, that kind of thing. that is the key to it. but there's another side and this gets me to the other point i want to make about how negotiations run out. you do have a lot of 20th century issues with the united states pushing with australia, japan and others, but there's some very important what we would call 20th century issues that the united states is going to step up if this comes to conclusion. such things as textiles and clothing and shoes and sugar. old issues. what a number other countries the smaller countries in asia vietnam, malaysia peru and chile are saying okay, we may be willing and integral obama with what you're pushing us internally that we need you to compromise on issues that have been around that you've refused to compromise before.

so without getting into more detail now, it's about the juxtaposition that really, which is really the core of the negotiations. i think that there is a good chance that the congress will pass tpa. they are working on a bipartisan bill actually that was put together last year when senator baucus who is chairman of the finance committee before he went to china. there are discussions going on that seem to be fruitful between the senate republicans and some republicans and senator wyden it was, would've been the incoming chairman had the democrats one. from what we see wyden is only interested in transparency, and enforcement issues and you may be able to make compromise. one final thing in terms of getting the politics, democrats versus republicans and i should say in passing what the republicans would hope to get

would be they need democratic votes to get maybe a fifth or a third of the senate democrats and maybe more, if you look at history, and then to get maybe 20% of house democrats. house democrats are much more, if not protectionists, at least skeptical of trade agreements been senate democrats. the hope that you will get the. i think the one thing that the republicans are going to have to swallow and hatch is key here because he to test this legislation is some kind of trade adjustment assistance that is assistance to workers had allegedly been put out of work by trade agreement. this was a terrible program but it doesn't help anybody. hatch has known this but i think he signaled that, well, in order to get the tpp i may very well swallowed. one final point, the tpp is more than a trade agreement. this could be true with any trade agreement but it is true with your county.

the mega regional agreement. the tpp has become the symbol of the u.s. benefit to asia. as scholars at heritage and at aei have pointed out, the military part of this, security part of this is woefully lacking. we cannot live up to the commitments as what's on the table right now. so the tpp has more than even when it was started become the symbol of u.s. leadership in asia, and if it goes down it will be repercussions far beyond economics but into our military security and diplomatic relations with asia and the chinese are standing in the wings with an alternative original agreement, which is in intra- asian agreement that does not include the united states. >> thank you. let me make one quick point. on the tha -- taa our position here at heritage can we're waiting to see what's in the tpa before we said very much about it. similar goes for tpp.

we are very supportive of the concept and have said so multiple times the we want to see what's in it before we pass judgment on it. but trade adjustment assistance, if it is in the tpa, actually in the bill i think will be a huge problem for us and for many other -- >> a separate bill. >> that's where the most people assume it's going to come out, not where you are starting. hopefully folks on the hill will hear the message as they have before. and not force proponents to vote against such a terrible agreement. >> started my stopwatch so i don't get on walter's bad side. my name is rupert hammond-chambers. i am from south carolina.

[laughter] >> southern taiwan. >> that's right. scottish by birth, american by choice. i'm the privilege of talking a we bit about taiwan policy but i will start with china policy. not for a moment because i believe that taiwan policy is a subset of china policy. nor should it ever be. in fact, we get into significant issues quite frankly in our relations with taiwan and more broadly our interest in the asia-pacific region when we make taiwan policy a subset of china policy. but i would like to make a couple of observations about the present state of china policy at the moment. a great deal of high level engagement takes place with the chinese, and we have very little to show for it. when we do that lines you scratch the surface of we did, typically defined they lack substance. problems fester with little and insight and i happen to believe that our relationship with the chinese is a drift.

there's no response to china increasing its assertiveness in the region. china is able to salami slice their way through changes changing facts on the ground, whether they disputes over islands, etcs or other areas of disagreement. on regional and global security issues where we notionally would look for the chinese to cooperate with us where we would have shared interest, we find the chinese invisible. in fact, we often find them supporting those entities like the dprk, the russians and ukraine, iran i suspect we find the chinese, to put it charitably unhelpful. and we have very very the response to clinton on human freedom in china. that's somewhat out of my running thing but i think it's worth observing this notion to the base with a look at china policy right now, it is a drift. i personally and pushed to point

to that personal persons within the administration who are in charge at the moment of china policy. one of the united states most important relationships, i'm not saying come on the going to add to get right. i think that's not the right expectation to create. that nevertheless there's little creativity, and on the other side of it i worry greatly about insufficient efforts with friends and allies to leverage opportunities on the back of chinese in the nation and chinese polity. that leads me to taiwan for a second. just want to talk a we bit about taiwan most contentious high level so, the stuff you might send the front page of the journal over the post. and then a wee bit i'm going to pull on the thread backlog very kindly teed up which is tpp. so i want armed sales is an essential component of american security strategy in the region.

