Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics Public Policy Today 20240622

Reproductive health at georgetown millions of dollars to look at the efficacy of fertility beads for Family Planning purposes and there has been evidence now that those do work, they are efficacious and we can fund those as a tool to use to reach our goals in Family Planning. Obviously were going to have a whole lot of other tools. But that particular tool is acceptable by many religious groups opposed to the other tools. And so i think that is one positive story that we might look at replicating. Do we have other questions from the audience . Right here in the middle. Hi. My name is jana carp, im hear from the state department. And it has come up a couple of times in terms of the ebola crisis in west africa but i was wondering if you could speak more generally about the role that faithbased groups could play in pandemic preparedness and response and sort of Lessons Learned from ebola in the past year, two years. Other questions . Again, my name is rosemary, i just go back to the cooperation, how do we cooperate and i met president bush before he left office in the faithbased initiative in 2008 and we talked about the same thing. How do we come up with this collaboration of out reach, advocacy in the rural areas there in africa and as you say, Lessons Learned on ebola because there was no outreach or education to people. So local people feels do so much work on the ground but nobody gives them credit and nobody funds them so we should look at the cpos and the local faithbased organizations in the rural areas, the small organizations do a lot, so u. S. Aid, pet fund, and look into that and work up from the ground and we do collaborate. Again, thank you. If there are no other questions well turn to the panel for these two. Again, the question of the role of the faith groups in pandemic preparedness. I think that its well engaging faithbased organizations and Emergency Preparedness and pandemic preparedness is critical. Again, weve done that domestically and as we look at system strengthening, it is difficult for us to do it on a global with global reach as it is than it is to do at home with domestic reach. But certainly faithbased organizations and other private actors have to be partners in any kind of Emergency Preparedness or pandemic preparedness and i think people are very aware of that, certainly in the aftermath of the ebola epidemic and the faithbased organizations were on the ground responding to the epidemic before anybody could figure out what to do. One of the things that came up in our conversations about Emergency Preparedness is training our First Responders on how to engage with people who are already doing the work on the ground when they arrive. And so that the transfer of and the partnership and the integration of already on the ground Indigenous Services is done in a way that honors the people who are responding first and engages the people who are our First Responders coming from big organizations and multi laterals and donors and others. So we have a lot to learn but there is no doubt, i think from cdc perspective or others, that faithbased partners have to be a big part of that process. I totally agree. The preparedness side of the equation, which has been harder for policymakers to focus on, the response is much easier. But that is a whole different event. But Going Forward, looking at to what extent are faithbased leaders and organizations involved now because there is so much attention paid to needing better preparedness because of ebola and there is now money available for that. And looking back, there is a funding line that u. S. Aid has to look at emerging threats and preparedness. Very few ngos get money in that regard and no faithbased organizations got disbursements for that in 2013. This is preebola so it is important to look at that Going Forward, i think. One story on small you think whether you work with small groups or not, former administrator sherrill went to liberia and went to a small orphanage and school and that shut down and needed food to feed other students and this was a small operation and it turned out that the pastor that ran this had a National Radio show that covered the country so what at first glance was small became very big because he was able to send messages out and was respective. And so i think we have to be open to be surprised and careful when we think something is mall and it is not so small and the influence that can go out. And i think we are in terms of the second face of Ebola Response and we want to build back better, u. S. Is in conversation with the International Part of the Catholic Health association and seeing if we can partner on Health System strengthening about ebola and preventible deaths. I think that is a key to try to reach the organizations sandy mentions Catholic Health, in terms of Health Strengthening with faith and nonfaithbased organizations to build in the resiliency to take the shocks and not get set back so far. Any thoughts on the collaboration piece. We talked about that up until now. But any thoughts on collaborating with Community Based organizations, that last question . I think again that we have to continue to expand our capacity. And that really has to be done the big governments will never have the capacity to directly fund very small organizations, it is just not i mean we dont have the bandwidth to be able to do that. As much as we would like to, because we recognize that is where we often get the best return on our investment, but well continue to rely on robust coordinating mechanisms and organizations that comprise many different faithbased groups so that we can get the money to the ground. I think that is certainly the way that u. S. Aid does their funding and it is the best of what weve got at the moment. I think there is always room for improvement and again part of what were talking about Going Forward is how do we improve these mechanisms and increase our capacity to get closer to the ground. I think just in the last couple of minutes that we have, i would love to give you all a chance for some final comments and ask you to reflect on precisely that, what are the next steps, including to address some of the hard issues. The paper in the lancet that talked about the challenges, about child marriage, about gender based violence, about gender, about Family Planning and reproductive health, there are very big issues that the u. S. Government is focused on in its own strategies and sometimes the Faith Community can help in those strategies and at times they are a barrier to implementing u. S. Goals in that area. So when you are thinking about next steps, please include how do address these big challenges. Jen, do you want to start us off. Sure. I think this echoes a lot of what the authors and others have said, but looking at the next phase of the u. S. Health Global Policy and Global Health more publicly and srgs that we have to reach the poorest of the poor, we cant have the world we want if we dont, faithbased organizations and religious communities have always done that in a way that other groups havent always been able to. So i think we cant reach those goals without their without their involvement. I think that is clear from the evidence and the paper shows that. So that is one. And two, on the challenges, we have to name them an the article does that. I think naming them and talking about to understand where there is Common Ground and difficulties in figuring out where ultimately the goal of Getting Services to people who need them from a Public Health evidence based services of people who need them is the end game that we want. And lastly, data. We need it. We just took a cursory look for today, but i would like to do more on that. I think kaiser, and all of us who can should. I think that is really critical. Mark. Where you live, often shapes how you think. So where im located within u. S. Aide, we are flooded with great opportunities with how to engage. We get frustrated we cant take all of them. But to be honest, to see the partnerships going on aterrific and so im very positive on this. I think in terms of addressing the challenges, the faith communities can be the trip wires for the challenge and the solution at the same time to the challenges. So on gender based violence for example, weve had conversations with the chair of the north American Council of somalia imams ander imams ander working with us and taking the efforts that they hear, in kenya and ethiopia and other places and hes reached out to the head emam to say will you work with me and we are working on how to make that happen and there are private foundations that will Work Together and the imam came out to meet with us and im going out to minneapolis to speak with him directly and so we can take our partnerships and work with facebook groups and use the religious leaders to answer the challenges that may come out of this community. I just want to agree with what the other panelists have said and just add a couple of things. One, is we certainly need to reach the poorest of the poor but i want to not leave the marginalized for other reasons behind. Which makes it a much more difficult conversation for us. But that is a very certainly hiv and aids and other issues as well. The other is to focus on the importance of literacy and cross training the Public Health practitioners and the faithbased practitioners. And weve had some great pie onners like jonathan man and bill taggy, and jimmy carter and others who recognize the importance of this 30 years ago and started work on this. So there is a very robust and small body of work on cross training. Our practitioners and people on the ground need to talk with each other and find the common language that john was talking about so that helps us we have to have the same language to have a conversation about particularly sensitive issues, it is always a challenge. But just to end on something that a trend that i see in academia and elsewhere that i think speaks to the future in a very important way and that is this incredible growth that weve seen on faculty with john at emory and we have seen and on interdisciplinary approaches to Public Health and theology that include all of our schools and also a real growth and in dual degree programs in Public Health and development and theology and all of this cross training that i think makes me very hopeful about what the leadership will look like ten years from now and 15 years from now. You on these kind of issues that we all hold so dear. I think theres a lot of bright light on horizon when it comes to new leadership. Well, i think this has been such an interesting panel, and i think it opens the door for as the first panel said, so many more conversations, so much more happening in the field right now. And great thanks to all of you for the work youre all doing this this area and for sharing your insights with this. I think this has been very enlightening. Join me in thanking our panel. [ applause ] the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on europe holds a hearing today on the future of the European Union and the relationship with members. Live coverage starts at 2 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan 3. Former ceo and current president ial candidate Carly Fiorina speaks at a town hall. This event organized by the Republican Committee is 45 minutes. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for that warm welcome. Thank you so much for that warm welcome. Its great to be back in New Hampshire hampshire. Did everybody have a great fourth of july holiday . Great. Its always good to pause and think about the truly extraordinary nature of this great nation, which is why youre all here. Its why im running for president. I got a little bit of time off with my family on the beach which was wonderful. E my husband and two granddaughters and every time i look at the two of them it reminds me why im doing this. But before i get into all of that, i just want to tell you something very special about the young woman who just introduced me. How wonderful to have a young woman like that say that she admires and respects me. That gives me a lot of energy and motivation. But one of the things maybe that this it community should know about abigail is she lost her mother last night from pancreatic cancer. So please keep her and her mother in your prayers. But how extraordinary that this young woman would be out here today. When she came up to me to have her photo taken, she said im going to help you. So god bless you, abigail. I lost my mother 17 years ago now. But there is not a day that goes by that i dont think about my mom. And i think about what she said to me when i was 8 years old. One sunday morning she looked at me with that look that mothers sometimes get and she said, what you are is gods gift to you what you make of yourself is your gift to god. And those words have stay eded with me every day of my life since. They seemed, at that young age, like a promise because i didnt feel very gifted as a young girl or a young woman. Everybody else seemed more together than i was. But they also seemed like a challenge to me that i needed to find my godgiven gifts and i needed to use them. No matter where i have been in the world, i have learned over and over and over again, whether it was in my business work or charitable work or even policy work, i learned over and over again that everyone has godgiven gifts. Everyone has potential. Usually far more than they realize. Sadly, frequently, much more than they ever get a chance to fulfill. So if everyone in the world has godgiven gifts and everyone has potential, why is it that this country is so special . Why is it that more things have been more possible for more people for more places here than anywhere else on the face of the earth . I think its because our founders knew what my mother taught me. Our founders knew that everybody has godgiven gifts. Our founders knew that everyone has potential so they founded a nation actually on what was quite a radical idea at the time. Its a visionary idea still. The idea was that here you have a right to fulfill your potential. Thats what they meant really when they said life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You had the right to fulfill your potential in this nation, they said, and they said that right, and this was the radical part, that right comes from god and should not be taken away by man or government. There is no other nation on the face of the planet that was founded on that kind of idea. We have worked hard through our history to be a more perfect union, to make sure that idea applied to everyone. I started my Business Career as a secretary. I started out in a nineperson realize firm typing and filing and answering the phones. And i have lived and worked and travelled all over the world and i know with certainty that it is only in this nation that a young woman can start out typing and filing for a nineperson Real Estate Firm and go on to become the chief executive of the Largest Technology in the world and run for the presidency of the United States. That is only possible here. I know a number of you are here from pennsylvania. Thats where my husband frank is from. We have been married 30 years. We met 34 years ago at a little i started as an entry level salesperson after i got out of the secretarial pool at at t. But my husband frank started out as a tow truck driver in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. Yes, all you guys who love cars. I made my way up in at t and western electric and then hew hewlettpackard hewlettpackard. Its why i appreciated my brief tour of turbo camp. Thank you for that tour. What a fantastic company this is. I love manufacturing floors because i have spent a lot of time on them. But you know what i find so invigorating about tur bo cams manufacturing floors is its not just this incredibly sophisticated machinery. Its not just the innovation going on in New Hampshire here in the United States. Its also that every single employee that i talked to really genuinely likes working here. Every one of them thinks this company treats them like family. Thats what its supposed to be about. Heres the truth. The truth is we have come to a place in our nation where the things that have always given people the opportunity to fulfill their potential, those things are getting crushed. We have come to a place in our nation where literally the potential of the people of this nation is being crushed by the government of this nation. And if you think that is a harsh statement, and it is consider a a couple examples. A couple facts. Today we tangle peoples lives up in webs of dependents. I have seen these people. I dont care what peoples circumstances are. Everybody has gifts. Everybody has potential. Everybody wants to live a life of dignity and purpose and meaning. I have seen single moms with a couple kids in desperate circumstances. They did not lack godgiven gifts. They did not lack a desire to live a life of dignity or purpose or meaning and yet we have tangled their lives up in these webs and instead of encouraging them to move forward, we discourage them from doing so. The harder you work, the less you get from the government in a way that makes it really risky for you to say, let me go for that 40hour a week job. The truth is if youre a single mom, youre going to earn less making 55,000 a year than if you make 20,000 a a year and depend on the government. What kind of incentive is that . Or consider this. I talked about the fact i started in a small business. Tur bo cram started in a garage just like hewlettpackard did. My husband started in a Little Family familyowned auto body shop. Thats how most people in this it nation start. Its the Small Businesses, the familyowned businesses, the new businesses that create opportunities for people. Those small new familyowned businesses create twothirds of the new jobs this this country. They employ half the people. It has always been the entrepreneurial spirit of folks just regular people trying to make a living by building a business that has given this economy its engine. And yet today for the first time in u. S. History we are now destroying more businesses than we are creating. And by the way, it isnt the big businesses that are getting destroyed. Its the little ones. And you know why . Because only a really big business can deal with really big government. By the time i left hewlettpackard, it was a 90 billion company. I can tell you running a 90 billion company you can deal with big government. But that nineperson Real Estate Firm cannot. What is that . Thats called crony capitalism. Where government gets bigger and only big business and big labor and big influence and big money the wealthy, the wellconnected the powerful can deal with big government. Thats where we have come to. You doubt that . Our tax code is now 70000 pages long. I cannot tell you how many Business Owners i met here in New Hampshire around tax time who said to me you know what my taxes arent going to be done on time because i dont understand them anymore. And my accountant doesnt understand them. The irs said they werent prepared to answer questions because they didnt have enough money. Have you ever noticed how the government always needs more money to do something important . Have you ever noticed that . How is it the government keeps spending more and more and more, debts and deficits keep rising yet when its important, we need more money. Securing the border, we need more money. Repairing roads and bridges, we need more money. Why is that . Ill come to that in a moment, but one more example of crony capitalism two more actually. Doddfrank, remember the Community Banks had nothing to do with the financial crisis. Remember that when the financial crisis hit it was fannie mae, freddie mac, the big banks, 25 regulatory agencies were supposed to be minding and none did their job. We passed obamacare doddfrank, see i have been on vacation. Whats the consequence of doddfrank . Ten banks too big to fail become five banks. Meanwhile thousands of Community Banks have gone out of business. Why does that matter . Because Community Banks are where Small Businesses get their start. Its where families get their start. Its where innovators and entrepreneurs who maybe the big banks dont know get their start. Were crushing the Community Banks. Meanwhile the big wall street banks are getting bigger. And has there been any reform of fannie mae and freddie mac, nope. Has there been any reform of the 25 regulatory agencies that existed before the financial crisis, nope. We created a new one called the Consumer Finance protection bureau. By the way they are looking at millions and millions and millions of credit card receipts to figure out if somebody is being defrauded. Maybe we ought to be worrying about the cfpb. Or obamacare, whats the consequence of obamacare . Hospitals are consolidating or out of network. How many of you saw the merger between two Big Health Insurance companies . Obamacare is such a big, long complicated bill that only big business can deal with that big government. And the Health Insurance companies and Drug Companies helped write obamacare and now they are getting bigger to deal with obamacare. Meanwhile obamacare is a failure. Whatever you thought of it originally, emergency room visits are up over 50 . Health insurance premiums are up over 35 . We keep putting people into medicare and medicaid and yet fewer doctors are taking patients on medicare and medicaid. This isnt serving people, but it is serving big Insurance Companies and big Drug Companies. Now why do i bring all these problems up . They are kind of e depressing. I bring it up because the truth is the weight of this government, the ineptitude of this government, another strong word, ineptitude, but how many of you read tsa fails 96 of the time. Thats ineptitude. How long has the Veterans Administration been a