county commissioner, your mayor, your state transportation director would be in charge of his own destiny, their own right now, under the federal plans we are short on cash. rehe pview. area ofide of the highway transportation. bes will allow your state to in charge of your own transportation needs. we have done this in many different ways and configurations. modest approach we can come up with. this is a pilot row graham for forstate -- pilot program one state. the second one is amendment number 14, dealing with xm.

often times, ring to the floor the number of jobs that are created by xm. there are large institutions like a boeing, or small institutions across the country. that may be good. what is never addressed are the jobs that are lost. the minority jobs that are lost. the woman's jobs that are lost. why? xm has created an unfair competitive advantage. we address that by allowing a mechanism to provide for those firms to be able to bring a challenge to say, our business either could not expand or our business could not create jobs, our business lost jobs or maybe, we even went out of business entirely because of the unfair competition that xm provided.

they lose three ways. they pay for the tax dollars to go into the subsidy. the are potentially losing credit availability that xm is basically sucking up in the marketplace. and three, they are losing to a competitor that is being subsidized through their own tax dollars. all three are unfair and this is one modest way to slightly change the system to help those small businesses, the small or unheard voices that have been lost in this entire debate of xm. i yield back. mr. chairman: thank you very much, mr. garrett. welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman. moment i am very happy not to be on the rules committee. i have four amendments.

two on transportation and two touching xm. programt one is a pilot for three agencies. agriculture, interior, and energy. in the pilot program, could this agency -- if you look at the report, the number of vehicles they had and the number of that were talked about that were not even getting driven. to do a reduction of their fleet by 10%. a pilot program of doing it through ridesharing mechanics. the second one is actually then to also studied these mechanics. at the beginning of the study, a couple years ago we got the copies of it. it actually almost seemed to define what ridesharing was. we all know as we are walking around with these super

computers in our pockets, the allocation resources, whether it be ridesharing platforms, uber, our -- it is time we use fleets with these technologies. the third one is xm. this third one will hopefully, make people happy because it is two paragraphs. mr. chairman: which number is this, sir? >> 22, forgive me. mr. chairman: we have not designated. this one. it is either 16 or 17.

this one basically says, and all of the debate we have had, could we ask for xm to operate under fair value accounting? that is all it does. you use a fair value accounting. the last one is the one that is but becomes aoy, very interesting discussion. it is something we spent one gear on. the concept was, taking xm and recharging it. there is still a xm bank. it still exists, but it is just like we have done with uranium and other resources. that is what this does. bank, buteres xm when it is doing its enhancement

it will actually find those enhancements in the marketplace. plus ofe the other 98% the maturity bonds that exist in the country. that is what this does. written,redibly well to credit my staff. within that mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. chairman: i appreciate your help very much. miss ashford, welcome to the rules committee. >> this is number 147. to encourageis the hiring of local veterans. the amendment allows, but does not require recipients of

federal transportation assistance to advertise contracts that contain certain requirements for employment of local veterans. i know i don't have to tell anyone the importance of trying to connect veterans to jobs. in states like nebraska, certainly with post 9/11 veterans, where our state unemployment rages 2.8% -- the unemployment with 9/11 veterans is 2.5%. this means veterans in nebraska, and certainly around the country, that have a 46% hiring rate. post 9/11 veterans have a 85% unemployment rate. about removing obstacles to employment, allowing contractors to do local

ing for veterans. there has been in opinion in 2013, the department of transportation prevented local advertising for federal transportation projects. after that take there was an opinion by the department of justice. what this does is, it carves out veterans for pilot projects around the country. three of them are working on this issue. it removes the obstacles to local advertisement for veterans in these highway projects. require, buts not

allows states and local governments to remove this obstacle for veteran's employment. these are good jobs and i think, would make a significant difference. thank you. >> i am delighted to be here, mr. chairman. we all talk about transparency and accountability and the need for it. we need more of it. we hear our constituents talking about it as well. i have three amendments. first of all, amendment number 9. agencies to include the names and titles of those who participate in the rulemakings and the publication of that rule. when we offer an amendment or a bill, we have to put our name on it. we have to own it.

rules and regulations come out and they are the same as law. the impact the lives of americans all over the country. we should know who the art. if they are going to make rules and regulations affecting us, why can't we know who they are? transparency can bring better accountability. when you have your name on something, he will produce a better product. we need to know that these people issuing these rules and regulations, that they have credibility in these arenas and that they have expertise in these arenas as well. my second amendment, amendment number 10 has to do with agencies required to exclusive information -- required to give information to the public.

it was passed in a bipartisan fashion. i don't know if the rings act act will ever become law. it is a transparency issue. we often ask the question, how do lawmakers get to their conclusions? any times, we are not allowed to understand the process they go through. americans should have access to that data and science. says wendment simply can all be on the same page and when the rules and regulations reportsed, make these available online. common sense transparency and accountability of amendment, number 11. it requires agency personnel involved in drafting rules to file a financial disclosure report. it is an accountability measure.

, we havesenior staff to file a financial disclosure report for good reason. we want to make sure there are no conflicts of interest. keep us honest as we make our laws. rule makers are in the same boat. their rules are just like laws. we should see if there will be a conflict of interest as well and picture we are honest ropers across the board. accountability, transparency. three great amendments. i ask the committee to move to make these amendments in order. mr. chairman: thank you for specifying those amendments you gave us. i have a question. no, it is easy for you. you are a cpa. non-cpas.so easy for

i'm sorry. i thought you were a cba. joyce has a cpa. married well, i just did not know how smart. you are talking about the application of how they file their tax status of cash. how they endmately up reporting their situation to -- tingive, i am forget the proper initials. cost.hey use today has no forou and i got insurance

our home, there is a cost for that guarantee. basically, doesn't have to account for the value of that guarantee that you and i and our constituents attached to the instruments they are putting out. if we are saying, hey, we want the world to compete and we believe we actually need a government chartered insured institution, fine. but make their accounting the same as the rest of the world. a vast majority of the private sector is also engaged in the business model. mr. chairman: is this for the xm bank? >> the bank itself actually has to value, just like everyone else would have to. mr. chairman: i get that now. i took economics, not accounting.

