Also make the case that i must delay notice. That could happen for 180 days, before a provider or anyone else, you know, notifies the subject, they have to tell the government that they are gonna do that, giving the government the ability to go back to the court and say, you know what, the reasons for our delay have not ended, we need to expand it. I think it is a very reasonable, very balanced approach that supports a fundamental constitutional value, one of notice thats embedded in the Fourth Amendment. Thank you, yield back. Gentlemens time expired. This time, the chair recognizes the gentleman. As former u. S. Attorney, i will always appreciate and listen to concerns expressed by Law Enforcement whenever Congress Proposes changes to a law that may impact your ability to do your job because the folks working so hard to keep us safe and i want to certainly make sure you have the tools and resources and capability necessary to do that effectively. That being said, i also strongly believe that in in an increasingly connected, complex, digital society, our laws have to be modernized to make sure they reflect the current technological landscape as our technology is involving, this extremely personal information being scored on our computers, own our smartphones, on our fit bui bits, where we travel, what we read, where we shop, who we communicate with, make sure we have robust protections in place for that i certainly dont believe that the Fourth Amendment protections that we all hold so dear and the needs of Law Enforcement are mutually exclusive and i appreciate all the witnesses being here today to have a thoughtful discussion about that. I want to start with you, mr. Shah rezny, from my perspective, it seems like the s. E. C. s been the most vocal civilian agency in expressing concerns about modifying ac ba. The s. E. C. Doesnt appear to haver issed a subpoena on a commercial provider in five years, since the rorschach decision and despite that the s. E. C. s annual report last year, 2014, um, touted a record year, cuttingedge Enforcement Actions, more cases than ever before, a number of firstever cases that span the securities industry. And i know that chairman white has testified that the isnt issuing subpoenas to thirdparty Service Providers for content, so, given the Record Number of cases, Enforcement Actions and firstever cases brought by the s. E. C. All done without encroaching on Fourth Amendment rights of americans, why is the s. E. C. Asking congress to give it the authority to get content on something less than a warrant . We certainly have been successful, we think, in enforcing the securities laws, but that does not mean there arent cases that would benefit tremendously from emails we would be able to obtain from isps, i guess the point i would assert is the Fourth Amendment is not violated by what we are proposing which would be an order before a judge, which a judge could issue, with notice to the subscriber after the subscriber has the opportunity to raise whatever objections they have under a standard the congress would establish and from our perspective that does comply with the Fourth Amendment and it also balances privacy protections because would you have an objective fact finder reviewing the situation and determining whether it is appropriate for us to obtain emails in that circumstance and i can tell through are ongoing investigations now which we have refrained from seeking those emails from definitely benefit from such emails. When you say what you are proposing, i mean, how have you been proposing it . We have had ongoing discussions with members of congress about these issues for the last couple of years. Okay. Well, because, you know, from my perspective, it seems like you have been altering your behavior for the last few years in response to this opinion rather than coming to a committee of jurisdiction, at least from my perspective. I know that when i know that when fbi has a problem, they come and let us know what it is and how we can fix it. We have been having ongoing discussions with the staff of both judiciary, senate and house judiciary in this period, certainly since i have been at the s. E. C. , which has been paraphrasing a little bit, mr. Salgado, but you seem to be saying this hr 699 is really just a codification of the status quo under the rorschach, is that right . Thats accurate, yes. Oh you dont think that hr 699 goes beyond the holding in rorschach . I dont think it does. Happy to hear suggestions but my review of rorschach and the bill suggests they are very consistent. Mr. Calabrese, you agree with that . I do. Mr. Rosen white . I think i do. I havent done i havent checked precisely though. All right. With im going to yield my time is about to expire, yield back the balance of my time. Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes himself for questions. Emergency of provisions, emergency disclosure mechanisms and mr. Little hail in his written testimony that the primary mechanism currently law voluntary and mentions that companies are often, in his words, unable or unwilling to respond to Law Enforcements demand in a timely american. I think we all would agree true emergency is there and son of a Georgia State trooper not going to be anybody that would deny the need from a Law Enforcement perspective, however, seems to be something implying missing here. Did research with ourselves and others and based on the concerns that we saw that the publishing transparency report, base olden that report, with i we have looked at, google received 171 emergency disclosure requests and provided the least some data in response to 80 of the emergency disclosure requests. Can you explain why google responded to