I think if you follow the stories of china, thats not a big surprise. Better anding much investment freedom and a little better in monetary and business freedom. Its a mixed bag. Question,your first is this the model . I dont think it is. The real thing is the model. If you want to do it right, do it right. That is what the data shows. China is a political case. Historically, it has some kind of unique factor going on that i think would be hard to replicate even culturally and politically as a model for others. This is not necessarily having in mind democracy. Even the political culture of china and the oneparty state in the authoritarian political culture is not something that seems to me with the in favor of freedom or the future for the rest of the people who do not enjoy more freedom. Any others . Right here. Thank you. Im just a private citizen. Me that if the increased Economic Freedom is ,he tide that lifts everyone why is there still such a wide perception that these conservative policies are by meanspirited people who only want to help rich people stepping over the backs of the poor . How do we shift that could say we are really interested in helping people and these policies are how we can achieve that. How do we change that perception . Roosevelt first said it, but i will use it. He said people dont care about how much you know until they know how much you care. Oft needs to be more a part the conservative lexicon. It is not just because we love freedom because it works out for us personally. We also love freedom because it works out the best for the most people as well. Brian beautifully talked about the benefits of free trade and the decide in is true inside borders as well. Many have parties able to agree on a price on a product, they both come away better off. That, you have an economy where people are better off than they can invent new products. The opposite of that is cronyism. You see that and communism. Of see them and other forms government as well where you have a small group of people where a free economy would probably not work better for them. When you have a monopoly, oligarchy, it works out better for that type group of people in the same thing as true on the domestic side. As conservatives, we need to be clear when people normally our friends are drifting off course. I mentioned the farm bill. A subsidy for a farmer who makes 200,000 dollars per year . What kind of sense does that make . We need to be consistent in our message starting off with the fact that we do want to help people improve their own lives which will improve all of our large. We believe in the equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes and i think the president has that mixed up. We dont do as well as we should. Kids down the street you have to go to lousy schools that dont teach them much and its an abomination. Theres lots of work to be done in that regard. Theink if you look at evidence when we got the policies pretty right and we had major adjustments in the right direction, the story was one of mobility. One statistic i love to use, a poor person who started out in the 1980s that family was more likely to be in the richest category of income they have and still be poor. That does not happen in a lot of other places but it happens in america all the time. Therast that with performance of the last five years where we have seen no more guilty no mobility. Thele income is losing and poor are really struggling. That has to be the message. How do we increase opportunity for everyone . Gates, hannahbill montana, are making all of us money, that does not pull back anyone that they are producers. Thats ok, right here. I am barry miller. Weve heard a lot that the volcker rule is a confusing and arbitrary way to reintroduce glasssteagall. I would like to ask what you glasssteagall. You think it is a negative thing for the economy or a positive thing for the economy . Im not an expert on glasssteagall so i will answer this in a more broad point of view. He to what the two what you were talking about, the rule of law and that we do not confiscate wealth. In the banking area, weve been doing that. Look up the way federal regulators have been going after the banks and just plundering them of money for not even wrong doing. They have surrendered tens of billions of dollars to the federal treasury for an activity that is not even illegal. Thing thats really troubling to me. When he talked about we do not a cdscate wealth, but federal government doing that. They do that through the strong arm tactic of using statutes and so on. The banks have no other recourse and fork over the money. I dont know if you guys have an opinion on glasssteagall. Is a tough one. Ok, right here. Im also just a private citizen. I dont know if it is part of the index, but im wondering if you can comment. Looking at the countries up top on the list, if you could comment on what effect maybe the educational system, middle class, immigration policies have on the fact that they are at the top of your index. Thank you. Every year, we looked at a lot of different factors and im really excited that the authors we have who have contributed to look at different indexes. Of the 10 factors that they rank, we do not specifically include those policies, but we have writers who have delved into the specific issues in the past. One thing that we hope is that people will be able to use these statistics independently to do research on issues like that, how the educational systems factor into the various outcomes i cannot recall one of the interesting things to me, you look at the countries that rank high and they have a lot of reason, and. Specifically look at Economic Freedom. Other groups look at different kinds of freedom or look at how ,lean the environment is poverty. Its really easy to do correlations between those two. Sometimes its more difficult to prove causation. As a Strong Economy result in a stronger middle class or does the stronger middle class result in a stronger economy . Certainly we can look at things like inequality, poverty, and show more Economic Freedom has a positive effect in that regard eerie and if you look at the top 10, most of them are very wealthy countries and they have a very large and wealthy middle class. Something we measure directly so i say this with some hesitation but informally, if you look at Education Systems and other policies not directly related to economics as the consequences of wealth over time examplesfor environmental policy, there is a positive correlation between them. There is sort of a commonsense explanation for that. If an economy over time develops a very wealthy economy and of have a large middle class, there is certainly enough money around to invest in schools and other things. If you look at Environmental Policies, some of the worst Environmental Policies and situations are in a country where you have the least Economic Freedom. I can take that one, if you want . Australia, new zealand, and canada have been moving in their immigration policies towards a more skillsbased approach trying to compete for the best and brightest, the highly educated to come there to study and those three have been held up as models. That would be an interesting place for more research, to try and incorporate that the see if there is a connection. Andging in the best brightest immigrants is something that those three particularly do well. We bring in more immigrants legally with a clear path to full citizenship and the rest of the world combined. We are an immigrantloving country as well. I would say in some ways they are leading the way to try and phds inver the engineering and so forth. Its an interesting correlation. We have reached the end of our time. I want to thank the panelists for their excellent presentations. Thank you all for being here today. For your excellent questions and comments. I hope to be able to see all of you here again in 2015. