SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON PANETTA SPEECH NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
SECRETARY FO DEFENSE LEON PANETTA DELIVERS A SPEECH AT THE NATIONAL PRES CLUB. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON E. PANETTA DELIVERS REMARKS AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB PANETTA: Thank you very much, Theresa, for that kind introduction. And thank you for the invitation to be here today. I look forward to the opportunity to go back and pick walnuts back in Carmel Valley. I've told this story before, but it makes the point. When I was young, my father -- when he first planted that walnut orchard, as it grew, he would go around with a pole and hook and shake each of the branches. And my brother and I would be underneath collecting the walnuts. When I got elected to Congress, my Italian father said, "You've been well trained to go to Washington, because you've been dodging nuts all your life." (LAUGHTER) True. It was great training. I've had the opportunity to be here at the Press Club in, obviously, some of my past jobs as a member of Congress, as OMB director, and then as chief of staff. In those jobs, words were both my weapon and my shield. In this job, as secretary of defense, I have a hell of a lot more going for me, but in a democracy, words remain the most powerful weapon in our arsenal. And it's for that reason that it is an honor for me to again be here at the National Press Club. I've long had a deep and abiding respect for the Washington press corps. You play an essential role in making our democracy strong by holding leaders and holding institutions accountable to the people they serve. As secretary of defense, and in my past jobs, I learned that it was important to be accessible to the press and to be transparent with them with regards to the issues and challenges that you confront. And in this job, I've tried to be as accessible as I can to the Pentagon press corps, to engage regularly with reporters and to encourage other senior officials in the department to do the same. It is an especially important time to communicate our vision and our priorities as a department, because as I've said time and time and time again over this past year, I believe that we are at a strategic turning point. After more than a decade of war, the longest extended period of conflict in the history of the United States, at the beginning of 2012, President Obama and the military and civilian leaders of the department came together to publicly release a new defense strategy. It was designed to help the military effectively navigate this turning point and prepare for the future. Under that strategy, our goal was to reshape the force of the 21st century, to try to meet the new security challenges that we're confronting in this world and try to help the country at the same time reduce the deficits that we're confronting. We were handed a number in the Budget Control Act to reduce the defense budget by $487 billion over the next decade, almost a half a trillion dollars. And based on my own budget experience at the time, I knew that the approach should be not to just simply cut it across the board and hollow out the force, but to try to develop a strategy for what is it we want the Defense Department to be not just now, but going into the future, as well. And that was the purpose why we developed the strategy. As the year 2012 draws to a close, today I want to describe the strategic environment that is shaping our future plans, the progress we have made toward implementing this strategy, and the risks that we face as we work every day to try to keep America safe and secure. Before I continue, let me just pay tribute to a couple people here who join me at the head table. My deputy secretary, Ash Carter, has played and continues to play a crucial role in helping me and DOD develop and implement the strategy, and I deeply appreciate his dedication and commitment to the department. And I also want to pay tribute to my undersecretary for policy, Jim Miller, who's also here, who also worked very hard on that strategy to ensure that we develop the right strategy for the future. And I should also say, Marty Dempsey and all of the members, our service chiefs, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all participated. We all participated in a kind of unprecedented effort to try to openly discuss what were the best steps we could take for the future. This is a time of historic change for the United States military. One year ago today, soldiers from the 1st Cavalry Division crossed out of Iraq into Kuwait as part of the last convoy of U.S. troops to leave Iraq. That war came to an end. Last year, we also participated in a complex, but successful NATO mission that helped bring down Gadhafi and give Libya back to the Libyan people. It was a complex operation. When you have that many nations involved in a mission, how do you decide targets? How do you determine who goes after those targets? And yet we were able to bring that kind of coordination together, and it served NATO and the United States very well in that effort. And it creates, I think, very much a model for how we should approach the future, if we have to face that kind of situation again. Our military and intelligence operations -- and that's one of the things I'm very proud of over these last four years, is the integration between intelligence and military operations when it comes to going after terrorists. Over the last year, as a result of those operations, we continue to significantly weaken Al Qaida's core leadership and put real pressure on their affiliates. We are also now working to bring the conflict in Afghanistan to a successful transition by the end of 2014. PANETTA: Last week, I made my eighth trip to Afghanistan. I had a chance to sit down with all of our military commanders throughout the region, throughout the country. I also went to Kandahar and met with our military commanders there and also had the opportunity to meet with Afghan leaders, as well. All of them -- all of them -- believe that we have fundamentally turned the tide in that effort, after years in which we lacked the right strategy and the necessary resources to try to achieve the mission we are embarked on. We now have a plan in place, a campaign plan, endorsed in Chicago by NATO, that has strong international support. We've reversed a five-year trend of growing violence. The Taliban to this day has not been able over this last year to regain any of the territory they lost. We are building Afghan security forces that are on track to take the lead for securing the entire country next year. We continue to transition both governance and security to the Afghans. Seventy-five percent of the population has now been transitioned to Afghan security and control, and next year, we will have 100 percent. But we've also made clear that our commitment to Afghanistan, as we draw down by the end of 2014, our commitment will continue. We are transitioning; we are not leaving. We will maintain an enduring presence aimed at supporting Afghan forces and ensuring the mission that we were embarked on in Afghanistan, the mission that Al Qaida never again regains Afghanistan as a safe haven from which to attack the United States or our allies. So after more than... (APPLAUSE) After more than 10 years of continuous warfare, deployment after deployment after deployment of our men and women in uniform in these wars, the United States is truly at a critical point. As I said, large-scale conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are drawing to an end. An era of blank-check defense spending is over, and forces will be reduced. And all of this occurs -- and all of this occurs as the United States faces an array of asymmetric threats in the world. Even while it is obvious that we do not live in a world where another superpower threatens our military supremacy, it is equally obvious that the threats to our security and our global interests are not receding, as they appeared to do in past wars, coming out of World War II, coming out of Korea, coming out of Vietnam, coming out of the end of the Cold War, where the threats receded. The fact is today we still confront these threats in the world, threats that are more complex, more dispersed, and in many ways, more dangerous. We have made progress. We have made progress against Al Qaida's core leaders and its affiliates in the FATA. We continue to do it in Yemen and in Somalia. But Al Qaida is seeking new footholds throughout the Middle East and in countries like Mali, in North Africa. It remains determined to attack the United States and remains one of the serious threats that we must deal with. North Korea, Iran