Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20150916

From manchester. Speakers include five president ial candidates, former secretary of state hillary clinton, vermont senator bernie sanders, and lincoln chafee, former Maryland Governor martin omalley. Saturday at 9 30 a. M. Eastern on cspan, cspan radio, and cspan. Org. Cspan campaign 2016. Taking you on the road to the white house. At the oversight role of congress and u. S. Intelligence and National Security manners matters. David sanger of the New York Times moderates this discussion. And welcomemorning to day two. We continue our examination of the state of u. S. Intelligence thosehe perspective of who provide oversight from congress. Congress plays a Critical Role in ensuring the health and operation of intelligence. The house are meant select Community Committee on intelligence [indiscernible] we are pleased to have congressman devin nunes and the ranking minority member congressman adam schiff with us this morning. They represent the great state and have long and distinguished records of performing rigorous oversight of intelligence in the interest of accountability and transparency. Our distinguished panelists are joined by david sanger, chief washington correspondent for the New York Times. We are thrilled to have you with us today is well. Thank you and thank you for coming at this early hour of the morning. I am looking forward to what will be a conversation of under one hour because both of our panelists have to get to what i hope will be a pretty interesting open hearing on cyber. Leadinghave many of the Intelligence Agency heads and i think including the director of who was intelligence here yesterday. I think you both. As you heard in the introduction were fortunate to have devin nunes and adam schiff with this. That is the role. I want to get to the question of the quality of the intelligence you are getting now with what will be at the end of the week, 14 years since 9 11. Great time of upheaval in the way we organize the Intelligence Community and the way we assess information. Let me start with this. When you look around the world and you see the assessments that come into you, we are in an odd moment. Postpostcold war moment. Where the assessment of the threat differs considerably. If you look at the National Threat assessment you get each february, it has said cyber for the past two years as the biggest threat. If you look at what the pentagon would tell you they would say a resurgent russia under vladimir putin. If you look under at the assessments that come from others who are more focused on the middle east they would tell you the rise of isis. Is perhaps the vigorous challenge we face now although not necessarily one that can reach the United States. I would like to ask each of you to tell us which of those you believe but more importantly, tell us what the fact we are getting why we are getting such a different assessment, what we should draw from that about the current state of how we assess intelligence threats. Thank you and i appreciate the opportunity to be here with my colleague am a adam schiff. Party to start out to be bipartisan. It is behind closed doors so we do not have a lot of the political banter you will see in public hearings that you see on the other committees. The politics we try to check at the door. This is one of the most important roles that we both play in this town and for the United States of america to look over 17 agencies, that is very difficult. We looked at this before we both came on, we wanted to build what didn what our predecessors and we divided the committee into new subcommittees and tried to spread out the 17 different areas where we have jurisdiction to get our members more engaged. We had very active members on , forsa Cyber Committee example, and we have a defense in overhead architecture, emerging threats, and cia. We try to divvy it up i the workload. And then we will have we will big, important, maybe the first meeting of the week usually. Then we try to let the other Committee Chairman do the rest because there is too much to cover. That is how we break it down and how we view our role in oversight area oversight. I do not think you can rank getting to the second question. I look at these and kind of equal buckets that are always changing and that are working together and i see those buckets as you have the whole overarching cyberproblem. You have the russia problem. You have the china problem. And then you have what i call the jihad triangle which is isis, al qaeda, and iran. Overarching with that is the cyber problem. So at times when you look at who are the ad cyber actors, they happen to be russia, china, iran, even some of the isil folks. And then you have the Nuclear Threat with north korea. I do not think if you live at sony it is cyber threat. When people ask how is the Intelligence Community i think too many people expect the Intelligence Community to be fortunetellers and they think they will predict the future. As we know that is hard to do. You just hope to have really educated folks, educated members , we can provide good education to our military, to the military planners, to our policymakers both at the executive and legislative level. And through that we know that change is always going to happen. New bad things are always going to emerge and you hope that you have some education level amongst all the people i just named. Congressman schiff we have strongly left coast domination of intelligence oversight with myself, senator new years, senator feinstein. The chair was mentioning our committee tends to be nonpartisan. That does not mean we dont have our differences. We do that it is a very collegial environment. We try to basically cordon off the areas where we know we are going to be in disagreement and we agree to disagree without it becoming personal. Then we focus on the breadandbutter of our job which there are no party line differences. It is a wonderful retreat from the rest of the congressional committees. I would say a couple of things ic. T the state of the a time ofne through tremendous growth and capabilities where technology ithnological advances made possible to gather information. As a result we are seeing a couple of phenomena. One is that our Public Policy do not always keep paces with the changes in technology and changes in capability. Perhaps we did not ask as much about things we could do, whether we should do, what the implications of disclosure might mean. That environment has very much changed. There are new analyses where almost the expectation is turned on its head. This willation now is be disclosed, leaked, whatever. Oft requires a new analysis what will the implications of that be, what are the cost benefits of any kind of intelligence gathering, so the Public Policy debate is struggling to keep up with the technological advances. We have been trying to deal with the challenge of the assimilation of great amounts of data which is a different kind thehallenge than perhaps in days gone by when the challenge was getting information, not so much assimilation of information. Functionalht is very and contrast too much of the congress. Nonetheless, we are at a tremendous mismatch visavis the intelligence agencies. We cannot take our work home area and we are reliant to a large degree on the agencies telling us if there are problems. Within those constraints i think that the oversight mechanism is working and working reasonably well. In terms of the threats we face i find it interesting when team people talk about the about cyber. It is floating out there not connected to any particular actor. It is relevant in the context of who is using the cyber weapon against us. Russia isirman said, the most sophisticated actor. China may be the most lithic actor. Prolific actor. We have concerns about iran, north korea, and the increasing democratization of the cyber threat as other countries make use of it. It is a very asymmetric battlefield where a lot of the advantages are to those on offense and that provides great challenge for the Intelligence Community and all of our agencies. Actors ornation state nonnationstate actors on what poses the greatest threat, i view that through the prism of what poses the threat of changing the way we live. , theen i look at isis threat from isis compared to the threat from al qaeda, i have been more worried about al qaeda because of their capacity to launch major attacks against this country. To bring down our aircraft or an attempt to do a spectacular attack. That could have a transform an event negative impact on the country in a way that the one isil model attacks will not be transformative. I have tended to worry more about al qaeda. That is changing as al qaeda, the core leadership becomes increasingly decimated and isil is increasingly on the rise. That for me is changing. We may be getting to the point where isil has eclipsed al qaeda in my perspective as the predominate terrorist threat. Russia presents a very real threat also. Potentially transform at its impact in our country. Should they miscalculate should lead to warfare on the continent. You have the same risk although to a lesser degree by china with its aggressive action in the south china sea. Those are two of the main nationstate actors we worry about. And then finally, iran, we will be training a lot of our on irans compliance with the nuclear agreement. That will be the next type rarity. Host tom and i want to leave on the two things you raised. Move on to iran and some of the cyber issues. , wementioned at the outset work from an old assumption in the Intelligence Community that most of what you dealt with if not forn secret periodire 25 or 30 year that you would see at the bottom of a classification stamp but most of that. The dni got around to declassifying president ial daily briefs Lyndon Johnson received early in the vietnam war. That is the old model. The cia went through a procedure, annual review of the white house that basically said, is this operation, is the data we are getting out of this operation, this effort worth what were getting if it got disclosed tomorrow morning on the new york of times or the Washington Post . The nsa never went through that process until postsnowden time. Tell us, go one more beat about how that is changing. What you are saying happen in the culture. Is there now an underlying assumption that even the deepest secrets may only have a shelf life of a couple of years. How does of that affect ones thinking on how to measure risk . The has been an overreliance on technology. We have to continue to improve how we use technology and data. You can also overrely on it. Theres Nothing Better than good oldfashioned human intelligence gathering. It is going to be more difficult to gather human intelligence times it isa lot of human intelligence that enables better