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] cspan, we bring Public Affairs events right to you putting them in the room for white house events, briefings , offeringences complete gaveltogavel coverage of the u. S. House as a service. Created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and funded by her local cable or satellite provider. Watch us in hd, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. At the beginning of his state of the state speech, governor Chris Christie said he let down his constituents and that they would fully cooperate with all investigations in what led to massive traffic jams near fort lee. You can see his entire speech at cspan. Org. Heres a little about what he said. Week, i certainly test of this administration. Mistakes were clearly made. As a result, we let down the people we were interested to serve. I know our citizens deserve better much better. Im the governor. Im ultimately responsible for all that happens on my watch, both good and bad. Without a doubt, we will cooperate with all appropriate inquiries to ensure that this breach of trust does not happen again. But i also want to assure the people of new jersey today that what happened does not define us or our state. This administration and this legislature will not allow the work that needs to be done to improve the peoples lives in new jersey to be delayed for any reason. [applause] of the president for stated in march and reemphasized, the goal of the United States and tohanistan, and pakistan, is disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al qaeda and its extremist allies and prevent its return. The International Military effort to stabilize afghanistan is necessary to achieve this overarching goal. Robert gates served two president says defense secretary and c. I. A. Director in the early 1990s. Life ofn cspan 2, a the tv event as he talks about his management of the wars in iraq and afghanistan, and his relationship with the white house and congress. Morrisw weeks, bonnie will take your questions and comments live february 2 on in depth. Online, join the book tv book club discussion. Booktv. Org to enter the chat. In a few minutes, the Advisory Group that looked at the Data Collection programs say they have not had a significant effect on stopping terrorism. In two hours, a forum on raising the minimum wage sting by the Economic Policy institute. Ther that, we will reair Heritage Foundation discussion on the economy. To tell you events about tomorrow on our companion network cspan 3. Ehouse Energy Committee on updating the Communications Act at 10 00 a. M. Eastern and witnesses include several several former chairman. President obama is in North Carolina to talk about the economy and manufacturing. Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hear from state Department Officials about the political turmoil in the ukraine. Littleink i just have antenna that would go up and tell me when someone have their own agenda and then i would tell him. He would not owe his agree with me, but i would tell him. It usually worked out. Watcher program on first Lady Nancy Reagan or see it saturday on cspan at 7 00 a. M. Eastern. The series continues live monday as we look at first lady barbara bush. President obamas Advisory Group assigned to review the nsa Data Collection programs as determine those programs did not have a significant effect on stopping terrorism. Members of the Intelligence Review Group did not call for ending the program but recommended taking certain information out of the nsas control. The testified for the Senate Judiciary committee for a little bit more than two hours. Peoples pocketbooks are at stake. And well be moving in that senator grassley will be joining us. Occurs at some point, we can recess for a few moments while we go and vote. We are going to hear from the president s review group on intelligence and communication technologies. Group on intelligence and communications technologies. I was talking with them briefly in the back and i know this is the first time theyve appeared together publicly since the groundbreaking report was released last month and i thank them as i know the president has and others have for taking the time, a lot of time and effort, to prepare this report. And i know it will be reflected what the president s going to say later this week. And the review groups report releases the weighty issues. We know what the technology is today. None of us can predict what it will be five to ten years from now. We also know that more and more data will be created by all of us as each day passes. And the questions are obvious. When should our government be allowed to collect and use that data . To what extent does it improve our National Security . And what will the answer to these questions mean for privacy and Free Expression in the 21st century . And all three branches of government are grappling with whether to let the nsas dragnet collection of americas domestic phone records to continue. Were finding doing so with Public Participation in that debate. I think americans across the political spectrum want us to have this debate. And want to have a clear understanding of what is going so were trying to get as much as we can into a public hearing. All of us on this committee have had access as have the five witnesses to highly classified matters but were trying to go into as much as we can in open session. And the most critical factor to decide whether to conduct any particular intelligence activity is the assessment of its value. Particularly important evaluating the phone Records Program conducted under section 215 of the u. S. A. Patriy tri ya act. I have concluded the program is not uniquely valuable enough to justify massive intrusion on americans privacy. And the review group likewise concluded the program has not been essential and ill quote the review group. The information contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of section 215 meta data was not essential to preventing attacks and could have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional section 215 