incrediblyrcement is important and as you noted with china in particular this has been an issue even with china's we'veinto the w.t.o., still seen enforcement our view is the top administration is on the right path. that is been one of the holdups during china's unwillingness to include enforcement mechanisms in the agreement. challengests of the and what called china to walk away earlier was because of the u.s.'s insistence on those provisions in the agreement. we agree they have to be in there. we look forward to china moving on that issue. build up on what stephen was talking about, intellectual property theft, the chinese government involvement in the tech sector. are we getting to a point where the internet are going to be

brocaded, different internet for different people? >> i hope not. we saw china take steps in that direction. russia announced their desire to create a russian internet. that moves us in the wrong direction. we are a global economy, a global people. the technology industry is focused on deploying innovative products and services that connect us all. i fear that in some circumstances, we are moving in that direction. china and russia being two examples. i hope we do not end up there. that is not where we want to be. the risk of that israel. >> -- the risk of that is real. >> a lot have business in china. has it become hard under this administration to do this with china because of the concerns with cybersecurity and issues we have seen raised by trump, but

also by congress? >> these are important issues. to. companies pay attention national security issues. it is not just a u.s. issue. every nation is charged with protecting it citizens at a nations take different approaches. what we have seen from the trump administration is a move toward using a trade agreement as the way to address these issues. if we can good a good trade agreement, that should address the issues related to cybersecurity, supply chain. there are two important things to remember from the perspective of technology. one, we have a global supply chain. that supply chain means u.s. manufacturers rely on components and you factored around the world and we want to continue that flow of products and services, data, and physical products. percent ofthing, 95 consumers live outside the united states.

companies, it is important to have a global market, we need to see that are addressed. on a national security issues, that is in an important role. theave been encouraged by trump administration has sought to address these issues, having fact-based analysis to ensure that if action will be taken on a national security, it is done because there is a national security threat. seen some announcements out of the commerce department that they want to look at these issues on a case-by-case basis. do you believe that rigorous analysis is happening? some have suggested that some penalties this administration has imposed, on a while way for instance, are motivated by economic interests, security interests. >> that a by we supported the way the trump administration has moved this forward. the announcement you are referencing from the commerce department this week is one of

that implements the executive order. the way the department is implementing it is, we think, positive for two reasons. rigorousuts in place a case-by-case analysis, reflecting that national security concerns are what we should be examining, not ancillary issues. the second thing, it opens a provideng procedure to opportunity from comment from stakeholders to make sure the rules are put in place are going to address those concerns. this is the province of government. it protects citizens. these are important issues. >> before we run out of time, i want to make sure we turn to antitrust. there is talk about breaking up googles of the world. >> antitrust has been used over the history of the country to

address marketplace failures. what is important to remember is, when we look back at where government has stepped in to address market issues, the best example being the breakup of 1982, that was to address a monopoly market. we have all benefited. consumers, industry, and the government, from the opening of telecom, markets to competition. that was a rare case. it was close to 40 years ago. it was a long process. antitrust matters are law enforcement matters. there has been speculation about what is being looked into. we do not have a lot of facts. it is important to remember, our goal should be to make sure consumers can benefit from the most innovative technologies and how important this is to our economy. the technology industry is 10% of the u.s. economy.

more than 12 million americans work in the tech industry. when a facebook buys whatsapp slowinggram, isn't that or crushing the competition? >> those companies would say those acquisitions have been successful at the government did approve those applications. putting aside individual companies interactions with the government, the broader issue is we have to remember at trust -- antitrust as a law-enforcement matter and those investigations sometimes play out over decades. there have been companies that interactionsear that ended with no action by the government. governmenty the announced the breakup of at&t, they were dropping a 13 year investigation of ibm for

antitrust violations. it is important to remember, antitrust care is a big weight. people think about it as a heavy action and it is. we need to remember, as with national security issues, a case-by-case basis east on analysis of fact and law is the way we should look at these things. ask -- we have been to china and i would like to take us to france. france is looking at a digital service tax that could impose a tax on companies like facebook or google that do electronic commerce or information services. concern of your members at our association. have you heard developments on how talks between the u.s. and france are going on that issue? >> this is important because taxation has global implications. the french digital services tax you are referencing has been widely reported as applying only to a small number of u.s. companies. we were concerned about the