continue to pose a proliferation threat and are engaged in activities that are destabilizing Northeast Asia and the Middle East. The conflict in Syria is bringing a violent end to a regime that harbors a large stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, and extremists seek to destabilize a nuclear-armed Pakistan. Increasing military spending by rising powers in the Asia Pacific region and turmoil across the Middle East and North Africa are altering the strategic landscape. At the same time, the nature of military conflict is changing because of the new technologies, like cyber and the proliferation of missiles and WMD. We are seeing potential adversaries -- state and non-state actors alike -- acquire more advanced hybrid and high-end capabilities designed to frustrate the conventional advantages of our armed forces. This means that the military services must remain vigilant, they must remain strong, they must remain prepared to operate in a way that differs significantly from the past. We will continue to face terrorism and deadly attacks by IEDs, but we must also be ready for more capable adversaries to a attack our forces and our homeland in cyberspace, to attack and launch precision strikes against forward bases, to attempt to cripple our power grid, our financial systems, our government systems, to attempt to deny us freedom of action through asymmetric attacks. As I said, the goal of our new defense strategy is to help shape the force of the 21st century, to try to adapt our forces and operating concepts so that we are better prepared for an unpredictable and dangerous future, even in an era of constrained resources. We have been determined to avoid the approach taken in past drawdowns, where, as I said, there were deep, across-the-board cuts that hollowed out the force and weakened our military, left the military demoralized and unready to carry out the missions assigned to it. Instead, we have set priorities and made tough decisions to try to build the force of the future and to remain the strongest military power on the face of the Earth. The strategy consists of five elements. We have already made significant progress this year towards implementing that strategy. And let me describe, if I can, the strategy and what we have done. The first element of the strategy is to build a force that is clearly going to be smaller and leaner. That's a reality. We are going to be smaller; we are going to be leaner coming out of these last wars. But we must ensure that at the same time the military is agile, flexible, and technologically advanced, and prepared to deploy as quickly as we can to confront crises in this dangerous world. Facing constrained resources and the drawdown of two troop- intensive wars, we made a decision to favor a smaller and more ready force over a larger force that would be less well-equipped and less trained. As a result, Army end strength is going to be gradually reduced to 490,000 soldiers over these next 5 to 10 years from a high of about 570,000, still well above the force levels that we had in 9/11. And the size of the Marine Corps will also be reduced slightly to about 182,000 from a peak of about 202,000 during the past decade. We are also making investments to be capable of more quickly confronting a wider range of threats across a more dispersed geography. This past February, the Navy and Marine Corps conducted their first large-scale amphibious exercise in more than 10 years. In March, the Army conducted its first exercise in its new decisive action training environment that emphasizes combined arms maneuver against a combination of irregular and near-peer conventional opponents. The second element of our defense strategy is to maintain our force projection where we need it, in the Middle East and in the Asia Pacific region. The Asia Pacific region is, obviously, an area of growing importance to our economy and our security. And the Middle East, obviously, represents continuing threats to our security, as well. Even after the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, we have maintained a substantial military presence in the Middle East in order to deter aggression, respond to crisis, ensure regional stability in the face of historic unrest and the continuing threat from Iran. Last week, I visited some of our troops based in Kuwait, part of a robust Gulf posture that includes roughly 50,000 troops, dozens of ships, fighters, bombers, advanced intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms. We are partnering closely with the Gulf states to boost their capacity in critical areas, such as missile defense and countermining, which will help reduce the pressure to sustain these large deployments over the long term. I also visited Incirlik, the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, where I announced the deployment of the two U.S. Patriot missile batteries as part of a NATO effort to try to help protect our Turkish allies against the threat of missiles from Syria. Even as we have asserted our strong and enduring commitment to the Middle East, we are also renewing and expanding our engagement in the Asia Pacific region. The core of our rebalance is modernizing our existing network of alliances and security partnerships throughout the region and developing new security relations, as well. Over the past year, we reached major agreements with Japan to realign our forces and jointly develop Guam as a strategic hub. We've worked to strengthen cooperation with the Republic of Korea in space, in cyberspace, in intelligence. And we began a new Marine rotational deployment to Australia, as well as increased Air Force cooperation. Likewise, we are deepening our engagement and developing rotational deployments with allies and partners such as Singapore and the Philippines and expanding our mil-to-mil dialogue and exchanges with China. We are also enhancing our presence and capabilities in the region. That includes reallocating the naval fleet to achieve in these next few years a 60/40 split between the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans -- hopefully, we will do that by 2020 -- increasing Army and Marine presence in the region after Iraq and Afghanistan, locating our most advanced aircraft in the Pacific, including new deployments of F-22s and the MV-22 Ospreys to Japan, and laying the groundwork for the first overseas deployment of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to Iwakuni in 2017. The third element of our strategy is that as we do force projection in the Asia Pacific and in the Middle East, we still have to maintain our global leadership and presence by building innovative partnerships and partner capacity across the globe and using these innovative rotational deployments as a way to do exercises and training with other countries, developing their capabilities so that they can help provide for their own security, in Latin America, in Africa, in Europe and elsewhere. PANETTA: The past decade of war has reinforced the lesson that one of the most effective ways to address long-term security challenges is to help build the capabilities of our allies. We have seen this approach with our counterinsurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and our counterterrorism efforts in Yemen and Somalia. We are expanding our security force assistance to a wider range of partners in order to address a broader range of security challenges in Asia Pacific, in the Middle East, and as I said, in Europe, Africa and Latin America. To implement this element of the strategy, the services are retaining the security cooperation capabilities we have honed over a decade of war and making investments in regional expertise. For example, through the Army's new regionally-aligned brigade structure, they are able to, in fact, engage on a rotational basis to assist other countries. The entire U.S. government is working to make our security cooperation, particularly foreign military sales, more responsive and more effective, to cut through the bureaucracy, to cut through the red tape, to be able to provide the assistance that we need to other countries without delay. We're particularly seeking to boost defense trade with rising powers like Brazil and India. I visited these countries recently to help advance those growing defense partnerships, and Ash Carter has also made an effort in a new joint U.S.