and was embedded in the taiwan relations act which was passed in 1979. and calls upon the united states to assist and support taiwan in its legitimate defense needs. and i think mostly we have done a pretty good job. but things have got dodgy quite frankly as chinese power and assertiveness has cast a longer shutter. as i've noted up front we have managed been ourselves in a corner from time to time when we seem to bend over backwards to acquiesce to chinese positions on issues as opposed to represent the interests of our country unabashedly. at the moment we're looking at a bearded in which taiwan arms sales has been on hold. i like the word frozen to a note or contentious but nevertheless it's been over three years since we had an arms sale. and while the administration is presently working on a package for release at the end of this

year, it will include updated secondhand equipment replacement munitions is the term that is used for munitions that taiwan already has significant items like taiwan's requirement for new submarines as well as taiwan's requirement for replacement fighters for its aging f. fives and its french barrages remain unaddressed. we have thankfully got some important support in congress for these programs and i like to refer to taiwan arms sales as bare knuckle boxing, not because of our done any literally but in respect to participating in it here in d.c. it really is a blood sport. and i would point to 2011 incented accordance pressure on the obama administration at that juncture in his negotiations within 60 of state mrs. clinton on what ultimately turned out to be the september 2011 f-16 upgrade program. back to me frankly is the way

that more contentious issues are addressed with taiwan arms sales at this juncture. it continues on a vacuum and we continue to argue that congress plays an essential role indeed overall embedded in u.s. law to promote the security relationship between the u.s. and taiwan, and most importantly, politically and materially to advocate on behalf of of arms sales to taiwan. just one minute on tpp. apps would associate myself with claude's comments come as i always try to do. claude makes the point -- >> that's a dangerous. >> claude makes the point about centrality of the trans-pacific partnership in use interest in asia. for asian countries, and those -- we do with asian countries on a daily basis, trade is at the center of their interest. they think about trade when they think about engaging the united

states. that is at the center of more broadly of security. that can be broadened out and declared defense issues capacity building, other things. but trade is at the core. the tpp is at the core of expectation with original allies at this time. as claude nailed it if we don't pass it it would have a significant strategic impact beyond any economic come any economic interest on the interests of our country in the region. we have to get this over the line. when it comes to the more parochial issue, we have to get taiwan as a part of the. a taiwan outside of the trans-pacific partnership is economically marginalized. those in it if it is indicated as an opportunity to participate on a level playing field grow its economy, engage its trading partners, as i said on a level playing field. outside it is a strategic threat

to taiwan's economic well being. a taiwan increasingly in china's economic orbit and increasingly marginalized from ours is destabilizing, and that's a threat to peace and security in the taiwan strait in asia. i believe at that. thank you. >> we had rupert here to talk about taiwan but i should also point out that getting korea and venture into the tpp is another priority a list of ours. outside of your world in some respect. >> thank you walter. so to put a twist on the trade theme we've got going on today i will be discussing the visa waiver program and what the benefits and concern for the program are and i will conclude with what the next steps forward on the program. so first what is the visa waiver program? the dwp allows residents of member countries to visit the u.s. without a visa for up to nine days business or pleasure to be part of program the country must need several criteria. first a contest to have a

non-immigrant visa refusal rate of no more than 3% of what it means is the percentage of applicants application rejected from a given country can't exceed 3%. second, i country was issued its residents secure machine-readable biometric passports. thirdly, the coach was also have no visible security threat threat to u.s. law enforcement or national security. currently 38 countries are participating in the wp with chile being the most recent addition to the program. these nations have also agreed to raise stipulations and obligations to join the visa waiver program. they must share intelligence with the u.s. on no are suspected tears, exchanged biographic and criminal data with the united states comish information on lost and stolen passports, increased down airport security requirements and provide users with physical ability to travel to that country without a visa. these features all greatly enhance security by providing