only 80 of these requests, break down those numbers for us and why couldnt the Response Rate be 100 , given whats been said by mr. Little hail here . I think the statistic you are referring to in our transparency report, publishing that number for a while here so that policymakers and others could get an idea of what this work is like. The number is actually relatively low, 171 compared to the type of Legal Process we get. The 80 represents lots of different situations where the where the emergency doesnt justify the disclosure. Often, the case is that the identifier thats given to us in the emergency request doesnt actually go back to any real account. So there are some services out there where you can create an account using a google or any email address and its not verified that there is such an address, they may use that request to threaten a School Shooting or engage in other some violent activity. The authorities quite legitimately will come to google and ask us for information about this account that was used to create the account that made the threat. We look at our system and there is no such account, so the response back is we have no data to produce in response to this, otherwise legitimate emergency request. That gets counted as a nondisclosure and adds into the 20 where there was not a disclosure, there was no responsive data. Thats probably the most common situation in that 20 . There may be other situations where the request is coming in and the emergency is over, that the investigation is now actually about a historical crime. There is no ongoing threat he to loss of life or serious physical injury which means its inappropriate to be using that authority to get the information. And we are able to say at this point, doesnt look like an ongoing emergency, we can preserve the information and you come back to us with a Legal Process, we can promptly disclose. Okay. Just real quickly, but you went on with your answer long enough to bring up a question. Are you making that determination if the emergency situation is still ongoing . Thats right. Not the Law Enforcement agency offering . The statute says we are allowed to disglows we have a good faith belief that there is an emergency. Mr. Little hail, when you testified before the House Judiciary Committee in 2013, you said some providers make a decision never to provide records in the absence of Legal Process no matter the circumstance. Can you identify the Service Providers that have a policy of categorically rejecting emergency in the absence of compulsory Legal Process if not, why . Congressman, as i stated in response as i stated in response to the question at the time, i have made a decision not to identify any examples that i give specific providers because i dont want to highlight a you will haver in ran bullet in a public forum there may come a time i tell you what, i will make a request you can submit that in a nonpublic forum, but im really concerned here that we are making a categorical statement without categorical proof. I can certainly say anecdotally no i want to know having been told that by providers. Mr. Limb hattle hail, you ma statement, wasnt anecdotally. You said in your testimony, providers make a decision never to provide records in the absence of Legal Process no matter the circumstance and thats a very direct statement against the Business Practices of internet providers a ers arp . Is it true or not true . Do you have evidence . I have been toed that by providers . You made a statement not grounded exseptember anything except anecdotally . I would suggest i have evidence, i have been told that by providers. I was told there was a santa claus but found out real quickly there wasnt. [ laughter ] well, congressman i would suggest that thats evidence if you choose not to believe me, i suppose i cant help with you that. But i have been told and agents that work with me have been told that in some cases. I will just let that one sit. Exchange with senator leahy Senate Hearing in this topic regard to phone calls not seeking authority, criminal authority, that criminal authorities have that civil agencies do not, seeking in get access to emails without a warrant, essentially seeking something more than the criminal authorities have, isnt that contradictory . I dont think we are seeking more authority than the criminal authorities have. What are you seeking . Im sorry . Then what are you seeking . I will give you a chance to clarify that sure, what we are seeking is the ability to obtain emails after we tried to obtain them from an individual subscriber by going to a court and obtaining the court order with notice to the subscriber and allowing you the subscriber to raise whatever objections they have before the court. I think, like i said, interesting that some of the testimony thats been given here and i think, you know, very concerning from some issues of anecdotal evidence and real evidence, especially the s. E. C. Side when youre giving the you know, your own report saying youre doing more than youve ever done about here yet without this by choice or decision, however you want to do it, mr. Calabrese, one last question for, my time is now over, but in dissent from the civil agency carveout, commissioner brill wrote im not convinced this is necessary to maintain the commission e [ unintelligible ] i do worry we will create an unconstitutional or incredibly reckless carveout for agencies and my hope is that we continue to push hr 699 forward as is to a markup and we can proet vote and get it to the floor. Thank you. I appreciate it looking around, seeing how it is me and the distinguished Ranking Member this concludes todays hearings. Without objections, all members have