if you are comparing, shouldn't that world be giving us some honest numbers? get honest numbers if they are not using fair value accounting. mr. chairman: thank you very much. this is probably one of those things i should not say, but can't resist. i think there is a lot of merit to some of these xm amendments. i think there is considerable merit to the one you just mentioned. we got a convincing demonstration last week that the overwhelming majority of congress is in favor of continuing xm. around we next time will see this stuff in the committee. more able to

focus and engage. i will welcome and consider each and every one of them. i yield back. >> like my good friend mr. cole, i should probably pass on saying this, but i can't resist. that has to do with xm. you are in the majority and if you hadn't wanted to amend it, you could have won the measure was previously on the floor. however, i don't think that means we should keep taking these matters up now.

mr. chairman: i want to thank all of their sponsors on their hard work on these amendments. i especially like the gentleman from iowa's ideas about transparency. we put our names on our bills. i think it would be great if they had to put their names on it. it is good to know who worked on things. i think they are very interesting ideas. i have a couple questions for the gentleman from arizona. i think your ideas had some merit and i do want to talk to you about the recharter and and the accounting quickly. are you familiar with the new insurance program that is in the reauthorization bill on page

1020? >> on the reauthorization within the legislation there was discussion. they were considering offering out to see if there were outside insurers. they have actually done that in the past, where they have sold off part of their book. >> so the bill does create a reinsurance firm? been namedlready the. deemed done. i will go back and check. >> please take a look at it sharee i believe i can light on what the true cost in the marketplace is. it might be a nice alternative to the recharter and.

although, i understand why you want the rechartering. that there are some parts that say it has to be guaranteed. would this rechartered agency qualify? i am not sure we know the answer. that is actually a brilliant question and that is one of the reasons we try to design this in a way when it would be the credit import export organization and the united states. you know, we have had this discussion. >> i think that is an

interesting idea worth looking at. i don't know if the rules committee has the expertise to dig into it. it is certainly worth looking at. i know there is a model going forward where we might move the small as this program and might privatize the rest of the agency. there are ways we can do some things, but we were unable to do that in committee. i like how you are thinking. >> someday i hope we actually work on it. thank you, esther chairman. i yield back. mr. chairman: i would like to thank this panel very much for your expertise. anything you have in writing, please leave it for our awesome stenographer.

said hi. dad i we will go to panel number five. trygentleman from oregon, i to to call you last time and i know you were busy. and the gentleman from texas. mr. mccall from texas was be welcomed to please come and i am delighted that you are here. thank each of the members who have been here for a while. opportunity to

hear about a lots of issues that face this great nation. ideas and we your would appreciate if anything you have in writing, please leave it for our stenographer. to fix thatp us directly to your request if you were aware of your amendment number. oman istlew recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your inviting me to testify. enhanceendments would auto safety and oversight. it is my hope that the rules committee will agree that it makes good, common sense to include auto safety in a

transportation bill. that is a threshold issue. now, don't get scared. i have 10 amendments, but they are repeated twice. i will give the numbers for the stenographer. depending on which section in the bill remains, i want to be able to add these. one set of 10. 371, 374, 37 5,376. 38 6,377, 378, 384, 385.382, 3 83, the reason i have these as separate amendments is because they are part of a bill introduced. that is the vehicle safety act.

i am hoping some parts of that can be included in this legislation. yearss been almost two word since news broke about the gm safety switch defect. it took them almost a decade to reveal that. thousands were injured and many died because of that. it has almost been a year since the takata airbag recall. and honda were aware, that did not make it aware. those massive failures to protect the public should inspire us to address the problems identified in the recalls. the vehicleduced safety act. it will implement enhanced

safety and accountability measures. the bill has received widespread support from consumer groups striving to improve auto safety. my amendments are part of the vehicle safety improvement act. the enhance auto manufacturer accountability. the provisions include improving the quality and quantity of information shared among auto manufacturers, and consumers. improving the quality and quantity of safety information provided about used cars. rulemaking should be made to enhance pedestrian safety. the authority to expedite result in it could serious injuries or death. prohibiting the sale or release

of recalled vehicles until they are fixed and eliminating the regional recalls to ensure all vehicles are repaired. amendments also include provisions from my bill that are inntical to provisions found vehicle safety legislation put forth by the republican majority last month. those include requiring auto manufacturers to retain safety records for 20 years. touiring auto manufacturers fix recalled vehicles that are over 10 years old. -- that is the limit. they don't fix them after 10 years. requiring rulemaking to enhance rear seat crash safety. these are good consumer focused safety enhancements that will while serious injuries, encouraging the advancement of

next generation safety advancements. i know that there are some who considers safety provisions not appropriate or this highway bill and while i agree with my colleagues that we can come up with a bill that is more comprehensive and permanent regarding safety legislation, it seems to me that that effort should not come at the expense of enhancing safety in this transportation bill. thank you. mr. chairman: thank you very much. i just had a brief discussion with staff and we are looking at all of those numbers to see how they coincide with ours. perhaps some of them can fit within this bill. i know you got a lot of votes so i will see if we can get some across. it is good to see you, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i appreciate the courtesy of spending a few minutes with you. we broached the subject of adjusting the user fee. it is a little complex, but useful. the current level of spending we have for transportation is costing us money as we fall further behind. it has led to 35 short-term extensions. there are only a couple of us who were here when we had our in 1998.year bill it has been unfortunately, what ronald reagan said in 1982 when he called upon congress to taxrn and increase the gas 125%. it is still true today.