impact of the tax on innovation. these shouldti is, not be country specific solutions. if we need an updated tax structure, it should be done on an international basis. the oecd is the organization that has been looking into these issues. that is the proper venue for addressing these issues. the united states government did open an investigation under .ection 301 that investigation is pending. the u.s. and france have been in discussions about this. publiclys indicated that they are interested in allowing the oecd to resolve this issue. we think that is the best outcome. >> the wto is looking at their moratorium on e-commerce. i believe that a set to expire next month. do you have any expectations for

whether that can be rendered or what might come of that? >> that is an important discussion. what is interesting about the wto doing it, it is a worldwide body. adoptave the ability to policies that multiple nations will address. solution thatnal we are looking for is best out of the oecd. they had made progress. they have country members that almost every country follows their guidelines. we think that is the best way to get to a global solution. >> the concern, if france imposes its own tactics, we might see bender countries like and yet, south africa, elsewhere start to impose their own taxes. >> many countries have suggested they will do so. on the geographic scope, that is problematic if you have different countries adopting

different versions for taxation. ,n an innovation point of view it makes it difficult. we are trying to reinvent digital services and treat them differently for tax purposes than physical goods. that is not good. that is not a way that will promote innovation. >> let's bring it domestic. election security. is iti involved? >> our member companies are the companies that provide election security. it is an important issue, it is in the headlines because we have seen attempt to interfere with u.s. elections. our member companies are focused on cyber security products generally. it is securing election infrastructure, also health care infrastructure, everything that is connected needs to be secured. issues,ction security what we have been pleased about is the willingness of federal and state and local government to partner with technology

companies in search of good solutions. we are doing everything we can to support our partners that are responsible for elections and we thatautiously optimistic enough jurisdictions will adopt these technologies to do a better job of securing our infrastructure. >> cyber security industrial complex is becoming a term. >> it is. it is a term because of the necessity of that partnership. the u.s. government is one of the biggest purchasers of technology in the world. if you add state and county and have aovernments, you multitrillion dollar market for purchases of technology. we are focused on public sector, private partnerships. -- theght on board these former cio of the fbi because of the importance of these issues. >> time for one more question. >> we have seen increased

criticism of a segment of the tech population or companies, particularly internet companies. some of that criticism is coming from other parts of the industry. i am curious, as the leader of an organization that represents so many companies, how is the way the conversation has changed in washington impacting in your organization and lobbying approach with lawmakers? >> this is something that every industry experiences. the magic of a trade association. bring togetherwe the fiercest marketplace competitors and ask them to take off their company hats and put on their industry hats at work collaboratively where we can find areas for collaborative interest. the those forward to benefit of the entire industry. we are no different from any other industry from pharmaceuticals, to paint and coatings. every trade association has their competitors that are

around the table data do things to benefit the industry at that go out and sometimes to each other and sometimes copied, sometimes take ads against each other. you asked how this has changed. if we were having this conversation 15 years ago, it would have been about the marketplace and policy battles between cable and telco. you do not hear about that anymore because they found more areas of overlap and consensus that when they were battling each other. 15 years before, it was about the long distance competitors at a local telephone companies. not something we hear about today. 15 years from now, the tech industry will not be the poster child for these discussions. are more areas of consensus that not and one of the reasons iti has been around for 103 years is because we are focused on spending time with in

those areas of consensus and doing what we can to promote innovation. >> our guest has been jason oxman. thank you very much. and allmunicators others are available as podcasts. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> the house will be an order. >> c-span has provided all america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy advance from a washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. treated in a 1979, c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government.

with the back executive director of the justice accident network and we will talk about prison reform. good morning. >> if i sound a little -- it is really cold today. >> tell us what the justice action system is and where do you get your funding? >> we are the largest bipartisan coalition, partners from the far-left, far-right, who have been working together for years to make our justice system fairer and more effective. we have been successful. over the last few years, we passed two big bills and more than 100 bills and states across the country, we are grateful for the support from the american people and the support from our funders.