useful enforcement and security agencies with more information and intelligence with which to look for potential threats. the visa waiver program also helps the state department focus is limited consular and visa resources on countries and individuals about which less is known and who could be greater security threat to the united states. furthermore the visa waiver program is not without security and screening procedures of its own to every traveler to the united states from a vwp country must be prescreened through the old electronic system or travel authorization which checks databases for information about the person allegedly to travel to the united states and what he or she is in a security risk. at any point during the taking of travel process that u.s. officials can prevent individuals from entering the u.s. if it didn't be a security risk workings begin eligible to enter the united states. in terms of benefits more information sharing their

airport security abroad and being able to better focus our finite consular resources. these all the improve u.s. security. second, vwp a huge economic benefits. vwp makes trade and tourism easy. visitors to the united states increased by 36 or send between 2002-2013. 40% of all visitors during that time came through the visa waiver program. it's a huge program for trade and travel. the programs also important to inform policy and public diplomacy, allowing individuals to visit the united states so that they can improve their understanding of our country and our culture, this can only benefit the united states. it is also huge boon and a public relations with other foreign and friendly governments. there are concerns with the vwp. these center on european passport holders joining isis, so-called foreign fighter problems and if it is vital some of the abuse the visa

waiver program to come to the united states and attacked us here. making the issue worse, there was a 2012 gao study that found that many of the countries that were part of the program were not sharing information as they were required to do. at the time heritage wrote it was time to hold those countries accountable if they weren't sharing information. since then information sharing has dramatically improved. the congressional research service issued a report in the beginning of 2014 which found that nearly all countries were sure nearly all the information as they were required to do. more recent conversations that i've had with dhs officials have indicated all nations are now sharing information. there's some nations working on automated certain aspects of the sharing. vwp is promoting security to these information sharing arrangements by canceling suspending or crippling the program computers would likely have less information able to it with which to make these decisions and watch out for potential threats. so what should the u.s. do going

forward? first of all the u.s. should always be looking for ways to enhance information sharing arrangements and uproot the type of impression we get from transit applications and screen individuals and connect intelligence about. these types of improvements can be made within the existing vwp framework. does require which crippled the canceled program. the united states should look to expand the visa waiver program. the more friends and allies that are contributing information of potential terrorist threats, better able we are to prevent these individuals from ever entering the united states. the visa waiver program would also allow us to better focus our finite consular resources. the way to make this expansion happen would be to replace the visa refusal rate which i

mentioned earlier, with the visa overstay right for you some combination thereof. it's the the money people from a given country that overstay the visa, a more accurate metric and we should use that instead. it's worth mentioning that the visa waiver program and its reform and expansion have often gotten caught up in the contentious immigration debate. there is no reason told the visa waiver program reform and expansion hostage to more contentious elements of immigration reform. congress should consider vwp on its own merits, not on the merits of amnesty. with its many benefits of visa waiver program is more viable than ever. the threat of isis and radicalized westerners israel. the u.s. should be using all the intelligence tools at its disposal to stop, find and stop these terrorist. it is one of those tools. to stop at a crippled that now would make the u.s. less secure, less prosperous and less engaged with friends and allies. we should improve and expand the

program. thank you all. >> great, thank you. thank you. [applause] we actually ended up with four minutes for questions. any questions? one thing i wanted to ask rupert, maybe just put a finer point on his points about taiwan arms sales, specifically is, what can we do to press the administration on of making the sale? what can congress do? if such an executive prerogative whether not to do these things and if they're not so inclined, it's hard to know where to go. what can we do to force this? >> thank you for the question, walter. what's worked in the past again, blunt force trauma, holding the consideration of congressional holds anti-defense are state department officials who have oversight of taiwan policy, we have opportunities

within hearings, you know in the early part of next month there is an early and opportunity for the committee to question him in detail on the present state of the obama administration's arms sales policy towards taiwan. the consideration of these hearings is another area in which congress can play an important role. and just finally also, i happened to be one of the more worrying trends at the moment is the u.s. and china mil-to-mil relationship. giving in fit with my point about process over results right? we are vested in an open process but to what end? we see it time and time again. i think iran is probably another example of that. is another example of that. but the exchange the administration seems to abate is when i going to do arms sales

because we don't want china to do these mil-to-mil relationship. it needs this in essence to pitch of these headlines and these open-ended process. so anyway my point here is there's a possibly congress can link ongoing funding in legislation such as the ndaa for u.s.-china mil-to-mil programs to a commitment from the second a defense to congress that asserts that the above arms sales steps have been taken and then congress can be specific to f-16s for taiwan, submarines for taiwan. you know inclusion in these sorts of things. >> i'm going to use every second that we have here, so i wanted to ask claude something. i think the only the only place you there's any sort of daylight between us on trade and tpp ntb a generally as i think he cared