anyould give that speech, of us good, about why it was important. we would have to change it a little bit because he said the user fee would cost the average motorist a pair of shocks. that is not true anymore because we failed to keep track and keep pace with our investment. the average motorist is paying $500 a year in unnecessary damage. are 160 billion dollars a year, translating to almost $1000 or consumer. i could go on talking about butproblems that we have, we have a big task ahead of us. the fact is, what ronald reagan

proposed in 1982 republican states are doing this year. six republican states have stepped up and raised the gas tax. substitute, but in anticipation that the federal government will keep up our end of the bargain. unfortunately, our ways and means committee has had but one hearing in over five years. that was an oversight. we have not heard from the largest collection of people supporting a major issue before us. i would like to make part of the record, 18 statements from organizations ranging from the u.s. chamber, to the flc i/o, transit, bicyclists, engineers, truckers, and aaa.

peoplegest collection of supporting any major issue before congress. and they are unanimous. we should step up and adjust the gas tax for the first time in 22 years. ofw the vision and courage ronald reagan. the efficient and courage that we are seeing in our state legislatures. one little footnote mr. chairman. some people get squeamish talking about raising the gas tax, but it is interesting. also supports this. i did research. and more than half the states that raise revenues since 2012, more people who voted for the then people who voted against it.

respectfully request that we at least allow congress to consider what ronald reagan thanksgivingring 1982. it would be an opportunity for us to get off of this merry-go-round and raise the guest tax. index the gas tax. work to replace the gas tax. the gymnastics have paralyzed us for years. i hope of the house will be able to debated as we move forward. thank you. mr. chairman: thank you, very much. i would like to thank the gentleman for coming to dallas, texas. mr. mccall, this committee has missed you. you are one of the bright, shining spots of all the members

of congress who come up. i don't say that to everybody. i have not said this to anybody, how much we miss them. your hard work you do day in and day out, i watch you. i see you. thank you for your service to our country. appreciate it. i hope in the coming days and months you will be resurrecting your ideas for this country. i find them balanced, but in protection of this great nation. the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, my bill, my hasdment number 77 built an economic peace to it and also a foreign policy piece. iran is looking at reentering

the international foreign market. 250,000lost more than american jobs in the industry this year. our nation faces a urgent situation. doing so would create one million jobs, add or eat billion addars to our economy -- $38 billion to our economy, reduce the federal deficit by $1.4 billion, and lower gas prices. it will strengthen our national security and allow our allies to purchase crude oil from the united states, as opposed to onion states who are trustworthy and pose security threats. a bipartisan amendment would require the secretary of

commerce to issue licenses. it would maintain a band on crude oil exports to any country subject to u.s. trade sanctions restrictions. finally, it would allow the president to impose a ban during a time of national emergency. this, mr. chairman, would transfer federal revenue resulting from crude exports to the highway trust fund, moneyore allowing for ,hat would help the economy national security, and fund the bill on the floor this week. our allies have asked us for this. the european union by private memo asked this to be lifted one

year ago. the ukraine and the baltic states have asked this to be lifted so they could get off the russian energy that cripples them. russia has the power to crush them and we have an opportunity to help our allies. now, with the restrictions lifted on iran, the idea that they could export crude oil, but not the united states of america is such a contradiction of terms that i cannot even explain. i think this makes a lot of common sense. i would ask respectfully if this committee entertain adopting this amendment. mr. chairman: thank you very much. let's go to the gentleman from south carolina. welcome back. my amendments are sequential. 55 through 65.

i would like to withdraw number 61. i will go over them by title. itslimits the bank to countervailing purpose. authorizations above $10 million to be contingent upon the private sector. it is called the lender of last resort role. 58 will prohibit bank assistance with countries that refuse to recognize the state of israel. 59 will deal with capping the ceo pay. i would like to step back. this is a way we are seeking to address the small business component. -- bother parry and mr.

spokerry and mr. clawson on this earlier. number 60 prohibits export import bank authorizations for a country that has a sovereign wealth fund. 63 would require fair value accounting, similar to what was offered earlier. the text we are offering is much more detailed. our light which goes into what fair value accounting means. goes into what fair value accounting means. 64 reduces exposure by taking away the treasury during tea,

requiring the bank to stand on its own guarantee. that is all of them. if i were asked to prioritize, recognizing that we are limited 55, 56, and 63 have something in common. the others are more policy related. ceo of things. ceo pay.iraq,

those types of things. businesses are required to have bank guarantees. this came up recently with indonesia. some large corporations were trying to bid. the company we were trying to sell to was government owned. the company we were selling to was government owned and their own government would not guarantee the work. they were asking our government to guarantee the loan. that is not appropriate, especially when you are dealing with large, sovereign wealth funds. if you are looking at a priority amongst the policy group, that would be number 60, dealing with the sovereign wealth funds. thank you for your time, as always. mr. chairman: thank you very much.

aboutay something nice everybody, why can't i say him.hing nice about one of my favorite shows is "national geographic." i watched a veterinarian trying to put a course on a treadmill. >> we do that. mr. chairman: i thought the ted yoho at 2:00 in the morning. thinking ofate you me. i am glad you did not call me. mr. chairman: the gentleman is recognized. >> i appreciate the work you guys do. you have a tireless job. you guys doing your job allows us to do our job. i have a simple amendment, only three lines long. number 158. it prohibits the authorization of funds for non-recreational

use. the roads and bridges are faltering. let us not forget the highway bill. first and foremost, the federal government's role should be a focused one on bridges and roads. my amendment simply states that using federal funds for any nonmotorized recreational trails will not be authorized. it does not change any funding on trails that do not exist. the recreational trails program has funded $84.1 million annually. $151 million.