technologies, new technologies or even discovery of what adversaries are doing. I think the allegations regarding angelas cell phone and i can only say allegations were a real Tipping Point in compelling policymakers ic to thinkof the long and hard about the risks of disclosure, the risks of relationship with allies, the ,isks to sources of information most acutely human sources of information from disclosure. To think in new and different terms about the cost benefit analysis, because i think one of the dynamics that has changed is the conversations that traditionally have taken thee between the media and Intelligence Community when the media has a story and they go to the icn say, we are going to run with the story and there is a discussion about, what impact with that have and the newspapers willingness to self censor and not publish out of the public interest. I think that dynamic has changed. You may be in a better position to speak on this. My perception is that postsnowden there is such a rush to publish. If we do not run with this some other paper will. We will get scooped. It is a very different dynamic now. From the press perspective that may mean that described to of thenfidence and trust government. But the bottom line i think for the Intelligence Community is a much greater expectation that things are going to be published. The celebrity for lack of a better word that has been attributed to snowden encourages other people to make disclosures. This is a great challenge. We can have an Intelligence Community where people can unilaterally make the decision even when something is lawful that they disagree with the policy and they will make it public. Tremendous challenge. I think it does affect what the ic does. It does affect our expectations about how long things will remain confidential. Constraints, some which may be useful and others which may be harmful in terms of National Security. Those communications inteln the times and have not changed all that much. There is a very good time at dynamic backandforth. While the times or the poster the wall street journal may call and have a serious conversation with the cia or others about whether publication would result in methods being revealed and so forth, wikileaks will not have that phone call or a blogger. We probably would not get the phone call returned. The game is being played at a far more complex level i think than it was in the old days. But you raised at the end the concern that some in the Intel Community about have whether they do this in and out of channel. One of the questions we have gotten up here goes direct to that. To ask you both to comment on the news reports that appeared monday thats on intelligence assessments of isis at varioustered points. This was mostly in the dia. To downplay their strength. When i read that story the other day i was thinking to myself, this is the same debate that played out during the pentagon papers in 1969. Where history of the vietnam war suggested that the government had overestimated our success against the viet cong. Except we were seeing played out in real time with the isis struggle. When you read Something Like that and maybe you have had some discussions with the Intel Community on that. Tell us a little bit about that dynamic. Are concerned about the politicization of intelligence and it has long been a political football that there is always of theions politicization of intelligence. I have never viewed al qaeda as on the run. It makes for good political rhetoric. Gives the market people who do not want to be fighting wars, wemakes them feel good but still have enemies out there and enemies are growing. By the storyprised or i was surprised that it sounds like now there are whistleblowers that are coming forward. There is an ig investigation. That will be of interest to both of us to figure out what that is all about. To have an open avenue for whistleblowers to come forward. It has not been easy in the past for whistleblowers. Some of thease whistleblowers came to my colleagues at the times. Could they have come to the committee . Absolutely. We have a process in place for whistleblowers to come forward. Anyone in the Intelligence Committee has the right to come actively sometimes it is not even whistleblowers that adam and i, we meet with people when we travel or even here in washington. Our doors are always open to people within the ic to come with complaints. Thanks for the refresher on the pentagon papers case. I took a class but it was at 8 a. M. And i slept most of it. We started at 8 15 a. M. And we gave them 15 minutes of caffeine knowing that you guys would be out here. Excellent. I think the chairmans point is exactly right. Make itevery effort to possible for whistleblowers not only to can indicate with us but to communicate with us but to have avenues to raise concern so they do not feel they need to leak information to be heard. That onnot to say policy differences that we will agree with someone who disagrees with the policy of the Intelligence Community, but we do need to make sure that there is an avenue available for overnt, for any concern wrongdoing or failure to adhere to the guidelines or politicization of intelligence. All of us have in mind concerns expressed over intelligence on iraq and none of us want to see anything like that happening with respect to isoor any other challenge we face. There have been cultural changes that have encouraged dissenting opinions that develop alternative analyses that question assumptions that seems to be part of the ethic of the Intelligence Community in a way more than the past. This is obviously not a perfect science. The analysts can reach for different conclusions and we want that to be reflected in the work product we get. Impressions can be different. I mentioned this to highlight within the last 24, 48 hours something that i think is telling in terms of the perspective we bring reading the same intelligence. Just this week all of the republican members on our committee have come out against the iran agreement and in part on the basis of their reading of intelligence. Although democratic members have come out in support. Similarly on the basis of our reading of intelligence. We are reaching contrary intelligence reading the same intelligence. The director spoke yesterday and it was interesting. John negroponte speaking earlier before the panel today about the impressions of what he had to say. I read them in the paper today because it was not present yesterday and i have one interpretation of what he said in terms of our capability of catching iran if they were to cheat. People who heard him may have at completely different impression of whether it was likely or not likely we would catch them. This is not a perfect science. We do want to hear those range of opinions within the ic and what level of confidence they hold. I have a lot of confidence we do get that range of opinion. You provided the perfect segue into that topic. I was out in vienna for the and of the iran talks and we spent a with secretary moneys, the Energy Secretary who you have heard a lot from and engineeringnuclear department at m. I. T. For many years and has come to you folks with a fair bit of credibility as a result of that. His public assessment on this is if the iranians are engaged in activity involving nuclear materials, our chances of catching them are extraordinarily high because the technology of finding even trace , it is is now so good hard to hide that. Hand, they arer going back and doing what the iaea is supposed to be sorting out with them, weapons design, triggers, the kind of work they may have done and so forth, that is much harder to suss out because it does not leave a radioactive trace. You have to get to the human to get into the University Labs that are being used for these purposes. As you look at these intelligence assessments and i said let me start with you. Give us your assessment about what kind of thing we would likely to be good at catching. What kind of thing you are worried about and how you balance those two as you came to your determination to vote against this deal. What you have to do is back up a little ways and you have to start with should we ever have ever been at the negotiating table to start if part of eating at the negotiating table meant the iranians would keep any of their Nuclear Weapons at all or any of their Nuclear Capabilities at all. My answer would be no. If the iranians wanted to come to the table and they agreed to immediate inspections always and completely getting rid of all the clear capabilities, then i would have went to the table to negotiate. Without that i want to see more sanctions. I realize that to your point on technologies are always changing and perhaps the technologies are better than they once were 10 years ago in north korea when we thought they would not have a Nuclear Weapon and then they did develop a Nuclear Weapon. It has been more than 10 years now. The fact of the matter is Technology Changes for the bad guys, too. We do not know what technologies they are developing to hide their development of Nuclear Capabilities. I would argue that you think the original sin here was abandoning the Bush Administration rule which even that administration not one centrifuge could stand. That would be my position. Most of the republicans who are against this proposal, that would be their position. I would go further to say that we really see this as a gamble. If you look at what president obama, if i understand his lot that areare a off having these folks at the table, having some inspections and perhaps over time as discussing and being at the table with these with the mullahs will lead to some downfall of the regime. The Administration Response has been yes. In a Perfect World we would love to see not a single centrifuge spin. We do not live in a Perfect World and we are much better to get 15 years with a small number spinning and have the Bush Administration not stuck to the position that the chairman just laid out. You might have had a deal in 2005, 2006 to have a few hundred spinning and we would the in better shape. Youre looking at the same assembly of risk, the same intel picture. Where do you come out on that . I start out from a different perspective as you point out, in the early bush ministration they had 167 centrifuges. Had we gotten a deal than that required them to diminish that number by two thirds, they would he down to about 50 centrifuges. Instant of 5000 under the steel. Nonetheless, my hope hopes at iran wereing is if allowed to have an enrichment capability, it would have been a choking a token one. The fact that they have capability after 15 years is a bitter pill for me to swallow. But that begins to look good when you compare it to the alternative. The alternative is we go back to where theyre before had thousands