Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics And Public Policy Today 2016

concerned with it. >> heroin is cut with that in order to increase the addictive nature? >> increases potency. people go back to it. >> that is kind of the tragic part of it. word gets out it is strong, and traffic rules to have traffickers will do that. it will spike something hot so you the wild overdose deaths and verbal travel. there will be a desire for that product. it is mixed with heroin, other substances and really can be mixed with anything just to kind of expanded in its commercial viability. >> adding that to some other products, as dangerous as in our products might be, adding that to it is almost tantamount to knowing you'll be committing a certain amount of murders as it is distributed amongst the populace. >> that is unavoidable. a significant quantity in the hands of the population can result in a certain number of deaths. >> yes. >> we have had success with this -- death investigation overdoses. >> how difficult is it to prosecute? >> you are speaking earlier. the biggest challenges reactive. our success has been with the proactive infiltration to get them indicted, convicted, arrest them. the problem is the home has already occurred and you are trying to rebuild it. it is challenging when the substances are not schedule one substances. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> this concludes today's hearing.hearing. thanks all of our distinguished witnesses for attending. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] .. >> [ inaudible chattering ] this weekend on cspan city's tour along with our comcast cable partners we're explore the history and literary life of hat tis berg, mississippi. "don't hurry me down to hates" the book draws on rare letters and diary entries to tell the story of the civil war through the eyes of both the soldiers and families and how important keeping in touch was for those on the battlefield and their family members back home. >> because so many women were riding to their men at the front saying, i don't know exactly what you're fighting for but you need to come home because we've got about a fifth of the crop that we normally do. we just -- i just bury our youngest in fact and we're not going to have anything left. you need to come home. >> and we'll examine the vietnam war in the 1967 experiences of charlie company with arthur andrew weeks discussing the battlefields of vietnam and what soldiers had to fly upon their return to the united states. >> they had been used as political footballs. they've been used as part of morality flag. they've been used as many things. hardly anybody had gotten to tell their story, who they were as young men before they went, the trauma that they went through both as great victories. it's funny times. it's horrible times. and then what happened to them as a generation since they had been home. >> american history tv, the 1966 slaying of civil rights act viss at the hands of the klu klux klan told by widow and his eldest son domer, jr. >> for what reason did anybody want to come and kill my dad. they came as a result of the orders from the head of the clan, sound, said go annihilate them and they came to kill a whole family. >> and learn about the freedom summer school program during the summer of 1968 when volunteers from around the -- 1964 when volunteers taught method of nonviolent resistance and encouraged voter registration. >> there were meetings held throughout the city and various churches preparing the residents and informing them of their political rights and getting ready to register to vote. >> this weekend, watch c span's city's tour to hattiefsburg mississippi and sunday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. on c-span 3. our campaign 2016 bus continues to travel throughout the country to recognize winners from this year's student camp competition. recently the bus stopped in massachusetts to visit several winning students from that state. they went to the same school where all the students in first through eighth grade continued a ceremony, and james elliot won for his video titd lgbt rights, stopped the discrimination. the two were honored in front of their classmates receiving $250 for their winning video. a special thanks to our cable partners comcast cable and charter communications for helping to coordinate these visits. you can view all the winning documentaries at student cam.org. the u.s. capitol chief of police testified at a house hearing about the operations of the police force that protects the capitol complex and members of congress. he discussed security arrangements at the upcoming republican and democratic party conventions and how to balance public access to the capitol with security. candace miller chair's the house administration committee. this is an hour. we might proceed. we're meeting today to hear from the new u.s. capitol chief of police. and as a committee, chief, we certainly want to congratulate you on your appointment and we are so looking forward to continuing to work with you shoulder to shoulder, so we appreciate you coming. he's going to be talking, of course, today about his vision, his direction for the capitol police moving forward. some of this specific items, we hope to discuss today include the capitol police's budgets t priorities, resent security events, respective actions taken as well as the capitol police security initiative both current and future. the capitol police is a law enforcement agency with a very unique admission, they're charged with protecting and serving the u.s. capitol. the seed of our nation's democracy. this is an institution, of course, physical symbols of our free society, unfortunately, our institution of freedom and democracy also is a target. so there will always be need for security restrictions but the complete man on access will be extremely detrimental to the institution. the american people need to be able to access and to meet with the members of congress. they've worked very hard to fulfill this mission of safety and accessibility and we certainly understand this is no small task. each of us, members, staff and visitors alike have the utmost respect for the men and women who serve and protect our nation's capitol. we're holding today's hearing as part of the committee's responsibility for oversight to reviewhe safety and security of the capitol andts facilities. our last hearing, actually with the police was in may of 2015, today the committee will hear from the new chief on the progress that's been made, his vision to continue to develop the force, the goals and priorities for the operation of the capitol police. our committee, of course, works with the capitol police on a daily basis to ensure they have the tools they need, the authority and the support they need to keep our capitol safe and secure for all. the capitol police are responsible for reviewing security protocols necessary to keep the capitol safe and to ensure that those protocols are tested and deployed against any threats we might face. as with any law enforcement organization, the responsibility for meeting the mission begins an ends at the top. your responsibility now rests with chief with the capitol police since 1986. he's seen firsthand how new and variable threats have increased over the years. while there are some sensitive aspects about the operations and capabilities of capitol police, there certainly are a number of item that is we would like to discuss and receive an update, as well. certainly about some of the various incidents that have happened. i know we've had an opportunity to talk privately with all of the members here about the shooting incident that occurred at the u.s. capitol visitor's senator and by the way. that i will say before you get a chance -- your staff, your capitol police, that thing happened by the book. they did such a fantastic job of reacting and responding. i mean, that thing you can write a book. that thing was per foekt to that response. as well. we had all of these protests, week long protests that happened recently here. we might like to hear about when you were processing such large number of arrests, how that all with less sons learned, perhaps for that. also about your leadership team, how your strategic plan, your goals and objectives, training, monitoring threats across the campus as well, we've talked a little bit about garage security. i don't know if you want to touch on that today, that's always an issue, something that we all met about again recently and i know you've met with many members about that as well as our sergeant and arms as very very involved in that as well. so i will also say before i ask my ranking member to make a comment, i think since the gyro continuer incident, we have all seen as members of congress here, an increased amount of communication from the u.s. capitol police on various incidents. in fact, we probably get almost more information than we need sometimes, but more is better and so i'm certainly very appreciative of that. i don't think any member wants to be in a position where we're watching something unfold on capitol lawn on whether it's fox news or cnn or whatever you're watching, so that i think is very much appreciated as well. and so this committee, of course, chief is here to assist the capitol police because we all share common goal. that's protecting u.s. capitol campus and everyone who works here and all of the visitors, millions of visitors who come here each and every year. we thank the chief for his appearance. we're looking forward to his testimony. we would like to recognize ranking member, mr. brady for his opening statement. >> thank you for holding this important hearing this morning, good to see you, chief, thank you for being here. >> morning, sir. >> but then i wanted to -- i want to comment briefly and thank the chief how visible he's been with the professional community. your predecessor was here three-and-a-half years, i think i met him one time. youf eve been three months, i met with you four times appreciate that. i know how hard your job can be and i've heard from members about a positive change and tone at the top of the organization and my staff advised me we're all working very well together. thank you for that. i also like to thank you for traveling to philadelphia last month after taking the time mayor, and myself to talk about congressional security at the convention. i would like to mention better my colleagues that our security professionalism very im -- impressd with the chief of sergeant arms i thank him for coming up to see who shows the proper respect to all of our members. we appreciate you. that speaks very well for you. thank you for your service and look forward to hearing from your statement. >> thank you. sir. >> thank you gentlemen. i think both of those conventions are going to go absolutely smooth. just smooth. any other member wish to make an opening statement or comment? let me formally introduce the chief. on march 21st, 2016, chief was sworn in as new chief of the u.s. capitol police. the chief is ninth chief and had been serving as the assistant chief of police since april of 2015. chief has served in numerous roles with u.s. capitol police since 1986 including positions in the uniform and patrol division, internal affairs division, training services bureau. he commanded the u.s. capitol police review task force before becoming assistant chief. as chief he's responsible for commanding force of sworn and civilian personnel who are dedicated to providing comprehensive law enforcement security and protective operation services to the u.s. congress. members, staff, and as i said millions of annual visitors as well into the surrounding complex also. again, we certainly thank you for joining us, chief, we have your written testimony. you can -- take as much time as you need. we appreciate you coming. >> thank you, ma'am. i certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here. good morning. members and thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss the united states capitol police. i'm joined here today by the department's chief administrative officer, richard hradek, deputy chief richard rud. deputy chief fred