-India initiative to boost defense cooperation and trade and streamline our respective export control processes. In order to remain the security partner of choice, the United States must maintain our decisive military edge and adapt to meeting emergency threats. The fourth element of the new defense strategy is that we must always remain capable of being able to confront and defeat aggression from more than one adversary at a time anywhere, anytime. That means if we're engaged in a conflict on the Korean Peninsula and Iran attempts to close the Straits of Hormuz, we must be capable of being able to respond decisively to both locations. With the strategy we've developed, we believe we have that capability. We're maintaining our ability to simultaneously operate in multiple theaters by investing in critical power projection capabilities, our aircraft carrier fleet, our big-deck amphibious fleet, a new afloat forward staging base, and long-range strike capabilities. We're also making new investments in the next-generation bomber, a next-generation tanker that will afford our air forces greater mobility, and working every day to put our Joint Strike Fighter program on a firmer footing. To stay ahead of the growing capabilities of potential adversaries and ensure our ability to quickly defeat aggression, we have begun to re-examine our plans in order to ensure that we are prepared for the most realistic scenarios for new and unconventional threats and for asymmetric attacks. We are also refining emerging operational concepts, including joint operational access in air-sea battle that will ensure our ability to project power in areas where our enemies seek to deny us access. And the fifth element, the last element of our strategy, is that this cannot just be about cutting back on defense. We must also be able to invest in the future, to protect and prioritize key investments in technology and new capabilities, as well as our capacity to grow, to adapt, and to mobilize as needed. Throughout the strategy review, I made clear that this cannot be simply an exercise, a budget exercise in deciding where we're going to cut. We've made those decisions. We've looked at better efficiencies. We have looked at reductions in force structure. We have looked at procurement reforms. We have looked at compensation. All of those areas were part of our budget proposal to try to achieve the $487 billion in savings. But if we are to maintain the finest military in the world, finest military force, the finest military power in the world, we have got to invest in priority missions for the future. For example, despite budget reductions, we are expanding our fleet of unmanned systems -- this is the future -- including new carrier launch surveillance and strike aircraft. In order to boost priority counterterrorism and build partner capacity efforts, we're continuing a planned growth in special operations forces which will reach 72,000 by 2017, more than double the number we had on 9/11. We have protected investments in countering weapons of mass destruction and accelerated testing of mobile air-sampling systems and ground sensors for nuclear forensics, and we are significantly increasing our cyber capabilities, including our greatest asset -- talented, bright manpower. The department has also recently developed new rules of engagement in cyberspace that clarify our mission to defend the nation and will enable us to more quickly respond to cyber threats. We are also protecting our ability to re-grow and mobilize the force by emphasizing our Guard and our reserve readiness and protecting a strong industrial base. If we face a crisis, if I have to mobilize, the last damn thing I can do is to contract that responsibility out to another country. I have got to rely on our industrial security base to be there and be able to respond. (APPLAUSE) These are the five elements of the defense strategy and some of the important steps that we've taken so far to implement it. As a department, we are continuing to refine that strategy, and we will continue to do that, to assess the risks that might prevent us from effectively implementing it. But right now, as I speak, I see two principal risks. The first risk is the stress on the force, which is still operating at a very high tempo more than 11 years after September 11th. We are still at war in Afghanistan. We have been on a crisis posture in the Middle East and North Africa for the past year. And we will continue to maintain a strong presence in that region even as we rebalance to the Asia Pacific area. Our outstanding men and women -- our outstanding men and women in uniform are the foundation of everything we do. As I've often said, I've got great weapons, I've got great ships, I've got great bombers. None of that is worth a damn without the U.S. men and women in uniform that serve this country. (APPLAUSE) We need to ensure -- we need to ensure that servicemembers and their families have the support that they have earned in areas like health and education and employment, and they transition back into their communities so that they can be -- be able to go back home and re-establish their ties to their communities. In our budget, we've made a concerted effort to ensure the health of the force, their readiness, by protecting operations and maintenance accounts, but keeping the fastest and most flexible weapons platforms, sustaining investment to high-quality personnel and research in science and technology. But nevertheless, there is pressure on the department to retain excess force structure and infrastructure instead of investing in the training and equipment that makes our force agile and flexible and ready. Aircraft, ships, tanks, bases, even those that have outlived their usefulness have a natural political constituency. Readiness does not. What's more, readiness is too often sacrificed in favor of a larger and less effective force. I am determined to avoid that outcome. Therefore, I've directed that readiness be treated as a strategic imperative for the department, and we have launched an initiative to assess and improve our readiness across the board. Our effort to do everything possible to ensure a ready force also explains why we express concerns about what we saw in the House and Senate 2013 defense authorization bills. What they did was, in their markups and in the bills that passed each of the houses, diverted about $74 billion of what we asked for in savings in our proposed budget to the Congress, and they diverted them to other areas that, frankly, we don't need. A final legislation I know is now being negotiated in conference, and we are working -- I come from the Congress, I know the Congress, and we will work with our partners there to try to improve it. And I'm hopeful that we will ultimately arrive at a bill that allows us to continue implementing the strategy we've designed effectively. We must make every dollar count, and we must continue to carefully manage the balance, sustaining current operations, being ready to respond to crisis and emerging threats, preparing for future operations, and investing in the capabilities of the future. Balancing these needs effectively requires resources and budget stability, which brings me to the second and greatest risk facing this new defense strategy: a political system that is depriving the department of the budget certainty we need in order to plan for the future. For more than a year, this department has been operating under the shadow of sequestration, this mindless mechanism that was put in place in order to somehow force the Congress to do the right thing. Because of political gridlock, this department still faces the possibility of another round of across-the-board cuts totaling almost $500 billion that will inflict lasting damage on our national defense and hurt the very men and women who protect this country. Wherever I visit our troops, wherever I visit our troops, they make clear their concern about those cuts. What does it mean for them? And what does it mean for their families? It is unacceptable to me that men and women who put their lives on the line every day in distant lands have to worry about whether those here in Washington can effectively support them. We're down to the wire now. In these next few days, Congress needs to make the right decision and to avoid the fiscal disaster that awaits us. My hope is that they will do the right thing and that we will achieve a bipartisan consensus on deficit reduction and the trajectory of defense spending in the future. Otherwise we will weaken this nation in the minds of our allies, our partners, and our potential adversaries, and undermine the work and the sacrifices that our troops are making every single day. It's easy to get cynical and frustrated in this town. And after 40 years, I know my level of cynicism and frustration. But my confidence and my hope for the future is restored every time I have the opportunity to visit with our troops on the front lines, as I did last week. In them, I see the spirit of public service that has kept this country