of kilos of enriched uranium. They had close to 20,000 centrifuges. Where there are no limits to whether they could bring a new generation of centrifuges and reach the capability much sooner than 15 years. That that analysis is a great is exactly right. You are iran, it will be difficult to create a path to enrichment. Givens nearly impossible the vigorous inspection regime, given our intel capabilities. I do not think they can develop an alternative pathway of enrichment. We have to be on guard for a couple things. That they seek to get the material from outside the country. Mostly north korea. Or elsewhere. That is a difficult proposition for iran but not his called as creating a covert pathway of enrichment. Unless they make the decision they will break out. Where they are likely to test us and are likely to cheat is in the nonradioactive weapons development. An computer modeling of what explosion with the client and the development of the warhead itself. They may do this in ways that they believe they can argue is not prohibited i the agreement. Of ambiguity. Age they may do this in sites we would be less likely to be watching. Whether it is universities rather than military sites. They will test and push their two timelines. There is the timeline for enrichment and time to develop the mechanism of the bomb. The enrichment timeline will go down to a matter of weeks so us ino not need to cheat terms of the enrichment to reduce that timeline. Where they may try to cheat and we will have to train all our inources in detection is that weaponization work that may be hidden in that 24 hour time. That challenge. And so even under perfect agreement we have the challenge of making sure they did not get material from elsewhere and they were not doing militarization work. We have much better capabilities than we have had in the past. Not omnipotent in our ability and therefore there is risk. Like many things these agreements are a balancing of risk it is a risk we can mitigate that we cannot make it go away. That there is a theory the Supreme Leader in iran is going to have to buy off the i o gt for the fact that if this agreement goes through it seems likely they will have 15 tough years on the nuclear program. Whether they cheat or do not, their activity will be restrictive. They are brought down to 300 kilograms and they will take some of that money and effort and put it into support of terrorism. They may take a chunk of it and put it into cyber. On the theory that the Supreme Leader [indiscernible] someve already seen skills. There were the attacks of the banks, somewhat crude denial of service attacks. What do you think the chances are that we are going to see iran move from an incipient Nuclear Power to an incipient cyber power and as a result as a result . Few nunes there are very making decisions within that regime. I think you bring up a good point about where they are going to spend this money. They are the largest funder of terrorism locally. When i talk about i think it is always important to understand and i try to define it as this jihad triangle because you have al qaeda, isis and people think they are always fighting because they are different religions. We know for fact that at times the iranians have harbored al qaeda and sheltered al qaeda. There is talk now in the last few days in some of the press report to see that al qaeda is talking about and need to work with isis. I do not believe in long term. , when theyhadists say they are going to dull the west i think we should believe them. Rep. Schiff they are already menace andnger and a increasingly sophisticated. You have this tension in iran between the ayatollah and the as recently as yesterday were talking about there is not going to be any combination accommodation with the great satan. At the same time you hear ronnie saying we are open to working with the rest of the world on syria, on combating isil. So there is a tension within iranian society. I think the ayatollah will try to mediate that tension because at the end of the day, there is and one prime directive that is the perpetuation of the rule by the ayatollah and the mullahs. They must view this as an agreement as a way to let off some of the steam of that younger demographic in iran that is plugged into the rest of the do not likeose who what they have. I would not be surprised to see initially after the agreement the mullahs and the irgc flex their muscles to show this is not a Sweeping Change and the revolution is not over. And we going to have to push back hard. What i have been advocating for some weeks now is we need to figure out how we can strengthen the constraints on iran and the agreement and mitigate the risks and the agreement. Think that means forming a much more Effective Alliance with the gulf states. Iran spends 15 billion on its defense. They do not spend it as costeffectively or in ways that are effective in pushing back against hezbollah, hamas, and the sheer proxy forces. We have to work with them much more effectively. Could discuss thethreshold where Intelligence Community would share intelligence information with the community on cyber , but this not only requires declassification, it requires huge speed at doing this. You have to do this at networks be. Not at declassification speedway to is causing a lot of heartache ache in the Intelligence Community as you can imagine. You have to assume that as soon as you spread this information a lot of itndustry will appear in public. Maybe in industry publications but it will make its way out faster as it began to spread out in 2010 and let us to understand the american and israeli operations. Tell us what that threshold could be. Rep. Nunes the first thing the committee started with is not making it worse. Seen how hard it is just to get even with all the cyberattacks, daily growing cyber threats, you mentioned Sony Pictures earlier, we had two major Healthcare Companies in the last six months get compromised, you had opm get compromised. You would think there would be the political will to get something done. We have moved this legislation quickly. In the senate it is still hung up. It is largely over privacy concerns, i guess for good reasons. At some point there will be a weping point where i think have already reached that point. Rep. Schiff it affected 22 million americans including everybody with a security clearance which means most of the people in your audience here today. Why wasnt opm that Tipping Point . Are trying toes we get to that first step of allowing company to talk, company to company to talk. Sanger frequently when i see Intelligence Community warnings on an intel threat and i go out and talk to the people in the industry who look at this , you are calling me now on this, it is september, we were dealing with this in may. Where have you been, where has the Intelligence Community been . I think that is right. By the time there is public dissemination of information it was on cnn for weeks ago. And we are very slow to move. In terms of sharing information on cyber threats, that can happen in classified channels. If we happen very quickly have the mechanism established which were trying to do to this legislation. There are going to be times when we learn about the source of an attack in such a sensitive way where we are not going to want to share the information. We want to share it in ways that dont tip off the generator of the attack that we are aware of where it came from or the nature of the code. Merge two topics here is going to be an issue very much ash respect to our iran work well. The iaea will discover what it discovers. We may discover a lot more through our intelligence capabilities than they do with their eyes on the ground but we will have a dilemma which we can always we can easily anticipate where we will catch iran cheating but we will have caught them cheating using a very sensitive capability or human or whatever. We will have to decide, are we willing to burn this source to make the public case that iran is cheating . This will be a difficult constraint and a difficult debate. Mr. Sanger we have had this before. The laptop that contained the data that led to the iaeas 12 questions to iran. We were able to track back where it came from. That was a year or so delay. Is one of thehis challenges that we are going to face because particularly if it is not graphic, over cheating, advantagens will take of any ambiguity in the case and when you see how russia has dissembled, about what is going on in ukraine or its activity in the whole russian position on who was using chemical weapons, obviously, some of the p5 plus one are going to be strongly predisposed to adopting and accepting whatever the iranian position may be. That is going to be a considerable challenge. Does the committee have concerns with the proliferation of drones as both tools and threats to the ic . You spent a lot of time on the question of do you want to use this as a tool to create more terrorists and eliminate and so forth but this question is asking you to go beyond that and to think about the threat that drones may pose to the Intelligence Community and to the country as a whole. Rep. Nunes it is an issue that is being looked at by the entire congress. Even in my hometown, once in a while you see a drone. One of these three by three drones flying around create this is an ongoing problem. There will have to be regulation brought in to how you deal with drones as it relates to the Intelligence Community. I have always cautioned people that using drones for counterintelligence and counter terrorism, i should say Counterterrorism Measures is ast a tactic but it is not strategy that ultimately leads to success. There has to be many more tactics with a good strategy en route to ultimately defeat this kind of jihad problem that we are facing. Rep. Schiff in california we see quite vividly the pros and cons of expanding drone use with all of our wildfires were responderrgency aircraft have to be grounded. Aircraft cannot operate in the same space. It could literally bring the aircraft down if it was sucked into the engine. We have problems with drones interfering with firefighting efforts. In terms of the intel world, one thing we have to be mindful of is we may have been the leaders in this technology but we are not the only ones utilizing it poses not only challenges to our Intelligence Community but it also tells us that we have to be very aware of the fact that whatever rules we establish with our own use of tones, we have to be able hold up to the rest of the world in terms of their use of drones. And you can easily see how this technology might be terribly misused by other nationstates. In terms of surveillance but perhaps even more pointedly in terms of a platform for lethal fire. Mr. Sanger what is the doingigence Community Together this intel . What we had