rogers and also deputy chief chad thomas who is staffing the air waves right now watching operations while i'm here. also, with me is our general counsel gretchen and members of representatives from the department officer of inspector general. also, i would like to welcome other members of my executive management team and also attending today and i appreciate their presence here today are -- fop chairman and vice chairman. first vice chairman. i would like to thank the committee for steadfast of the united states capitol police. the regular discussions that we have with you and your staff about our programs and management of our mission are greatly valued and very grateful to the committee's engagement and feedback so that we continuously meet the needs and expectations of congress. secondly, i would like to recognize the men and women of the united states capitol police, every day they publicly demonstrate how american freedoms that we hold deer are carried out in our nation's capitol. they work tirelessly to ensure that the congress can conduct its legislative responsibilities without disruption all the while exhibiting the utmost respect for the constitution and the o protection of first amendment liberties. i'm thoroughly impressed with their performance which is both seen and unseen and i'm thankful for their desire to constantly rise to to case and handle whatever comes our way. i've been in federal law enforcement for over 30 years serving on a number of roles. now as chief for the u.s. capitol police,vy a responsibility to you, the members of congress, capitol police board, congressional staff, visitors and my employees to do everything possible to protect and safeguard everyone every day in the unique and open environment. the threats and risks we face today, they're dynamic, changing sophisticated and create a greater need for focus on national security. coordinating with the capitol police board and consulting with our committees and jurisdictions, including this committee, that committee on house administration, we have developed the four-year stratd ji that provides for growth for the department to fill new three mission sets. in an effort to further enhance long-term for capitol complex. the mission sets are the result of constant threat analysis, including intelligence gathered by our partners and nationally. and they -- these initiatives consist of the following, enhanced security as we've talked about on several occasions. prescreeners an additional over watch personnel at various building access points and also the use, further use of the enhanced portal screeners that we've employed for the first time during the state of the union. members and staff will see several enhancements as a result of the three initiatives. there will be a visible security screening at house garage, and more significant presence outside capitol complex doors an access points, including additional k-9 teams and subject officers. visitors entering the house chamber for major events want to go additional screening through enhanced scanners further keeping potential threats away from the house of representatives and the house. there's been much discussion regarding resources for the department and long-term viability of these initiatives as the chief of police and stewart of the taxpayer's dollars, it's my judiciary responsibility to look at every possibility within existing assets to accomplish our mission before i seek additional assets and resources. the congress has been very generous to the department and i this do my due diligence to first look within and not request something unless it is truly needed. one of the tough decisions i have eve had to make to meet the new mission sets within our current resources is to find staffing, to accomplish some of additional screening requirements within our existing budget. to do this and after discussing my concept with chairman of the fop labor committee, i've determined that it's most appropriate to modify some of our off-post time rotations in the uniform services bureau from the current standard of a one to four rotation to a one to five during shifts where majority of officers are working monday through friday day and evenings. this will make additional manpower available and will result in only approximately 10 minutes less off post time or stand by time for employees. while these enhancements come with these enhancements come important opportunities. the modification of off post rotations will result in more specialty job opportunities for employees throughout the department. specifically in the area of k-99 and subject interdiction, these officers will provide police coveraging zones outside access points for complex. i should note that this change is not only the long-standing contractually obligations with cb and it remains well-above the minimum requirement by the collective bargaining agreement for purposes of conducting and service training allowing for appropriate relief time for officers who routinely are focused on working the security equipment. with some additional resources, they will be necessary in the out years to complete the initiatives and to provide stationary post. i'm confident the department's ability to meet these new mission sets and will continue to look for ways to offset any cost and potential reapportion gnatment of how we assign personnel. in the months ahead, we have a number of high profile events that will require much attention and manpower resources. later this month, the annual memorial rehearsal and concert will take place followed by the fourth of july celebration on the west front of the capitol. in july, the department will also be focusing its attention on the two presidential nominating conventions in cleveland, ohio and philadelphia pennsylvania where we'll be protecting members of congress. in addition, we're officially planning the 58th unlawful gral of the president of the united states which takes place on january 20th, 2017. while this national special security event takes place on capitol ground every four years it's prudent and necessary to begin preparations early enough to ensure absolute success for execution of this significant mission. former cocommander of the department's policy and planning operations, i fully understand the importance of setting meaningful performance met tricks focused -- metrics focused on out comes rather than out puts. with e eerp currently in the process to better collect and analyze the -- and share the data that we collect department wide, with the ultimate goal of having information that allows my staff to better -- to be better informed and making management and security decisions. the department is also actively engaged in addressing and resolving recommendations, since 2006, the inspector general has made 310 recommendations to the department. we've closed 255 by fully implementing the recommendations. we're actively working on closing the remaining 55 open recommendations and annually i'll continue to propose key areas for the inspector general to examine so that she and her team can assist me in making needed changes that will make us a better department. in closing i want to share with you some of my priorities for the near term. i've always believed the department's mission is simple, yet extremely critical. i want to get back to the basics and not over complicate policing. i want to leverage existing resources and law enforcement community to become smarter and more efficient, especially in the area of intelligence gather. i plan to place a greater emphasis on training to p our work force remain focus and fight complacent si and ensure that supervisors are prepared to manage. these are the basic areas i'll focus on during the next year. finally, i think it's porn to discuss and mention the march 28th, 2016 shooting incident and u.s. capitol visitor's center. from all practical perspectives i want to say that the screening process works. we had an -- on that day, we had an individual intent on wreaking havoc. he was detected to be carrying a weapon during the process each day screen people visiting the capitol complex. we were prepared. we responded appropriately. and should serve as a lesson to others who may want to come to the hill to do harm. our highly trained officers will stop those individuals who wish to do us harm. i'm extremely proud of the officers involved in this incident and i'm grateful to our partner agencies for assistance that throughout the event and following the incident. again, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today about the united states capitol police. i'm truly humbled to be here and i would be pleased to answer any questions you have. >> thank you very much. i would ask, you know, we mentioned about better communication from the u.s. capitol police to all the members of congress, but if you could perhaps expand on that, a bit of how your agency communicates and how you work with your brother agencies here locally, for instance, you know, when we had the navy yard incident and communicating with d.c. police or other agencies as well, how was that all working the united states park police, the united states, federal protective service. supreme court police. . we have a direct switch line the secret service, metropolitan police, park police. we work very closely where we're embedded with several fbi task forces. the jttf and we have an on going relationship with the supreme court and the federal protective service and they actually man our command center on a regular basis on a daily basis so we have direct communications. we also work with other agencies on ad hoc basis. we have inner operable radio communications with most of the local agencies and we're working to solidify further the ability to communicate directly from command perspective. we meet regularly metropolitan police and law enforcement partner's meeting every monday. i attend various meetings as do my subordinate officials at multitutd of levels and issues regarding the on going issues threats an events that are occurring throughout the district of columbia. we certainly have lessons learned from all of these major events, including the navy yard, the second navy yard incident and the difference between the first and second in charge of communication was extreme incident command, as a matter of fact, deputy chief rogers was incident commander for the capitol command post representative for the united states capitol police during that second on going navy yard issue. so we have -- we all employ incident command system processes fsh leadership and command, area command and we communicate on a regular and daily basis during events and during the off times. officers some of the gyro cop ter issue was communication with the community. we have improved our mesh -- messaging and apologize if we give you too much. i would rather have you had too much than too little. obviously, it's important that you know what's going on for situational awareness and for the effect that incidents have on the legislative process. we take great strides to make sure that you have the information that you need both on the house side and the senate side. we're looking -- we shortly will have a joint congressional messaging process that is being worked on jointly with all of the stake holders and i look forward to that. so that will cut out some of the -- if there is delay, it will certainly cut out redundancy and it will be more efficient. >> if i could ask just one other question chief, and appreciate the answer to the first one. we talk about investment with the u.s. capitol police and there's no second for investing in people and all kind of technology that can assist you, resourcing you properly. i'll tell you, the k-9s are unbelievable, what a critical component. those dogs can just find things that no computer can, seems like, right? >> absolutely. >> how do you do with the k-9s do you need more of them. how do you see that unfolding? >> we are expanding our k-9 capability by six dogs in the near term. part of that is the traditional eod type, sweeps and we have some other new techniques that we use, which i'll be happy to discuss off line, which will -- it will contribute to being a force umultiplier