about all the same issues in the negotiations, et cetera. i think you are maybe slightly more confident that those issues on the right track to get a result of the right way. none of us would have much access to what is going on in the negotiations. i'm hopeful that they're headed the right way but sort of remains skeptical and waiting to we see the agreement the what do you think that you are three big issues are in either the tpa or the tpp that one need to be resolved in a satisfactory way in order to move forward on the agreement? >> tpa, and i think this is not going to happen, both the administration and republicans have been responsible up one of the key things is an unfortunate some of the free trade communities have gotten involved in this, is whether or not you put in tpa very draconian measures about currency. that you have to intervene. that will blow these negotiations. coming at this late date and

secondly not going to daily here but economists are all over the map as will be assessed by two to one of the things on tpa, and tpp is talked about i don't think is going to be at issue, or if it were, then it would blow, and that is the provision on labor and invited to what you can do on labor and invited. everything i've heard is that we may not be entirely happy with the agreement made between the bush administration and the democrats in congress in 2007 so-called make an agreement, but that's the language. republicans have accepted that language, say at the time i posted but they have accepted it and i think if the administration goes beyond that would really screw things up. on the tpp when people ask that question it's hard to answer that question. i don't think there's one issue or set of issues, state-owned enterprises or health and safety or intellectual property which

is, which is a draws a lot of lightning. i think he is the package. package for the united states, the package for japan, the package for vietnam, but you've got to be able, every country has got to be to have at least a chance to go back and say to its constituents they are not democratic constituents, small d in vietnam, or really democratic voters in australia and new zealand, united states. you've got to be up to say look we think we really got a lot out of this. we think on balance to the congress and to the american people, this is what a good deal economically for the united states. in order to get that we had to give up the following things. but we are prepared to defend the totality of the agreement on the basis of the compromises we make. the obama administration is no different from the bush

administration or earlier in the clinton administration for the first bush administration. every administration has got to make those calculations, which right now the tpp they are in the final stages of making. what can we get here and what can you sell back? >> we're going to leave it there and invite tim rack up to take the program to the next step. thank you very much. thanks, guys. [applause] >> more now from the heritage foundation's conservative summit. no at we will her senator tom cotton who will speak about iran's nuclear program. >> all right. get our critical mass back. i'm excited to introduce tom cotton to all of you.

tom cotton has been a strong conservative since his arrival in the house. he's been an outspoken advocate for conservative policy proposals at home while claiming ground as her take utah governor security challenges abroad. his skepticism of the presence posture toward iran is possible armored relationship with israel and his leadership on america's strength and leadership overseas have identified him as an emerging leader in our movement. more important important is it personal express as a combat infantry officer with completed combat tours in iraq and afghanistan have informed them on a very real and personal level the nature of our enemies overseas. i think one thing i actually think it's pretty important to note here we are very excited very excited when we found out that he was coming to the senate. you may have read some clips about his race and one of the

things i kept seeing recurring and some of these clips was some grumbling. some grumbling and there was grumbling, one quote from qb consultant who complained that his voting record look like a heritage action scorecard. they rick romley about it because they felt like he was putting himself in the necessary political peril and made it harder for them to win the seat. but what has been so wonderful to see has been have senator cotton was able to come to his constituents at articulate why he voted against the trillion dollar farm bill and a heavy egg state and those constituents who care about agriculture embraced him and sought to a lot of the smokescreen that his opponent wanted to put up. it took a lot of hard votes that he proved that when you take hard votes in washington, the american people are more than willing to listen to you when you come home when you stand on

principle. in a row to your site. so for that reason we're pretty pumped to have him around because he proves the point we have all been trying to make. and then last but not least is also a heritage intern, former heritage intern. so what are those distinct which in turns, i would say the most distinguished interns. so congratulations. please join me in welcoming senator cotton. [applause] >> thank you. and thanks to all for the kind welcome to thank you for that generous introduction. i appreciate the opportunity to be with you today to discuss a grave and continuing threat to america's national security. iran's quest to become a nuclear power. and you congress and a new majority was just sworn in. for many these are heady and new times but america's national security interests don't change with the new congresses or new majority. it is the duty of leaders in

both parties to protect these interests always. for this reason congress will soon step up in one form or another and pass new iran sanctions legislation. but we must not forget that legislation is not an end in itself. sanctions are merely a means to stop iran from becoming or updated nuclear weapons capabilities. it's not enough to stop iran from getting the bomb. they must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons capabilities of any kind. to understand why getting into the details of new sanctions legislation, we must member who iran is. why to stick with respect to our policypolicy towards i and my president obama's obama's policy has failed to protect our interests. first, let's make no mistake about the nature of the regime we're dealing with. iran is a radical islamist tyrannical regime.