to do was rely on Partner Agencies to do this and so you always run into the potential problem. The bigger challenge is digital. It is hard to back in the old movies, someone can show on a mask and sneak into a country, maybe they speak a foreign language. Nowadays between your cell phone device that anybody can track with enough money and enough technology, with whether you are on facebook or twitter, everyone has visual dust. Digital dust. Just the whole kind of big picture problem, how do you even identify and meet and develop new human intelligence sources is becoming more and more difficult. I think you hit it where we are going to have to will things these relationships with allies and partners to try to leverage contacts within countries and people who have access into very difficult places like the middle east. A number ofwe have questions about the organization of the Intel Community and in some cases, we have a number of questions about the disorganization of the Intel Community. One of the more interesting ones makes a point. Not included in the formal ic. They are part of homeland security, right . This enhances fragmented oversight and it enhances budgeting fragmentation and makes more difficult executive branch management. Moving thoseport entities into the icy given jurisdiction to your own community and developing a panel who authorizes oversight on all intel budgeting. This would require for you to get out into an arm wrestling match with fellow chair men who are overseeing other parts of the Intelligence Community and probably do not want to give up that privilege. Rep. Nunes it is one we have taken on an, with some solutions. Under homelandre security and we are involved what we focus on is anything that is outside of the United States. Sometimes there are gray areas because you have terrorists who come in our or you have a tax. Attacks. But we have done to deal with these jurisdictional fights, we essentially eliminated them on the house side create if you look at the areas that we cover, we cover the intelligence , the defense appropriations committee, and the Armed Services committee. For the first time now we have had the chairman of Armed Services Community Committee and the read in. They are not voting members. With the defense appropriations chairman and the defense appropriations Ranking Member. That is how we are dealing with getting past these jurisdictional fights that are very unhealthy, dont leave lead to good oversight of what dogoing on out in the ic and not allow us to get anything done if we are fighting amongst ourselves in congress. Mr. Sanger we are down to five minutes. Let me throw to you the next one and give it an additional twist. Preciousstries are equity that needs to be protected. Wouldnt it be wise to develop a mechanism comprised of Industry Partners and ic members that would effectively create a fusion of effort that would eliminate this information sharing problem . We just wrote about two major American Companies, microsoft and apple that are basically at war with the u. S. Government on the question of encryption because they know that if they cannot protect and encrypt their users data, they are not going to be able to sell a broad. Ats has caused great angst the Justice Department and great angst among the intel chiefs. Address bothou to sides of the question, is there a way to do a fusion of the ic somehe industry, and for of our most entrepreneurial companies, the intels, microsofts, apple. When it be in their interest to stay as far away from that fusion with the icq entity as they possibly could, most of which are in your state . Rep. Schiff i would want to talk with what they mean by a fusion. Areas where we need to work much more closely handinhand and i think it is shrewd of our defense secretary to establish a presence in the Silicon Valley combine forces and bring our Heads Together to solve some of these challenges. I was just in the Silicon Valley i. T. Week meeting with people from facebook and google and twitter to deal with a couple of twin challenges, the one that you mentioned which is the endtoend encryption of medications as well as the encryption of devices. But as well the extensive use that isil has now made of social media for the purposes of recruiting and disseminating information and helping generate attacks within the United States. To talk about how are we going to deal with these encryption issues, is there an answer . At this point i think there is no consensus at all. Not even the beginning of a resolves about how to the socalled going dark problem. I do think certainly on the one hand there is a need for us when we can obtain Legal Process and make the requisite showing to and on theto devices other hand it seems to me very compelling that even if we succeeded in encouraging American Companies to build in a decryption capability and it was done in a secure fashion with multiple keys, etc. , it does not answer the question of the fact that there will be other providers providing the encrypted applications. Nonamerican providers. And so you could have users migrate to that to do their nefarious work but you also have the competitive challenge if they are viewed as a facilitator or armor of the nsa. That argument seems equally unassailable to me. O unassailable arguments. I am not sure where this leads but it will be a tremendous challenge going forward. We do not want to chase this business out of the United States. We need it economically but there are National Security advantages to having this these companies in the United States. We are atve to the nascent stage of looking at this broad issue and i can begin to tell you how it will be resolved except to say i think it is extraordinarily unlikely that the congress will try to provide some kind of legislative mandate. That does not seen\m political seem politically feasible even if it were desirable. One of the things i found fascinating to conclude on this discussions in the Silicon Valley. They framed it with some ic is coming the to us and saying, you are brilliant, you figure it out. Why dont they give us a proposal and lettuce weigh in on it . That is an unusual argument to me for me to hear as the legislature legislator. We often hear the opposite, let us come up with the answers. Here the attitude is quite a bit different. Mr. Sanger they do not want to hear the answer. Are therethere is an economic alignment of their philosophy and their here. Ss they do not want to be in the position of coming up with a solution because this is not in their economic interest to do so. Is a phenomenal challenge and it makes the metadata debate we had look trivial by comparison. To give youi want the last word on this and i know you have to make it up to the hearing. When the nsa Oversight Committee reported to the president 18 months ago, its answer to the issue that Ranking Member schiff said, just described was the u. S. Intelligence community should support industry in strengthening encryption. There were people who came out of the Intel Community on senior levels. Rep. Schiff i have not read the report. Dealing with this issue, especially when you look at the fbi trying to track criminals all over, it is really a challenge. It is very complicated on, how do you come up with a solution . Asking thectually government to provide a solution, that is the first i heard that. It is something we have to grapple with. I think it will be very complex for congress to come up with a solution. Host i think all of you for your questions. Hearingorward to your on cyber issues later on this morning and i appreciate your views. Ranking members, thank you for participating. Pope francis visits washington, new york, and philadelphia next week. The pope has been critical of some of the aspects of catholicism recently. Republican president ial candidates hold their debate tomorrow. Later, a campaign with donald trump. Announcer the second president ial debate is tomorrow night. We will preview the debate on the next washington journal. The call forabout conventions of state to rein in the federal government. Then, democratic representative connolly on syrian refugees. He is a member of the house for. N Affairs Community later, the editor of the new atlantis, a science and Technology Journal talks to us about human cloning. Is live itjournal every morning at 7 00 a. M. On cspan. You can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. Landmarkhe stage, cases. Historic Supreme Court decisions. Exploring the human stories behind historic decisions. Distinguished panels include Georgetown University professor katyal. And judge Michael Bailes sent them. That is live on wednesdays starting at 7 00 p. M. On cspan three. Pope francis, who visits the United States next week is been critical about some of the aspects of catholicism recently. We hear from the president s of and the universities author of money, greed, and god. Institute sponsored this event. [no audio] audio] marian welcome to the cato institute. [inaudible\ marian throughout the world. A special leader of as such his pronouncements are clearly worthy of discussion and analysis. Today two issues. State of humanity and role of capitalism in bringing that state of humanity about. The comprehension is that the pope is troubled by both. That the majority of our contemporaries are living from day to day. Inequality is increasingly evident. Hes also repeatedly criticized what he perceived unbridled pursuit of money. Much of what francis says can maybe often, these are storylines that we bring to the material rather than genuine changes in Church Teaching, as francis said. Teaching about contraception and abortion as, i am a son of the church. Lets see what he has to say about poverty and then a little bit about the authoritativeness of Church Teachings. Care for the poor has been a major theme of the popes teaching. He chose st. Francis because poverty. The man of he was from latin america, where the cases of extreme poverty are much higher than those we see in the United States. His idea that we who have more have a responsibility to those of less sometimes called the preferential option for the poor is not an original idea for him. Quotes st. John, the homily on lazarus and the rich man. Heres what st. John of christendom said, not to share ones wealth with the poor is to steal with them and take away from the poor. It is not our own goods we hold, but theres. We have a couple responsibilities to rise from a couple catholic ideas. Children of god, not just catholics. Says thatf genesis every man and woman is created likeness. s another is the notion that we are made to live in community and god gives us creation not just to serve our own good but to serve the common good and the way we serve property. Quoted from st. Thomas aquinas, man should not consider his possessions as his own, but to