stain a shame on this nations honor . How long have we not been serving our veterans . How long has government been getting bigger . How long has every agency gotten more money every year. The truth is thats all been going on for decades. Every Government Agency has gotten bigger every year for almost 50 years now under republicans and democrats alike. Vet Veterans Administration has been a stain on our nations honor for at least two decades. The irs has been a problem. How long has the border been insecure . How long have politicians been talking about it . How long, how often have we talked about tax reform and yet it never happens . The point is 82 of the American People now believe that there is a professional Political Class in washington, d. C. Comprised of republicans and democrats alike. People who have been in politics all their lives who are more interested in the preservation of their power, position and privilege than on getting the job done. I agree with them. I agree with them. Thats why im run ingning for the presidency of the United States. When did we get used to the idea that only professional politicians can hold elected office in our Nations Capital . When did we settle for that idea . Ours was intended to be a citizen government by, for and of the people, and that means citizens as they did throughout our nations history have to at certain points step forward and serve in the Public Interest for a time. I think this election is going to be about many things. I think this election is going to be about lift inging the weight of government off of the potential of the people of this nation. I think this election is going to be about making sure that we lead once again in the world, which ill talk about in a moment. I think fundamentally this election is about leadership. And so let me define to you what leadership is. Leadership is not about position or power or title or prestige or the size of your office or the size of your airplane. Leadership is also not management. You know what managers are . Managers are people who do the best they can within the existing system. Managers do not challenge the status quo, they accept the status quo. Leaders challenge the status quo. In fact, it is leaderships most important job to challenge the status quo. Not to accept whats been broke. En just because its been that way for a really long time. The highest calling of leadership is to unlock potential in others. Every leader makes enemies. Its why people dont lead sometimes. When i was at hewlettpackard, i led that company through a difficult period, six years. Dotcom bust, after all this time, to its highs. Post 9 11, Worst Technology recession in 25 years, and yes, tough calls had had to be made and yet in that sixyear period we doubled the size of the company to almost 90 billion. We quadrupled its growth rate. We quadrupled its cash flow. We went from lagging behind in every market to leading in every market. At the end of that sixyear period i got fired in a board room brawl proving that when leaders challenge the status quo, you make enemies. Its what happens. So sometimes for people who have been in politics all their lives sometimes its just easier to go along to get along to talk about things. Isnt it interesting how every time an election season rolls around suddenly all these great ideas come out. Lets secure the border, lets reform entitlements all these great. Ideas and yet some idea they dont ever happen because they wont happen unless the status quo truly gets challenged. Let me tell you one of the ways i would challenge the status quo, and i think its high time. I would go to the American People on a regular basis to engage citizens once again in the process of their government and ask you key questions like, for example, i might go. Into the oval office and say, do you think its important that we know where our money is being spent in washington, d. C. . Please take out your smart phone, press 1 for yes, 2 for no. People would vote. Do you think its okay that you can sit in a federal government job and watch pornography all day long and earn the same pay, pension and benefits as somebody trying to do a good job. Press 1 for yes, 2 for no. You know why that kind of citizen pressure works . Because politicians actually respond to pressure. Remember when the scandal of the va in arizona burst on to the front pages. People were outraged. There was tremendous pressure. Because of that pressure from citizens of this nation, within three short Weeks Congress passed a bipartisan bill fastest timeframe theyd ever done anything. Bipartisan bill saying you could fire the top 400 executives. President obama signed it into law like that. It was a tremendous breakthrough. The first time. By the way, only one has been fired, but thats kind of a good idea. So another question i might ask, do you think e we ought to be able to fire Senior Executives in the federal government who are not doing their jobs . Press 1 for yes, 2 for no. Every problem we have can be solved. These are not Rocket Science problems. They require common sense, they require leadership and they require citizenship. We need to go to zero base budgeting so we know where our money is being spent. We need to tackle fundamental reform of places like the va. You know what i would do . Take ten veteran put them in room and say tell us how you want to be served. They would come up for a better blooup print than all the bureaucrats put together could. And nowhere is leadership we need leadership to unlock the potential of this nation once again. We need leadership to fundamentally reform the federal government so its no longer so inept, so wasteful, so abusive, so corrupt. Those are all very strong words. But every year we get report after report after report of hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud, waste, abuse corruption in the federal government and what happens . Nothing. We need leadership to change that and we need leadership in the world because the world is a a very dangerous place. Its tragic when we are not leading. Let me tell you a couple things i would do. Its true that i know more World Leaders on the stage today than Anyone Running with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton only i didnt do foephoto ops. I had meetings. I had a meeting this close to vladimir putin. I have sat in Benjamin Netanyahus office. Or the chinese leadership, or the saudi leadership, africa latin america, asia i have met these people. I have been in their countries. Our allies do not know whether they can count on us. Our adversaries know they dont need to pay any attention to us. So on day one in the oval office heres away i would do. The first phone call would be to Benjamin Netanyahu to reassure him that the United States of america will always stand with the state of israel. And that phone call is important in and of itself because i can remember sitting in his office five years ago in a private meeting while he talked to me about iran and their Nuclear Ambitions and then walking down the hall to talk about the same. But it also is a symbol. That phone call is a symbol of every ally we have. Even our ally who is disagree on many things wonder when the United States treats israel this way how much is my friendship with the United States worth. The second phone call i would make would be to the Supreme Leader of iran. He wouldnt take my phone call but he would get the message. I dont care what deal you cut, there is a new deal. The new deal is this. Until you open every nuclear facility, every uranium enrichment facility to inspections, we will make it as difficult as possible tr you to move money around the Global Financial system. We can do that. We dont need anybodys permission to do that. I wouldnt call vladimir putin. We have spent way too much time talking to vladimir putin. But instead i immediately begin rebuilding the sixth fleet Missile Defense shield programs immediately begin conducting military exercises in the Baltic States and they would get the message. Those phone calls and acts are important as well because every adversary we have, whether its china or russia or iran or someone else would say, maybe the United States is going to lead again. And make no mistake we must have the Strongest Military on the face of the planet and everybody has to know it, which means we have to invest in our military. And finally i would call a camp david summit not to talk or arab allies into a bad deal with iran. I would call a camp david summit to speak to our allies about what they need from us to fight isis. They know this is their fight. I dont know how many of you have been watching the news, but egypt is fighting isis as we speak. We have not provided them. King of jordan has asked for bombs and material. Thats why he was here when the pilot was burned alive. E we havent provided that yet. The egyptians have asked us to share intelligence. Kurds have asked us to arm them. There are a series of things that these allies in the region who know this is their fight want from us. We are not providing them and so we would have a camp david summit and decide together how best to defeat this evil because it must be defeated. Im going to wrap up here in a minute because i want to take your questions. But one of the things that ive gained something of a reputation for is taking a lot of questions from the media. And doing a lot of interviews that not everyone will do. And so i got asked an interesting question when i was here in New Hampshire on national television. The question was did i think that a womans hormones prevented her from serving in the oval office . So ladies, this is a test. Can you think of a single instance in which a mans judgment has been clouded by hormones . Any at all . Including in the oval office. Hillary clinton must not be president of these United States. But not because shes a woman. Hillary clinton must not be president of these United States because she is not trust worthy or transparent. Because she lacks a track record of leadership and because the policies she will pursue will continue to crush the potential of this nation. But make no mistake ladies and gentlemen, e we better have a nominee who will throw every punch there is at Hillary Clinton and it would help if she didnt get to run on being the first woman president. We do not need a professional politician to be president of the United States. We have tried that for quite a long time. What we need, i think, is someone who understands how the economy actually works so that we can get it going and growing again. We need somebody who understands how the world works and who is in the world, so that we can stand with our allies and confront our adversaries. We need someone who understands how bureaucracies work because our federal government has become one giant bloated unaccountable, unresponsive, inept bureaucracy. E we need somebody who understands technology because its a tool its a tool that can be used to reengage citizens in the process