for us in ters of what we do. the dogs are invaluable. they can do many things that humans can't. they detect things at long distances. they can detect things that we, obviously, would not know are there. so we do literally hundreds of thousands of sweeps every year with the dogs and, again, they're invaluable to us. we have a very -- we currently have an opening in -- and we get tremendous competition for the openings in the k-9 units. it's really truly incredible. >> thank you very much. recognize ranking member, mr. brady. >> yes, thank you madame chair. chief, as you know, i do represent philadelphia and thank you for your visit that's where the democratic convention will take place. i will like you to discuss the preparations from the capitol police perspective, not only in philadelphia but also in cleveland, what were your preparations there? >> absolutely. our convention planning is well underway. we've been working our dignitary protection has the lead. they employ -- the secret service is the lead planner for both events both in fill ladill fee ya and as part of the nsse blaud approach and committee approach. we plan. . we have employed the framework for any number of major events, including previous conventions, state of the union addresses and the inaugurals. it's a sound system that we cover all basis. our dignitary protection division has made multiple visits to both venues, both cities. they've procured the requiz sit lodging and we're in the process of designing the security plan for the specific venues, both the actual convention venues and any ancillary venues that for events that are occurring outside the main venue. i appreciate the opportunity to travel to philadelphia and meet with you and i appreciate the introduction that you gave us to the philadelphia officials and it helped me tremendously in my ability to communicate the message to my troops and to make sure that we're doing all of the things that we need to do, we're going to be traveling to -- either myself or representatives along with the house sergeant of arms and other stake holders to cleveland in the very near future just as we did in the philadelphia trip. we will continue to work with our law enforcement partners both state, local and federal to ensure that the security plan for the member protection and that's the reason we're going to be there to make sure that the members of congress have a safe event and we can protect the interest of our statutory prote protech -- protect tees. we'll continue to brief the committee at your request on the status of the planning. >> thank you, chief. also. it goes without saying. the people you brought here that you're having a pretty good relationship with the other unions on the police unions. but -- and also because i'm knocking down my door and have been for the last three years that every other month coming in, you know, trying to complain about what we're going to do to be helpful, i know you're doing a good job, how often do you meet with the reps. . the house of administrative strags is chief of staff and he works on a number of issues. i meet on a number of issues whether it's contract negotiations or just daily grievance type issues. the philosophy for me and i've known chairman and for many years, particularly for almost 30 years and we have a mutual respect tr each other's positions. i've asked jim to be here today and i appreciate his attendance. since i was appointed we reinstituted the regular meetings. i plan on continuing the regular meetings. . i believe they're both significant ground. try to resolve issues of the lowest level before they become grievances and we work on things of mutual interest. of course, we'll probably disagree on some issues, but i think we have the kind of relationship that we'll be able to work through those issues in a am amickble way and do what's best for the congress. >> thank you. chief. and thank the man for the job you do every single day and it's a pleasure to be working with you. i yield back. >> mr. harper is recognized. >> thanks madame, chair and chief thank you for being here and i know this has been a very sobering weekend with memorial service. it was sunday and how that -- that means so much to you and your attendance we greatly we appreciate, you know, last week the house passed some important bills one of which was the fund bullet proof vest program to help local law enforcement with that life saving bullet proof vest to help on those funding issues there. and i know you and i had the opportunity to meet. i want to thank you for coming to my office and for us having that opportunity and as i told you in that meeting. if i had an issue or problem, i'm going to come to you, we'll discuss it. i won't be running to the press to talk about it. you and i will have a chance to do that and i want to reiterate that here. >> on the initiatives whether it's garage security or portal scanners or any of the other issues that come up? when it's interesting because it's such a large institution and i have a very large work force, sometimes it takes a little while for information to filter down. we're working on the communication piece, but it's also incumbent upon us to assist the sergeant of arms of both sides and the leadership to communicate the message of any changes that we do. change is not come easy for people both within the department and in general, i know that i have a 24-year-old that's hard to change anything without an argument or a reason -- i have to explain my reasoning. and i try to do that because that's the right thing to do. i want to be able to communicate changes and that's one of the reasons that i do meet with the union leadership. i want to have that open communication. but i also want to have that with the community and i intend to continue to visit member offices and try to advise you all, everybody and both on the committee and off, on what we're doing and why we do things. i think if you have the information, it helps -- it helps sell the message and it helps us change, sort of, the mindset whether we're going to institute new operations or new procedures. so i appreciate the opportunity to be able to come to the members and be able to explain why we do things. i think it's important to maintain that communication. >> chief, firearm qualifications, certifications are very important and i know we're in interim here, yes. >> with the range being out of place. tell me what you're doing in the interim and how new facility will be an improvement over the old. >> appreciate the question, sir. we are in our current cycle, even though we're off site. in the ber rim while our range is down and we're preparing for the reopening of the new range, i want to thank the congress and the architect for providing the funds and the space and tnd. it helps us minimize the of having the sworn work force off the grounds in a status that's either not working or in training. it's travel time. it really helps us to have the range here. . we have it for over 50 years and we've got tremendous amount of use out of the range and our goal is to have the new range open. even though there's a little bit of cost associated sending them out where our entry level academy by continuing the training day, we send officers out for the entire day rather than having them travel back to the hill. we leverage the ability to use some more of our training time during that extra day. i look forward to having the range back here on the hill, though, as you can see we probably will be able to finish our current cycle by june first, hopefully, if not some time in june and then we'll move on to the second. we have by annual, semiannual qualifications so we shoot twice a year in the fiscal year. we're off a little bit off the cycle, however, with the indulgence of stake holders. we have great plan and it will provide us with the ability to change how we train. it's dynamic range and. >> thanks very much and welcome to you, chief, it's good to meet you. i'm hoping at some point we can have a closed session with the chief, because there are some questions that probably wouldn't be smart to ask in a public environment but that we should get the answers to. just two things, i was concerned in discussing this with the prior chief, that although there was communication with other law enforcement agencies, there didn't appear to be a written mutually protocol, so i'm interested in not going through it today, but in reviewing with you in terms of the protocol, what it is and how it's communicated to our work force, number one. and number two, i'm wondering if the department has ideas on how the physical lay out of the plan -- the campus might be adjusted to enhance safety and also to enhance the capacity of your members to do their job. >> certainly, the physical security is one of our main issues. we have a very robust physical security -- security services bureau and they handle all of the physical security aspects working very closely with the architect and the capitol. the measures that were put in place post 9/11 have really -- we're at the life cycle and -- end of the lot of the life. we're looking at at doing life cycle replacement, of course, it's always a very expensive issue. but it's certainly something that is very necessary. >> let me interrupt. i don't think i was clear on my question. for example, where is the perimeter. you can't really -- i mean, we respect the fourth amendment, you have to have rationale for inquiring, but at the perimeter of the facility you don't, so where are the perimeters set and how should they be set and how would that make a difference for your troops in terms of level of securities and garages, we have garages that, you know, have nothing above them. we have garages that have, you know, an office building above them. how, you know, what kind of deployment makes sense in each one? those are the things i was thinking of. >> sure. absolutely. of course we always balance the open campus with a level of security that we provide and it's very important to maintain and it's very difficult. you're absolutely right. it's very difficult balance for our officers. we don't have a physical fence. we don't have structures that prevent people from walking across the east front west front. we use our humane tu tif capability and we've deployed personnel, obviously, within the framework of the infrastructure whether it's the wall or whether it's physical barriers that we install, barriers that pop up for vehicular threats and those types of things we have to be obviously very cognizant of the effect that the security has on the openness and the ability for constituents to visit members. >> of course. >> and it's a very huge competing interest in the security issue. so we focus our main thrust and concentration on the largest threats and we're always looking for the individual threat, which is one of the greatest threats that we have these days. the individual? but we have to balance it and accept a lot of them at risk in terms of the physical structures that we put in to prevent people from approaching the building. we do work with very closely with both this committee and the senate rules committee, committee on rules and administration. to work on those issues whether it's expanding the perimeter, allowing access, close in to the building or whether it's initiatives to do inspection of things that people bring with them to the grounds. so it's a very ten wous line that we walk and we take it very -- very hard look at any type of procedure we're going to employ that could come close to, you know, could be perceived as a violation of the fourth amendment, we certainly don't want to do anything that would be contrary to the constitution. so it's a work in progress. we work on it continually. it's a conversation that i have with the capitol police board on a regular basis and we will continue to have with the committee'ses and jurisdiction. >> i see my time is expired. perhaps we can pursue this further. >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> mr. nugent. >> chief, welcome and appreciate your time when you came up to visit with me in the office. i'm not blowing smoke, but what a different approach in regards to your approach and