i will ask that the committee see this amendment in order. mr. chairman: thank you, very much. succint and makestent an sense to me. i promise we will focus at all 15 or 18 and i thank you very much. >> i won't take long. i want to thank you for your amendments and patience. thank you for your kind words about the hours this committee puts in. i wanted to say how strongly i support mr. mccall's amendment. i think dealing with this issue is extremely important. those of us that represent $40gy states know that

barrel oil is not great all over america. thousands have been laid off. we are the only country in the world that does not allow for the export of petroleum products. house has already expressed its will on this and legislation is likely not going to move on its own in the senate. getting this amendment would be something we should think seriously about. i yield back, mr. chairman. they do not seek time. thank you very much. mr. collins. >> i want to say thanks for coming up and bringing these amendments. i think it is a good thing to see, the way it is supposed to

work. my friend from florida -- i told him when he came to be nice and not throw anything. he is a good friend and brings good amendments. i would like to praise your consistency on this issue. whether you are for xm bank or against it, i think these are the kinds of things that will let people see we are doing to the will of the people. i healed back. back.ield the florida georgia football game last night. floridaar friend from finally texted me on saturday.

i wasn't sure why georgia showed up, but we showed up. mr. chairman: thank you to each of you. there was ayou that conversation about the brave, new world we are in. this bill became the brave, new world we are in. to struggle with a lot of these things and do our best to talk and listen to each other. thank you very much for your attention to details. k you very much. you are now excused. >> thank you, mr. chairman for saving the best for last. i have several amendments. the first two have to do with

trains. we all appreciate the important role trains play in our cargo infrastructure. many of us represent urban communities that have to deal with loud noise, the nuisance of trains going through the middle of town or blocking traffic. establish the to rules around that. in towns i represent like fort collins, trains shake windows and wake small children. it is a issue for the downtown business association as well. there is an area south of town where trains have begun to block traffic, sometimes for hours on end. they can be a threat to public safety, like first responders. proposed solutions. mr. duffy would impose a $10,000 civil fine for operators when

they block a traffic crossing. we understand rail operators need to do this, but they should do it out of town. there is no reason to do it where they block public intersections. amendment allows operators the discretion to have areaster train horn in that are heavily populated. it is one thing were you have a train going 60 miles per hour and you have the particular killer traffic going 60 miles per hour. you need a very loud train bell because it needs to reach quite some distance. in the downtown area, the train speed is limited to 15-20 miles per hour. he killer traffic is also limited to 25 miles per hour.

you would not need to reach as far with the signal in a downtown area where both the vehicles and train are going much slower than you would in a less densely populated area with higher speed limits. we would love more flexibility around our urban interface. that is what my amendment 173 would do. amendment 174 would instate ridorsts around cor that we in congress have deemed to be important. they benefit different areas and different states. the surface transportation act of 1991, corners have been designated as

high-priority. we need to understand how the nation's infrastructure grows our economy. map-21 was the first that depressed from a long-held notion providing additional ighding categories for h priority areas. unfortunately, this bill all those suit. t would close the gap. i would insure the high-priority corners are given the consideration that they are due. of them for their food, water, and economy. their importance goes beyond the areas that they happen to traverse. i have a map of all of the high-priority corners.

>> objection. >> you can see that they go across our country and they are very important for the deliverance of goods and services across our country and for the economy. finally, i want to talk about amendment 175. it is aimed at meeting critical freight needs across the west. namely, one of the major highway arteries across my district -- interstate 70 -- is a critical roadway. many of you on this committee may have traversed interstate 70. we all know that these are heavily trafficked on highway 70. many of our local residents are competing with tourists and national freight operators.

that can lead to a complete standstill. who is frustrating for us live in an otherwise very peaceful mountain area. i have worked with the highway 70 delegation in the colorado department of transportation for years to find a solution. we have geographic challenges. the road winds its way through mountain peaks of 12,000 feet. it goes through tunnels. highway 70 needs to be recognized for the critical role it plays across the mountain west. it is a critical transportation artery. this amendment would designate the stretch of highway 70 between denver and salt lake city as high-priority.

there is simply no other realistic way to get food, gasoline, supplies into our mountain communities other than highway 70. it is the only practical lifeblood for communities in the aggregate. i ask for your consent to submit a letter of support. >> objection. >> these letters reflect the local area. i asked the committee to listen to our state-based experts. hopefully later on the floor of the house. i hope my several amendments are allowed to come to the floor for a vote. i yield back. mr. chairman: thank you very much. what does the designation mean --terms of why you want it i get that we do have some designations. i do get that there is a higher

priority of safety. what would it mean? is no direct funding attached, but there is eligibility for funding streams that that stretch of highway is ineligible unless it were classified in that way. do you have any questions for the witness? but you would want his amendment made in order? >> yes sir. mr. chairman: thank you very much. record like to enter the a statement from the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford. we will do that and get that to you. is there any other member that seeks time before the committee?

any other member that seeks time for the purpose of an amendment? none. this here closes the hearing portion. we are going to try to work through these amendments tonight. ito not necessarily believe will be immediately after the last vote, but we will work through them as best we can. it means you will have to be on call for us. any questions or comments? adviseou have any way to us as to when votes will occur tonight? mr. chairman: i believe we will have them almost immediately, but i believe they will go on at 6:30. i anticipate we will do this as quickly as possible, but no designated time necessarily.

i do anticipate doing it tonight because we want to be prepared for tomorrow. any other questions or comments? thank you very much for joining us today. it has been a very busy day and fornt to thank everybody the attention to their duties. i want to thank each of the witnesses who came up. who worked on

this. thank you mr. chairman. i would like to discuss the higher more heroes act of 2015. each further amendment in part a consideredrt will be as read and will be debatable for the time specified in the report. it may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time. it will not be subject to amendment and will not be subject to a demand or a division of the question.