orders. And even a few pages later, they said section 215 is generated relevant information only a small number of cases and theres been no incidents in which nsa says with confidence that the outcome would have been different without the section 215 te pefny meta data program. The report explains that nothing in 215 is interpreted by the fisa court precludes the mass collection of americans personal information beyond phone records. And the private sy implications of this sort of massive surveillance in the digital age cant be overstated and the report provides valuable insights. The report appropriately questions whether we can continue to draw a rational line between meta data and content. And i think thats a critically important question given that many of the surveillance laws depend on did distinction between the two and the insights were also important as we take up reforms to the National Security letter sta chuts. We dont talk as much art the National Security letters but using them the fbi can obtain detailed information about individuals communication records and Financial Transactions and credit reports. Do that without judicial approval but the thing thats troubling to many is the recipients of nsls are subject to permanent gag orders. Were fighting for additional safeguards on this controversial authority for years. To limit the use. To ensure that nsl gag orders comply with the first amendment. And to provide recipients of nsl was a meaningful opportunity for judicial review. Something that most americans would assume already exists. And the review group makes a series of important recommendations to change the way National Security letters operate. We havent seen as much about these recommendations in the press Vice President generated that much as much attention but they should. And i think that we have to look at it. And the report also recommends creating an institutional Public Interest advocate at the fisa court. I strongly support that proposal. Im concerned that merely allowing to participate in the fisa court from time to time will neither improve the substantive outcome of the proceedings nor rebuild Public Confidence in the process. And the stakes are high. Quh you think about were really having a debate about what are americans fundamental relationship with their own government. The government exists for americans. Not the other way around. And about whether government should have the power to create massive databases of information about its citizens. And this is the feeling i would have no matter is the head of our government. I believe strongly that we must impose stronger limits on government surveillance powers. Im confident that most vermonters agree with me. I believe most americans agree with me. Having said that, we want to do it right. Now, in our panel today well have Richard Clarke whos a ceo of good harvest Security Risk management. Hes chairman of the board of governors of the middle east institute. During his 30 years of Public Service hes a senior white house National Security adviser to president s george h. W. Bush where i first met him, bill clinton and george w. Bush. Michael mor elll, recently retired as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence agency after more than 30 years of service and during that time he served as acting director. He earned the bash lors degree of university of akron and masters doog from georgetown. And geoffrey stone, professor at the university of Chicago Law School. Previously clerked for Supreme Court Justice Brennan and professor stone also served as dean of the university of Chicago Law School and the provost of the university. Cass sunstein is currently professor of harvard law school. Previously administd miministra office of Regulatory Affairs and attorney adviser at the office of legal con sell and a law clerk for Supreme Court justice marshall. And last, professor peter swir, professor of Georgia Institute of technology. Previously ohio universitys school of law. And cochair of do not track standards process of the worldwide web consortium. He served as the clinton administrations chief counselor of privacy from 1999 to 2001. Now, gentlemen, how did did you have any particular way you wish to proceed . After consultation with your staff, we have a very brief Opening Statement if thats agreeable to you, mr. Chairman. Well, notwithstanding our diversity which you just signaled, we began this process with great admiration and gratitude for the Intelligence Community and wed like to start by honoring their extraordinary work in keeping the nation safe. The risks associated with terrorism and associated threats are real and one of our main goals has been to suggest reform that is are compatible with combatting those risks. After extensive discussions and consultations during the last months, the gratitude and admiration that we had for the Intelligence Community has only increased as a result of interacting with them. We found the highest levels of professionalism. We found no evidence of political or religious targeting or targeting because of people because of political dissent. The focus genuinely has been on National Security. We are also grateful to them for their help and cooperation on a very tight time schedule and they provided us with great access to information making our report possible. Were also grateful to Many Organizations and individuals over two dozen, in fact, who actually met with us concerned with technology and innovation, with privacy, with civil liberties, with freedom of the press and rights of journalists, with the relations with other nations. Friendly nations and some that arent particularly friendly. But insuring that the relations are as cooperative as possible. Countless organizations and individuals have devoted energy and time to informing our work and we are grateful to them. Much of our focus has been on maintaining the ability of the Intelligence Community to do what it needs to do and we emphasize if theres one thing to emphasize its this. That not one of the 46 recommendations in our report would in our view compromise or jeopardize that ability in any way. On the contrary, many of the recommendations would strengthen that ability explicitly by increasing safeguards against Insider Threats and eliminating certain gaps in the law that make it hard to track people under circumstances in which we have reason to believe they dont wish to do us well. In terms of the reforms we favor, just three very general points. The first is the immense importance of maintaining a free and open internet promoting both democratic and economic values. Across partisan lines, theres a commitment to Internet Freedom and whats done in this domain we believe should be compatible with that commitment. The second is the importance of Risk Management signaled i think, mr. Chairman, by your opening remarks. Thats a central, unifying theme considering multiple risks first and foremost the risk
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.