the prior chief with inclusion of the union in, you know, a weekly or whatever it's necessary discussion. you know, typically you're going to probably agree on more things than you're going to disagree. you'll always have disagreements. it happens in a bust of families. but at the end of the day, you know, there doing the job every day have some great ideas. and i think that you're moving absolutely in the right direction. and i think we'll be much safer as members of congress because of that collaboration between the two groups. one of the things that still strikes me when we go back and we look at past history, and we had the chief here discuss that, particularly when we had loss of weapons and things like that. but reading in an article where, you know, the person who sent the picture got how many months off without pay, and demoted. and the person who actually left the weapon unattended in a location that could be accessed by other folks received a suspension, but relatively minor in scope. and i guess i'm still a little miffed at the fact that that supervisor got demoted but then also had a huge suspension without pay. and i understand it's in litigation, so you probably can't talk about it, but i would hope just in the future that, you know, what that person did is actually brought out an issue that needed to be under the light of day so we all know and we all, you know, take confidence in what goes on within the capitol police. and i'll go along with mr. brady on this. i have not had any negative comments with the union at all, which is -- you know, that's a testament to your leadership. i'll just be very blunt with that, it's a testament to your leadership, and i hope that continues. you know, one of the things i know we talked about was management by walking around, is walking around your organization and listening to the folks that -- you're only as good as the people that you surround yourself with, and i would suggest that your leadership team do the same, and i'm sure they are under your leadership. one of the things ms. lofgren had mentioned was security, and i think that's an issue that we all grapple with from time to time. and you're right, we have an open campus, but what exactly as we move forward in regards to the underground facilities -- i know that the equipment's in place -- when are we actually going to start to do that screening? >> we will be doing the security screening with the appropriate communication first very soon. i can't give you a specific date. i'm working with mr. irving, sergeant-at-arms, and we want to time it right so that we introduce the screening process. i know that people -- we've had some community meetings with the staff several weeks ago in terms of how we would roll it out. and i'm working very closely with mr. irving on exactly when we want to do it strategically so that we cause the least amount of disruption to the business process in the community. but i would suspect some time in the next several weeks we will do it and we will certainly communicate it. i got that message loud and clear. we're going to make sure that we properly communicate, make sure everyone's aware what we're going to do. i do appreciate your comments about working with the union, sir. you know, i respect the troops. you know, i consider myself first and foremost a police officer, and i'm prepared every time i'm out on the street to take police action. i carry -- well, i don't have it today because i'm wearing this blouse, but i carry my radio every day, i monitor the radio. and you know, i take police action when i need to. and i have tremendous respect for the work that we do here. i ask a lot of the troops. they are ambassadors. they still have to enforce the rules and the law, and they deal with 10 to 12 million people a year, and that's just screening them through the process. there's probably another 10 million who walk through the grounds that we do, we talk to, we interact with. and i'm always amazed at how few complaints that we get from the citizens and the staff about, you know, courtesy or those types of things, you know. they truly are ambassadors. they do hard work. they're focused on the x-ray machines and the magnetometers, and it's, you know, knowing that every time that they have to be 100%, they have to be sharp. so i appreciate members of both unions being here today, and i appreciate the relationship i have with the officers. i always hope to have a positive relationship. obviously, there are things that we're going to disagree on, and i have to make tough decisions and tough choices that affect people. but i never fall short of understanding that these are people. they're not numbers. they have families, they are ambition, they have interests. and to me, i try to treat people the way i want to be treated. and i'm not making a moral judgment on any previous chief or anybody else. it's just my approach to how i work with my, you know, my staff. and i have leaders and deputy chiefs and civilian directors who are out with the troops, and i appreciate that comment as well, because they're good role models. they're out amongst their troops. again, we make management decisions, and they're tough decisions and not everyone agrees on the best approach to how we get to that bottom line, but the officers are a great resource. a great example of that is processing the 1,300 or so arrests that we had a couple of weeks ago during the democracy spring demonstration period. now, this was nonviolent civil disobedience. it was nonconfrontational, for the most part. it took a lot of planning and effort and a lot of manpower, and it's not me making the arrests, it's the officers that come in early, it's the officer that have to be the arresting officer. it's the people who do the job that i respect, i have so much respect for, because really, i've worked the post and i've done those jobs. and you know, it's on a sunday sometimes you've got to come in, you've got to wake up early and you'd rather be doing something else. but hey, that's why we get paid the big bucks, and they do a tremendous job. but we took a concept and a new approach on how we handled mass arrests. other agencies in the city have had the ability to cite and release people. traditionally here with the way the rules are set up and the laws, we have had to have full-custody arrests for most of the arrest ees that we handle, even in mass arrest civil disobedience situations, and it's a mess in terms of time and effort. these are the same troops during that week that had to go day to day for about ten days and be the same people being brought in early to handle these arrests. so we took a concept that i thought could be employed. we borrowed and adapted the metropolitan police's pd-61d cite-and-release forms, their policy, we adapted them to ours. we worked with the attorney general for the district of columbia to make sure that we were using the appropriate charges. and when the law changed in 2013, it made it easier for us to use this process, so we employed it, and we were able to expedite the process. but the reason i bring this up is it really wasn't me. i had the concept, but the officers are the ones who took, even from the first day we had arrests -- it took about eight hours to process 429 people. i mean, it doesn't seem like a lot of time, but when you look at how -- we would still probably be processing these arrests had we been using the old method, the old mass arrest method. in that short duration of one week, the officers came up with a great idea with a couple of the lieutenants who were running the mission set and expedited the process. by the end of that week, we processed 300 arrests in three hours, which is just phenomenal. and we had very few issues. and we will further refine the process based on the suggestions of the officers. so i agree with you that some of the best ideas come up from the ranks and rise through the ranks. so i'm very appreciative of the effort of everybody on the cdu, civil disturbance unit. switching gears on you for one second -- and yes, the case in the paper is in litigation. i would prefer not to talk about it. but the individual was on administrative leave with pay. he was not without pay. >> okay. >> for that period of time. i just wanted to set the record straight on that. >> chief, thank you for your comments. i appreciate the indulgence of the chair. and maybe you ought to talk to your counterpart in the tsa in regards to listening to people that work there. it'd be helpful. thank you. >> mr. parker. >> thank you very much, madam chair, for the opportunity to ask a few questions. first of all, i'd like to thank you once again for meeting with me in my office, letting me know what you're doing, what you're planning to do, and i appreciate that. that was very helpful. thank you. secondly, you weren't here earlier, but i thanked the capitol police. i think you've been doing a really terrific job, and i appreciate that. i did want to mention one incident that we had here. a colleague of ours fell hard during one of the snowstorms and hurt himself. he was found by another colleague of ours who then quickly got a couple police officers here, capitol police to bring him aside, and they were very smart to figure out that he had some chest pains and then let him walk away as he wanted to walk away and said, no, no, no, we're calling the medics, and they did. and they got the medical response team to come. and again, appreciate their very professional work. and you know, we would have probably allowed him to walk away and that would have been a very bad idea. so again, i think the police did a fantastic job. i want to thank them for that. i do want to ask a little bit about the issue of the open campus. you know, i've been to the bundestag in germany, and they do put a fence around it. it's very difficult to access it. we see more and more, they have fence, now a double fence over around the front of the white house. obviously, that gives you a lot of protection, but it also prevents epeople from actually accessing the white house, which at one point they had access to. so there is a balance there, and i think it is important to give people the opportunity to come and visit their members of congress and the senate. but you know, it is also interesting the issue of security, not so much, you know, for us, but those people that do come and visit us. so, anyway, i appreciate that you said you give that a lot of interest, a lot of thought. could you comment a little bit more on that, if you will? >> sure. we do try to leverage technology to the extent that we can. and believe me, again, the force multiplier, technology, the systems, some of the systems that i'd prefer not to talk about in an open forum, but they're there for us to use and we do use them, and we deploy them very effectively. i think as technology increases and the quality of the technology, i think we'll be able to leverage that. obviously, there's no replacement for having an officer on the beat, on a fixed post or in a patrol area that will focus on the security, particularly close in. we take a layered approach, keep the threat as far away as we can, we push it out. and as you get closer to the consent rick circle, you want to have your assets. we do leverage even the physical security aspects where we have barriers and kiosks. we have posts staffed and we use the buildings as sort of funnels, and we can sort of keep eyes on people and individuals who approach from various directio directions. but again, we never want to trample on the ability for people to visit. i'm not advocating putting up a fence or anything like that. i think with our troops and, you know, a focus and an approach where we maintain our vigilance in terms of looking at the threat, training our employees what to look for and being able to make sure that the troops are fresh and they are able to react appropriately. i think with training and staffing, that combination along with the physical security attributes that we have, we've been provided with to protect the campus. i think that the ongoing conversation will continue with the capitol police board and with the committees to ensure that we have all of the things that we need, particularly technologically, that will help us and assist us so that we can leverage that without sort of closing the campus off. so i know that it's sort of a work in progress. as the technology changes every day, we want to be able to stay ahead of the curve and we want to keep our finger on the pulse in terms of what's available to us to sort of use to leverage as a force multiplier. >> well, again, thank you very much. and lastly, i know my time's about up, i'd like to say this. even though they monitor the threat, they're polite and professional, too, and i appreciate that. i know i've commented about a couple people in particular. >> yes, sir. >> and i appreciate their professionalism. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, gentleman. and chief, again, we just want to thank you so much for coming today. we all are very desirous of looking forward to working with you shoulder to shoulder, not just you, but your management team and all the rank and file, the union fellows that are here representing all the rank and files. just know that we appreciate it. every one of us that's coming into these offices and office buildings, the capitol every day, we watch your folks day in and day out and do their job so professionally and bravely and well. and we all have a very high degree of comfort in security about the professionalism of the brave men and women of the u.s. capitol police force. and this committee stands by to assist you. and one thing i would say, and i know i've said this to you privately, i'll say it publicly as well -- don't sometimes wait for a hearing or wait for us to come forward with something. we really want to know from you if there's a shortfall somewhere that you see as a particularly critical element of something that we need to be aware of, we need to help with. that's why we're here. we all work together. >> i sincerely appreciate the support and how cooperative the staff have been with me when i want to come forward, if i want to come meet with the members. i really, sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be here today. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness, if we have any, and we'll forward them, ask the chief to respond as promptly as he can so that any answers could be made part of the record. without objection, this hearing is adjourned. this weekend on our companion network c-span, house armed services committee chair mac thornberry on the policy bill that the house approved this week. congressman thornberry is our guest on "newsmakers" sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. and sunday night on c-span, the state opening of british parliament. queen elizabeth delivered a speech on the british government's priorities for the coming year. sunday night at 9:00 eastern, we'll show you a simulcast of bbc parliament's coverage of the state opening of british parliament. this weekend on c-span's cities tour. along with our comcast cable partners, we'll explore the history and literary life of hattiesburg, mississippi. on book tv, the book "don't hurry me down to hades: the civil war and those who lived it." it calls on rare letters and diary entries to tell the story of the civil war through the eyes of the soldiers and their families and how important keeping in touch with for those on the battlefield and their family members back home. >> because so many women were writing to their men at the front, say iing, i don't know exactly what you're fighting for, but you need to come home because we've got about a fifth of the crop we normally do, i just buried our youngest in the back, and we're not going to have anything left, you know. you need to come home. >> and we'll examine the vietnam war and the 1967 experiences of charlie company with author andrew weast, discussing the battlefields of vietnam and what soldiers had to fight upon their return to the united states. >> vietnam veterans have been used as political footballs, they've been used as part of a morality play. they've been used as many things, but hardly anybody had gotten to tell their story, who they were as young men before they went, the trauma of war that they went through, both its great victories, its funny times, its horrible times, and then what happened to them as a generation since they've been home. >> and on american history tv, the 1966 slaying of civil rights activist vernon dahmer at the hands of the ku klux klan, told by widow ellie and his eldest son, vernon dahmer jr. >> for what reason did anybody want to come and kill my dad? they came as a result of the orders from the head of the klan, sam bowers. said go annihilate him. and they came to kill the whole family. >> and learn about the freedom summer school program during the summer of 1964, when volunteers from around the country taught african-americans in mississippi methods of nonviolent resistance and encouraged voter registration. >> there were meetings held throughout the city in various churches, preparing the residents and informing them of their political rights and getting ready to register to vo vote. >> this weekend, watch c-span cities tour to hattiesburg, mississippi, saturday at 5:30 eastern on c-span2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. coming up next on c-span3, deputy assistant treasury secretary for international tax affairs, robert stack. he spoke recently at the brookings institution here in washington about the u.s. tax code and companies that offshore their profits to avoid u.s. taxes. this is about two hours. >> we're a few minutes past the hour, so we thought we'd get started. i'm bill gale. i welcome you to the brookings institution and this tax policy center event. we begin by asking the eternal question, how is this event different from all other events? in all other events we talk about u.s. tax policy and what it means for the country. in this event, we'll be talking about tax policy in other countries and, of course, what it means for the united states. also, this event is the first annual donald c.lubick symposium at the tax policy center and i wanted to say a few words about that. we are honored to have don in attendance this afternoon here. my glasses are for reading, so forgive me that. don is here with his wife, susan, daughters caroline and lisa, lisa's husband david. don also has a son, jonathan, and many grandchildren. among his many attributes is he's helped solve the social security problem. we organized this symposium series in honor of don and his many contributions to public policy. don was tax legislative counsel in the treasury in the kennedy and johnson administrations. he was assistant secretary for tax policy in the carter administration and then again in the 1990s in the clinton administration. he headed the tax advisory program for central and eastern europe and the former soviet union from 1994 to 1996, which could not have been an easy job. he served on the transition team in the obama administration in 2008. in recognize of all these successes, don receive d treasury's exceptional service award in 1964, the alexander hamilton award in 1980, and the treasury medal in 1989. you kind of get the sense that they started making up titles to give to him for his unselfish dedication to public service spanning four decades. these are big awards, for those of you who are not tax cognizant. these are big deals and they speak very highly of don's abilities and savvy and determination. when he was not in the federal government, don was a managing partner with a buffalo-based law firm of -- let me inhale here -- hodgeson, russ, andrews, wood and goodyear. he was a senior fellow at harvard law school's international tax program. he co-authored a volume which i think has the greatest title in all of public finance -- "basic world tax code and commentary." a template for tax reformers around the world. he advised the city of buffalo and the state of new york, among others, on tax policy matters. he has chaired the american bar associati association's committee on domestic relation tax issues. that sounds like fun. he's taught at the university of buffalo and american university. he is a graduate of the university of buffalo and harvard law school, a member of phi beta kappa. he served in the u.s. air force. on top of that, let me add that don is one of the nicest people you will ever meet. so, don, we congratulate you on your extraordinary record. speaking on behalf of len berman and the entire tax policy center, let me say we are honored to establish the donald c. lubick symposium in your honor. thank you. today is the first such symposium. before i turn to the substance, i want to note, these events don't just happen. they require the dedication and patience of many people to set them up. i want to thank two people in particular, blake corrine at the urban institute, who basically does everything for the tax policy center, and rebecca sundin here at the brookings institution, who put together all the logistics for this afternoon. i can guarantee you that without their tireless work and their patience, none of this would have happened. so, thanks to both of you. all right, in terms of the substance, changes in business taxes by other major economies are having important effects on the united states. everyone knows that statutory tax rates are much higher than other countries. everyone knows that most other countries exempt most foreign source income from multinationals while the u.s. continues to tax repatriated earnings. in newer developments, many countries are offering new benefits for their multinationals, including patent boxes that allow special tax rates for income for research and innovation. at the same time, the oecd's initiative is intended to limit the ways countries can shift their funds out of high-tax countries and into low-tax countries, but american multinationals, many american multinationals feel that beps is aimed at them. in the wake of beps, some countries are enacting new, diverted profit taxes that target multinationals. we'll talk about all these issues this afternoon. basically, we're focusing on what happens in other countries, how that affects american workers, american consumers, american businesses. our keynote speaker is bob stack. we're delighted to have him here. you have a bio in your packet. bob is the deputy assistant secretary -- this is another inhale moment -- the deputy assistant secretary for international tax affairs in the office of tax policy at the u.s. department of the treasury. in that capacity, he's responsible, among other things, for the conduct of legal and economic aspects of tax policy, including having the honor and the burden of representing the united states in bi-lot raleigh and multilateral interactions with other countries. before joining the government, mr. stack served as head of international tax at the law firm of ivins, philip and barker. he graduated from georgetown law in 1984, where he was editor in chief of the "georgetown law journal." he also clerked at the supreme court. so let me turn it over to bob. we're delighted to have you here and we look forward to your comments. >> thank you very much. i just wanted to begin by saying that i have not had the pleasure before today to meet mr. lubick, but i would like to say that the outpouring of affection and support that we see here today at the beginning of this ceremony demonstrates i think the great affection you've been held, the fact that you've really been giant in tax policy and i want to express my appreciation for that. i fully appreciate how instrumental don was in creating an office of tax policy at the treasury with excellence and integrity as the hallmarks of that office, an effort that began with your participation 50 or so years ago, and it's something that as a current person at the treasury department i wanted to begin my remarks today by expressing my deep appreciation for the contributions you've made and for the way i have benefited from them in ways seen and unseen. so thank you very much. when i began to prepare today's speech, i noted that figuring it was on foreign tax law changes and their impact on u.s. tax policy, i should speak on the topic assigned, because that's something i've learned to do. i'm basically a