of their government and it is a weapon that is being used against us right now. But most importantly of all, we need somebody who understands what leadership is. That its not an achievement, its not a position, its not a title, its not a big office. Leaderships job is to challenge the status quo and leaderships highest calling is to unlock potential in others and now we need a leader in the oval office who together with the citizens of this great nation will unlock the potential of this great nation once again. So every single day i told you i think about my mom and i do and my dad, but every single day as well, i think about two of the most powerful symbols of our nations democracy because i think they tell us what we must be. And those who symbols are lady liberty and lady justice. So picture for a moment in your minds lady liberty. She stands tall and strong which is what america must always be. She is clear eyed and resolute. She doesnt shield her eyes from the realities of the world. She faces outward into the world, which the way america must always face and she holds her torch high. Because she knows she is a beacon of hope in a very troubled world. And Lady Justice Lady Justice holds a sword in one hand because she is a fighter. She is a warrior for the values and principles that have made this nation great. She holds a scale in the other hand and with that scale she is reminding us that all of us are equal in the eyes of god and therefore all of us must be equal in the eyes of the law and government, powerful andless powerless alike. And she wears a blindfold. With that she says to us that in this nation in this the 21st century, it must be true, it can be true that it doesnt matter what you look like. It doesnt matter who you are. And it doesnt matter what your circumstances. It doesnt matter how you start. Here in this nation, every americans life can be filled, must be filled with the possibilities that come from their godgiven gifts with liberty and justice for all. God bless you, ladies and gentlemen. [ applause ] thank you so much. Ladies and gentlemen, right now Carly Fiorina is going to take a few questions. Alex, raise your hand. Say hi to alex. Hes the microphone keeper. What he will do is raise your hand. Alex will come over to you. If it takes more than a minute to ask the question, its a speech, not a question. So be careful about that. We want to maximize the time. Alex go to it. Welcome, were so grateful for you to be here today. Our country has trillions and trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities. Medicare, medicaid, social security, how would you address that . So there are all kinds of actually pretty good ideas about how to reform those entitlements. But honestly speaking, i wouldnt start there because i dont think people trust that government can do that. Because government isnt doing much of anything else right. So i would start by getting governments house in order first with some of the things that it i described. I would start with zero base budgeting. Lets actually know where every dollar is being spent in every single agency. Lets force every agency to justify every program, every single year. If it cant be justified and its not meeting its metrics and goals, we dont do it anymore. Can you think of a single program, a single regulation that has ever been repealed . This is a test. Can you think of one . Prohibition, thats another one. Somebody in iowa said to e me re reagan repealed the 55 miles an Hour National speed limit. Thats true. I thought of two. All this it time. So the point is we never roll anything back. I would make sure that we have a Senior Executive service where performance actually matters. I would make sure that all those hundreds and billions of dollars of fraud, waste and abuse get dealt with. I would make sure we do the basics like securing the border, answering taxpayer questions at tax time, making sure the tsa is competent. Lets get our house in order. And then we can look at all the great ideas there are for entitlement reform. But when we turn it around turn it around when everybody talks entitlement reform, no one talks about it unless its political season. Dead silence in washington unless its political season. Then, when we have our house in order, tackle the great ideas and engage the American People in the conversation. Remember that one for yes two for no . Honestly, Technology Gives us the opportunity to talk together not to listen to pollsters, to actually ask people. [ applause ] hello thank you for coming tonight. I recently graduated from university. My question is about how do we get youth involved in our side of the argument . Theres a lot of talk at universities for the other side of the aisle but i want to hear your thoughts. You could sign up for the college republicans. As i say to young people all the time, if you have to stand on a College Campus and defend republican beliefs you are much better prepared for life than if you are going with the flow with democrats. Honestly because you have to make an argument and listen to the other side. [ applause ] first, i would encourage you, as you probably already do, since you asked the question, to talk to people your age. But, of course, every problem we are talking about here rests most heavily on your shoulders. It does. You know whether its unfunded liabilities or entitlement reform that is wont make it or a government that is completely inept as you live in your smart device or your student debt or National Debt and deficit. Every single one of these problems that stem from this out of control government rests more heavily with your contemporaries than with most of the people in this room. So, i think it starts with a conversation like that. One of the conversation starters i find works is students are understandably very concerned about student debt. So, when im with young people i say, do you know do you know that the National Government nationalized the student loan industry . Did you know that there used to be a competitive student loan industry where banks actually had to compete for your business and you know how competition works, right . Prices go down, you have more choices. Did you know the federal government nationalized that whole system . The National Government decides what the Interest Rates should be. The Interest Rates they are charging you on your loan are four times the rate the federal government pays on their own debt. Does that strike you as fair . No, it doesnt strike you as fair. Then you might reference what people experience with technology. Technology is the most hypercompetitive industry in the world. As a result, what happens . Better prices, better quality year after year. Maybe we should inject more competition in the student loan industry. Its a way of starting a conversation most young people dont know. Imagine the cynicism. Imagine the cynicism when we have National Political figures, Hillary Clinton and president obama who say to young people while Student Loan Debt is a real problem and we, the government, have taken it over totally and we decide what the Interest Rates are and we are going to talk about forgiving your debt. Isnt that cynical . Unbelievably cynical. [ applause ] hi, carly. Hi. Im glad he asked that question and you talked about student debt. Im here to talk about student debt as held. Here in New Hampshire, we have the highest student debt out of all the states in New Hampshire and recent college graduate, got some student debt but im having a lot of problems finding affordable housing. So, as im looking for places to live, im finding that im very limited because of my student debt and its limiting me in the future. So, i wonder, how can or what would you do to make housing more affordable for students like me with that . I appreciate you bringing up that issue because actually, its quite an issue with young people and seniors. You know, People Living on a fixed income who find it more and more difficult to afford housing. I dont have a Silver Bullet answer that the president of the United States is going to do this but what i do believe is that we need to have the conversation, just as we did about student debt, in general in general. If you want greater abundance and lower prices, you need to lift the Regulatory Burden so more people can compete. There are a bunch of people who want to compete for cheap, Affordable Student Housing and yet we make it hard really hard. So what i would say is keep bringing up that issue. It needs to be a debate issue. It needs to be a campaign issue. We are smothering so much opportunity for people to build a Good Business and for students or seniors to find a product they want and putting more government into the middle of that will make that problem worse, not better. So, we need to think about what we can do to lift the burden off that industry. [ applause ] sorry. Hi thank you. I have been a High School Teacher for the past ten years and i teach in the state of virginia which has its own draconian testing beaurocracy. We are exempt from common core. What role do you see the federal government playing in education, if any . So heres some data. The department of education has gotten bigger for 50 years and the quality of education has gotten worse. [ applause ] what do common sense people conclude from that . A Bigger Department of education has nothing to do with the quality of education in this country. It doesnt. Common core, lets start with that, really bad idea. [ applause ] you know there are some people who will say to you, well, common core is just a set of standards, its not a heavy handed bureaucratic program from washington, d. C. Its just a set of standards. The only trouble with that argument is this. Anyone who understands beaurocracy knows, beaurocracies only know one way. Its called heavy handed. Of course, the testing companies, the textbook companies, they are all in the middle of common core because it impacts their business z. They want to make sure they influence the rules. That is capitalism. So, what do we know is most important for a childs education . What do you know as a teacher . The most important thing in a childs education is a good teacher standing in front of the classroom and an involved parent. Thats it. So that means [ applause ] that means we have to give parents as many choices as posz zable, whether its home schooling, charter, parochial schools or vouchers. We need to give parents as many choices as possible. Democrats are on the wrong side of this issue. [ applause ] i will never forget the head of the Chicago Public Teachers Union when they were striking in chicago a couple years ago, the issue was accountability in the classroom. The head of the Teachers Union said this, we cannot be held accountable for the performance of students in our classroom because too many of them are poor and come from broken families. What was she saying . If you are poor and you come from a broken family, you dont have gifts you dont have potential, you