two very quiet, generous people who want to make the world a better place. is the one-year anniversary of president trump signing the first step act into law. tell us what the first step act did and how effective has the first year been? act was a first step negotiated bill. it was not of the bill we hope to past, which was the sentencing reforms and correction act. nevertheless, it was a groundbreaking prison reform bill that was aimed at safely reducing incarceration at the reducingevel and recidivism. entering there is programming for people currently incarcerated, so they can get a job training and be ready to reenter society in a successful way and not return to crime. also ensuring we do not have these egregiously long sentences

for people like alex marie johnson, who was granted clemency by the president, he received a life sentence for a first time, nonviolent drug crime. been successful, it freed thousands of people who should have been home years ago. we still have a long way to go. yesterday, we had the one day anniversary of the president signing the fair chance act, which is our next step, which ensures federal government service, jobs, contracting jobs, are open to all americans. everyone was not a fan of the act. and op-edn all cash talking about this. -- you had an op-ed talking about this. the justice department is

inexplicably spending taxpayer resources, trying to find ways of releases back into federal custody. dozens of instances in which the justice department argued against releasing these prisoners early. usually basing on technicalities. rather that he they cannot laid out the law years ago. most seekers of the justice department oppose, but remain hopeful when officials promise to faithfully implement the law. where is the disconnect between what the act does, which was approved by the president, and congress, and what the justice department seems to be trying to back off of? guest: this is what is frustrating to all of us, certainly millions of americans. the department of justice has

been acting as a fourth branch of government for decades. later --get into this we can get into this later. they issued a report talking about how they were implementing the first step act and they did not mention of the fact that they were looking for loopholes. to ensure that a lot of these individuals who would have been eligible for a first step act and eligible for early release would stay in prison. that is frustrating to all of us. withve tried to work members of law enforcement and had been successful at that in the states. we were very angry, but i want to say, we are moving into the holiday season. to workingopen together and finding a path forward to ensuring our justice

system is fair and the people who are behind bars have a pathway back to society and i am hopeful that justice will continue to try to work with us toward ensuring, they are not just getting wins and not just guy not just in their belts, but we are working toward a system that does work toward the best outcome and improve public safety. of this is anti-police or anti-prison, it is just about what? guest: true criminal justice reform is rooted in a concern for victims. on of the policies we work had been proven in the states to lower crime and recidivism rates. the statesst decade, that have most significantly reduced their incarceration ones through reforms we work have seen an average drop in

their crime rate of 19%. the 10 states that continue to increase their incarceration policies of the 80's and 90's have seen an average drop of only 11%. criminal justice reform makes us safe there and that is what is better for victims. in my home of kentucky, we have been able to work with the domestic violence coalition and sexual assault prevention groups. they understand, true criminal justice reform society a safer place. we are going to open up a special lines this morning. theou have experience in criminal justice system, whether you are a prosecutor, you have been released from prison, you are a sheriff, we want to hear from you on this subject. the line for those with experience with the criminal justice system is going to be

(202) 748-8000. we have a specific line for law enforcement. if you are in law enforcement, we want to hear from you. your line is going to be (202) 748-8001. if you do not fit into those categories but want to talk about the subject of criminal reform, we did not forget about you. you have your line at (202) 748-8002. if you have experience in the criminal justice system, your line is (202) 748-8000. if you are in a bar enforcement, your line is (202) 748-8001. everyone else, and/or line is (202) 748-8002. you can always text at (202) 748-8003. we are reading on social media and twitter and facebook.

we have lots of ways for people to get into the conversation. , it dealtstep act with federal prisons. is that something the justice on, or bothuses federal and state? guest: we started our work in three states. michigan, ohio, pennsylvania. that was in 2020, it will be our five year anniversary. we had most of our success in the states. lawmakers, they have to face their constituents every day. they understand, we are not going to be able to incarcerate our way out of the drug scourge. kentucky, where a lot of people, including fans and family, are sick. sick people should not be behind bars.