rule-follower. and as bill just mentioned, i checked out the setup on the brookings website and that bill just quoted from, and i worried that my speech had been obsoleted, as the answers are staring us plainly in the face. here's what the website says -- "changes in the taxation of business income by our major trading partners are creating shock waves in the united states. corporate tax rates in other countries have been falling while the u.s. federal rate has remained at 35% since 1993. the combined state-federal corporate tax rate of the u.s. is now the highest in the oecd. most other countries exempt most foreign source income of their multinationals from tax, while the u.s. continues to tax repatriated profits. and many other countries are providing new benefits for their multinationals, including patent boxes that allow special tax rates for income from research and innovation." while faces with these table-setting observations, how could any self-respecting tax policymaker do otherwise than readily acknowledge that we must join the race to the bottom, dramatically lower our corporate rates, make one with those countries, exempting foreign income from further domestic tax, and for good measure, throw in a patent or innovation box to further lower the rates of certain taxpayers. what more was there to say? crest fallen, as i've been allotted 25 minutes to speak, i was fumbling about for what i could possibly add to this debate in which one side seemed to command the unimpeachable intellectual and economic high ground. but as i recall, having been the parent of teenage sons, it hit me. i heard these arguments before. mom, dad, everyone else's parents are letting them do such and such, you should, too! and failure to acquiesce to whatever it was we were being asked to go along with always was purported to result in the direst consequences. now, i don't mean to make light of the need for business tax reform. the president has put forth a very robust revenue-neutral business tax reform that the administration is proud of. but i do hope that as the debate unfolds, it will address important questions and be more than a cry to join the race to the bottom. but as important, i want to talk about the international context in which they debate is unfolding and how the context should inform our discussions. on the specifics, the president has insisted on business tax reform that is revenue-neutral in the budget window and over the longer term by lowering the rate and broadening the base. this seems reasonable in light of the fact that we face mid to long-term fiscal challenges. and while we agree with the need to bring our statutory rate more in line with the rest of the world, the responsible thing to do will be to make business tax changes taking into account our overall fiscal constraints. too often it seems to me a major impediment to business tax reform arises because there are those who desire revenue-losing business tax reform without making the case for how we are as a country to make the numbers add up to produce fiscally responsible tax policy. this argument for revenue-losing business tax reform is often advanced in urgent tones by those who insist the survival of american business depends on our joining the race to the bottom in corporate tax rates and heaping on other tax rates on top of that while ignoring related issues, such as the current ratio of corporate tax to gdp as compared to historic norms, or for that matter, the overall ratio of tax revenues to gdp compared to historic norms. the issue of whether such tax cuts favor capital or labor or even whether other revenue sources might be available to offset such. there are other weedy questions, too. in a territorial or quasi territorial system, won't there be a need for strong base protection measures? in such a system, should u.s. parented multinationals enjoy current deductions on interest expense that produces exempt foreign income? and finally, the whole potential topic unto itself, what should our tax rules on inbound investment look like and how should we ensure a level playing field between companies investing here and those already here and competing with them? all of these questions arise in a politically challenging environment. marty sullivan pointed out in "tax analyst" recently, a gallup poll result's indicating that on average over the last decade, seven out of ten americans believed american corporations were not paying their fair share of taxes. similarly, according to marty, a 2015 pew research poll found that 64% of americans are bothered a lot by the belief that corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes. and indeed, the business tax reform debate is also taking place in an environment in which writers on tax policy have wondered whether the political steam has been let out of the dry for business tax reform in light of issues that affect everyday americans, such as minimal average wage growth. i suspect in the panel that follows and in the weeks and months ahead we'll continue to debate those issues. i would only want to add today that i do not buy into the notion that the u.s. must willy-nilly do what everyone else is doing, because we have our own unique circumstances and fiscal challenges that need to be taken into account as we do the responsible thing for our country. however, as the nation's top tax diplomat, such as it is, i think my value today is really to step back and share a couple of observations about the global tax landscape that we face as we consider international tax reform. and i have two observations i'd like to expand on. first, there is an urgent need to create an international tax system that permits greater certainty and stability for investment in the system so that businesses can get back to doing what they do best, running great businesses. second, i want to elaborate on what i recently described as a greater need for business involvement in the global tax debate beyond the halls of congress and the administration. i'd like to begin with some very high-level observations based on over three years of representing united states treasury department in all manner of engagement with foreign governments on the subject of taxation. covering the gamete, the g-20 oecd base erosion profit project, the issues in the g-7, g-8, g-20, asserting u.s. interests in the ongoing state aid investigations by the european commission, and dealing bilaterally with our important trading partners on a regular basis on all manner of tax issues. based on my experience, it is clear that the greatest contributors to the unstable tax environment we see in the world have been, one, the ability of u.s. multinationals to dramatically reduce their worldwide effective tax rates, as reported to investors, by permanently investing sums offshore. two, the so-called mobility of ip income and capital. and three -- and these are all related -- the role of tax havens, however defined, as players in the international tax system. and let me discuss each in turn. i don't think it's open to debate that the ability of u.s. multinationals to defer income has been a dramatic contributor to global tax instability. i need to point no further than the eu state aid investigations, where it is clear to me, at least, that if sums that were deferred from u.s. tax had been taxed somewhere, including in the u.s., these cases may never have been brought. but if one needs more proof, look only to the points accentuated in places like the permanent subcommittee on investigation hearings in the u.s. senate, the hajj hearings in public accounts committee of the uk parliament, as well as those held before the eu parliament and the australian senate. these all focus on the very low rates of tax that are achievable, whether abroad or in individual countries, by multinationals, and it is this effect that has caused a great deal of outrage in the international environment. these effective rates can be gleaned from financial statements and other sources and can be achieved by multinationals through techniques widely available to them. countries around the world in times of austerity pounced on these deferred earnings, which the rest of the world believes will never be taxed in the u.s., and have sought to write the rules in such a way as to take what they view as their fair share of the so-called stateless income. but deferral alone, of course, does not produce low effective rates. the mobility of intellectual property income and capital, that is the relative ease with which multinationals can move these assets to favorable tax jurisdictions, aided by u.s. car-sharing and check-the-box rules, has been a major contributor to the ability of mmes to achieve low effective rates, which has promoted instability in the tax system by feeding the notion that mmes, and in particular, u.s. mnes are not paying their fair share. and of course, none of this instability would have been possible without the presence of tax havens, however defined. for present purposes, it should suffice to say that large disparities in income tax rates, whether based purely on the location of the income or by qualifying for special regime will inevitably drive behavior to take advantage of the arbitrage possibilities. a goal of the beps project, simply put, was to have countries that write the rules write them in such a way as to minimize income shifting into low and no-tax jurisdictions, as opposed, for example, for doing such impossible things as seeking convergence on tax rates. any u.s. international tax reform that does not take a major step towards restoring stability will prove to be a pure victory, no matter the rates agreed, the degree of territorial or the presence or absence of patent boxes. and while the u.s. has worked hard to put the issue of tax certainty on the g-20 agenda during china and germany's presidency, this agenda simply will not succeed if countries perceive that they are getting ripped off under whatever rules we end up with. one aspect of today's topic is, of course, the effect of foreign tax changes on the tax reform debate. but let's look at some foreign tax changes that are flying under the radar and perhaps not adequately appreciated by all policymakers. i would submit that many, if not all of these rules i'm about to talk about are motivated by a concern that the concerns as they exist today let companies achieve unacceptably low foreign effective rates, and the countries are fighting back. let's consider the uk diverted profits tax and its australian equivalent. but let's also consider jurisdictions that are limiting deductions on royalties and other payments, if those payments are going to low-tax jurisdiction. these sorts of rules are squarely the efforts of source countries to take aim at companies that shift income into lower jurisdictions, often by imposing taxes that would likely be creditable for u.s. tax purposes. in the absence of fixes to the international system, i think we are closer to the beginning of this trend than to the end. and these changes go beyond limitations on deductions for payments to low-tax jurisdictions. consider the difficulties multinationals have in deducting management and service fees paid among affiliates all over the world, regardless of the destination of those fees pp, as well as the drive in some countries to find a permanent establishment and then go search the globe for the ip income that could be potentially sucked into that jurisdiction once the pe is found. and finally, for good measure, consider the recently proposed 6% equalization levy in india with respect to outbound payments for digital advertising services. the levy is a supposed non income tax, withholding tax, imposed on all payments made to those outside india for advertising services in india. what's remarkable here is india decided to leapfrog beyond income tax and its related permanent establishment treaty rules to impose tax on income often destined for a tax advantage. there is no movement among the countries in the oecd to examine any of these various proposals that may be or considered to be beyond beps. if u.s. international tax reform perpetuates this instability, shame on us. we will see more of it and more time and money spent by our