cant learn. Shame on her. That is not what we believe. When democrats say we are going to shut down vouchers and charters, what are they doing . They are befriending a special Interest Group called the Teachers Unions and they are depriveing children of chances. So, we are going to give every parent a choice so every child has a chance. [ applause ] last question. Hello welcome to hello. Welcome to New Hampshire. A lot of us here in New Hampshire are very proSecond Amendment. You mentioned [ applause ] the governor, just today knocked down a new great law that would have gone into effect but that just went down today, unfortunately. But, you mentioned government is often heavy handed. How do you feel about the Second Amendment and how would you deal with that . Well, im pro. [ applause ] my husband is a gun owner. Im not a great shot but i could defend my home or family, if i had to. [ applause ] you know, whats interesting to me is this is always about ideology. This horrible, heinous crime we just saw in South Carolina and, of course, politicians rush to talk about gun control and yet South Carolina has in place some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation. They have in place many of the things the president and his party advocated for and they did not prevent this horrible crime. Thats true over and over. The places where you see the toughest gun laws have the most gun crime. Lets enforce the laws we have and let us defend the Second Amendment. Its pretty simple, to me. [ applause ] so, i believe that was the last question because i want to have a chance to shake as many hands as possible. Thank you so much for your warm welcome. When i started this campaign there were a lot of people who said it couldnt be done. I knew it could be. I have a lot of faith in people. I have a lot of faith in people. And i know that all of you agree with me and so many people across generational lines gender lines party lines, so many people have been watching and paying attention and saying we can do better than this. We need to do better than this. Every wound we have can be healed. Every problem can be solved. What its going to take now is leadership and citizenship. But, truly we have everything we need. We have the potential of the people on the greatest nation on the face of the planet. Help me, support me, talk to your friends, talk to your neighbors. Go to carlyforpresident. Com. Together, we can do this and take our Government Back and make sure this will be the greatest century for the greatest nation on the face of the planet. Thank you so much, ladies and gentlemen. God bless you all. [ applause ] live now from capitol hill, the house foreign Hills Committee holding the second of two hearings on the implications of the Nuclear Agreement with iran. Ed royce is chairing the committee. We are going to hear from joseph lieberman, a former senator. He is going to speak as a witness. He is heading out the foundation for the defense of democracy. Darrel issa was speaking with benjamin and former director of the cia, Michael Hayden and chairman Royce Holding this on the iran Nuclear Agreement a announced by president obama saying iran will not have to cheat to be a step away from the bomb. He says secretary of state kerry worked hard to get the deal. In many ways, their work is just beginning. As this agreement now comes to congress for approval. This hearing, starting shortly here on cspan3. This hearing will come to order. Today, the committee continues to examine the Obama Administrations Nuclear Diplomacy with iran. We thank our witnesses for joining us this morning. The add minministrationadministration of course, issued an agreement. In testimony before this committee, secretary kerry told us these negotiations would be used to dismantle Irans Nuclear program. That was the goal. Instead, this agreement allows iran to retain a vast enrichment capacity to continue its research and development and gain an industrialized Nuclear Program once key provisions of this agreement begin to expire in as little as ten years. The president told us that iran does not need to have an underground facility in order to have a peaceful Nuclear Program. Yet, this military complex will now stay open. While the Obama Administration officials first told us irans Missile Program would have to be addressed as part of a final agreement, they failed to mention that means taking restrictions off. We are talking here about the icvm program that iran has. Taking those off in just eight years. As secretary of defense carter testified last week, quote the reason that we want to stop iran from having an icvm program is that the i stands for intercontinental. That means having the capability of flying from iran to the United States, end quote. As we know countries build icbms for one reason, to deliver weapons. Recently in this negotiation, the very end of the negotiation, this is what russia and iran pushed for, the ability of russia to transfer this technology. This is what russia would like to do transfer this technology to the regime. At that same hearing our top military official gave his best military advice. Quote, under no circumstances should we relieve the pressure on iran when it comes to the arms. That comes off in just five years. On the critical issue of inspections, just a few months ago, secretary of energy said that, quote, we expect to have anywhere anytime access, unquote. But anywhere, anytime weakened to managed access. Manages access more accurately, should be called manipulated access as any process with russia, china and iran at the table will be treated exactly that way. It will be managed. It will be manipulated. The inspection regime will be manipulated by those with something to hide and this has been the past experience with iran that has cheated on every agreement so far. We might feel better if the United States was able to permanently constrain Irans Nuclear program, but the key restriction, the ability to enrich at high levels begins to expire in as little as ten years. Thats ten years. Most americans will take three times longer to pay off their mortgage. Ten years from now. Once these restrictions aspire iran could enrich on an industrial scale claiming the desire to sell enriched uranium on the International Market as france does. They could enrich it to levels near weapons grade, claiming the desire to power a nuclear navy as brazil is doing. All these activities are permissible and would be endorsed by this agreement. Indeed, the president himself president obama said of his own agreement, in year 13, 14, 15 irans breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero unquote. As a result, the u. S. And its allies will be left with no effective measures to prevent iran from initiating an accelerated Nuclear Program to produce the programs needed for a Nuclear Weapon. Iran surely would be able to speed toward a Nuclear Weapon faster than International Sanctions could be placed and reestablished on that regime. One nonproliferation expert told the committee that this sunset clause is in his words, a disaster. The essence of this agreement is permanent concessions in exchange for temporary benefits. Thats only if iran doesnt cheat like it has in the past and like north korea cheated. As one witness described to the Committee Last week, the deal is in many ways a bet. The bet that the administration is taking is that in ten or 15 years, we will have a kinder, gentler iran. Just a few days ago iranian president joined a crowd a crowd, which if you followed the piece in the new york times, the crowd were chanting death to america. This was their rally on the weekend. And the posters read death design. As the president was walking this reporter asked the question about the Nuclear Negotiations. He said the future is bright, as people behind him were chancing death to america, death to america. So, president obama decided to place all his chips on the fact that the death to america chants will soon disappear. This committee has to ask itself whether we are willing to roll the dice, too. Ill now turn to our Ranking Member for any opening commentss comments he may have. Thank you. I appreciate on giving the committee the opportunity to discuss and debate the agreement with iran. I know once the final deal is submit submitted, we will set up briefings and hearings as we move forward toward a vote on the deal. In the 18 months since p5 plus one began negotiatesing, we have had a lot of talks. We now know what an agreement looks like in terms of infrastructure. We stow away details on what access they will get and how violations will be dealt with, how the mechanism will work and what the resolution will look like. Secretary kerry and his team spent an enormous amount of time and energy on these negotiations. I appreciate their ability to negotiate significant limitations on enrichment and stockpiles stockpiles. I hesitate to speculate until we receive all the details. I have serious concerns about various aspects about the deal that were reported from vienna this week. In particular, one irans need to come clean on the past nuclear activities, access to nuclear sites, the timing of relief on the region and four, ensuring that arms embargo remains in place to prevent the spread of weapons to terrorists. Along with my colleagues i have been clear iran must come clean on the Nuclear Weapons work. A demand made by the administration. The case throughout the years, iran has been unwilling to cooperate on the parallel investigation into the possible military dimensions. Iran has made it difficult for many of us to imagine how we can expect them to comply to the terms of the deal. Will they continue to find ways to do so under the comprehensive deal . This is why upholding the integrity of the pmd investigation is so vital right now. So i will await details as to what the new road map signed by iran will entail. Furs further, im concerned about access. Its not based on trust. Its trance pair ensi. Will we have the access we need or will iran be able to block inspectors . If media reports are correct and one visit is granted is that enough to gather the information needed . How far have we strayed from the anytime, anywhere inspections they said should be part of a deal. Third, the timing and implications of sanctions. How extensive are the steps iran has to take to receive relief. How will cheating on commitments be dealt with and will iran have access to frozen assets well over 100 billion all at once and by what date and where does the money go . I know this was part one of the hearing. Irans behavior is not going to change. Thats been acknowledged. In fact, their support for designated terrorist organizations has the potential to grow under any deal. While its true some of the sanctions have to go toward economic problems one can imagine the havoc the terror proxies could reek. This needs to be something we understand better. This is if fourth and most troubling concern a Sticking Point in the final days of the