upon coming to power among its first actions was to in its operate american territory. our embassy in tehran. and killed american hostage for over a year. an act of war for which it has never fully answered. ghanaian constitution states that iran's army, the revolutionary guard corps, quote, will be responsible for killing the ideological mission of jihad in god's way. that is extending the sovereignty of god's law throughout the world end quote. perhaps more than own leadership the ayatollah kept faith with their constitution. iran has been killing americans for over 35 years. in 1983 iran helped finance and direct the bombings of u.s. embassy and marine barracks in beirut, killing hundreds of military, diplomatic and intelligence personnel. in violation of all civilized norms, iran helped plan and

direct the hijacking of twa flight 847 which resulted in the deaths of a navy diver. iran has been implicated in the 1996 khobar towers bombings which killed 19 americans stationed in saudi arabia at the time. more recently and more personally for me iran is responsible for the killing and maiming of thousands of american troops in iraq and afghanistan. during my tour in baghdad iran's by the most advanced and most lethal roadside bombs being used against coalition forces. my soldiers and i knew that iranian supplied bonds with one thing that our armored vehicles couldn't withstand. all we could do was hope it wasn't our day to hit one. my platoon was lucky but too many others were not. and to this day president obama's negotiating partner continue to collaborate in afghanistan to kill american

forces. of course, iran conducts many of these operations against american and our allies through terrorist proxies as iran remains the worst state sponsor of terrorism in the world. according to president obama's own state department. iran is elite financier and arms supplier to hamas, hezbollah and palestinian islamic jihad. while terrorist or positions dedicated to destroying israel. iran has supported opposition islamist in yemen, and iran has thousands of fighters on the ground today that pop up bashar al-assad's regime in syria. and while iran likes to boast it has joined the fight against the islamic state, it is done so only to protect assad and certain to attack u.s. forces currently fighting against islamic state in iraq if he were to target the assad regime. iran also holds hostage to this day with impunity multiple american citizens. robert levinson has been held hostage for nearly eight years

the longest hostage in american history. aberdeen who creates a grave sin in the eyes of iran's ayatollah converting from islam to christianity today suffers in a notorious iranian prison. for preaching the gospel of jesus. ameritech modicum of integrity american marine and veteran of iraq was arrested and iran while visiting his family there. jason, a "washington post" correspondent was detained just months ago to the apparent crime of committing journalism. speaking of the press, much of the civilized world watched in horror last week as islamist terrorist murdered journalist at charlie hebdo. but let's not forget it was iran who made it fashionable first to target for death in the name of islam the petitioners of the free press in free speech. when salman rushdie published

the second verses in 1988, it was iran's supreme leader ayatollah khomeini issued a fat while calling for the killing of rushdie and his publishers. think about that for a moment. and estate put a bounty for murder on the head of a celebrated and prominent author. ayatollah khamenei has reiterated this yet this outlaw regime is now negotiating partner with the united states. this catalog of iran's crimes against the united states and the civilized world was -- totally assembly, demands imposed of strength and courage towards iran. president obama's policy has been marked by weakness and appeasement. of course, then senator obama foreshadowed this policy in the 2008 campaign saying that he would meet khamenei without precondition to here are his words. we are willing to talk about

certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith. i think it's important for us to send a signal that we are not hell bent on regime change just for the sake of regime change. but expect changes in behavior. they are both carrots and sticks available to them for those changes in behavior. regrettably president obama quickly followed through on his promise not to pursue regime change in 2009 just months into the presidency a ring people rose up in protest against rig elections in what became known as the green revolution. president obama should have met publicly with iranian dissidents and along with regional allies assisted appropriate elements in the opposition movement. instead he stood idly by as regime thugs rounded up and tortured many freedom loving iranians. president obama thus lost his first best chance to stop the ayatollah's nuclear aggression. this failure started and all

carrot and no stick policy towards iran to president obama was a drag kicking and screaming by congress toward a tighter sanctions against iran. like a lovestruck teenager he has sent for secret letters to ayatollah khamenei, and returned and i'm reply but even worse president obama sought a meeting with iran's second rate leader president rouhani last september in new york during the united nations general assembly. and rouhani stiffed the president obama didn't accept a phone call with rouhani, the first contact between our countries and the president in 35 years but a tremendous victory for iran for which the u.s. received nothing in return. worst of all of course are the ongoing nuclear negotiations with iran. the so-called joint plan of action with iran was signed in geneva just over a year ago.