five legislative days to commit additional questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record and with that, this hearing is adjourned. Your recent story is titled impasse over riders in omnibus continues as deadline looms. What are some of the key issues involved now in the spending bill discussions . Well, at this point, it sounds like the money stuff has been pretty much worked out and so during the last few days, its been riders that have been kicked up to the leadership level. And democrats were very unhappy, they said to see that almost all the thing were back on the table, some of them they knew were going to be there, some they didnt expect, but some of the issues include reproductive rights, the treatment of Syrian Refugees, environmental riders, things to go after Obama Administration regulations dealing with clean air and water. Those are some of them. Also maybe something on campaign finance, lifting some of the restrictions on political contributions, something that Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell has supposedly proposed. And also, some changes to the dodd frank law that was passed a few years back to try to rein in the banks. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Some are saying that this is the first big test for Speaker Paul Ryan. How involved in the negotiations has the speaker been . I think he has been pretty involved in the talks that happened before the thanksgiving break with the House Freedom caucus, calling for listening sessions, appropriators were supposed to set up to allow nonappropriations members to weigh in on the riders that they wanted to see attached to the bills, especially the bills that were not on the house floor this summer. The bills that they didnt have a chance to amend. So i think hes been very involve there had in spearing the development and the discussions, now at the leadership level, now that they are going to be negotiating the riders, he and mcconnell have been very much involved in that, yet the appropriators still say that they are very much involved in that also. What are the Republican Leaders saying about the possibility of another shortterm funding measure if they cant get this done by the deadline . Well, Mitch Mcconnell hasnt said anything about another shortterm bill and he has been consistent throughout the year that he did not want to miss the december 11th deadline and he is very serious about that. In the house, House Majority mccarthy a couple of times in the last week has said, well, maybe, you know, we want to get it done boy december 11, but if we need a couple more days, maybe we look at a shortterm bill. The white house, which has said obama will not sign another cr for a number of weeks, like we saw this fall, said maybe one or two days, but thats all, just to allow the political machinery to work. But they want them to wrap this up and that would bring fiscal year 2016 Appropriations Bills to a close and then set the stage for appropriators to turn to next years bills next february. Work begins on the bills just mentioned tomorrow in the house and senate. The house begins legislative work in about 45 minutes with a bill on improper government payments. No votes today. And the senate is also back at 2 p. M. With a confirmation vote on a judicial nomination set for 5 30 p. M. Live coverage of the house on cspan and the senate on csp 2 cspan2. And more on congress this morning from politico. House Speaker Paul Ryan expressed doubt that congress can finish its business this week saying work on renewing expiring tax breaks and funding the government might stretch later into december. He made the comments this morning to his home Radio Station in janesville, wisconsin, saying it might take us more than just this week to get these issues put together correctly. The government runs out of Spending Authority on friday. The issue still is language to stem the flow of migrants from syria and additional gop attempts to roll back environmental and federal regulation. Read more at politico. Com. All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to draw near and give their attention. [ gavel bangs ] tonight on cspans landmark cases, we will look at the case of baker versus carr, the 1962 decision that ruled federal courts could proceed in election districts. Chief Justice Earl Warren called it the most important case of the ten your on the court. Here is a portion of the actual oral argument. These 11 tennessee voters live in five of the largest cities of tennessee. They are the intended and actual victims of a statutory scheme which devalues, reduces their right to vote to about 1 20th of the value of the votes given to certain rural residents. By the early 20th century, population shifts in states like tennessee had a majority of the voters from rural areas move into the city, yet those rural district with now smaller populations held voting power equal to the larger urban districts so a group of voters from nashville, memphis and knoxville challenged the disparity and took their case all the way to the Supreme Court. The case of baker v carr became a major milestone in Supreme Court activism and has continuing relevance today as the term one person, one vote is still being debated. Joining us in the discussion, theodore olson, former u. S. Solicitor general and douglas smith, author of on democracys doorstep, the inside story of how the Supreme Court brought one person one vote to the United States. Thats live tonight at 9 eastern on cspan, cspan3 and cspan radio. For background on each case while you watch, order your copy of landmark cases companion book, available for 8. 