negotiations. The lifting of the u. N. Arms embargo. I understand negotiations are intertwined. Its strardly difficult to imagine that the u. N. Security Council Resolution that will account will not continue the existing restrictions on irans ability to export dangerous and military hardware to terror proxies for many years to come. Quite frankly the resolution of this issue is baffling to me. Why do we believe irans dangerous support will change in five years or its desire for Ballistic Missile technology with wayne in eight years . From the beginning they said they are dealing with the Nuclear Issue different. Finally, i want to again raise the issue of the four american citizens held in iran. Jason, sayed and my constituent, the longest held american in history. Iran must know the United States will never stop working for the release of our citizens. I applaud and thank the committee for seeing these innocent americans return. I appreciate negotiators raising the issue and members of this committee and members of congress should have these americans in their thoughts as they review the terms. I look forward to receiving the details to begin to evaluate the merits. It cannot be judged on the absence of a deal today, tomorrow or 60 days from now, it must be analyzed of what will happen under an agreement of five years eight years and ten years. It will be whether the interest of our nation and that of our allies will be strengthened in years to come. I look forward to the discussion and i yield back. Thank you. This morning, we are pleased to be joined by a distinguished panel, senator lieberman represented connecticut 23 years. He is currently the cochair of the Iran Task Force at the foundation for defense of democracies and he is senior counsel at a firm in new york. General Michael Hayden is the former director of the central intelligence. Previously he served in multiple and other leadership positions including the director. Ambassador nick burns is the family professor of International Relations at the Harvard Kennedy school. He served in the Foreign Service 27 years during which time he served under secretary of state and ak bass dor to multiple posts. Dr. Ray take was previously a Senior Adviser on iran at the state department. Hes authored two books on iran. Without objection, the witnesses full prepared statements will be made part of the record. Members will have five calendar days to submit statements for the record and we will begin with senator lieberman. If you would like to summarize and well go to questions after your opening testimony. Thanks very much chairman royce, congressman deutsche and members of the committee. Im grateful for the opportunity to testify today at a really critical time t. Negotiation between iran and the p5 plus one produced an agreement which will come before you shortly. Each of you will have to decide whether to endorse or reject it. I personally, looking back at my 24 years of service in congress could not think of a more consequential vote you will cast in congress for the future security of the United States and indeed the security of the world. I cannot think of a Better Committee to lead the house of representatives in its review of the proposed agreement with iran because this committee, under the leadership of chairman royce, Ranking Member ingle and today, congressman deutsche built a strong record of nonpartisanship putting the interest of america ahead of the interest of each political party. If there was time for that kind of nonpartisan leadership, it is now. Your Opening Statements give me confidence that is exactly the way you will go at this. Mr. Chairman, i want first, before i get to my reaction of what happened today, to thank president obama, secretary kerry and other staff for the extraordinary effort they put into the negotiations. You will hear in a moment i have serious questions about the agreement that these negotiations produced but i have no questions about the sincerity and good motivation of the administration in pursuing the negotiations. In the time i have had since the agreement was announced a few hours ago, and based on the Framework Agreement that came out in april, i have reached a conclusion which is that there is much more risk for america and reward for iran than should be in this agreement. It is not the good deal with iran that we all wanted. Let me explain why i reached that conclusion based on what i know now. I was a member of the United States senate when the first sanctions legislation for iran was passed nearly 20 years ago and play a role in the drafting and passage of every subsequent sanctions bill. Each of the measures was adopted by overwhelming bypartisan majorities in the house and senate. Democrats and republicans in congress came together despite resistance and outright opposition from the executive branch regardless of which party controlled the executive branch at the time. Theres no question in my mind when we united across party lines in congress to pass these sanctions bills, it was with a clear and simple purpose, to prevent iran, the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world from ever possessing a Nuclear Weapons capability. In fact key provisions of the legislation we adopted explicitly stated this goal. Mr. Chairman congressman deutsche, members of the committee, this is not what the agreement announced today does. In fact what began as an admirable diplomatic effort to prevent iran from developing a Nuclear Weapons capability dissolved into a bilateral negotiation over the scope of that capability. The agreement announced today, temporarily delays but ultimately allows iran to become a Nuclear Weapons state and indeed legitimizes irans position of the Nuclear Capabilities it built up much of it covertly in violation of International Law and in breach of its obligations under the nonproliferation treaty. Mr. Chairman this is precisely the outcome that for years, we, in congress fought to prevent. This is precisely what we enacted legislative sanctions to stop. This is the biggest reason why i respectfully based on what i know today ask you to vote against this proposed agreement. For under it iran will be granted permanent and total relief from Nuclear Sanctions in exchange for temporary and partial limitations on its nuclear projects. That is the essence of why i believe this is a bad deal for america, a bad deal for irans neighbors in the middle east and a bad deal for the world. The antiamerican, antiisrael antisunni republic of iran will have Nuclear Weapons. This agreement, if approved takes Irans Nuclearization which previously was unacceptable and makes it inevitable. You talked about the bet here that congressman deutsche also this disagreement will moderate the regime in iran. This is a bet not based on fact. In fact, it is a bet based on hope over experience we have had with iran. We have to judge this country not just by what its representatives have said, but really more by what its government has done and is doing. In the months and years since negotiations began with iran, well its foreign minister has been negotiating with the p5 plus one and i might say charming the international media. The regime in tehran continued to build up its Nuclear Weapons capabilities expand support of radical proxies that threaten the sunni arab neighbors and israel. Improve the missile capacity so the weapons, one day, reach europe and the United States and spew out the most vile and violent rhetoric toward america, israel britain and lately saudi arabia. The rhetoric would be bad enough, but the iranian government acted on that rhetoric sponsoring repeated terrorist attacks that killed americans and israelis, arabs, muz lickslims muslims, christians and jews from iraq, saudi arabia and places in between. You mentioned the rally in tehran last week. Around the same time the editor of the tehran newspaper, who is selected by irans Supreme Leader and assumed to reflect his views wrote that the United States, quote, which currently terrorizes humanity as the sole super power will one fine day cease to be visible on the map of the world. End quote. How can we have any confidence in an agreement made with such a government . The answer is, its hard in any case but the only way we can have confidence is if the inspections and veryaryifications are airtight. Thats on iran receiving and delaying the Atomic International agency claiming inspectors are spies and its a tool of the United States even though we know its actually an agency of the United Nations. On first look the inspections provisions in the agreement announced today fall far short, dangerously short of the anywhere, anytime access that is needed to have confidence that this deal with the Iranian Regime will behave. President obama, this morning, used the term to describe the inspections where necessary, when necessary. Thats a long way from anywhere, anytime. The specific language of the agreement which i have gone over this morning creates a process that can go on for at least two weeks of negotiation with iran when the iaea thinks it has reason to inspect something going on and then has an appeal process to a higher board. This kind of the iaea will have to negotiate with iran to gain access for its inspectors even though iran has a consistent record of refuse zing timely and reliable access to international monitors in the past. Mr. Chairman in summing up, in the days and weeks ahead you will review the agreement in detail. You will hear different opinions about it and its implications. Based on what i know now, i have personally concluded the agreement falls far short of what is needed which is an agreement which reliably ends their Nuclear Weapons capability for return to the sanctions against iran and its Nuclear Program. I know there will be some who try to convince members of congress that if Congress Rejects the deal, the result will be catastrophic. Some may try to intimidate and demonize saying a vote against it is a vote for war. They are false arguments. I cite evidence, the most powerful measurement congress did with iran barring the sale of oil to the markets was undertaken despite explicit warnings from Administration Officials at the time that it would collapse the global economy. In fact, it opened the door to diplomacy that previously had proven impossible. In todays context, rejecting the bad deal will not result in war or the collapse of diplomacy. It will give the administration a new opportunity to pursue a better deal. I will say, as a former member of congress i know how difficult the following weeks will be for you. You will be pushed and pulled by supporters and opponents of this agreement. All i can say, and you all know it already, in the end the best you can do is decide in the privacy of your own conscience what you believe is best for the security of the American People, including, of course, your constituents constituents. This is a decision you and we will live with for the rest of our lives. This is a