show them with others who are in need. The mistake we all make in hearing this is thinking the pope is making a political argument. The idea that we ought to share our wealth isnt a plank from the socialist party platform, its a spiritual counsel. If you want to inherit eternal life, jesus told the rich young men, go and sell what you have and give to the poor. This is the message the pope delivered when he made a trip to korea in 2014. He said to the young people there, that they needed to combat the materialism that stifles authentic spiritual and Cultural Values and the spirit of unbridled competition, which generates selfishness and strife. Still, in writings like in the speeches and homily, pope francis has pretty harsh words for free market capitalism. He calls the economy an economy of exclusion and inequality, an economy that kills. He criticizes trickledown theories of economics and the economic changes he calls for seem more revolutionary than reformatory. These are strong words for a system that seems both necessary and beneficial. You just heard some Interesting Data about the effect that free market capitalism has had. I recently read in Arthur Brooks new book, the conservative heart, the expansion of free market capitalism is responsible for a great reduction in world poverty. The number he says living in starvation level of poverty, which he defines, declined by 80 between 1970 and 2010. And he says the institutions that deserve credit for this decline are globalization and free trade and Property Rights and the rule of law and entrepreneurship. So whats up with the compared to brooks the pope seems like a cryptosocialist with a little confidence in free market capitalism and little understanding of the benefit of growing the economy. So whos right . It isnt quite that simple. In the first place the pope believes that work is important even holy. He says in that it is a noble vocation. For this reason he says we dont want a comprehensive welfare state. Welfare should be a provisional solution not a permanent one. Our goal ought to be to provide a dignified life for everybody through work. And businesses and markets are an essential part of this task. The second place its true that francis understands the importance of growing the economy to provide jobs. He recently spoke to leaders in paraguay and following of every culture needs Economic Growth and the creation of wealth. What he asks of businesspeople is that they not only increase the goods of this world but also make them more accessible to everybody. So why the seeming condemnation of the market . The Central Point of his teaching, i think, is that the market is a tool thats subordinate to the good of human beings. It mustnt be the measure of human goods or the ends to which we bend other things. When that happens the problem is even human beings themselves are considered consumer goods to be used and then disguarded. Discarded. This summer he gave a speech at the world meeting of popular movements in bolivia and spoke words very much like this. He described the Global Economy as a system that imposes the mentality of profit at any price. When he was in paraguay he said, on the altar of money and profit. It would be tempting to dismiss the popes words as inflammatory rhetoric if they werent literally true. Today as the pope has highlighted on many occasions we throw away children more than 40 million a year through abortion. The great majority from the developing world. This summer the center for medical progress released a series of videos about planned parenthood selling the limbs and organs of aborted children as commodities to medical researchers. Limbs and then to god nipped have becomethe womb line items on an invoice. A human being made and known by god is deemed more valuable dead than alive. Francis also points out we throw away the elderly in Nursing Homes and poor in slums and young people who are struggling to find work. The Unemployment Rate for young people in italy is north of 40 . And the popes goal in speaking so often about the poor is to bring them to our attention. He decries the fact that poverty has become so commonplace its acceptable. He asks, how can it be that its not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure . But it is news when the stock market loses two points . This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving . This is a case of inequality. Almost without being aware of it, he says, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor. So i said i wanted to talk about the poor, the environment, and then about the authoritativeness about his teaching. A word or two about the environment. The most surprising thing about this encyclical is how little space francis actually devotes to the thing we usually talk about when we focus on the environment of the in the first chapter he spends a lot of time talking about pollution and Global Warming and a loss of bio diversity, the standard fare of ecological talks. Hes just as worried about a deterioration in what he calls human ecology. He finds symptoms of that in almost every aspect of human life. He talks about the loss of green spaces in the cities, about an increase in violence, about social exclusion, about the rise of drug trafficking. Even has bad words to say about the internet. He says that theres a deterioration of interpersonal communication when we talk to one another on phones and devices that shield us from direct contact with the pain, fears, and joys of others. These are all symptoms of the same disease. Francis condemns what he calls a technocratic paradigm in modern society. A tendency to treat it as open manipulation for us to master and transform. But, it its not, he says. Nature is gods art. Its impressed on things. And living beings, not just people, have a value of their own which we should respect. We have, we might say, rightly, a moral relationship with the earth itself in all of this he sounds like peter, or the sierra club. He goes on to say man, too, is gods gift to man. We are part of creation. Our own relation was one another, he says, are an ecological issue, and he, unlike the usual proponents of the environmental movement, condemns the idea that we should have a reduction in the birth rate, especially in the developing world, as a solution to climate change. And he stresses the , inconsistency of those who would protect endangered species while promoting abortion. Even says our own bodies are gods gift and we must accept our own femininity and masculinity as part of his ecological program. This encyclical got a lot of criticism more from the right than from the left before its publication. Some people pointed out shades of galileo that the church has no expertise in science and shouldnt attempt to settle scientific matters. And he acknowledges this. He says on many concrete questions the church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion. But he is concerned that the lack of clarity should become an excuse for our doing nothing. We have to choose to treat the environment one way or another. And we have to make those decisions with the best Information Available and when we do act, our actions should be guided by the same principles that he invokes to govern the economy. He says that Environmental Action cant come at the expense of the poor or of future generations. His most significant point, i think, is that environmental debate is not a scientific prerogative. Scientists should measure temperatures and shorelines and predict trends and so on, but when we act on this information, we need a moral perspective. Thats what he says the church ought to offer. Let me close with a few words, too, about the authority of these statements that hes making. The first of the two words i want to offer is that we should all, especially catholics, pay respectful attention to what hes saying. Some conservative catholics responding to the popes comments on the economy and the environment sound like nancy pelosi responding to Church Teaching about abortion and marriage, they say that the pope ought to leave science to scientists, economics to businesspeople and stick to theology. But this has not been the churchs understanding of her responsibility. Faith is not a spiritual hobby. It affects every aspect of life and there is a long tradition of popes on economics. I might quote again pope leo xiii, founder of the Catholic University of america, who wrote about the interconstitution of private property and the right of laborists to unionize and bargain collectively. Thats the first point. He does have something to say and worth listening to. Second, i do want to adjust a note of care or caution maybe because im a lawyer but attentive to these kinds of things. Catholics are expected to teach Church Teaching as authority but this authority is a complex thing. Not every statement a pope makes, for example, is to be treated as infallible. The doctrine of papal infallity is Something Like the clear statement rule that courts use in interpreting statutes. The actual ruling is that it the actual ruling is that a pope speaks only when he, quote, he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. The phrase definitive act here means that he must make perfectly clear his intention to speak infallibly and otherwise its not that kind of statement. Now, not to say we can cast aside the rest of them, below the level of infallible statements, there are many documents with different weights of authority. For example there was a big rash of news stories last week about changes in the annulment process for failed marriages. In may the pope published an encyclical, one on the environment. This carries more weight than whats called an apostolic exhortation. Less authoritative is still a homilies that the pope gives on scripture readings at mass. Beneath that, far beneath that are the chats he has on airplanes with reporters. Who are here. Francis makes clear his recommendations are not intended to have infallible force. Heres what he says. Neither the pope nor the church has a monopoly on the interpretation of social realities or solutions to contemporary problems, it is difficult for us to put forward a solution which has universal validity. This is not our ambition nor is it our mission. It is up to Christian Communities to analyze with objectivity the situation which is proper to their own country. We, americans, are the most intellectually imperialistic of cultures. We imagine the pope is speaking to us. Forget it. We are just a small fraction of the churches population of around the world. There are other countries around the world that need to listening even more at ban you do. That need to listen more than we do. Let me add one last thing about authoritativeness. Of papal teachings also varies with the subject matter, this, too, is an idea a familiar one to lawyers. That