strong for more than two centuries and which has helped us to overcome every period of crisis and adversity in our history. That spirit of public service is also in evidence here at this monument to democracy, the National Press Club. Journalists who commit themselves to doggedly pursuing the truth and telling the everyday stories of American people are public servants in their own right. On my last trip, I was honored to be accompanied by Cami McCormack, an award-winning radio reporter for CBS News who three years ago suffered a terrible injury from an IED attack while covering the war in Afghanistan. It was truly an emotional experience to be with her as she returned back to Afghanistan for the first time after that injury. She put her own life at risk in order to tell the story of that war. And in her and so many other war correspondents, we see the highest ideals of democracy upheld. We will soon unveil a new exhibit outside the Pentagon Press Briefing Room to honor those journalists who've died in the line of duty over the past decade of war. Alongside the more than 6,000 American servicemembers who have paid the ultimate price since September 11th, these journalists died to preserve our democracy and a government of, by, and for all people. They are heroes, all of them, and I know they will remain forever in our hearts and minds as we continue the hard work of fighting to build a better and safer and more secure future for our children and for the United States of America. Thank you very much. (APPLAUSE) QUESTION: What -- what is your honest position on the attacks of 9/11 of this year, the Benghazi attacks? PANETTA: The Benghazi attacks -- you know, I know there are -- I believe there will be a report coming out tomorrow by the Pickering group that will, obviously, present their view of what took place and where the problems were. My sense is that on that day, that when you look at what took place in Benghazi, that it is -- you know, as always with these kinds of situations, there's a mix here, but clearly, with regards to one of the facilities involved, a direct attack on that facility. I think that there's no question that extremists were involved in those attacks, and I think that, you know, we were able to try to respond as best we could at the time. We have learned a lot, and we will continue to learn a lot from that incident. I think it's very important for us, in an area where our people can be exposed to that kind of threat, that we be able to respond and respond quickly in order to make sure that that doesn't happen again. QUESTION: Have you seen the Benghazi ARB? And do you support the referral of Mike Vickers for criminal prosecution on basis of leaking classified info to "Zero Dark Thirty" producers? PANETTA: You know, that -- that matter is before the I.G., and I'm not going to comment on it at this time. What was the other question, the first part? QUESTION: Have you seen it? PANETTA: Have I seen... QUESTION: The report. The ARB. PANETTA: No, I have not. QUESTION: One of the proposed cutbacks to the Defense Department floated in the press was to do away with the service secretariats as being duplicative. Is this suggestion being given serious consideration? And if not, why not? PANETTA: Well, you know, we -- we obviously continue to look at areas where we can achieve efficiencies at the Department of Defense. And there's no question there is duplication, there is overhead in a bureaucracy of 3 million people. There clearly are areas where we can provide greater efficiencies. We were able -- Bob Gates before me began that effort, achieved about -- I believe about $150 billion in savings. We've added about $60 billion to $70 billion on top of that, in terms of further efficiencies. We'll continue to review where greater efficiencies can be achieved. Right now -- and I asked -- I asked that question when I first became secretary. You know, what is the role of the service secretary vis-a-vis the service chief? And the reality is that there is an important role for them, because they are civilians. Civilians are involved in providing policy in their areas. They also have to negotiate a lot of the politics of Capitol Hill. So there is an important role for them to play in terms of their particular service. But having said that, there are a hell of a lot of other places where we can achieve savings in the Pentagon, and we will. QUESTION: As the Defense Department deals with downsizing the services, have you considered cuts to the number of flag and general officers? PANETTA: You know, again, I think -- I think that's part and parcel of, you know, as you do force reduction -- and as I said, we are going to be reducing the force structure in the Army down to 490,000, we'll reduce the Marines, as well. And I think as that happens that they've got to review not just, you know, the reductions in our troops, but also the reduction in terms of the command structure, as well. So this -- this should be part of the review process as we try to achieve savings in the force reduction. QUESTION: Have you considered making cuts to your staff? (LAUGHTER) PANETTA: Hell, yes. (LAUGHTER) I think -- I think -- I don't think -- I don't think there should be anything that is sacrosanct when you've got to face the kind of budget constrictions that we face. I mean, look, I cut almost half a trillion dollars from the defense budget. It's the largest number that we've cut from the defense budget certainly in the time I've worked on budgets, and I've been working on budgets for 40 years. And, you know, in order to achieve those savings, we have to look at every area. Let me just repeat the areas that you have to look at. One is efficiencies. I mean, you can't get it all out of efficiencies, but you sure can get some -- you know, some significant savings from a department that large in cutbacks of unnecessary personnel. Number two, force structure reductions. Number three, procurement reforms. We have got, you know, a whole area of procurement reforms, something that Ash knows very well. The fact is that, you know, we've built weapons systems that continue to be delayed, continue to have cost escalation, continue to be added to, and the result is by the damn time that these things come out, they've lost their usage, because you've already gone on to another new technology. We need to -- we need to strengthen our procurement practices, and we have. We've also gotten rid of some of the -- the weaponization that's not needed. And the last area's compensation, which is always a difficult area. But compensation at the Defense Department has grown by 80 percent. I have a health care bill at the Defense Department of $50 billion. I cannot do justice to everything that I've got to maintain in terms of readiness and not try to do cost controls in the compensation area, as well, and that's another area where we recommended savings, as well. So everything has to be looked at if you're serious about trying to achieve the kind of savings that we need to achieve in order to address the budget deficit. QUESTION: There are many wounded warriors in our medical system today, and their number is growing. What is being done to ensure adequate levels of funding remains in the wounded warrior program? PANETTA: Well, that's -- I mean, I had three guidelines when I looked at having to cut $487 billion. One was I said, we have to maintain the strongest military in the world, two, that we cannot hollow out the force, we can't just cut across the board, and, three, we have to maintain faith with those that have been deployed time and time again. The savings we're going to achieve in compensation will apply to the future, and we will achieve savings, you know, looking at retirement programs, as well as health care programs for the future. But the benefits that we have promised those who've served, certainly those that have been wounded, I think we need to stand by. And so there are no cuts in the programs that serve our wounded warriors, and we will make sure that they are maintained. (APPLAUSE) QUESTION: Drones are fast becoming a vital part in warfare. Do we have adequate defense against an attack on this Capitol? PANETTA: Drones? QUESTION: Drones. PANETTA: Drones -- when I talked about unmanned systems, the fact is that unmanned systems are increasing in the world that we're involved. Within the United States is -- is one of the leaders in terms of using drone capability, and it served us very well, particularly in the fight against terrorism. Having said that, we do have to keep track of other countries that decide to get into the UAV business. And they are. Iran, other countries in the Middle East are also beginning to develop that capability. We have got to be able -- as they do -- to be able to track where those UAVs are and take steps to ensure that -- particularly when it comes to surveillance -- that we can do everything possible to try to make sure that they are not capable of surveilling what -- you know, what they're after. That requires a lot of technology and development, but it is an area that we are focused on in order to protect ourselves in the future. QUESTION: Under what conditions do you anticipate further U.S. involvement in Syria beyond enforcing a no-fly zone? And what would be the U.S. response to those conditions? PANETTA: Well, as you know, the effort has been an international effort to try to bring as much pressure on Syria to gets Assad to step down. Our primary effort has been dedicated to three areas, number one, to try to provide, obviously, humanitarian relief to the large number of refugees, both in Turkey and in Jordan, and we are doing that. We're providing significant humanitarian relief to try to assist those -- those who have tried to escape the terrible tragedy in Syria. Secondly, to try to maintain control over the CBW sites and try to monitor those sites to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands. And so working with other countries in the region, we are making an effort to monitor that situation and to ensure that that does not happen. It's a result of that monitoring that we were able to issue a very clear warning to Syria not to take the step to make use of any of this CBW, or there would be serious consequences, and we still stand by that statement. Thirdly, we are helping the opposition. We are not providing any lethal assistance, but we are providing non-lethal help to the opposition to try to develop their capability so that, in the event that Assad does come down, we will have identified those leaders who can hopefully provide for a smooth political transition. This is not going to be easy. It requires a strong international effort to ensure this is headed in the right direction. It would be helpful -- it would be helpful if Russia would participate in the effort to try to ensure that there is a smooth political transition. QUESTION: The latest report to Congress on Afghanistan says insurgent attacks increased slightly this year at a time when the U.S. still had 20,000 surge troops on the ground. How can security get better in Afghanistan as those troops leave? PANETTA: Well, you know, the reality is that, in the period that was included there, there was a slight increase in attacks, but the overall numbers -- if you look at the entire year, the level of violence is down. It's down by almost 60 percent in Kabul, it's down by almost 50 percent to 60 percent in other populated areas where we've made the transition. The violence levels are down. The fact is that the Afghan army, the Afghan police have gotten much better at providing security in those areas that we transitioned to. Every -- every one of those major populated areas that have been transitioned is now being secured by the Afghan army and police, and that is the hope for the future. I mean, building up that force is a key to our ability to succeed in this mission for the future. We're going to continue. I mean, you know, the Taliban is resilient, and they will continue to try to conduct attacks. They'll continue to do IED attacks. They'll continue to try to do high- profile assassinations. They'll continue to try to do what they can to draw attention to their efforts. But overall they are -- they are losing. They have not been able to regain any territory that they've lost. And we continue to put pressure on them, through both the Afghans and the U.S. presence there. I think that has been, in my book, the significant turning point in 2011, was after the first time we saw the transition working, the Afghan army able to do its job, and violence going down. And that continues to be the trend. QUESTION: As the former head of the CIA, please explain why General Petraeus was forced to resign, rather than a lesser punishment. (LAUGHTER) PANETTA: You've got to be kidding me. (LAUGHTER) You've got to be kidding me. You know, in this town, with that kind of e-mail, do you think he could have survived as director of the CIA? I don't think so. (LAUGHTER) QUESTION: The Pentagon recently censored Navy SEALs for participating with video game developers without permission, but Mark Owen, author of "No Easy Day" about the bin Laden raid, has a bestseller. Why hasn't the Pentagon taken any steps since his book went on sale in September? PANETTA: Let me see that one again. (LAUGHTER) You know, I think the -- on the SEALs, obviously, the SEALs have a commitment that, you know, if they're going to write a book, they've got to run it past the Pentagon. And the SEAL who wrote the book on the events there did not do that. And that violates, you know, an oath that he took at the time that he became a SEAL. With regards to this other author, I'm not sure what the situation was, but he didn't violate that kind of requirement. QUESTION: Israeli leaders have said they may act against Iran if they feel its nuclear program has gone too far. Is the U.S. willing to use its considerable financial leverage with Israel to prevent a unilateral strike? PANETTA: You know, I think the one thing that both the United States and Israel, I think, have come to agreement on is the goal with regards to Iran. Neither country wants an Iran that can develop a nuclear weapon. The United States has made that clear; Israel's made that clear. The real question is, how do we continue to bring pressure on Iran not to take that step? The international community has come together. It's come together in a very effective effort to bring sanctions, to bring diplomatic pressure, economic pressure on Iran, to penalize it for its efforts to develop a nuclear capability. And the end result of that is to try to push them to the negotiating table, to try to see if we can resolve these issues diplomatically. Even the prime minister of Israel has said that when it comes to dealing with Iran, that war ought to be the last option, not the first option, and that we ought to try to exhaust every effort at trying to determine whether or not diplomatically and through negotiations we can resolve this issue. We are now in that effort. And hopefully, that will be the way we resolve it. But, please, make no mistake: If we determine that they are -- have made the decision to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon, the United States considers that to be a red line. QUESTION: Before I get to the last question, I would like to present you with our traditional NPC coffee mug -- it makes making those tough decisions that much easier -- and our version of our medallion coin. And our last... PANETTA: I need to give you a coin. Otherwise, I'll owe you a drink. (LAUGHTER) QUESTION: We'll go upstairs. Can you tell us about your golden retriever, Bravo's, role in the Osama bin Laden operation? (LAUGHTER) PANETTA: I -- as some of you know, I think -- I'm sorry, but I think it was Post that said he was an Irish setter, and it's just not an Irish setter. He's a golden -- he's a golden retriever, although he's red. He's got a deep red, which is -- great dog, great colors. And I -- Sylvia and I with Bravo, when I was at our institute, we used to bring Bravo to work with us. And so, you know, when I came back to these jobs, you know, Sylvia continued to bring Bravo there, and I used to bring Bravo back with me. And he used to come to the office when I was CIA director. And Bravo sat in on almost all of the meetings involving the operation against bin Laden. And, you know, to this day, he hasn't told a damn soul what happened. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) QUESTION: Thank you for coming today. I'd also like to thank the National Press Club staff, including its Journalism Institute and Broadcast Center, for organizing today's event. Finally, here's a reminder, that you can find more information about the National Press Club on our website. And if you'd like a copy of today's program, please check our website at press.org. Thank you, and we are adjourned. (APPLAUSE)
Korean workers prepare doughnuts in a bakery in Uijongbu, South Korea.
Preparation of donuts in Uijongbu, South Korea. Interiors of a doughnut bakery. A Korean laborer operates a machine that drops dough into hot oil. Cooked doughnuts are placed in baskets. A sergeant checks. Three men have their coffee and doughnuts near a Red Cross Clubmobile. A woman from the Red Cross stands outside the wagon holding a tray of doughnuts. Men walk away after having doughnuts and coffee. Houses and trees in the foreground. Location: Uijongbu South Korea. Date: March 17, 1954.