vote whose consequences will reverberate in the lives of our children, grandchildren and beyond. I thank you, mr. Chairman and i look forward to your questions. Thank you, senator. General hayden . Thank you, mr. Chairman, mr. Deutsche, other members for the opportunity to be here today and thank you for allowing me to be in the company of distinguished witnesses. Mr. Chairman when i was at the agent, iran was the second talked about in the Global Office except terrorism. The iranian issue, the Nuclear Program or it. As important as the question is, it is part of a larger piece. To paraphrase mr. Kissinger iran has to decide if they are a country or a cause. We have been negotiating for the past year and a half on the premise it wants to be a country. Their actions suggest they consider themselves a cause a revolutionary power whose identity may be even its doe mystic survival has to be drawn from a narrative of hostility between its as a legitimate agent of shia islam and the rest of the world. Now, we put the other issues aside two years ago when we decided to isolate and focus on irans Nuclear Ambitions. I get that. I understand that decision. Diplomacy is the art of the possible, not the art of the ideal. During the Bush Administration, we, too, focused on Irans Nuclear efforts. We need to understand, that nuclear focus doesnt make these realities go away and even if we get to a successful conclusion of Nuclear Negotiations the other issues remain and, indeed theres a possibility that the nuclear result will make those other issues more difficult to deal with. To over simplify a bit, the issue is not just the Nuclear Program, the issue is iran. We need to be careful our efforts to resolve this issue doesnt worsen the dimensions of the other prom. Now, let me focus on the nuclear portfolio. If i were here with a butcher paper drawing a chart on how to get from here to there with there being a Nuclear Weapon on the part of the iranians i would have three critical paths. One would be delivery vehicles the ballistic program. Another path would be weaponization. That is making a device small enough rugged enough and confident and reliability enough that you put it in a nose cover. The third path is the materials. The things you need to actually have a bomb. We have chosen to bet the farm on blocking one path. We have chosen to bet our future here on blocking the path toward the creation of the material. The other two paths Ballistic Missiles and Delivery Systems and weaponization are effectively off the table. Even here, in this one path, this material i think we have really reduced our margin for error. Mr. Deutsche mr. Chairman, senator lieberman already mentioned when this began, secretary kerry said we had not conceded the right of enrichment to the iranians and, of course, we had. That was the premise, the price we pay to get the iranians to the negotiating table. Let me just point out, too that the iranians claim they need this Nuclear Program for the eventual production of electricity. Coming from a nation rich in fossil fuels, we have a right to question that. Let me not question that. Let me concede that. Even conceding that point does not prevent a case for iran to be able to or allowed to enrich uranium. Today, there are 20 countries around the world that rely on Nuclear Power that do not produce their own material. To drive home this point, we have put considerable pressure on our responsible and trusted government in south korea not to do what this Nuclear Agreement allows the iranians to do. Mr. Chairman, as you already mentioned t president said iran didnt need the heavy reactor for a peaceful Nuclear Program. Although the agreement suggests these facilities have been modified, we need to see the fine print. They continue to exist. Overall, the iranians get to keep five older centrifuges. They say its part of a package that keeps them 12 months away from having enough material for a weapon. Im concerned about how much rnd, research and development they will be able to do on Centrifuge Technology . We have to look at it. The last public announcement has been the phrase, limited rnd. That could mean a lot of things to many people. Im also concerned about our failure to demand an accurate accounting of the possible military dimensions of the program. This really has special significance. Its not just what they may have done in the past to position themselves with regard to weaponization. The iranians have been stiffing the iaea for years on this issue. Now, we are going to rely on the iaea for verification of this new agreement. After seemingly having taught the iranians that if you stiff these guys enough, the requirement to concede will go away. Given past iranian behavior and deception, will the agency be able to conduct anywhere, anytime inspections thats always a concern and already been well handled . I know we have to look at the fine print to see what managed inspections are like mr. Chairman. Let me give you a way i have begun to think about this. Inspections should have been at the technical level. Inspections should have been driven by an iaea decision that this International Body had a technical reason for visiting facility a, b or c. The managed Inspection Program puts it at the political level. I just dont see a happy outcome that would evolve out of that kind of arrangement. Theres an awful lot to talk about, mr. Chairman. I dont want to belabor all these issues some of which have already been raised, but i do want to bring up one point. In discussing the new agreement, many have tried to bring in the pattern of inspections we agreed with the soviets under the star treaty and the salt treaty. One of the administrations officials said that we dont insist on being able to get into every military site because the United States of america wouldnt allow anybody to get into every site. Thats just not appropriate. Mr. Chairman, that suggests an equivalency here, the kind we did have with the soviets. After all we were entering into a voluntary controls agreement with them. This is iran trying to get out of the box for violating multiple u. N. Security Council Resolutions. This isnt a neutral playing field. The burden of proof should be on the iranians, that they are adhering to an agreement, not on us, to prove that they are not. So again as i said, inspections managed looks at the political level not wise. This sense of equivalency is not an accurate reflection of what is going on here. Thank you. Thank you general hayden. Ambassador burns . Thank you chairman, members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to be here. I am here with friends and people i respect very much. We all start from the presumption, all of us that looked at the issue for a long, long time. It is in the interest of the United States to deny iran a Nuclear Weapon. Both president bush and president obama took the position they will use any means at our disposal including military to accomplish that. It doesnt start there. The Bush Administration sought negotiations with iran. They turned us down. That led us to sanctions. The Obama Administration, with the help of the congress and leadership of the congress pushed stronger sanctions that made a difference on the iranians. They have now come back with a negotiated agreement for your consideration. I say two things about it. This is among, i think, the most difficult, complex agreements we can hope to judge. Its filled with very painful trade offs. There are risks in acting and following the agreement and there are risks in not acting. I certainly agree with senator lieberman, from my perspective, this will be one of the most important vote that is any of the members take in your time of office. I was trying to think this morning for the diplomatic history to go back to the legal vote. In the 1920s, congress is going to play a central and directing role as to weather we go forward or dont go forward. I worked on iran policy for president bush and secretary rice. I helped to sanction iran. I believe we have to contain their threat in the middle east and we have to stop them. But i also believe that problems policy is worthy of your support. Im going to support it because i think its the best alternative. If i could have designed a perfect alternative, it would be a 1000 victory for the United States in the submission of iran. That is not available to the United States and whether we oppose it or whether we support it, we have to think in the real world about what the alternatives have been. Here is the alternative that president obama and secretary kerry have followed. They think this agreement will freeze Irans Nuclear program for the next decade. It will deny a Nuclear Weapon because it wont have the material that general hayden talked about for the next decade. It closes out the root for the material. Irans plutonium reactor will be effectively put offline. The core will be dismantled, the spent fuel taken out of the country. They wont be able to develop a Nuclear Weapon through plutonium. The Enrichment Program fordile will be closed completely. The other will have 5,000 to 6,000 centrifuges with a lower power. But, the uranium will be a 3. 67 at 300 kilograms, the store of uranium. That is not weapons grade. They will not have the weapons grade uranium to make a Nuclear Device because of the restrictions at the plant. Right now, the Obama Administration said iran may be two to three months away from a Nuclear Weapon. With this deal, theres no dispute about this for the next ten years, as the program is frozen, iran will be a year away from a Nuclear Weapon. So, i think the administration can make a case, whether you agree with them or not on the deal, that the program is going to be frozen. The plutonium Enrichment Programs. That is an important attribute of this deal. Second iran will be subjected to inspections its never been subjected to before. 