amendments on block shall be considered as read and will be debated for 20 minutes. section three makes an order only those further amendments. each such amendment shall be considered only in the order printed in the report and only offered by a member in the report shall be considered as read. it may be withdrawn by the

proponent at any time before action. it shall not be subject to amendment. section four provides that if the committee as a whole provides back to the as amended, back to the house without further amendment. consideration, the amendment shall be in order. we postpone postponed further consideration for amendment in the house to such time as may be designated by the speaker. upon adoption of the further with such further

amendment shall be considered. it shall be in order for the chair of the committee and on itsructure in need movements of the senate amendment a request -- there in. not later than november 16, 2015, such material as may explanatory of defense authorization for fiscal year 2016. motion, iheard the

would like to defer to myself quickly to review this rule for public consideration. another 81 amendments, this is in addition to the 45 amendments at the house debated today. at the conclusion. a will provide a final vote package we put together and then voted out. it also provides for the authority for the infrastructure committee to get into conference with the senate, and i think this was a lot of good, hard work. with that said, i will open up the floor to any amendments or discussions. >> devote will now be on the motion on the gentleman from north carolina. aye, the in favor say

aye's have it. managingll will be this for republicans. gentleman from georgia? , thank you for the hard work. i want -- we were on a time and these are my folks from the greater hall of chamber of commerce. tonight, they're getting to see this committee at work. i want to say thanks for them to being a part of this. much come i very recognize this member the mustache. he frisked me before i walked out today. every night of the rules committee, we always get along -- [laughter] there is a listen to be made in all of this.

my mom and dad came up to today for lunch and saw mrs. slaughter . my mother said luis, just so you remember, you are my favorite member of congress, as opposed to me. that is true, so i got my mother to butter up -- you know that is the truth. >> we are onto your tricks. >> ok, listen -- [laughter] i know, i know, i know. i'm glad our friends from georgia were here. this completes our work for the week and i appreciate everyone's help. thank you very much. >> the highway transit programs bill is a six-year authorization and covers three years of shortfall to the highway trust fund. funding started 41 billion last year.

at noon eastern, on c-span. john baker is -- john boehner's is noation from office effective. a special election will be held to fill out his currency. a primary election is scheduled for march 15. ohio's sixth district spans the six counties. coming up on c-span, a discussion on the balance between privacy international security. onn deputy defense secretary national security, that is followed by a donald trump campaign event in new york.

collects about whom will you next right? i thought there was only one person beside wilberforce who i , and irite, i remembered did write that book and i think i will be standing next to the ofsident speaking to 3000 the most important people of the world in this room. who knows how i will feel the need moment? i had the idea that i might do that, i thought maybe i would give him the books later, but if chutzpah to plot the goofiness, i will do it. on his sunday night, , and alling career crossover between religion and politics. >> it is important for everyone

to take politics seriously, and to vote, but never to make an idol of politics. there are people that have done that and are worshiping at that who rather than the god would cause them to care for the poor and the injustices. i think that is a fine line, and i talk about that fairly often. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern. >> on the next washington journal, congressman seth the armedmember of services committees. the freshman lawmaker talks about his four tours of iraq. then upcoming fiscal deadlines, and how house republican undership will change speaker paul ryan. later, our spotlight on and on plastic bags

and what prohibitionists get wrong about them. washington journal's live every morning and you can join the conversation with your calls, and comment on facebook and twitter. c-span has your coverage of the road to the white house 2016. you will find the candidates, the speeches, the debates, and most importantly your questions. this year, we're taking our coverage into classrooms across the country with our student cam contest, giving students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to get the most from the candidates. follow the student cam contest and the road to the white house coverage on television, the radio, and online at c-span.org. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] kristan stoddard on

edward snowden and the balance between surveillance and civil liberties. >> everyone having a good first day of the symposium? i'm pleased to have kristan ard, who is a researcher of international politics. in 2012 he was appointed lecturer in cyber security. then he was made senior lecturer. ofis deputy director international security studies. he is a member of the project on

nuclear issues. he is a fellow the higher education academy, and a fellow the royal historical society. he is spoken and a wide number of conferences and for various forms of media, including the bbc. booksthe author of four -- really? overachiever, all right. [laughter] it deals with the protection of critical national infrastructure against cyber attacks. addresses and expands on many of those points. specifically, he will talk about edward snowden and what that means for you in the 21st century. we also grew up about 200 yards away from each other in wales,

he is been a good friend of mine for years. is my distinct personal pleasure and professional honor stontroduce dr. kristan ddard. [applause] stoddard: we're showing our age. it is harder on some than others. [laughter] thank you foro that wonderful introduction. i would like to thank theminster college for wonderful organization and the hosting of this event which has been extraordinarily good. it is surprising, well, a little surprising, that edward snowden is being mentioned so frequently in the course of these last few

days. it is of course a matter of record that he was the main whistleblower of what are known which prison revelations have been a source of much speculation, and general thoughtfulness by both of the united states and some partner nations engaged in the program. this includes the united kingdom, but many others. right. so, let's look at the gentleman himself. i will say, before i start, we have some details up on the screen. i find when i looked into his ways hend, some of the got into the intelligence service community and the ways he was recruited in the things that he did and the level that

he achieved to be somewhat mysterious. i would ask you to look up, when you get the chance, how he managed to get in this position of authority and was able to access this data. that in itself is revealing of a number of systemic issues in the intelligence community post 9/11. sharing became very important to the intelligence committee. -- community. as you can tell, the family background a public service, his father was in the pentagon on 9/11. when he was interviewed by the guardian, he was at pains to or he did not he see himself as a traitor. he felt he had a public duty to disclose these activities. the american public, and the

wider world to be able to scrutinize them. they can scrutinize some of the decision-making that went on. he was not a high achiever, which may surprise some. he also did not have a college degree, which could sit prize -- surprised more people. he tried to gain entrance into the u.s. special forces, he went through basic training, suffered broken legs which ruled him out of military service. thing from his perspective is that he tried it, he wanted to serve his country. it would be a mistake for me to note at some point what your views of him are. it's very much is a matter of opinion, i think, whether you see him as a whistleblower, a traitor, or patriot of some color.