the United States Supreme Court has ultimate authority to interpret the federal constitution, but as every first year law student knows, Erie Railroad holds the court has no such authority in matters of state law. It is with the church whose jurisdiction is limited to matters of faith and morals. Now, not to say that the environment, economy, dont have implications for those, but the popes teaching on astronomy rightly deserve less respect than galileos. Within the domain of faith and morals there is a spectrum of issues. Again, i dont mean to say we should cast this a aside. There are things revealed in the gospel message as the canon lawyers say. These are obvious aspects of the churchsrts magisterium. There are things which have been taught, always and everywhere, like the evil of certain sins. You know what they are. Then theres a range of other things to which the Church Speaks with diminishing degrees of authority recognition. The definition of a Church Council as ecumenical. The canonization of saints and so on. I dont mean to say we need to discount all of this. Only that this is a really complex matter in the ways that many moral and legal questions are. Dont put too much stock in what you hear the pope said on an airplane. Joe. Thanks very much. [applause] joe thank you very much. Our next speaker is michael winters who writes an Award Winning blog, distinctly catholic. He is at the National Catholic reporter a daily commentary in politics, religion, and culture. Hes also the u. S. Correspondent for the tablet, the london based interNational Catholic weekly. He worked as a speechwriter on general leslie clarks president ial campaign antiis the author of left at the altar how democrats lost the catholics and how catholics can save the democrats. He is a visiting fellow at the Catholic Universitys institute for policy research and catholic studies. Please help me welcome mr. Winters. [applause] michael i also have never been to cato before. Dont often get to start a talk with latin, but i thought i would do so with perhaps his most famous line. Phrase]g latin which we usually shorten, cathage must be destroyed. If we replace the word carthage with the case free market ideology, we can imagine pope francis using the most famous of catos lines. Popes dont usually use such language as the verb to destroy. Perhaps we could say pope francis could say that free market ideology needs to be repealed and replaced. I have heard that phrase in the last few years. But in any event we dont have to speculate about what he has said. We can look at what he has said. Ill borrow on some of the same quotes that president garvey did. This economy kills. Some people continue to defend trickledown theories which assume that Economic Growth encouraged by a free market will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion which has never been confirmed by the facts expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in d workings of the. Heiling Economic System has repeatedly condemned the idolatry of the market. He has said in the speech to which president garvey referred to, when capital becomes an idol, you get pain, death, and destruction and the stench of what basil of seize rea called the dung of the devil. These are strong words. I would like to make the case that the popes crique of premarket ideology is traditional, systemic, ethical, and finally anthropological. It is supremely traditional, Pope Benedict xvi said the position of the economy must be autonomous. Must be fielded from influences of moral template led man to view the process in a destructive way. Pope john paul ii said the state of inequality between individuals and nations not only still exists, it is increasing. It is obvious that a fundamental defect or series of defects, indeed a defective machinery, is at the root of contemporary economics and materialistic civilization which does not allow the human family to break free from such situations. John paul ii also said in speaking of the poor and disadvantaged, a question of not only alleviating the most serious and urgent needs through individual actions here and there, but uncovering the roots of evil and proposing initiatives to make social, political, and economic structures more just and fraternal. Pope paul vi condemn autonomy. Condemned the erroneous economy. Condemned erroneous autonomy. A phrase i see professor steve here the director of Catholic Universitys institute for policy research, we ran a symposium last year called erroneous autonomy, the catholic case against libertarianism. We had a followup conference in june on faith and solidarity. Again using erroneous autonomy as highlighting the differences between libertarian thought and catholic social thought. One of my favorite quotes is from pius the 11th who wrote, just as the unity of Human Society cannot be found on opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of Economic Life cannot be left to free competition of forces. For from this source as from a poisoned spring have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic thinking. We could go back even further to the gospel in which the Blessed Virgin Mary says, he has filled the hungry with good things and the rich he has sent away empty. So what is the difference with pope francis . I would submit that it is he is quite blunt and you cant spin him. John paul ii and benedict xvi were often interpreted by conservative voices to an american audience. They brought a distorting lens to what both those two great popes had to say. With pope francis there is no need to interpret him. Its funny one of the early criticisms of pope francis, hes very confusing. Theres nothing confusing about him. You can talk to some immigrant workers who work picking the tomatoes that will help with our salad at lunch, they are not confused by the pope. The people leveling that charge dont like what he has to say. The critique is systemic. The change that pope francis calls for is not merely the individual capitalist become more virtuous. Hes in favor of virtue and opposed to advice, its deeper than that. If that was the case, only a matter of people behave more virtuously, any system would do. Madison saying if men were angels, there would be no need of government. The popes critique of the free market system has two tracks. One based on facts on the ground. The other at the level of theory. In both hes not only condemning excesses, hes condemning the system itself. As a theory, free market ideology opposes almost all government and intervention in the market. But pope francis and catholic social teaching do not share this horror of government. Government an expression of the common good. Government is called upon to enact justice. John paul ii said quote its not directed against the market but demands the market be appropriately controlled. ,ou can compare this with liberty is always freedom from the government. As benedict xvi markets out, it provides no room for gratuitous us in. Pope francis would add mercy. The mosaic law which provides for tithes to the poor. The biggest problem i think was selfinterest vs. The universal destination of goods. Selfinterest is a sin and cant be wiggled into a virtue by reference to its socially creative consequences. As David Schindler has pointed you out, christians mean something very different by creativity from what capitalists mean. Pope francis when he deals with some of these issues pulling on schindler pulls, the overlap is obvious. Primary foundation for social teaching is the universal destination of goods. Which means all the goods of the world are to be distributed so everyone has enough to live and to participate in society. This claim is prior to Property Rights. Classic to mystic theory holds that private Property Rights can be recognized but only as a consequence of the fall. The original sin. Another point of divergence that comes up all the time is that freemarket ideologues always have seemed to have it in for organized labor. Going back the churchs explicitly endorsed the right of workers to unionize and never drawn a distinction between public and private Sector Workers and their right to organize. Turning to the lived reality i think this is even more important for pope francis. He has said on several occasions reality is more important than ideas. It is often asserted with some basis in fact as marian pointed out at the beginning that capitalism and others have lifted millions out of poverty, but if at the same time it excludes others, it is an unjust system and unworthy of the human person. Inadequate as an Economic System. With a look at the transpacific trade deal which seems to be stalled but if it goes through, one of the things we can anticipate is certain jobs in factories in the nations currently subject to the cafta accords in Central America will go to vietnam and malaysia. These trade accords, they invite a race to the bottom with wages. We could look at the issue of debt crises. Austerity which harms the poor, why is that always the first option . I was pleased to see last month that the puerto rican bishops and other religious leaders have called for a different approach to the crisis that puerto rico is facing where its an odd situation in puerto rico. They fall between the stool of they are not a sovereign nation, they cant work with the i. M. F. They are not a city or state so they cant go into bankruptcy. They have asked for the fed to help them restructure the debt and start not with mandating austerity but giving a haircut to the hedge funds. Im for that. Thats a good idea. We can look at the 2008 economic meltdown here and around the world. Even alan greenspan, who im sure as devoted to free market ideals as anyone in public life in the last 50 years admitted the crisis forced him to rethink his assumptions. At the microlevel we can point to, again this attack on unions. We saw scott walker roll out an attack on that. I will stand with leo xiii who defended unions. We can consider the circumstance of a shop owner who wishes to provide a living wage. The phrase living wage entered the american lexicon in 1906. John a. Ryans dissertation at Catholic University. Based on leos writings. Catholic belief is every person is entitled to a living wage. But if this shop owner who is a good catholic and wants to live by his faith, extends a living wage and his competition across the street doesnt, what in the market rewards the good guy . It was observed in the book unintended reformation, commenting on the transformation to a capitalist system, outside the price protection accorded by guilds, capitalist practices compel competitors to act as if they were driven by desires even if they were not. It was described the shift from the good society to the goods society. Which raises an additional \problem with capitalism. It is married to consumerism. I suppose in