20 years of the protocal of iaea inspections. Third, should iran cheat . I suppose they will try, given their past record where they have lied to us, the United Nations in the past. We have the ability to reimpose sanctions. The United States would have the opportunity, any future president to form a coalition like the present coalition to sanction them. Fourth, this does give the United States a chance to resolve this problem diplomatically peacefully through a tough minded negotiation. I dont say that lightly. Im someone who believes we should keep the force on the table and any american president would be justified using it if we felt iran was close to a breakout close to a Nuclear Weapon. We are not at that point. No one is contesting they are close to a Nuclear Weapon. The use of force is really, not pertinent to this discussion. If we have a chance to avoid a third major conflict in the middle east since 9 11 and we can stop aran in the process, that is a good course for the United States. But, mr. Chairman, let me tell you, i dont think this is a perfect deal. I have had trouble, just as a private citizen trying to weigh the risks on both sides and weigh the pros and cons. If i were a member i would want to focus on some questions senator lieberman and hayden have spoken of. I want to look at the fact irans program will be suspended for ten years. When that ten years is over, the super structure of the program will be intact. Iran would have the right to build back up a plutonium or uranium root to a Nuclear Weapon. That is a weakness of this agreement, a trade off. We receive benefit the freezing of their program for ten years. That program is not being entirely dismantled and we have to understand that. I think its important the iaea will have 25 years of insight into irans program, but will they have a clear line of sight . Will they have access . What, in practice does managed access to a Nuclear Plant mean . I think it means they are going to write the rules about how the plants are inspected and certainly questions have to be asked about that as well as military dimensions. Third, would we actually be able to reimpose sanctions should iran cheat or violate the agreement . None of us know. We are talking a hypothetical situation some years into the future. It would require a tough minded american president , whoever we elect in 2016. It would require us to assemble a coalition that took ten years to build. I think the europeans would be with us. I wonder if the russians and chinese will. If i look at this honestly, they are real trade offs. This is not a perfectly designed agreement. We had to compromise and give. Thats where general hayden said it and i agree with him, we made the compromises. I think the only way to look at this is not only what is the ideal solution because that is not available to us. Is this the best alternative . I can think of two other alternatives. One, which a lot of people talked about is should we have just walked away . Should secretary kerry have said this is not good enough . Should he have left the negotiations . Should he have withdrawn american support . We could have done that, but as someone who helped to put the p5 together as well as the first three u. N. Security counsels i think i know what would have happened. Our coalition, which is global and contains every major country in the world would have frayed and dissolved. Countries would have gone their way without the leadership of the United States. The chinese would want to go for Energy Contracts and the Indian Government would want to import more oil from iran. Our friends in east asia, our allies want to go back to a trading relationship so a no deal option we walk away and sanction furser t United States can sanction all they want. What got them to the table was the global sanctions. It was india not buying as much oil and gas. It was the yup piano arms em bar go. If quou walk away there goes the leverage of the sanctions. So, for me, if i have to weigh that walking out no deal option versus president obamas option, i favor president obamas option. One more option available to the United States, we could have gone directly to the military force. General hayden would be a Greater Authority on this than i would be as a military person, but i believe the United States has the capacity to destroy Irans Nuclear facilities. That might buy us three or for more years. I dont know the numbers. That might give a grace period. You cant bomb the knowledge that the engineers and scientists have. They know how to mine uranium and convert it and enrich it. They know how to assemble a nuclear warhead. That military option is not a strategic option, its a tactical option. It buys you time. President obamas option buys us ten years where we can be assured their program has frozen. I dont think these other options work for the United States in the real world of International Politics and international diplomacy. As i look at the alternatives, i think president obama is worthy of your support and i am going to supportchairman, two quick points, at the time the Obama Administration will look at the issues, i think we are going to have to push back because they have become the king maker in syria and they are the most unfortunately, the most influential country in iraq and they are running arms and supporting and instigating the row vault of the hootie tribes. If you will they are making a big play for shower in the sunni world. So i think were in the congress position, i certainly am, of supporting a nuclear deal and hoping and believing president obama needs to push back through a Strong Coalition with the arab countries against iranian power and i would hope president obama and the Obama Administration in general would make up with israel, would be to reinforce our military force with israel as well as the gulf states so we can contain iranian power in the middle east. Its racing alongside of the debate on the Nuclear Issue as we speak. Finally, let me say, as somebody who served in both democratic and republic demonstrations, i would hope we could have a bipartisan debate in our country, among citizens and on capitol hill. There are obvious differences between the bush and Obama Administrations, but both wanted to have an negotiated outcome, and thats what we were hoping for in 2006 and 07. We are going to need bipartisan unity and support for our president if we will defeat this threat by iran in front ofpass that thank you ambassador. Dr. Takei. Thank you for inviting me back to this particular forum. I will stay within my allotted time especially since i dont judge poe would cut me off but hes not here right now. Since the add srupbt in 2002, 22 principles have guided the negotiation position, from 2002 to 2013 and it was what kind of the practical needs and iran has no practical needs for enrichment and it should be allowed only as a sim ball pick Nuclear Program such as it would allow leaderships to save face where it should be assurances where some a Symbolic Program would not be used for military purposes. The second position that guided the United States policy from 2002 to 2013 was that iran can rejoin the npt community once it established the trust and confidence of the International Community. These were the positions of the Obama Administration endure and embrace the country including russia and china. Its precisely these two principles that the administration has the framework. The notion of practical needs have been replaced by something called the oneyear breakout period with acknowledgment that that one year is not static and will alter to zero in the concluding stages of this agreement, and the notion of trust and confidence of the International Community has been replaced by a clause whereby an arbitrary time clock will tell when an industrial sized program. Japan can be trusted with such technologyies technologies, and all the significant issues aside, this deal and implication has to be articulated in the complex of the changing foreign policy. Its important to note that the Supreme Leader stands as the most successful persian in modern history of iran. In 1970 at the height of his power, the shah never had control of iraq, and politics always eluded him. Today as some have suggested islamic has the deepentration of the deep state and the most significant power in syria, and it has a lethal proxy that can employ in various fronts in the middle east and in the gulf and other aspects of the alliances gives iran ample opportunity. What would they spend the money on . Imperialism has its costs and some of the money undoubtedly will go to the tempting opportunities out there, but i do believe the administration has one case some of the money will undoubtedly be spent on domestic concerns and needs, and there is a wing of the iranian politics with what they are interested in the china model when you can purchase domestic descent by providing opportunity. In that particular sense, you can make a case and a plausible one that the raw hauply administration, it would require some sort of a relief and along the china model, the idea is that by granting them a measure of economic rewards you can purchase domestic consent. And in this case the Islamic Republic in my view continues to be haunted by the green revolution in 2009, so to have any hope of succeeding they need an arms control agreement as much as the imperialism. In the end, this deal may not rest on trust, but it does rest on hope. The hope that a decade from now the Islamic Republic will be a different regime at ease with global norms and inclined to live in peace with its neighbors and a power that is no longer fueled by antiamericanism that so long fueled the ideology engine. After watching this for two decades it ask a hope that i have difficulty sharing. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to just go to the question of the arms embargo, and you know, this was a doctor this was a lastminute addendum to this agreement, a demand in the negotiation that the u. N. Lift the arms embargo as it related not just to conventionsrepb conventional weapons, and it goes to irans capability to get access to the International Technical assistance that it seeks to improve their icbm program, and last week secretary of defense carter and chairman of the joints chief of staff dempsey both sounded the alarm of what it would mean if they get this capability to have an ibcm reach the United States and the russians stepped in in the lastminute of the negotiations and they want to transfer this to iran. This is the most recent issue that i think caught us by surprise. I think the other element of surprise was the discovery that in the middle of this negotiation, about a month ago, that iran had committed to transfer to hamas, not just the funding to rebuild the 35 tunnels that had been built before under israel, but also a new generation of rockets and weapons and then most recently the additional discovery or announcement that iran was going to transfer precision guidance to the rockets and missiles that hezbollah has in its disposal aimed at israel but not as effective because of the iron dome and it would be if they had the precision guidance systems, and the fact they are willing to do that in the middle of the negotiations and demand the up front signing bonus which they will use for this, and it drove the congress has this information is surfacing, and i would like, ray, your comments on this, or general, you might have some insights as well. I mean, nick can talk about the conventional prohibitions in the u. N. As i understand it, those embargoes on conventional arms had to be with irans regional behavior and had nothing to do with the Nuclear Dispute that was ongoing at the time, and irrespective of what happens at the arms embargo, iran has developed a robust defense industry, and it can enhance in terms of elicit procurements and so forth so there is always going to be a problem of iranian transference of technology and other forms but obviously under this prohibition now it will go both ways, so now not only will they be able to export from their technology