he was only 29 when all this happened. he is a very articulate speaker, and is a very bright guy. this is only 10 years older than most of you, it is nothing, not a large period of time. the world you go into may well of been changed by his revelations. the resulting debates that occurred because of what is could change that world. he was, apparently, allegedly, only a systems administrator. but the systems administrator role in computer security gives you almost unprecedented access because it is where, if you decide to still the highest levels of classification beyond

those with top security, it is almost subverting the system. but i find interesting is how he managed to access the data. cannot walk in and out carrying a data stake. you cannot to gain external internet access. they are sealed off from the internet. this is to prevent exactly what happened from happening. one thing that is also interesting is how much data was actually affected. there were some estimates that it is up to or over 1.7 million documents. that is not a small number. fact that there were

likely in the form of text only documents, very limited pictures and etc., probably no video, you could do that on sd card and this is how he passed it to the journalist he was speaking to when he flew to hong kong from hawaii. was a big story for the guardian and the washington post and various other newspapers that all allegedly hold this data. he himself, when he ended up in russia, and the united states noted his passport, did have in possession those documents. that is what he claims. of course, the counterclaim is governmente russian would be very interested in what he had in his possession. , maybely to the chinese

some dubious destinations. america's two biggest adversaries -- not at war, big trading partners, but nevertheless adversaries of a different kind. to illustrate some of the , part of what the national security agency does is analyze intelligence, it signals intelligence agencies. argued is that they did not just target foreign, but also domestic as well.

the argument being that it scoops up things from your private lives, and everything else in its path. everything you say and do on the internet, having a digital footprint, your browsing history and e-mails, contents, potentially, telephone records -- depending on your usage, and authorization of computer you have a minor digital footprint, or a giant one. this produces huge amounts of data known as metadata.

thank you. what is also interesting about edward snowden is that he did not work directly for the national security agency. as for as one can tell, he was a subcontractor and worked areially for dell, who responsible for installing those systems and running them in a classified environment. some abilities -- some of these are 25 years old. in addition, he then worked for heen hamilton, which is when decided to flee to hawaii. he only worked for him for three months, but he did that to gain access to more data and to be

able to leave to hong kong. it is a question as to whether the security procedures in and of themselves are significant as well to prevent this from happening in the future. one of the issues you might want to consider yourself is that of encryption. revelations,wden the use of something called something partly funded by the data, hash encrypts grown exponentially as a result of this. it was revealed that largely was brought upa including e-mail exchanges. in addition, our connectivity,

our communications, are global. they may be local in terms of viewpoint, opinion, and a package of information of some of who sits next to you, but that information could be transmitted around the world. the internet takes the shortest possible route from one destination to another. so, while you think local, think at the same time global. the data that is harvested, and analyzed by the nsa and other various agencies, can produce extremely highly accurate pictures of individuals, as well as social, economic, and political trends. this is called analytics. most remarkable

things you will ever see. if you want to look on google, and do your own version of analytics, you can. your friends, family, associations, that is phenomenal. particularly, when smart technologies really are working. say that you control the power in your house, it tells the may -- when you are leaving, when you're coming home, when you are vacationing, when you go to work, when you come home, what is in the fridge, whether you are married, children, no children, etc., etc. there's a huge amount of detailed information of each and every one of you.

if you're happy with that, wonderful. conditions you read when you sign up to social media services? two or three of you? ok, you are very keen. sorry, you are the lucky one, i read 30 pagese to of conditions. one of the ones i've seen in the inserted possession of your first-born child. people don't read what they signed up, but it gives you an .dea when you put pictures, chats, etc. on the internet or into the

cloud you don't have ownership of it. you lose ownership of it. that ownership passes to google, to facebook, to yahoo!, and so on. it is not private. think of everything whenever you step onto the computer and log on. it is public information. if you think it is public rather than private, maybe you're a generation that it does not , or you are less concerned. i don't know. i would be interested in finding out, maybe it is a generally additional -- generational issue. assumed that some of what i was saying or doing , partlyas being traced because of the people i was talking to. i kind of expect that.

but if i'm not one of those individuals, if it's one of my students communicating to me, be snowden, nuclear, intelligence, that is brought into databases, which is then into an nsa analyst. then, maybe, i would be a bit concerned. concerned, iry would be more concerned if i got a knock on the door, or an e-mail that says would you like to have a chat with us about what you have been doing? i think that is unlikely. but, what it does say is that in and on liberal democracy -- in an unliberal democracy that ability is there. i might worry more in other places.

one of the things that encryption does is allow people in repressive regimes to talk more openly without fear of prosecution, without fear of locking the door with someone with a gun behind it. it does happen, it has happened, there are good reasons for encryption. there were good reasons for non-intrusiveness, they were good reasons to think carefully about the principles underpinning data collection programming. part of the releases, or the disclosures, was presidential policy directive 20 back in 2012. that we invite you to look at.

it laid out, among other things, defensive cyber relations. it is an alphabet soup of acronyms. i get lost, it is easy to get lost, it is also in legalistic and diplomatic language. it has been said that the existing legislation has been extended to cover things it may be should not or was not intended to cover. both from a legal and political standpoint that is probably what we should be covering. what you should notice from this is the -- i'm sorry, --

ppd 20 required the cooperation of private companies who owned the cyberspace. even big providers that you and i use on a daily basis. cooperative, were and some of which were -- had reservations because of what it entailed. this debate has been had backward and forward regarding whether providers should actually be part of the policing of the internet. globals no overarching police force to look at these issues. it is partly self policed, and is partly also on whether or not you believe in something called internet freedom, whether or not

you want the internet to be unregulated, largely uncontrolled by nationstates, largely a process driven by you. bewhether or not they should other involvement. if so, what is the level of state involvement. what is the level of private companies. to what extent should it be unregulated? to what extent should be released? would you allow illicit trade in , ins, and child pornography things that we deem to be illegal? it also encourages terrorism, it , andmethod of recruitment it is also a method of communication. that is a way of targeting individuals involved in .errorist activities