they should be getting treatment. is what criminal justice perform is about. distinguishing between people who are sick and people who are dangerous. sick people need to be getting treatment. we have been able to show across the country, we have been able to divert individuals who are suffering with addiction or mental illness, we had been able to divert them to treatment options. the outcomes we see are better, that are for them, better for their families, better for society on these individuals do not return to crime and ultimately return to prison. host: president trump discussed the first step act in a speech in south carolina. here is what he had to say. linesworked across party strongly, after all of the work and effort, we passed the bill and i signed it into law. the most significant criminal justice reform in many

generations. we call it the first step act. i like the idea of calling it criminal justice reform. it criminal justice reform. first step is good because it allows a second step at a third step. that is ok. [applause] act provedfirst step we can achieve amazing breakthroughs when we come together as a nation and put the interests of our citizens before the interests of any political party. since we pass this legislation, 10 states have followed our lead. and pass legislation that takes steps to advance criminal justice reform at the state level. we gave it a beautiful steppingstone and some states have come and taken it to a level that we can be proud of. it is only because of what we did that they were able to do it legally and many other ways.

congratulations to all the leaders here today from florida, louisiana, mississippi, missouri, michigan, nevada, oklahoma, oregon, and tennessee. congratulations. a great job. host: those were comments he made at hbc you in south carolina. how does the first step act deal with racial disparities? is that something it addresses? guest: i want to be honest about the racial disparities in our system. reset of the full set of criminal laws we have on the books on the federal level and in states, it is going to be difficult to address racial disparities, and also gender disparities. of fastest-growing segment

the prison population is women. one in four women in the justice system is pregnant or a mother to a child under the age of one. we are not talking about an epidemic of incarcerated women, an epidemic of children who are growing up without their mothers. that breaks my heart. we have a long way to go. one of my concerns as we look back on the past year, when we talk about the passage of the first step act on the implementation, people think we fixed our justice system. i hope they understand, the reason we branded first step act as a first step is because it is just that. we have a long way to go. there are so many people who are buried alive in our jails and prisons. very talented people, good people, who made mistakes. who are not bad people.

if they are given the opportunity to come back into society at a turn their lives around, they could make a difference in this world. there are two individuals who have become friends, matthew charles, the president referenced in his state of the union, and alice marie johnson -- alex marie johnson, as we were lobbying to pass the act, who spent decades in prison. .his woman is a grandmother her marriage fell apart, she had five children, she was desperate to feed her kids and ended up falling into gambling and had this debt and fell into a drug conspiracy. this is one of the kindest women i have ever met. i thought, how are we serving public safety and how are we serving society by keeping this woman behind bars? presidenteful the

sees the value in criminal justice reform, whether it is from a policy or political perspective i do not care. i am grateful he sees the value. carefulnk we have to be to get a lot of credit to chuck grassley, a conservative from iowa, and dick durbin, a progressive from illinois, who held firm together and cap promises to each other. because of those two individuals and so many others on both sides of the aisle, we are embarking on a new day in the american justice system that is rooted in a concern for public safety and ensuring the right people are behind bars for the right amount of time. host: let's let our viewers going and. let's go to a caller from new jersey. she has experience with the criminal justice system. good morning. caller: good morning.

i am interested and/or your topic, mainly because earlier in my life i taught inmates inside a prison in new jersey. i did that for close to 15 years. concern is a lot of , whichy on prison reform i have always supported, tends to be either with the inmates who were incarcerated or with a celebrity field of people who never saw, never talk to, never worked inside a prison. they do not know inmates. some of the things they are problems,will lead to releasing too many people who have real problems. experience.have the they are talking about somebody with a drug addiction problem,

but normally you are in prison for drug sales. you are working with criminal guns andand carrying organized crime settings. this is not just smoking a little weed on a saturday night in your house. think, during my time, we try to get more money for education. most of our populate -- inmate population has not finished high school. even in a state as educated as new jersey. they left to the classrooms at a young age to pursue activities of the streets. thereof them are put because they have mental health problems that leads to the drug addiction, that lead to drug sales. it goes that way.

i think the kardashians and all these famous people stepping up, they mean well but they do not know what they do not know. host: you had a lot of issues there. guest: i want to say thank you so much for your service and what you had been doing for a path decade to help people who are incarcerated. you are right. i think one of the mistakes we have made in our movement -- and we have to be honest about this -- i think in the beginning of the criminal justice reform push, we were scared to bring law-enforcement to the table. prosecutors,icers, sheriffs, jailers. we were afraid to have them at the table to talk about these issues because we assumed from the jump that they would be upload to any type of reform. that was a mistake.