multinationals combating an increasing flow of inconsistent results around the world as well as the resulting disputes. and if the u.s. multinational community continues to see it as in their best interests to perpetuate a system built on tax arbitrage and highly engineered tax planning, shame on them. you are signing up for and bringing on more of the very instability you loath and that impedes your business. the president's global minimum tax proposal may well provide a strong antidote to strong perceptions around the world. first, it's amounts earned in countries taxed at rates above the global minimum rate, wherever it's ultimately set. thus, permitting our multinationals to compete on a level playing field in virtually all of the major markets around the world and repatriate the profits without additional u.s. tax. but the global minimum tax plan also takes the benefit out of shifting income into low and no-tax jurisdictions by requiring that the multinational pay to the u.s. the difference between the tax haven rate and the u.s. rate. the global minimum tax concept has an added benefit as well, and that is protecting developing and low-income tax countries from foreign-to-foreign shifting so they can utilize the necessary resources to grow their economies. while it is true that concepts such as minimum taxes and control foreign corporation rules are most effective if most countries go along in imposing them, and so far, the u has been a staunch opponent of tightening these rules. i believe it is also true that the pressure will continue to build in the international community for the traditional residence countries to take into account the spillover on to poorer countries of tax policies that encourage foreign-to-foreign stripping. stay tuned. indeed, at a recent imf symposium, the minimum tax was identified as something that could be a great help to developing countries by the mere expedient of disincentivizing foreign-to-foreign shifting by resident nationals elsewhere. this last point, this discussion of what's happening in the debate with developing countries and the need to help them protect their tax base shifts me nicely into my final observation -- the need for greater involvement by the multinational community in the international tax debate. let me begin by making two rather obvious points. first, the beps project plainly took the business community by surprise, particularly in its effectiveness of changing the rules of the road and the environment in which these companies operate. second, whatever the eu does with respect to requiring companies to report public country-by-country tax data and revenue data, we would all have to admit that transparency issues spurred on in part by the panama papers have shot to the top of the global agenda. and no amount of lobbying at treasury or on capitol hill will stop global pressure for more transparency. might the arms-length standard be served up next? it's broadly suspect. and lee shepherd, one of our own reporters in yesterday's tax analyst report, had some choice things to say about that. and if you watch how quickly country by country went as an idea among poor countries in developing spaces to being a headline story in europe, potentially making it public, ask yourself, how quickly might the arms-length standard and country-by-country be put on the chopping block? and back to transfer pricing. effort we had in the beps process to take a paper that seemed to us to write the arms-length standard out of the oecd rules, to bring it back to something that seemed more familiar, at least, to u.s. tax practitioners, was a very heavy lift. the u.s. has been a staunch defender of the arms-length standard and will continue to be for reasons i have elaborated on elsewhere, but we don't control the global agenda. so what do i mean by greater mne involvement? well, first, i don't advocate greater mne involvement as a means of taking sides, as in i really need their help, although sometimes i do. it just occurs to me from my perch that when i meet with governments, as i regularly do, and as i attend global tax events with themes often pushed by ngos are dominating, that if the mne community has a compelling perspective on the global tax issues that should be appreciated by policymakers around the world, it is not being made effectively. but that leads me to my second point. the mne perspective needs to evolve way beyond we pay all the taxes we owe to something more, shall i say, fullsome, to combat the pervasive perception that multinationals do not pay their fair share, that transfer pricing is some sort elicit practice, that blatant profit-shifting is rampant, and that, therefore, those nations need aggressive national action to rein those multinationals in. how the multinationals get engaged and participate fully in this debate i leave to them, but i don't think it's a task that can be ignored. part of the discussion relates to creating conditions that are supportive of foreign direct investments in countries around the world, and that relates back to the fact that at the g-20, we're going to begin to look at the relationship between tax certainty and creating environments to increase foreign direct investments in countries around the world, and that's a good thing. and by investment, we need to teach those countries that investment and growth mean more than attaining the investment needed merely to serve their large markets. part of this discussion relates to the need for more data to analyze taxes paid by multinationals in the jurisdictions around the world and to focus the international tax debate more around a data-driven search for best policies and practices, including policies and practice that encourage investment, unless, and much less, on sensational and politically palate ab palatable anecdotes. reference was made to "bubbles in the tax world where people surround themselves with like-minded thinkers and fail to see the perspectives of others outside." to give you an appreciation of this phenomenon from where i sit, on one day i might be attending a u.s. international conference, as i did the end of last week, in which we parse in excruciating detail the transfer pricing equivalents of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin -- i'm so sorry. i was talking about, and i apologize -- took some wind out of my sails. i will just deal. i was talking about the contrast between going to u.s. tax policy seminars where people talk about in great detail how many angels can dance on the head of a transfer pricing pin, and then i'm involved in multinational settings where the question is how we can stop the scourge of illicit transfer pricing and stop companies from using transfer pricing where the word is used in the same way as "money laundering." and those are the bubbles that as your representative i live in. and what i was asking today was that we try in some ways, for the sake of better policy, to bring those debates together. from my perspective, this is not about picking sides, but rather, the discussion needs to be fully engaged by all stakeholders so we can move forward and promote growth and create more favorable conditions for investment around the world, including in the developing world. ngos and representatives of the business community should be at the same conferences listening to and challenging each other's facts, arguments, policy proposals and visions for an international tax structure that works for everyone. i made these points at a recent speech, and afterwards, someone in the audience came up to me and said that he didn't think moral suasion was going to be effective and that the multinational community will always be looking out for the bottom line. and i was somewhat crestfallen because it drove home to me how ineffective i had been in trying to make my point. because i think i am making a point based on the bottom line and not moral suasion. i think i'm making a point aimed at boardrooms and not technical tax people. after all, it's the boardrooms that are supposed to care about the long-term consequences of actions and the reputational effect on the firm. aggressive tax planning and all the related elements that i've talked about has already imposed a great reputational cost on some firms, and the future trend is clear. i am suggesting that at the end of the day, companies and countries will both prosper in an international tax system that minimizes distortions built around tax benefits that can be achieved through a combination of the mobility of ip income and capital and games played through tax havens with a boost from u.s. cost-sharing regulations and the check-the-box rules. policymakers should be exploring how to build those structures, and all stakeholders, including mnes and ngos, should consider whether they share these perspectives, and if so, how to participate together effectively with government representatives to build them. we are long past the days, if they ever existed, when congress and the executive branch were the only players of importance with respect to u.s. international tax policy. globalization and the emerging political structures that support it have brought these issues to the world stage. and the actions in each country has effects beyond its borders that must be taken into account as we build an international tax policy for the years ahead. and the actions taken outside our borders, likewise, can have a profound impact on our taxpayers and the policy and the wisdom of policies we set, and we're living through that. this is all hard work in a challenging environment, and i will be the first to admit that other countries sometimes do little more than to seek their own national advantage, instead of supporting principled rules. but we owe it to average americans as well as our successful companies that we stay at it so we can give the world a little extra scoot in the right direction during the time we are privileged to be engaged in helping to form u.s. international tax policy. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> okay. oh, we're going to both stand here. this is the moderated discussion. >> this is the moderated discussion. it will be very brief. so, i found your speech very interesting, and it seems to raise a question about whether we should think more about the general values or ethical climate in which we all approach these issues. and i was wondering what things the government could do to kind of encourage more of that, both on multinationals and with respect to other governments' policies. >> well, actually, i'm afraid i'm not going to rise to that beat, because as a technical tax guy, i've had trouble distinguishing my extra mortgage deduction when i buy a really big house from the double down the irish. if anybody can draw the line where you've crossed from morality to immorality, we can have a debate later about it, but i can't do it. i think it is about making policies and rules that we all agree to live by, but i don't think it's about naming and shaming. >> okay. so i guess we'll have a couple of minutes for questions from the audience. anyone have any questions? >> way in the back. >> it seems that with the new, sort of more inclusive framework that the oecd has announced for the beps implementation, the transfer pricing follow-up work on profit split and related things like attribution profits to a pe, that may sort of be the acid test of the ability to sort of reach any kind of consensus with this larger group. can you comment on that? >> yeah, sure. i actually -- from my experience, i don't expect that expanding the group actually will expand the number of very engaged players in very technical transfer pricing issues, number one. it's just not been my experience. you know, we found it difficult to keep up with the flow of oecd paper, and we're one of the biggest countries in the world. so, i'm not too worried about that. second, in the follow-up work, look, like all in beps, we're a group player, it's a consensus process. and you know, i think we'll have a strong influence in the work as it goes forward, so i'm not terribly concerned about the effects of that. i do think, though, to return to a theme that i was trying to hit on, is i think u.s. policymakers