95 plus shipping at cspan. Org landmark cases. Abigail fill more was the first first lady to work outside the home, teaching in a private school. She successfully lobbied congress for fund to us create the First White House library. Mamie eisen howariers hairstyle and love of pink created fashions. Mamie pink was marketed as a color and stores sold clipon banks to women eager to recreate her style. Jacqueline kennedy was responsible for the Historical Association and nancy reagan as a young actress saw her name mistakenly on the black list of suspected communist sympathizers in the late 1940s shark appeared to Screen Actors Guild head Ronald Reagan for help and later became his wife. These stories and more featured in c spans book, first ladies, president ial hist tore yarns on the lives of 45 iconic american women. The book makes a great gift for the holidays, giving readers look into the personal lives of every first lady in american history, stories of fascinating women and how their legacies resonate today. The book is based on original interviews from cspans first ladies series and has received numerous reviews, including this one from michael beschloss, president ial historian and author who said, cspan is a National Treasure and its path breaking series on americas first ladies is another reason why. Judy woodruff, coanchor and managing editor of the pbs news hour says cspan has performed another valuable Public Service with its series on the first ladies. No where else can one find such a useful and insightful look into the lives and influence of these women who played a crucial role in the history of our country. And jane hampton cook, first ladies historian and by yog grapher, noted that cspans first ladies is an invaluable collection of rare insight on our nations first ladies and the importance role they played in shaping america during their husbands presidency. Share the stories of americas first ladies for the holidays, cspans book, first ladies, available as a hard cover or an e book from your Favorite Book store or online book searle. Be sure to order your copy today. Coming up in about 15 minutes, we plan to bring you live could have arent of todays White House Briefing with press secretary josh earnest. Before that we will show you as much as we can of a speech by republican president ial candidate, ben carson, before the republican jewish coalitions president ial forum. Thank you very much. Thank you. [ applause ] thank you so much. Im absolutely delighted to be here and, you know, last year was the first time i had an opportunity to go to israel and it was such an incredible experience because, you know, as a student of the bible, to actually be in the place where so many events occurred that were so noteworthy, but you know what really impressed me was the fact that the people absolutely surrounded by all kinds of horrors refused to allow their lives to be dictated by terrorism and i think its a wonderful example for us here in america. I normally am a spontaneous speaker, i want to make sure i get my points in today, i will actually be using a script, may be the first time anybody has seen me doing that but i dont want to miss any of the points that i really wanted to make. Now, after serving for two terms as the first president of a new nation, born from the ashes of european colony, George Washington and his farewell address to the nation warned the citizens of the United States that it is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world. Now, washington, of course, was concerned about the constant changing and realignments of various country, empires in europe and what that would mean for the United States. Now, if we fast forward to 2015, i would like to call your attention to a passable by ambassador oren, israels most recent former ambassador to the United States. He recently wrote a book that looks at the relationship between the United States and his real. And i was taken by the paragraph early in the forward of his book describing why he entitled the book ally. And ambassador oren wrote the following, al sly a simple, beautiful word it evokes warmth, indeed fraternity and its meaning is invariably positive. One may it be a partner but never an ally in crime. Allies, humans counterpart, hebrew counterpart is simple and more stirring. Ben brirkt the sop of the covenant, recalls the circumcision writ and beyond that the jewish peoples special relationship with god. Feltingly, a special relationship is said to exist between israel and United States and like its dib blickal precedent that writ is both physical and eternal. Any american president or candidate for president formulating policies toward israel will be well served to look back at what makes the relationship between the United States and his real so special and fraternity and it is easy to see the special bond between these two nations existed well before either country existed as country. We should look back to the establishment of the modern state ofs i fl israel in 1948 an before our Founding Fathers gathered in philadelphia and decide to change the course of human history, the first settlers founded towns in this land with names like bethlehem and zion. They, in fact, saw the new world as the new Promised Land and the land of religious freedom. It is interesting to note that the First Committee that was established to decide on the coat of arms for the newly formed nation had amongst its five signers amongst its five signs signers of the declaration of independence, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and john adams. These members of the committee were asked to deliver their ideals independently for the seal of the new nation. In an amazing coincidence, the three members of the committee all submitted