HD-40 Beta SP
1951 UNIVERSAL NEWS 1
; 1956
09:01:00:00,NEWS #51, ANNIVERSARY OF RED ARMY MARCH IN BERLIN SOVIET TROOPS MARCH TO BRANDENBURG GATE, EISENHOWER COYLY ANNOUNCES FOR SECOND TERM EISENHOWER HINTS AT 2ND TERM IN PRESS CONFERENCE-SD EISENHOWER TELLS NATION HE'LL RUN AGAIN (SD) REPORTERS ASK EISENHOWER QUESTIONS PRESS REPORTERS SCRIBBLE IN NOTEBOOKS PRESS REPORTERS WAITING IN HALLWAY REPORTERS ON TELEPHONES, PARATROOPERS USE SHOCK ABSORBERS IN PARACHUTE PARATROOPERS LAND ON GROUND PARATROOPERS JUMP, EISENHOWER SPEAKS FOR RED CROSS EISENHOWER SPEAKS ABOUT RED CROSS, AIR FORCE CITES JACK WEBB FOR '24 HOUR ALERT' AIR FORCE GENERAL SCOTT GIVES JACK WEBB A CITATION JACK WEBB THANKS GENERAL SCOTT NEWS #52 (09:07:50:00), LEIPZIG FAIR FLAGS AT FAIR CHINESE PAVILLION SOVIET PAVILLION, BILLY GRAHAM SPEAKS IN SEOUL KOREAN CROWDS PRES. RHEE OF KOREA AND BILLY GRAHAM, NAVY TESTS FOLDING ONE MAN HELICOPTER ONE MAN HELICOPTER IN AIR, BRITISH NEW GUIDED MISSILE 'THE FIREFLASH' METEOR JET FIGHTER TAKES OFF FIREFLASH MISSILE DESTROYS PLANE, MARILYN MONROE SIGNS FILM DEAL WITH WARNER BROS. SIR LAWRENCE OLIVIER MARILYN MONROE WITH JACK L. WARNER JIMMY STEWART WELCOMES MARILYN MONROE TO WARNER BROS, CHILDREN ENTERTAIN POPE PIUS XII ON 80TH BIRTHDAY CHILDREN DANCE FOR POPE PIUS XII POPE PIUS XII TALKS TO KIDS, SPORTS (TRACK, BASEBALL, HORSE RACING), WES SANTEE BANNED BY AAU RUNS AND WINS SANTEE WINS RACE, BROOKLYN DODGERS OPEN SPRING TRAINING ROY CAMPANELLA ROGER CRAIG JACKIE ROBINSON GIL HODGES DUKE SNIDER JIM 'JUNIOR'GILLIAM JOHNNY PODRES WALTER ALSTON DON NEWCOMBE CLEM LABINE CARL FURILLO, SANTA ANITA DERBY 1956 TERRANG WINS SANTA ANITA DERBY NEWS #53 (09:15:40:00), BARBER'S CONVENTION HAIR STYLES FOR MEN BARBERS CUT HAIR, JAPANESE AIR FORCE FLY FIRST JETS SABRE JETS IN FLIGHT JAPANESE FLIER WAVES FROM COCKPIT PAN:JAPANESE FLIERS, JACK LEMMON WINS LOOK MAGAZINE AWARD EDMUND O'BRIEN HANDS JACK LEMMON STATUE JAMES CAGNEY SALUTES LEMMON C/U: JACK LEMMON, FASHIONS IN HAWAII WOMAN WEARS KIMONO HAWAIIAN FASHIONS, EISENHOWER SAYS NIXON WILL CHART HIS OWN COURSE EISENHOWER DEFENDS NIXON (SOUND) EISENHOWER GIVES NIXON OPTION OF NOT RUNNING AGAIN (SOUND) EISENHOWER TELLS PRESS HE WON'T DUMP NIXON (SOUND), KOREANS DIE IN AVALANCHE TOWN IS COVERED IN SNOW RESCUE WORKERS IN SNOW DIGGING OUT CITY, DULLES WARNS SENATE OF COMMUNIST MENACE JOHN FOSTER DULLES AT SEATO MEETING, GOLDEN GLOVES AT MADISON SQUARE GARDEN BOXING ACTION NEWS #54 (09:21:10:00), BEN-GURION OF ISRAEL ERECTS FENCE ON GAZA STRIP BEN-GURION ERECTS BARBED WIRE FENCE ON GAZA STRIP, KOREANS CALL ON PRES. RHEE TO RUN AGAIN SUPPORTERS CARRYING BANNERS MARCH FOR PRES. RHEE CROWDS CHEER FOR PRESIDENT RHEE OF KOREA, MARGARET TRUMAN IS ENGAGED MARGARET TRUMAN CLIFTON DANIELS MARGARET TRUMAN AND FIANCE CLIFTON DANIELS, CAMBODIAN KING IS CROWNED CAMBODIA'S NEW KING CORONATION PARADE, ITALIAN ORPHANS CHOIR CHOIR SINGS 'FINICULI, FINICULA (SOUND), POPE PIUS CELEBRATES 80TH BIRTHDAY ENVOYS PAY HOMAGE TO POPE PIUS POPE BLESSES THE CROWD, HOTEL CHANGES SCENERY IN MOVING ROOMS EXTERIOR:HOTEL TOP FLOOR OF HOTEL REVOLVES, SPORTS (SWIMMING,HOCKEY,HORSE RACING), YALE SWIMMIERS BEAT HARVARD SWIMMING ACTION, FEMALE PEE WEE HOCKEY STAR GIRL LACES UP SKATES PEE WEE HOCKEY ACTION, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO HANDICAP BOBBY BROCATO WINS RACE,NEWS #55 (09:28:10:00), SCORPION JET USES FALCON MISSILES SCORPION JET TAKES OFF SCORPION JET LAUNCHES FALCON MISSILES FALCON MISSILE DESTROYS JET, ADMIRAL RICHARD BYRD IS BACK FROM ARCTIC ADMIRAL BYRD AND WIFE AT AIRPORT, JET FLIES AT 1132 MPH NEEDLE NOSE PLANE TAKES OFF MAN USES BINOCULARS, FASHION: PARTY DRESSES FOR LITTLE GIRLS SMALL GIRLS ON COUCH WARD THE WIZARD ENTERTAINS GIRLS, QUEEN ELIZABETH CRUISES MEDETERANIAN QUEEN BOARDS ROYAL LAUNCH QUEEN VISITS CORSICA, IRISH PRIME MINISTER VISIT EISENHOWER EISENHOWER AND IRELAND'S PRIME MINISTER, ROBOT BUTLER ROBOT VACUUMS FLOOR ROBOT POURS COFFEE ROBOT CARRIES BABY ROBOT IRONS CLOTHES, EISENHOWER TALKS ABOUT EDUCATION EISENHOWER SPEAKS ABOUT SCHOOL INTEGRATION, SKI JUMPING CHAMPIONSHIPS SKI JUMPING SKI JUMPING SPILLS NEWS #56 (09:34:50:00), SEATO NAVAL EXERCISES SUPPLIES ARE PARACHUTED TO GROUND HELICOPTER FLEET, FASHIONS IN NIGHTSHIRTS WOMAN IN NIGHTSHIRT BLOWS OUT CANDLE WOMEN DRINK COFFEE IN NIGHTSHIRTS WOMEN MODEL NIGHTSHIRTS, QUEEN MOTHER OPENS PARIS ART EXHIBIT QUEEN MOTHER VIEWS ART, BLIZZARD CRIPPLES NORTHEAST CARS UNDER SNOW DRIFTS SNOW PLOWS ON TIMES SQUARE SHOVELING OUT TIMES SQUARE SHOVELING SNOW TRAIN ENTERS SNOWBOUND STATION WHITE HOUSE IN SNOW, EISENHOWER OPENS EASTER SEAL CAMPAIGN EISENHOWER GREETS EASTER SEAL POSTER CHILD, FIGURE SKATING CHAMPIONSHIPS TENLY ALBRIGHT SKATES CROWD APPLAUDS HAYES JENKINS SKATES, GULFSTREAM PARK HANDICAP SAILOR BEATS NASHUA TO WIN RACE, JOE LOUIS - WRESTLER WRESTLING RING MAYHEM FEATURING JOE LOUIS JERSEY JOE WOLCOTT IS WRESTLING REFEREE JOE LOUIS VS. COWBOY LEE IN WRESTLING MATCH Wrestling fans cheer NEWS #57 (09:41:50:00), GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE FREEWAY IN SAUSALITO OPENS TANKS BREAK THROUGH BANNER AT SAUSALITO TUNNEL CARS HEAD TO GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, REPORTER BECOMES BUDDHIST MONK REPORTER TAKES VOWS OF BUDDHISM, WAR DISPLACED GERMANS RETURN FROM POLAND GERMAN REFUGEES WAVE AND SMILE, ACADEMY AWARDS 1956 EXTERIOR:PANTAGES THEATRE TAB HUNTER JAMES CAGNEY JACK LEMMON INTERIOR:PANTAGES THEATRE LEMMON RECEIVES OSCAR FROM EVA MARIE SAINT GRACE KELLY JO VAN FLEET ACCEPTS AWARD FROM EDMUND O'BRIEN JERRY LEWIS GIVES AWARD FOR BEST ACTRESS ERNEST BORGNINE ACCEPTS AWARD FOR MARTY, MALENKOV VISITS ENGLAND MALENKOV TOURS BRITISH POWER PLANT, MARINES SAIL FOR TROUBLED MIDDLE EAST TROOPS BOARD SHIP FOR MIDDLE EAST, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF POSE FOR PICTURE JOINT CHIEFS AT MEETING TABLE, GOLDEN GLOVES AT MADISON SQUARE GARDEN BOXING ACTION, CIGAR CHOMPING FIGHT FANS, ANGRY SEAS SWAMP AUSSIE SURFBOATS SURFBOAT SWAMPED CREWS IN ANGRY SEAS