some theoretical construction that was not necessary but thats how its played out. I think you can say we capitalists in the west have succeeded where the communists failed. Making a culture that is thoroughly materialistic. Instead of one big party we have many idols in our Department Stores. I think of the war on christmas every year when fox news gets worked up because this Department Store, chain, has dropped Merry Christmas in favor of happy holidays. If you walk through a Department Store between thanksgiving and christmas, and you think the choice of happy holidays is the problem with what modern consumer capitalism has done to christmas, i would suggest you have missed the point. They have taken a holiday about god becoming poor in human flesh and turned it into a chance to teach Young Children how to be greedy. That is exactly what christmas has become in this country. I turn now to the ethical considerations and difficulties. There is some debate in free market circles about whether or not the free market ideology even contains a moral sense. Milton friedman said Economic Freedom is an end in itself. Freedom has nothing to say about what an individual does with his freedom. More on the issue of freedom in a bit. Hiatt compared free market to a game which there is no sense in calling the result just or unjust, close quote. In this view the market is a mere tool that can be used well or badly with efficiency as the only relevant criteria. I think this is wrong. Tools always imply results can be efficient and unjust at the same time. Pope francis warned about using efficiency and technology as the only criteria for evaluating economic and other social activity in his encyclical on the environment. I would argue there is a very obvious ethics at the heart of market ideology by posing a few questions. What values does the market celebrate . Who are its heroes and comparing these with the catholic view . The market celebrates the selfmade man. Not the man who evidences solidarity. It celebrates thrift and frugality, not gratuitousness or generosity or simplicity which has a different flavor from frugality. The market demands selfassertion not selfsurrender. The market celebrates success and pope francis like all catholics worships a crucified god. The market runs on competition not cooperation. Need i go on . American capitalism was celebrated in a show called lifestyles of the rich and famous. Pope francis has ministered in the name of christ to the poor and forgotten. The christian ethical vision has been clouded in u. S. Culture. We have tended to confuse fortune with blessing. Pope francis reminds us that the good news of the gospel is brought to the poor. Or if i may quote that great ethical wit, dorothy parker, if you want to know what god thinks of money, look at the people he gave it to. [laughter] finally well turn to the anthropological difference. Im not talking about excavating for tools from 500 years ago. The church means something very rich and specific when it refers to the human person. And that is a social meaning not autonomous understanding. I think these examples will highlight this difference. Critics of government entitlement programs complain that they create a culture of dependency. In a pedestrian sense this criticism is valid. Programs should not should create on ramps to participate fully in society not create disincentives to work or form a family. But at a deeper level a culture of entitlement and dependency is precisely what free market ideology cannot different but what the christian vision demands. People really are entitled to a living wage. They are entitled to a roof over their heads. To a secure retirement. They are entitled to access to health care. And for christians, the human person is radically dependent. First on god every time we say grace, from thy bounty. And secondly on one another. The bond of dependence is called solidarity or neighborliness. Im reminded it was said we would gain, quote, from not treating one another as neighbors, close quote. Jesus said we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. The christian vision requires a focus on the holy other god and on the face of the other our fellow men and women. Indeed, for the christians a disposition to generosity and human retions always takes priority. David schindler said selfishness becomes mutual is not yet mutual generosity. Another point of difference the anthropological level is this word freedom. A deeply ambiguous word made to carry far too much weight in a variety of political discussions. Negative freedoms that we have at the basis of our constitutional system and that the freed men in hiatt quotes referred to earlier, this is not the freedom of the children of god. The Catholic Church cannot accept negative freedom from conception as a freedom as adequate. We saw this in the debate over the decree of religious liberty. Everyone focuses on the big debate between the advocates of religious freedom versus its opponents. But the more interesting debate was among the murrayites who did embrace the kind of american constitutional, very rigid concept of freedom, and the intelligence who saw the problems when asked about this because that document like many documents was a consensus document, a year later it was said this was an issue we have to skate around. As we have seen in the issues surrounding the h. H. S. Contraception mandate, and i would argue here on these issues of economic liberty, we can no longer skate around. The ice is gone far too thin. The catholic faith teaches that we humans are called to communion to solidarity with god and with communion to solidarity with god and one another. Everything the church teaches about human relations including economics flows from our belief the human person is created in the image and likeness of god. Our most foundational belief about god is the trinity that god is himself a communion of persons it is in this image we are created. To denounce or demean solidarity, to celebrate an autonomous self and build and economic theory around that is to challenge the christians basic belief who god is. In this great free country of ours we are all free to stand, im much happier to stand with pope francis. [applause] marian thank you very much. Our last speaker is jay w. Richards, a Research Professor in the school of business and economics at the Catholic University of america. Hes an executive editor of the stream and senior fellow at the discovery institute. Richards is author of many books, including the New York Times bestselling books infiltrated infiltrated in 2013, and indivisible in 2012. Hes also the author of money, greed, and god which won the 2010 templeton enterprise award. His articles have been published in Harvard Business review, wall street journal, Washington Post, and many other prestigious venues. With that please welcome jay w. Richards. [applause] jay its fun to you with you and here for these subjects. Since i went last i realized many of things i was going to say are things that president garvey has said or michael said. Im going to change my plans a little bit. I do want to address this question about how we understand pope francis because most unless you are a fulltime pope follower, you write for a catholic publication or each at a public university, virtually everything you know or think you know about any pope except this one is coming second or third hand from the media. Very often what he actually says is Something Different from what he says. Michael quoted his statement about the dung of the devil. You quoted the actual statement that pope francis said. If you google that, what youll see is pope francis called capitalism the dung of the devil. Though in the speech he doesnt use the word capitalism. Thats what odd about many of the things that pope francis says. He very rarely actually uses the word capitalism. That perhaps is deliberate. My favorite example, though, is media distortion has nothing do with these topics. Last year pope francis spoke to the pontifical academies of science and was talking about how the catholic and catholic theology understands god. It was reported in the English Speaking press the pope said to these scientist that is god is not a divine being. Alright now let that sink in. , the pope said that god is not a divine being. So when i saw this if i could make money just finding media distortions i would try to monetize it. But i thought this cant , possibly be right the pope would not would say this. I went to the vatican news site, look at the english translation there. It was there. Thats where the media had gotten it. So i went to the original speech which was in italian, what he said is god is not a dimier. A technical philosophical term that says god is not just the top member of the universe. Hes a transcendent creator over everything. Straight forward Christian Catholic theology. Once translated, like a game of telephone internationally, had the pope saying god is not a divine being. So, whenever you are tempted to think, i know for sure what the pope is saying, remember that. Thats how bad it can get. What we are going to talk about here for a few minutes today and much of what i wanted to say has been said, is this idea of capitalism through the eyes of pope francis. Thats really what i want to focus on. I mention pope francis very rarely actually uses the word capitalism. Until yesterday i hadnt been able to find an example of him using the term at all. It turns out if the story is to be trusted a year ago or two years in 2013, he gave a talk to a soup kitchen in rome in which he referred to something called savage capitalism. I thought ok, perfect. Here we go. When you look to see what he meant, the way he defined this term savage capitalism, was the logic of profit at any cost. Thats a very specific idea we can debate that a fair interpretation of capitalism as its normally defend. Its clear to see thats what he had in mind. As president garvey said, many of the things the pope writes, including in this most recent encyclical, he doesnt say a lot about these particular things. In fact, in his apostolic letter, if im correct it was only about eight pages in which he discusses economic topics at all. He does say this from pages 53 to 60. He says we must say no this is a direct quote. Economy of no to an exclusion. We must say no to the new idolatry of money. A financialno to system that roles rather than serves. And, we must say no to the inequality which spawns violence. So if youre a defender of the free market, ask yourself the question, do you disagree with that . Anything that he said here . Would you say no to an economy of exclusion or idolatry of money or to an inequality that spawns violence . He does, however, say he specifically condemns when he calls the absolute autonomy of markets. This is a term hes used several