the same image, images of the jewish exodus from egypt. For these three Founding Fathers, no imam better represented the eye deal of freedom on which the United States was founded. Could you imagine president obama standing today in the White House Press room with an image of moses and jewish people in front of him . Throughout our history, american president s have had a special view of the jewish people and the state of israel, even well before israel existed. John quincy adams said i believe in the rebuilding of judea as an independent nation and Abraham Lincoln referred to palestine as the National Home of the jews. Said this was a noble dream. And one shared by many americans. Very few countries started out as democracies. Most of them evolved into democracies. Israel, however, was born a democracy and has stayed that way with fundamental tenets of democracy ever since. Now, comp nair to its neighbors. Many countries in the middle east claim to be democracies, but i would put forth that elections won with 99 of the vote going to one candidate or elections won under the shadow of dictatorships are not democratic. Regrettably, while israel was born as a democracy, it was also born into a state of war, a state of war that has remained in one form or another ever since my va9w1948. Besides having fought the war of independence in 1948, the war of attrition in 1956, the six day war in 1967, the yom kippur war in 1973, the war in lebanon in 1982 and the two gaza wars in 2007 and again last year in 2014, israel has also been under the constant threat of tense of thousands of missiles from hezbollah in southern lebanon, faced two intive ff faadas and p threat of islamic terrorism. Now, what is really sad is that all of this could have been avoided because u. N. Resolution for a twostate solution. While im not here to debate a onestate or twostate solution, it is something i think for the israeli leadership to decide but it amazes me that the United Nations, the European Union, the Israeli Government and even the Palestine Authority are all pushing for a solution that the arabs themselves rejected in 1947. Imagine how much blood could have been saved had the arabs agreed 68 years ago to exactly what they want to try to achieve today. [ applause ] the role the role of the the role of the United States today should not be to force peace between israel and the palestinians but rather to help enable an environment in which peace can be forged and the next president of the United States should start with a focus on supporting israel in its efforts to find a lasting peace. The keyword here is lasting. For too long, as i have followed the efforts by the United States and europe to get the palestinians and israelis to agree to a peace deal, the focus has always been on what the future of the palestinian state looks like. As president , my focus first and foremost would be to frame the debate oz as to what the future israeli state will look like. [ applause ] after all, the goal of lasting peace is not merely to give the palestinians a state of their own and right to selfdetermination but also to ensure the state of israel remains a jewish state for the jewish people forever before [ applause ] before i go into more detail about that lets just focus for a moment on the issues of a palestinian state. One to. Main problems, as i see it currently is that palestinians are a people divided, divided by territory and by ideology. Woe know there is the geographic challenge trying to unite gaza and the west bank. These territories are separated by a mere 25 miles and between lies some major israeli cities with large populations, uniting these two territories would literally split the state of israel in half. But beyond the territorial challenge, a much bigger challenge exists, the challenge is to split between fatah and hamas. They operate in a constant state of conflict. Fatah rules the west bank. Hamas rules the gaza strip. These two groups are constantly arresting each others political foes in their respective terrors to gosh territories. They are vying for the support of the Palestinian People. Fatah is largely a secular Political Movement while hamas is a deeply religious islamic Political Movement. While there have been many times in the past the two groups tried to operate the governments, this has always devolved into minor civil wars between the two. The bottom line is that even if the Israeli Government today withdrew to the 1967 borders and gave up jerusalem, there is no one Palestinian Group representative of the Palestinian People that could ratify the agreement. Thus, no Peace Agreement can be reached until the hamas fatah issue is resolved. Assuming for a moment that both the territorial issue between the west bank and gaza can be solved as well as the internal conflict between fatah and hamas, then lets ask ourselves, what should the next u. S. President do to help preserve a viable jewish state, living within the terms of a lasting peace . First and foremost, jewish state must be jewish. That may sound obvious, we look at the Current International proposals for twostate solution, as well as listen to the words of the palestinian leadership, two states to be created are first an International Palestinian state with no jews living in it and second, effectively, a binational state, namely, israel, with majority Jewish Population and well over 20 palestinian minority. One doesnt have to look too far into the into up charge you are to see what the longterm outcome would be, eventually, the jewish state would lose its jewish identity and palestinian birthrates continue to eclipse that of Jewish Population. This woulded three a International Palestinian state eventually