U.S. 25th Infantry Division leaving Inchon, Korea, to return to Hawaii. They receive doughnuts and coffee from Red Cross volunteers.
Soldiers receive doughnuts and coffee from a Doughnut Dolly working in an American Red Cross doughnut wagon during the Korean War. A ceremony takes place in Pier C for the departure of United States 25th Infantry Division from Inchon, Korea, returning to Hawaii.. A Doughnut Dolly (American Red Cross volunteer who distributes coffee and donuts to soldiers), wearing a Hawaiian Lei garland on her neck, distributes coffee to soldiers in the American Red Cross doughnut wagon. Soldiers gather around an American Red Cross doughnut wagon. Soldiers take coffee and doughnuts. A painting depicting a Hawaiian woman on a beach on the wagon. It reads: 'Farewell Korea, Aloha Hawaii'. Vehicles parked and buildings in the foreground. A helicopter landing near the American Red Cross doughnut wagon. Location: Inchon Incheon South Korea. Date: September 18, 1954.
DN-LB-805 Beta SP
[VARIOUS]
APTN 1830 PRIME NEWS NORTH AMERICA
AP-APTN-1830 North America Prime News -Final Monday, 12 April 2010 North America Prime News +Russia Poland 4 03:56 See Script WRAP Morgue, Polish minister, Lavrov, Polish reax ADDS coffin stills Italy Derailment 2 01:42 No Access Italy REPLAY At least 11 dead as landslide derails train Kyrgyzstan Tension 3 01:54 AP Clients Only EDIT Interim government leader on Bakiyev role, Bakiyev rally Vatican Scandal 02:44 AP Clients Only REPLAY Vatican clarifies for 1st time clergy must report abuse to police Thailand Protest 4 02:27 Part No Thailand REPLAY PM statement, army chief comments, coroners, coffins Thailand Politics 00:34 See Script REPLAY More pressure for PM as poll body rules party must be dissolved +US Nuclear Summit 2 03:47 See Script WRAP World leaders arrive for summit ADDS more arrivals, Ban, bilats MidEast Holocaust 2 02:47 Part No Israel REPLAY Holocaust commemorations, PM, Peres at main ceremony Caribbean Vents 00:58 AP Clients Only REPLAY UK team says its found deepest known undersea volcanic vent Sudan Voting 01:57 AP Clients Only REPLAY Election commission extends voting by two more days B-u-l-l-e-t-i-n begins at 1830 GMT. APEX 04-12-10 1456EDT -----------End of rundown----------- AP-APTN-1830: +Russia Poland 4 Monday, 12 April 2010 STORY:+Russia Poland 4- WRAP Morgue, Polish minister, Lavrov, Polish reax ADDS coffin stills LENGTH: 03:56 FIRST RUN: 1830 RESTRICTIONS: See Script TYPE: Russian/Polish/Nat SOURCE: VARIOUS STORY NUMBER: 642771 DATELINE: Various - 10-12 Apr 2010 LENGTH: 03:56 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY RU-RTR - NO ACCESS RUSSIA TVN/TVP - NO ACCESS POLAND POLISH PRESIDENTIAL PRESS OFFICE - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST (FIRST RUN 1530 NEWS UPDATE - 12 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Moscow, Russia - 12 April 2010 1. Various of relatives of air crash victims walking into Moscow city morgue to help identify remains 2. Mid of Polish Health Minister Ewa Kopacz arriving with other Polish officials 3. Mid of Kopacz speaking to press 4. SOUNDBITE (Polish) Ewa Kopacz, Polish health minister: "Now we have 17 bodies identified by the families. Our team is working in 10 rooms and the next hour might have 10 identities confirmed. Another group (of relatives) arrived from the hotel by shuttle to the conference room. They go to the 10 rooms to try to identify the bodies of the victims of the catastrophe." (FIRST RUN 1530 NEWS UPDATE - 12 APRIL 2010) RU-RTR - NO ACCESS RUSSIA Moscow, Russia - 12 April 2010 5. Zoom in to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and members of government observing silence before sitting down 6. Side shot of Putin speaking 7. Wide of meeting 8. SOUNDBITE (Russian) Sergei Ivanov, Russian first deputy prime minister: ++Soundbite includes wide cutaway of meeting++ "Two conclusions can be definitely made for today. Firstly, aircraft recorders were absolutely functional and recorded absolutely all the information, sound as well as parametric (information), till the moment of crash. And secondly, it is reliably confirmed that warning of the unfavourable weather conditions at the North airport and recommendations to go to a reserve airport were not only transmitted but received by the crew of the plane." (FIRST RUN 1730 NEWS UPDATE - 12 APRIL 2010) TVP - NO ACCESS POLAND Smolensk, Russia - 10 April 2010 9. Various of immediate aftermath of crash, smouldering wreckage of plane amidst woods, emergency crew working to put out fires (FIRST RUN 1730 NEWS UPDATE - 12 APRIL 2010) TVN - NO ACCESS POLAND Warsaw, Poland - 12 April 2010 10. SOUNDBITE (Polish) Andrzej Seremet, Chief Prosecutor: "In this investigation there will surely be a phonoscopic examination aimed at amplifying the background noise in order to determine if other people made suggestions to the pilot. We want to