matters have gotten worse since then. the negotiations have now been extended twice getting more concessions to iran with little to show in return. despite secretary of state john kerry saying september of 2013 that a deal could be reached in three to six months. now secretary kerry sings a different tune. has backtracked saying recently quote, this takes time the stakes are high, the issues are complicated and technical, and each decision affects other decisions. meanwhile, based on published reports the u.s. negotiators have surrendered repeatedly to iran's demands, conceding a right to enrich uranium, long iran to keep his platoon reducing reactor. asking for that its centrifuges be disconnected instead of this matter, promoting research and development into advanced centrifuges, excluding the military dimensions of iran's nuclear program and its ballistic missile program from

the scope of negotiation. and even agreeing to an expiration date for any final deal. in return for all of these concessions to iran the u.s. has different and will give billions of dollars in sanctions relief. what's wrong with this picture of negotiations? what started as an unwise policy has now descended into a dangerous farce. one could always suspect an unspoken on time between the obama administration and iran. the u.s. won't impose new sanctions on iran and will allow today the threshold nuclear capabilities while iran won't a symbol of him until 2017. but the world cannot accept iran as a nuclear threshold state and the consequences of a nuclear iran are clear. first, we should put nothing past this rogue state. including a direct strike on the little satan israel, or the great satan, america.

nor should we think iran would hesitate to provide nuclear materials and technology to terrorist proxies. of course, sunni arab states like saudi arabia, egypt and the uae likely will not countenance such a radical imbalance of power with the shia persian rifle. they would likely seek nuclear weapons of their own and they have the means to acquire them. once that occurs nuclear proliferation to terrorist becomes all the more likely. not to mention the risk of radical islamist revolution in an unstable nuclear region. the consequences, quite literally, our apocalyptic. future generations may therefore if you what happened in geneva as we have viewed me for the last 75 years. what made this moment worse though the west sent hitler -- president obama to pitch related it in geneva. even though the united states

was in a position of strength, keeping the sanctions regime in place at the time but one can only imagine the thinking behind this grievous, historic mistake. we need a shift in policy toward iran. to a clear eyed and hard-nosed policy of strength based on america's interest and the threat posed by iran. first, the goal of our policy must be clear. regime change and iran. we cannot and will not be safe as long as islamist despots rule in iran. the policy of the united states should therefore be to support regime opponents and about the constitutional government at peace with the united states, israel, in the world. this is so because of the nature of iran's regime, it's what makes its pursuit of nuclear weapons capability so dangerous in the first place. few people worry that france is a nuclear state. or that japan is the nuclear threshold state.

why? because france and japan are peaceful, constitutional regime who pose little threat to their neighbors in the broader world. iran's regime posed a threat not primarily because of its actions but because of its nature and the first principles on which it acts. second, the united states should cease all appeasement, conciliation and concessions towards iran starting with a sham nuclear negotiations. certain voices call for congressional restraint urging congress not to act now last iran's walk away from the negotiating table undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in iran. but the end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of congressional action. it is very much and intended consequence, feature not a bug so to speak. third, congressional action should start with crippling new

sanctions against iran. these sanctions should be immediate, they should not be contingent on further negotiations with iran. on the contrary iran is achieving through slow-motion all that it might want any final deal from exporting the obama administration's desperation to keep the negotiations alive and for a deal. immediate. it's time for the responsible adults in both parties of congress to stop this farce. risking our national security to secure a presidential legacy is an unacceptable compromise. the particulars of new sanctions can be seen in the bipartisan nuclear iran prevention act which passed the house in 2013 with 400 votes. that legislation targeted whole sectors of iran's economy, particularly its oil and gas and banking sectors. likewise senators senators kirk and mindedness are working on legislation that will crack down on iran's oil industry which continues to violate limits on the volume of oil sold.

their proposals would also require president obama to certify that iran doesn't financed terrorist groups that have attacked americans. and would prevent iran from maintaining low-level nuclear enrichment capabilities. all these terms are much stricter than the court proposed framework of negotiations with iran. ..