taking over the binational jewish state as a palestinian population in israel topped to grow. In addition to this threat, there is the geographical threat created by basing a twostate solution on the 1967 borders. Now, if this were to occur, the result would be israel with sections of the country less than 10 miles wide. This has numerous potentially fatal effects for israel. First it would allow any enemy to watch from syria missiles to easily rain down on major israeli population cementers. With eyes circumstance the iranians and others currently operating in syria, one can only think of the sheer havoc that would be created with any one of these groups positioned in the Golan Heights overlooking israel. Second, it would give syria the ability to either control or pollute israels only fresh water supply, the sea of g galilee. Looking past the major territorial issues remains the issue of gaza acting as a conduit for iranian bad weapons. Much outrage has been leveled against israel for blockading gaza but the only blockade that exists is the blockade of weapons and missiles immediately used to target israeli citizens. The delivery of food, medicine, Building Supplies has not been blockaded by israel. In fact, it is reality that much of the Building Supplies allowed into gaza was used to build a hamas tunnels, terror to infiltrate israel and commit abilities of terror. Aid chance to go into some of those tunnels when i was there last year, although we were carefully looking for people who might be trying to shoots when we came out. I raised these issues again to say simply that we look forward to an american president and a policy put forth by that president that banks the wishes and desires of the israeli people and their government. Second that policy must ensure that israel comes out of these negotiations as a jewish state for generations to come. [ applause ] franklin roosevelt, one of our nations most revered democratic president s said so eloquently, the american people, of zealous in the cause of human freedom have watched with sympathetic interest the efforts of the jews to renew in palestine the ties of their ancient homeland and reestablish jewish culture in a place where for centuries, it flourished and when it was carried to the far corners of the world. However, let me be clear, i do not buy into the oftheard refrain in order to solve our problems in the middle east we must first solve the israelipalestinian conflict. [ applause ] it is its a complete red herring to claim that violence across the middle east is a result of this conflict. I see some heads nodding, of course, and puzzled looks by the press. [ laughter ] let me elaborate. Several sources have looked at the levels of violence attributed to the various conflicts in the last half of the 20th century. It is interesting to note that since 1950, two years after the formation of israel, there have been 67 conflicts throughout the world resulting in 10,000 or more deaths. Number within one one on the list, the killings from 1949 to 1976, the last, south yemen civil war, 1986, 10,000 deaths. Now, where does the arabisraeli conflict rank on this list . 49th. 51,000 deaths. If one were to add the total number of deaths in all 67 conflicts since 1950, come to roughly 85 million. In other words, only 0. 06 of the total number of deaths in all conflicts since 1950 are a result of palestinianisraeli conflict. But there is even more telling statistic. Since israels founding in 1948, there have been approximately 11 million muslims killed in violent conflicts. But only 35,000 of them were the result of palestinianisraeli conflict. 35,000 muslim deaths of the from the arabisraeli conflict means that only 0. 3 of the muslim deaths from various conflicts have been a result of this conflict. In fact, over 90 of the 11 million muslims killed since 18948 have been killed as a result of muslimmuslim violence and conflicts. I raised these statistics here because i deeply believe that problems facing the west currently are the result of turmoil in the middle east and that has almost nothing, however, to do with the israelipalestinian issue. [ applause ] as president , i would do what i could to try to create the kind of peace that i have previously outlined between israelis and palestinians. However, America Needs to understand and acknowledge that peace in the middle east is not predicated on peace between israelis and palestinians. [ applause ] the middle east le middle east is certainly one of the most complicated regions in the world, really complicated. It is clear to me that the Obama Administration has zero understanding of this region and hence cue to policies [ applause ] of our president and his state department, the situation in the region has really gone from bad to worse. Let me give you a perfect example of how much president obama misunderstands about this region and our allies and allegiances in the region. As the arab spring was unfolding, president obama and secretary clinton saw this as a movement of democratic uprisings throughout the region. While i dont have the time to discuss how wrong this assumption was, i do want to highlight one of the misguided outcomes that our Current Administration precipitated. There has always been a power struggle between the religious and secular factions. For decades, the United States backed hosni mubarak, a dictator, yes, but someone who also regularly waged war against the islamic fundamentalists in his country. After the arab spring, president obama and secretary clinton chosed to back the government of mohammed more say leader of egypts muslim brotherhood. In essence, the president decided to back a leader who represented the essence of the