completely ignore at their peril what's happening in developing countries, low-income countries on the global political stage and that a lot of that bubbles up into things you see every day. some people, you know, in the tax world think i do this as almost an advocaction, like i care about these things, but if you don't do that, you'll miss a ship that sailed two years before it sailed. so for u.s. policy, i think it's critical. mindy. >> do you think there's a legitimate role for international tax competition? >> well, you know, whether i think there's a legitimate role for it or not, it's going to exist, right? i mean, we're never going to drive out the arbitrage that comes from differential rates because that's kind of one of the rules of the road. people can have their own rates. sovereignty, ireland has it 12.5%. i think it would be naive to think we're going to build a system that gets away from arbitrage. but i think when you get to highly structured transactions through what we would all recognize as tax havens, i think you're in a different place that you probably can do a better job at policing, and we should. and u.s. companies should welcome it. >> oh, john. >> one more. [ inaudible question ] >> i think it wants to be. >> is it? >> but i think it's conflicted, actually. as a source country, we're seeing that it's going to be very protective of anyone using the uk market, and they're going to limit deductions, they're going to watch tax havens. a lot of this is going on right now in the hybrid work. and if you're in that -- as mike williams has said, we'll have a 17% rate, but you're going to pay 17%. so they'll be aggressive in protecting their market as a source country. as a country that wants to be the home of head quarter companies and get weak cfc rules and get the spillovers of the benefits of having such-and-such headquarters in london, they're going to want to do that, too, and they'll fight to have weak cfc rules and companies will find it an attractive place to be. so i think they're kind of hybrid. yeah, the patent box is i think a part of what will be driving it. but in my discussions, for example, with some countries, they have viewed that as something that will be beneficial to their midsized companies because they're not convinced themselves that the world's going to rush their researchers over into their patent box. remember, if you're getting 10% income on your patent income, you're getting a 10% deduction, and you've got to figure out a way -- the game here is to get the high deduction and the low amount of income, and it's not clear to me you do that by doing all of your research offshore and moving your researchers. yeah? last question. >> you talked about uk headquarters companies, but you also referred to u.s. companies. i mean, isn't one of the issues that we're facing here that companies don't have natural nationalities? and how as a policymaker do you address that, other than, you know, fighting a rear guard action with anti-inversion proposals? >> great question. when i first got my job, i quickly realized, and i consu consulted with bright academics, that there are lots of interesting ideas, such as sales-based income tax. none are ready for prime time and none are coming before me on my watch, or before congress, for that matter. so, we have the system we have. you're absolutely right, that mobility of headquarters, mobility of these items makes the current residence-based system fragile, no question. but as policymakers, you know, we get to play the hand we're dealt, and that's the hand we have for now and we'll play it this weekend. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> i guess the next panel should come up. >> he's receiving medical treatment. he's in stable condition. he gone to -- he's still there. okay. great. i want to say it's an honor for me -- i'm eric toter, co-director of the tax policy center. it's an honor for me to be here at this event. honoring don lubic one of the my mentors, heroes and an ideal to all of us on the panel, and many of us in the audience we have a great panel here. i will -- you have their full bios, i will introduce them briefly. manuel corin is with kpmg. she was previously a deputy assistant secretary for international tax at the u.s. treasury department, and during the obama administration and has done many other things before them. i won't go through them all. david rosenbloom is a visiting professor of taxation and director of the international tax program at new york university's school of law. he's also been a member of the kaplan drysdale law firm. and david has many other accomplishments, but the one i'll mention is he also was the top international tax official at the treasury department back in the carter administration. john samuels is the chairman of global tax at blackstone. many of us remember him for years as the vice president and senior counsel for tax planning at general electric. i also remember john from his service in the treasury department during the carter years where he was a tax legislative counsel. and finally we have barbara angus, the one member of panel who is now in government. she's tax counsel for the committee of ways and means. she has been a principal with ernst & young before then. before then she was also the top international tax person at the treasury department during the first term of president bush -- the second president bush. i will turn this over, and i think i will try to hold you to eight minutes each, if you could. we're a little behind time. >> i will take a moment to say i am privileged to be here, don, in your honor and to have served under your leadership at treasury. i think moments we experienced earlier, in looking around the room, i've had the privilege to work with many of you and were reminded of what is important. i just want to take a moment to say that. we have wonderful colleagues we wish bobby the best. so i'm tasked with starting off just to set the stage around the baps initiative and how it started. i think understanding the origin of the anti-beps movement, which i distinguish from the initiative itself is really critical to understanding the current impact on multinationals, but also the relevant impacts on u.s. tax reform. since the initiative was launched and then coined the acronym beps, many have pointed a finger at the organization for having opened a pandora's box that has unravelled long-standing international tax rules and upset what was perceived stability ahead of their involvement . i think a closer look both at the historical record of the oecd, and being able to effect significant policy shifts at anywhere near a breakneck speed, as well as its limited ability to keep the initiative in check more recently in check relative to its original policy objectives, suggests that the origins and reasons for the movement goes much deep are than the initiative itself. beps is not the foss first rodeo. in terms of addressing profit shifting concerns more broadly. some relevant examples including as far back as 1998, not that far back, but still far back, the report on harmful tax competition in 2004, we saw the establishment at the oecd of the tax plans steering group, which was established to identify and share concerns about aggressive tax planning techniques. is it started out with the participate of seven countries, according to the web sites is now 46 countries strong with an inventory of over 400 aggressive tax planning techniques. there was the work kngon in 2005 on business restructuring. and the incentives to minimize taxation. we saw reports on the tax risks involving bank losses as well as corporate loss utilization through tax planning, and then reports in 2011 about the need for transparency and disclosure, in the case of aitgressive tax planning. and 2012 report on hybrid mismatches before action 2 was dubbed action 2. all of these reports while echoing the same themes we saw in the theme throughout the actions never resulted in the political call to action we're seeing now being played out in a number of jurisdictions. nor did they prior initiatives receive even a fraction of the attention that's been the hallmark of the beps initiative since its inception. most tax professionals except for the people maybe in this room who might be able to now recite letter and verse of the action plan never noticed or worried about the prior reports or initiatives and that they were of immediate concern. if it's not -- why now? what's new? if it's not the oced's power and influence that's at play, what is the driver behind the movement? bob, you covered a lot of the issued driving it but it was very much the political environment. and the public and political environment. largely outside the united states. that was really launched the oecd initiative into what it is today. we know the numbers of factors that have contributed to that environment. it was the financial crisis, it was the political pressure that politicians were under relative to their handling of that crisis. and the resorting to austerity measures. and just an increased public focus on whether or not multinationals were paying their fair share. that is really what spurred politicians into action. the original goal then of the beps initiative was to temper that rhetoric in fact and mitigate the risk of what was viewed as politically driven unilateral action. there was a fair amount of concern that that action would in fact undermine existing international standards and consensus. to that end, in february of 2013, the oecd announced it's going to take the initiative over. in an attempt to evaluate and maybe change the rhetoric. when that initial announcement was made, there was a point, a focus that was on not on the behaviors of companies, the compliance happenings of company but rather than what are the current rules in a modern world. that first report was full of statements and we're evaluating whether current rules are fit for purpose. the other thing that report emphasized was that unilateral action would be disasterts for business and governments. the initial reports promised they were not going to relitigate the problem. what happened since is telling as to how much of this was an oecd driven initiative versus driven by forces outside the oecd. initially politicians welcomed the report. it was endorsed by there g-20 repeatedly. and they have increasingly become involved in ways we would have never imagined back in the lubic area the number of g-20 reports that include tax. those political forces, though, not surprisingly, the political forces that led to beps and had the oecd attempting to mitigate the direction it was going, are also surprising -- not surprisingly leading to some of the outcomes that we're seeing from the project. and have made it very difficult for the oecd to maintain control of where it's going. the increasing rhetoric has continued in terms of looking to what multinationals are doing. we've seen the source versus residence country taxation has been reopened. and unilateral action has not been stopped. so i'll just conclude by saying, the relevance of that observation and the impact on reform is understanding as we look through -- to what extent we should consider the initiative in pursuing u.s. tax reform. it's important to understand it isn't just about the oecd and we shouldn't have to worry about it. but it's broader than that. to the extent that the goal of u.s. tax reform is to preserve the interest of the

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , New York , United States , Australia , American University , District Of Columbia , Germany , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Washington , Cleveland , Ohio , China , Russia , Mississippi , London , City Of , United Kingdom , India , Massachusetts , Hattiesburg , Ireland , Panama , Americans , Australian , Soviet , British , Irish , American , Kaplan Drysdale , Richard Rud , Lisa , Klan Sam Bowers , Candace Miller , David Rosenbloom , James Elliot , Klux Klan , Len Berman , Manuel Corin , Rebecca Sundin , Mac Thornberry , Barbara Angus , Arthur Andrew , Fred Rogers , Mike Williams , Vernon Dahmer Jr , Marty Sullivan , Russ Andrews , Queen Elizabeth , John Samuels , Alexander Hamilton ,