it is partly here that the dilemma lies between wanting to protect yourself from bad guys, the bad people, and if so, what are you prepared to do? are you prepared to give up your privacy? if so, how much? where are the intersections, where of the boundaries? to you, ast individuals, say stop, that is enough? this needs to be thought about. legislation,ece of as the of seen in the last couple of days, it is unlimited because technology changes and our attitudes change. we need to think a little more carefully about where this is all going. and this, where we are right now, where this technology will

head in the next even five years is very hard to predict. more smart technology will come along, more metrics, artificial intelligence will increase. this is already being used in both the public sector and the private sector. it is partly government-funded, it is probably private funded, it is part of it universities, and is partly in the hands of individuals. technologies,art will all combined to produce something different and change again. it reaches into each and every one of us, and it will be remarkable. either that, or we opt out. we always have that option, turn of the internet, turn off the lights. there is so much to consider if you are an analyst or looking at

it from the protective side of the fence. is from a cyber primer which was produced by the u.k. ministry of defense. withd so in partnership the government communications headquarters which is the nsa equivalent. it is an alternative way of theking, it is the way that agencies have been trying to think. it is layered, it is tiered. it is expanding, it can track .uman interactions but if you're going after someone, at some point in time you'll have to find them. in some cases, you have to

either kill them, or place them on trial. in some jurisdictions, that will be impossible. there is so much for can actually talk about in terms of, how many of you have cell phones? i assume most of you, if not all of us. almost beould surprising if we did not. the cell phones of the produce can produce data which tells our locations, which mixes -- makes us very vulnerable in some sense

to being found. us, howne wants to find they go about it is a method that uses very of different methods of tracking, trailing, and tracing. it uses social media, e-mail records which are used by your laptop, phone, although this is used to build up certain pictures. know that the nsa and other agencies, through partnerships agreements, have secretly attached intercepts to the fiber-optic cables that run through this world. these are the architectural backbone of the internet. they are a key enabler along with satellite technology of the global technology that we take once this provides a

high degree of access to global , it also subverts us. edward snowden said that he did not want everything he said, every expression of love, to be recorded. but you see metadata using the vast resources that are generated by the internet, and this is in the chileans -- quintillions of data everyday. speak, canyou do, or be recorded, played back, analyzed, can produce such a picture of your life it is incredible from the cradle to the grave. there are examples of people now understandably putting pictures

of the unborn child on facebook. that is fine in and of itself, and you find baby photos, first birthday, growing up, they do it to themselves. i think the age of facebook to something -- certainly people that i know have children that signed up much younger. it seems like a benign thing to do. what happens over time? that produces such a detailed picture of the person's life, it is something a future employer, whether a government department, or a mainstream business can look at, analyze, interpret, and decipher whether to take that job or if they don't. they may not like certain things that they see. like i said earlier, nobody reads the terms and conditions. you can request to have it taken down, whether or not you will be

-- if not, that will be difficult. whether you want an employer to a picture of you dancing, may be doing something you should not do, maybe something benign -- totally incongruous, but they decide on the base of that sorry, there is a better candidate and i don't like the look of that person. that is because you did something for five years ago, on one night, for a moment, that is captured. it is a selfie, someone else is taking our picture and a tag you in it. it is not you, it is not representative of you, but with analytics, and the depth of data that is found on facebook, , your life iso on

revealed as a totality. again, i you happy with that? if you thought about that, fine, good. and is the companies, external partners, they go through this process. and the government, including your own, again, if you're comfortable, fine. if you have not thought about it, fine, that is your democratic right. it is one i suggest that you exercise. to give you a further example, there are many dimensions to prison, as you can see from this picture. there are some programs within programs, some of which are still classified, some of which

are still not being revealed, and some of which have been moved on partly because of the revelations and because technology moves at such a pace in this is not based to me talking to people in the intelligence community. of those which have been publicly revealed, and which give some smaller insight into technology is capable of doing, and what the scope of revelations actually reveal, that is an internet targeted database system that is a form of data mining. given the amount of information put out there, including things are, myself, put out, a great deal of information could be found. it is able to draw on everything a typical user does on the internet which includes web and search is to raise -- search

histories. another examines facebook chance and private messaging. reads the terms and conditions, it is not private. the legislation is being used to move into this space. to move into social medai, and to be honest, if not the nsa, it is the chinese, other countries. to my mind, this has to be thought about as more of a global level issue. you can look at it only to the lens of snowden, but i would aggest this is more than national issue. it is more than a national security issue, it is something

we should discuss in the terms of economic -- internet freedom. it is all part of the package. do you accept a measure of policing? if so, where did the boundaries lie? that is probably the main take-home message from this talk, where do these boundaries lie? policing, control, regulation, and internet freedom? to give you some of the kindfications for these you need to one look at which is the 14th anniversary of 9/11. it is like the kennedy

assassination, everyone remembers where they were, it was incredibly shocking. nobody wants to repeat it, and it was preventable. that was a big deal from the commission report, it was preventable. we see it on a daily basis now, there are these bad people in the world, they don't respect the rules of the game. we also have to respect our this our value system, and is the state of justice and the degrees of freedom and liberty. but to prevent what is been --troyed by leon panetta described by leon panetta as a possible cyber 9/11, that is partially what i deal with through my projects, it is a very high and level.