islamic fundamentalists. We all know how that worked out. And in the end, thankfully, due to absolutely no part efforts by the president , a more moderate antifundamentalist party god elected and took over power in egypt. Now fast forward to last year during the israeli gaza war with hamas. As the war dragged on for almost 50 days, the war started by hamas and its relentless firing of missiles into israeli civilian population areas, president obama and secretary kerry search for an intermediary to negotiate a truce between israel and hamas. Now, you and i know full well that the most Important Party in not only negotiating a truce but helping to implement a truce is egypt. Simply because egypt shares a border with gaza and egypt can help enforce a weapons embargo, both on the land as well as in the seas. Also, trade and freedom of movement between gaza and egypt can only be enforced by egypt himselves. But to whom president obama and secretary kerry turn to try to negotiate a truce . Turkey and qatar. Besides the fact that qatar is host to hamas on a regular basis and turkey had prior and during the gaza war called israeli policies worse than those of nazis, it just so happens that egyptians see turkey and qatar as regional rivals and hold them in great disdain. So obama and kerry chose to alienate the most important partner for a truce by asking the exact wrong countries to get involved. My point in highlighting this example is again to say clearly what you already know, the world is complicated, the middle east is even more complicated. And because of it is so complicated, the next president of the United States has to adhere to a few key principles when deciding on Foreign Policy, particularly as it per types the middle east. As president , here are three Core Principles that would formulate the foundation of my approach to these affairs. Principle number one, National Security of the United States and her citizens is the single most consideration when determining Foreign Policy. [ applause ] not running for president of the or secretary of the secretarygeneral of the United Nations or president of the European Union or any other position, but rather for president of the United States and would ultimately bear the responsibility for defending our nation and her entrance, hence all Foreign Policy decisions must be viewed through the lens of our National Security interests. Many of you know that i am a man of devout faith. That faith teaches compassion, morals and ethics. I believe that if a particular Foreign Policy can both maintain our National Security interests while also being able to take the moral and compassionate high ground, then we should pursue it. However, when those two things are at odds, National Security must trump other considerations. As you may have heard [ applause ] as you may have heard, i visited Syrian Refugees in jordan over the thanksgiving weekend. My heart goes out to these people who simply want to live their lives. They want to send their kids to school, go to work have dinner as a family, live without the shadow of war and terror hanging over them. It is the moral and compassionate instinct to open our arms and welcome them into our nation. However, we do not have the tools to properly vet every single one of these refugees and from the standpoint of our National Security, no u. S. President should adopt a policy that will likely allow terrorists to legally enter the United States via a refugee Settlement Program born out of our compassion. [ applause ] i believe the answer is to create safe havens for the refugees in syria and to ensure their protection until the end of hostilities. [ applause ] and a lot of those safe havens exist already in places like jordan. We, along with our regional allies, have the military power to keep them safe and we have the Resources Available to poe slide shelter had, clothing, food and anything else necessary. This is a perfect example of how i would determine u. S. Foreign policy in a way that puts our National Security first, yet maintains a compassion and morality that we americans are famous for. Principle two, we are currently facing a clash of civilizations between fundamentalists lamb and western values. I view israel as both our canary in the coal mine, meaning as israel goes, so goes western civilization, but also as the tip of the spear in this clash. Israel is the democracy in the true sense of the word. Where else in the middle east do swim the same rights as men . Where else in the middle east does the government allow gay pride parades . In israel, there are arabs who serve as doctors, lawyers, teachers. Theres even an arab Supreme Court justice. Arab citizens in israel have the same rights to medical care, social security, the ballot box as any jew does. Arab members of the Israeli Parliament are allowed to serve without taking an oath of allegiance. I dare say there are probably more women Fighter Pilots in israel than there are women with driver licenses in saudi arabia. [ applause ] [ laughter ] israel is a true symbol of a pluralistic democracy and the only one that exists anywhere in the region. The United States must do everything to support israel, embrace israel, protect israel, lift her up as an example to her neighbors as to what freedom really means and what that freedom can bring to a nation. If we as a country with a bond to israel that goes back centuries do not make this a Foreign Policy priority, then i fear we may be dooming not just israel but western civilization itself. Harry truman, a democratic president , in opposition to his own secretary of state, made sure the United States was the first nation to recognize the modern state of israel on may 14, 