times. As michael said pope francis and benedict also used the term like that. The same document, i want to reiterate these things even though you have heard them once, he says first of those who continue to defend trickledown theories which assumes that Economic Growth encouraged by free market will inevitably succeed in bringing about great justice and inclusiveness of the world. Such a view, he writes, which has never been confirmed by the ands, expresses a crude that naive trust in the goodness of those wielding the economic power in the workings of the revealing prevailing Economic System. We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and in the invisible hand of the market. I think it would be fair to say, id love to try to spin this and some people try to do, this especially those of us who think of the alternatives that Economic Freedom is the best thing to go, like to spin this away. I do think at least pope francis has an impression let me fix this. I will keep going. Michael was telling me beforehand this is the reason he does not use powerpoint. There you go. Stick with the yellow pad. I do think its fair to say that his view of capitalism at least as he understands it is generally not positive. He does have positive things to say about business and its role in creating wealth and jobs. I think thats the best that we could say. Taking together, so his apostolic letter in his most recent encyclical, i think the better thing to do is focus on what pope francis primarily is saying. What hes intending to say and what he does say because he says many things over and over. And so, i think we can take these as sort of recurring terms in his own dogma. He speaks frequently about what he calls speculation. He used it last week speaking in italy, believe, to a Cooperative Bank association. Actually in rome. He talks about economic ideologies that deny human dignity. That embrace selfishness and greed. Talks again a lot about the idolatry of money and ideologies. A lot about greed. As we said, it comes up again and again. This doesnt distinguish him from virtually any other pope in the 20th or now the 21st century. He does invoke, as you heard a minute ago, the idea of the invisible hand. To paraphrase, you can no longer trust in the sort of guidance of this invisible hand which is the term that adam smith came up with. Interestingly smith, so far as i can tell, never used the term twice, thats what most people remember that he said. Behind all this, i think this is a crucial point, whenever pope francis is talking about these things, invariably he has one subject in mind. Poverty. Poverty is precisely the thing that motivates everything that he says about these. If you tend to be very skeptical of the things francis says about the economy, at least understand this. That the things he says he says not simply because of some kind of ideological predilection, but because hes profoundly concerned about the poor and has president garvey said, the reason he took the name francis is because of his concern about the poor. Nevertheless, i think its fair to say someone my twitter handle incidentally is freemarketjay, so you know where im coming from. Some of the thing he says deals sometimes like a caricature. Thats not anything i would ever defend. Its not anything that any of the people i admire would defend. The question is where does he specifically get the ideas that he has about what free market capitalism or entrepreneurial capitalism are . I think actually a fairly clear reason for that. It requires us to make the useful distinction. Many of the things he says about the Global Financial system, about the financial crisis, as marian said i wrote a book in 2013 on the financial crisis. This is an abiding interest of mine. Many of the things he says about the Financial System ring true. When talking about that. Its just when i read him on that they ring true to me not as a critique of free market capitalism but as a critique of something we might call cronyism or corporatism. Insofar as you understand what he talks about and what hes saying, in that light, if you say ok, what he is could he noting or denoting, what hes referring to is, not the views of smith but the corporatism and cronyism that often stands in for those things. Some degree in the United States but certainly in many countries in south america. This i think is really important because pope francis as an argentine has experienced for his entire life a particularly brutal form of what i would call sort of hard corporatism, if you want to call it that. Many of you may not know much about argentina, there are a lot of things to realize about his experience and things he says when he speaks about things like the socioEconomic System in terms like this that he uses fairly vaguely. In 1900 argentina was one of the worlds 10 wealthiest nations. Because of this there was massive immigration from northern europe. You dont think of it this way anymore. Its largely the result of juan peron and his wife who came into power in an ideology thats very difficult describe and is certain left, right american spectrum. You sort of think of it as a populous leftism which is many ways a kind of aristocratic contempt for the commerce class highly the bourgeoisie, populist rhetoric which appeals to the common people. Implements political programs essentially a form of cronyism in which large economic actors work in collusion with the state to enrich themselves not the common people. If you think about what pope francis is saying in that light, think about his experience of cronyism in argentina, much of what he says makes sense. I dont want to say he clearly makes the distinction. He does not distinguish between the type of cronyism thats rife in argentina and the free economy you have in a place like hong kong are the type of general free economy you would have in a place like south korea. He doesnt make these distinctions and i would like to see him make those. Its absolutely important in reading what he says to understand his experience. What about argentina is an economic basket case. The most recent index comes in 169th out of 178 countries on the planet in terms of Economic Freedom. So, it is between the democratic republic of congo and the republic of congo. Countries that do worse are venezuela and cuba. So whatever you want to say about argentina, it is not a bastian of freedom. It is a powerful, overbearing state. Several large, presumably economic actors. Not the kind of benign inequality that defines everyone in this room and bill gates. Form oflignant inequality. In cahoots with the state and pageantry in shantytowns. That is your picture of the Global Economy, then what pope francis says makes sense. So, heres the question. What to do . Imagine you are a catholic philosopher or economist and you study these things. You have looked a different political economies. Thereve no delusions that is a utopia. Nevertheless, on empirical grounds, Economic Systems and freedoms as it tends to be defended and role of law, private Property Rights, low levels of corruption, a populist,virtuous wideranging freedom, is the best Economic Freedom for lifting people out of absolute poverty. That is, if you are aware of many things that you follow on better every single day. These are much empirical facts. Were not having to compare philosophies. What makes of economic touctures is most abusive Human Flourishing and lifting large numbers of people out of property a ready . You are convinced in his free Economic Systems that do this . What are you to do . This is the dilemma. To understand a few things about the way in which Authority Works in the Catholic Authority in the magisterium. President garvey has covered when i was going to say here, but you have to make distinctions. Everyone that is not cap i, so far as i can tell, all of my evangelical friends, i ask them, but this bulletin fallibility entail . They say it means that everything in the book is infallible. But you can discover this within five minutes with a really good google search, but it tends to be peoples idea of how it works. Historical body of text that has come to be called catholic continueaching, which to the peasant in which the are applying particular themes from catholic theology and natural dividinge current questions of economics and politics. Refer to the central abiding and infallible corner of these things as the sum of these things at uc berkeleys the best in these documents. At the same time, is a mistake to think catholic social teaching equals some detailed catholic political policy. It is not as if it articulates in detail the precise detail of how a tax system or immigration policy should be together that is just and prudent. Provides a clarifying lens for thinking through this issue but it does not provide the catholic political position. That is why catholics of good politicaldisagree on topics while nevertheless adhering to catholic social teachings. Heres how Pope John Paul ii put it. I do not think he is saying anything that is idiosyncratic in this regard. Meanne said, it does not that it is medically sealed from economic concerns. That is an economic fundamental mistake. A fundamental philosophical category, by which of you are catholic you want to reflect on. The intrinsic dignity of a person. Solidarity. Subsidiarity. The common good. The categories you must and to bring to these categories. It is not going to answer every single question. That is a venture question based on your analysis and conclusion based on the empirical details as far as you understand them. Pope benedict the 16th, pope francis is immediate necessity that this way. Before he was pope, when he was head of the doctrine of faith, he was talking about morality and economics and how he thought these things should interact. As, yes, catholic teaching is not a third way. It is not a fully filled out system, but neither is it adverse to rhetorical. , a morality that believes it self able to dispense with the Technical Knowledge of economics laws is but economists him. What we need is a maximum of economic and a maximum of moral reflection, so when these things come together i hold it much greater than the sum of its parts. , for the faithful catholic who is a faithful son or daughter of the church was also appreciative of the good that Economic Freedom brings to human beings. That would i would say, ought to be our goal. It would not to sort of separate these things. Not say that catholic teaching is one thing but economics just involves is sort of impurecal questions. Its rather is this. Its distinguishing the economic ideologies that pope francis talks about, that michael talked about. From the empirical results and discoveries and the theoretical insights of economics and integrating those things with the perennial principles of catholic social teaching