if these, and others, of a lower order at the intelligence agencies are trying to stop and prevent them. the general alexander, the command, of u.s. cyber and director of the nsa, says these programs, together with other intelligence, have predicted the united states from power threats across the globe over 50 times since 9/11. that is in over 20 countries around the world. he added, i believe we have achieved this and a relative safety that does not compromise the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens. to thee critical intelligence community's efforts to connect the dots. those disparate dots that the programs do, along with

human analysis. this is what a human being will do, this is what artificial intelligence will do. nobody wants to see another 9/11, or worse, a cybergeddon scenario. but, where is the balance? would you want to see your data, pictures, geographic data, when it images taken of you wherever

it might be, you can see on facebook across the globe, we know who you're with, we know what you are doing. it is very short steps to produce a detailed mosiac of life from that. but if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. facts we a cascade of need to think about. like i said, i do not think this is solely a national security issue. i think this is to be discussed a globally. if you look at global health, and other things, where not to good at it. we don't seem to have the tools in our vocabulary. this is something we need to move forward with, i believe. you will also ask whether or not

the oversight has been sufficient. , not only in the united states, but across effective countries, new zealand, australia, canada, germany, particularly, has been shocked by the revelations in the depth of the spying that went on. allegedly, perhaps it still goes on. not the national judiciary court and in camera is enough through oversight for you, or for us as a community, or globally, is a valid question. it has gone too far for some of

us. the people in the intelligence community, and the securities, it does not go far enough. to give you an example, a member of the australian government, this is one of the partner nations in the long-standing u.s.ment, noted that the may be able to brush aside some diplomatic fallout from the snowden leak, but that may not be the case roster of it, china, malaysia, and other countries who may respond to us. it is also judged to have a much .reater impact they are all part of the same package.

those that expose internet freedom, this should not be secret. like i said, this is the break we need to have. regarding prison intelligence gathering and analysis are shaking the trust between the u.s., the u.k., and , and also in key element of the private sector. we need to better understand the , andto share information to protect that information. careful ofd to be inside threats, if snowden

showed anything it is that they are alive and well. and foreign intelligence to attempt to install agent in various companies in order to obtain access to business information on their systems, or to infiltrate the data for a malicious purpose. risks for the private sector, the government, for us as individuals, are ongoing and growing faster than our capabilities to act. this is partly technological determinism, we can see around the bend, we can see to a limited extent, but we don't see everything and we don't know necessarily where all of this is leading to . this is a snapshot of where we are now. if we don't have an informed debate about it where we want to be in five years time, you could be in an and comfortable position. your privacy could be extremely

limited and a way that it is already compromised. , ifou are happy with that isody says anything, that probably a bigger problem, and a bigger issue. first, it does not only emanate from individuals, some of which are well-organized, some of which are based in hard-to-reach jurisdictions, they can also be for industrial competitors, foreign services, or simply hackers and want to find out what they can do, there are lots of cases of these people. there are also hackers groups like anonymous who tend to be of , who drawgeneration on political and ideological rationales, some of which will

resonate with each and every one of us. complexity of the attacks has seen enormous a growth. one of theg from intelligence services, what was an attack a year ago might only be downloadable now when require no expertise to use. i would not suggest you go looking for them, but they are there, they are very easy to find, search engines to find backdoors into systems into looking at aspects of critical infrastructure, to look at shipping, to look at electrical grids, to look at which airline is passing overhead. that is all widely available. in fact, it is very interesting

to look at. it can also be used for nefarious purposes. increase your awareness, increase your knowledge, have a greater understanding of the issues that mr. snowden releases. understand your own lives, and the context. , they use these services are not unique to us as citizens , to someone in britain, australia, canada, germany, the amount of information is incredible. it is insightful, and his penetrating, it is almost

orwellian. data mining, data analytics, social engineering, can produce such a detailed map of your lives from the cradle to the grave. you need to think now. is this the world you want, is this internet you want, is is the connectivity that the world demands? if so, you give up elements of national freedom, and you pay for it one way or the other. we will all pay for it whether through a reduction of civil likely,s, privacy more and also a financial cost. a digital device within the .tates is partly generational the availability, and low-cost of the technology will decrease

over time. together. in it it is like a brain, it is an incredible series of connections. it is the greatest human accomplishment, potentially, i do think that there is nothing greater. it is precious, it is not solely the internet, but the collaborations it produces, the the -- decentralization, capacity to learn, understand, see things, comprehend, the extent to which this is a bottom-up driven process, and the extent to which nationstates should be able to regulate and police it is a debate you should be thinking about. and i should be thinking about it, and government should be thinking about it, and the private industry should be thinking about it.

we need to be part of that debate, engage it, snowden and prison is one aspect of this. it is gotten stronger, more powerful. withl hopefully leave you some questions. those would be -- if you have done nothing wrong, and nothing to fear, should you be concerned about what i've talked about today? should you be concerned about putting programs and the snowden revelations? if thet bother you pattern of your life was forecast in the cradle to grave not only for you to see, but for everyone to see or your government to see?

that stretches deep, and a wide, and includes medical data, and various other metrics that you can use. would you want your 121 communications, the stuff you onek is private, to be -- to one commit acacia and's, the stuff you think is private, to ,e available -- communications the stuff that you think is private, to be available to everyone? they are turning it into one to many. it needs all the stated prevent another terrorist attack like 9/11. in order to find the needle in the haystack, they need access to the whole haystack. you and i are part of that haystack. are part of that map that we

tempora questions -- time for questions? >> i think we have about five minutes of this is session. if anyone has questions, now would be a good time to ask. microphones are live if anyone was to step up. >> first of all, thank you very much for a very interesting lecture. i really appreciated the information that you give us.

my question would be, since the government is trying to, or wants to enforce stronger regulating policies either for their own gain or four companies to get access to more information, in this case, who will hold the government accountable for all of the information that they would have and protect national security? soddard: for the first instance, we the people. it is, it is always been, for a process of an illiberal democracy through democratic channels. you elected officials, we elect officials, they are held accountable, and they hold people accountable in turn. but i would question is whether the existing legislation, we can

,ook into whether it is capable or has caught up with the existing technology. within societal and technological trends, whether or not we need to revisit that legislation. and have a much more informed don't think the legislation is capable of catching up with the technologies. pace,running at such a and the might of data you can pull off the internet, and different services -- it is barely touched. it is incredible, it is awe inspiring. awesome in its detail, you would be

amazed. and i don't think anyone has thought about it in the depths we ought to. thank you. yes? >> how are we a democratic country and yet to our government knows everything we do? the nsa or government can monitor anything we do? how can we classify ourselves as a democratic and preach to other countries have they need to be democratic when our own government it knows it every single thing every citizen can do? that is a very provocative question. it is a question i would like to see put to