1948. It took him all of 11 minutes after David Bengurion declared israels establishment to say i have faith in israel before it was established. I have faith in it now. I, too have faith in the state of israel and have faith that it is one of the everlasting bastions of western civilization. Principle three, a Strong Committee makes for a strong Foreign Policy. If we look back at the postwar world war ii era, it seems clear several president s, including John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, understood the simple principle, the basic logic is that by reducing the tax burden, one greatly stimulates the into the treasury everybody even at a lower tax rate which means the government has more money to spend on the military. A Strong Military is the best determent for war and the strongest insurer of peace. It will be my focus as president of United States to stimulate the economy by reducing the tax burden on individuals and corporations, not just because i believe that it is a fair thing to do, but it is the right thing to do. And i believe that by having the ability to project american strength anywhere in the world anytime we need it, we will keep americans safer at home, our allies stronger abroad, and make the world a safer place overall. And i think we need to always keep in mind that america may never have become a place if it had not been for a wealthy jewish merchant and Washingtons Army was completely exhausted in terms of funding. And salmon gave all his funds in order to save the United States army. And some say of course no one knows for sure but that that is the reason there is a star of david on the back of the 1 pill. But the fact of the matter is Judeo Christian values are the things that distinguish us from so many other people in the world. And thats why i rale so strongly against giving away those values for the sake of political correctness. An old proverb says even in a room of complete darkness, a single flame can illuminate the entire room. We are indeed in the middle of a clash of civilizations, a war against the forces of darkness, but in this war against those forces of darkness, there is not one, but two flames illuminating the room. The state of israel and the United States of america. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Cspan takes you on the road to the white house, best access to the candidates at town hall meetings, speeches, rallies and meet and greets. Were taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone. And always every Campaign Event we cover is available on our website, cspan. Org. Your recent story is titled impasse over writers continues as deadline looms. What are some of the key issues involved now in these spending bill discussions . Well, at this point it sounds like the money stuff has been pretty much worked out. And so during the last few days you c its been riders kicked up and democrats were unhappy to sai see that almost all of the things were back on the table, some of them they knew were going to be there, some of them they didnt expect. But some of the issues include reproductive rights, the treatment of syrian funls, environmental riders, things to go after Obama Administration regulations dealing with clean air and water. Those are some of them. Also maybe something on campaign finance, lifting some of the restrictions on political contributio contributions, that is something that Mitch Mcconnell has supposedly proposed. And also some changes to the doddfrank law that was passed a few years back that tried to rein in the banks. Thats just the tip of the iceberg. Some are saying that this is the first big test for speak are paul ryan. How involved in the negotiations has the speaker been . I think hes been ptty involved inhow involved in the s has the speaker been . I think hes been pretty involved inpaul ryan. How involved in the negotiations has the speaker been . I think hes been pretty involved in the talks that happened before the thanksgiving break calling for listening sessions that appropriators were supposed to set up to allow nonappropriations members to weigh in on the riders that they wanted to see attached to the bills. Especially the bills that were not on the house floor this summer. The bills that they didnt have a chance to amend. So i think hes been very involved there and in steering the development and discussions. And now that they will be negotiating the riders, he and mcconnell have been very much involved in that. And yet the appropriators still say that theyre very much involved in that, also. What are the Republican Leaders saying about the possibility of another short term funding measure if they cant get this done by the deadline . Mitch mcconnell hasnt said anything about another short term bill. And hes been consistent throughout the year that he did not want to miss this december 11 deadline. Hes very serious about that. In the house, House Majority mccarthy a couple of times in the last week have said, well, maybe we want to get it done by december 11, but if we need a couple more days, maybe we can look at a short term bill. The white house which has said obama will not sign another cr for a number of weeks like we saw this fall says maybe one for one or two days, but thats all. Just to allow the political machinery to work. But they want them to wrap this up. And that would bring fiscal year 2016 Appropriations Bills to a close and then set the stageeor years bills next february. This is a live picture of the White House Briefing and we a wait the start of the briefing by josh earnest. Hes likely to take questions about the president s address to the nation last night about u. S. Policy towards isis. Live coverage on cspan3