determine all grounds for the pilot's decision." (FIRST RUN 1730 NEWS UPDATE - 12 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Smolensk, Russia - 11 April 2010 11. Various of plane wreckage and investigators (FIRST RUN 1730 NEWS UPDATE - 12 APRIL 2010) TVN - NO ACCESS POLAND Warsaw, Poland - 12 April 2010 12. SOUNDBITE (Polish) Bronislaw Komorowski, Acting president: "The first task I am going to set for General Koziej (the new National Security Bureau chief) is a review of the rules for travel of top military officials. We need to examine if these procedures are sufficient and if they are executed appropriately." (FIRST RUN 1130 ME EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 12 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY 13. Wide of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev placing flowers in front of shrine to late Polish President Lech Kaczynski and his wife, Maria 14. Close-up photo of Kaczynskis with black mourning ribbon ++NEW (FIRST RUN 1830 NORTHAM PRIME NEWS - 12 APRIL 2010) POLISH PRESIDENTIAL PRESS OFFICE - AP CLIENTS ONLY Warsaw, Poland, 12 April 2010 15. STILL showing President Lech Kaczynski's coffin lying in state at presidential palace STORYLINE Russian investigators suggested human error may have been to blame in the plane crash that killed the Polish president and 95 others, saying on Monday that were no technical problems with the Soviet-made plane. The Tu-154 went down while trying to land on Saturday in dense fog near Smolensk airport in western Russia. All aboard were killed, including President Lech Kaczynski and dozens of Polish political, military and religious leaders. They had been travelling in the Polish government-owned plane to attend a memorial at nearby Katyn forest honouring thousands of Polish military officers who were executed 70 years ago by Josef Stalin's secret police. The pilot had been warned of bad weather in Smolensk, and was advised by traffic controllers to land elsewhere - which would have delayed the Katyn observances. The pilot was identified as thirty-six-year-old Captain Arkadiusz Protasiuk, and the co-pilot as Major Robert Grzywna, also aged 36. Also on the cockpit crew were Ensign Andrzej Michalak and Lieutenant Artur Zietek. In Warsaw, there was concern that the pilots may have been asked by someone in the plane to land at Smolensk instead of diverting to Minsk or Moscow, in part to avoid missing the commemoration ceremonies. Polish Prosecutor General Andrzej Seremet said Polish investigators talked to the flight controller and flight supervisor and "concluded that there were no conditions for landing." "The tower was advising against the landing," Seremet said. "We want to determine all grounds for the pilot's decision," he told reporters. Polish investigators have not yet listened to the cockpit conversations recorded on the black boxes, but will, to see if there were "any suggestions made to the pilots" from other people aboard the plane. Other Russian officials said the pilots were offered the chance to land in Moscow, Minsk or Vitebsk, but they chose Smolensk, despite four failed attempts before the fifth and fatal approach. Polish media reported in August 2008 that pilots flying Kaczynski to Tbilisi refused the president's order to land there because of the country's military conflict with Russia, diverting instead to Azerbaijan. In remarks shown on Russian television, Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov told a government meeting including Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that the data recorders on the plane were found to have been completely functional, which will allow a detailed analysis. "It is reliably confirmed that warning of the unfavourable weather conditions at the North airport and recommendations to go to a reserve airport were not only transmitted but received by the crew of the plane," he said. Russian investigators have almost finished reading the flight recorders, said Alexander Bastrykin, Russia's chief investigator. "The readings confirm that there were no problems with the plane, and that the pilot was informed about the difficult weather conditions, but nevertheless decided to land," Bastrykin said during a briefing with Putin in Smolensk. Bastrykin said the readings would be double checked, according to footage of the meeting broadcast on Monday on Poland's TVN24. The wreckage, meanwhile, will remain on site through midweek to help speed the investigation, Russian Deputy Transport Minister Igor Levitin said. Both Russia and Ukraine declared a day of mourning on Monday, as Poles struggled to come to terms with the national tragedy that eliminated so many of their government and military leaders. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited the Polish embassy in Moscow on Monday to pay his respects to those killed in the crash. Tens of thousands watched as Kaczynski's body, returned Sunday to Warsaw, was carried in a coffin by a hearse to the presidential palace. His twin brother, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the former prime minister, was present. Forensics experts from Poland and Russia were working to ID other bodies, using DNA testing in many cases. Reports from Poland suggested that the body of first lady Maria Kaczynska had been identified. Jacek Sasin, a spokesman for the Presidential Palace, said Kaczynska's body would be sent to Warsaw on Tuesday. He said the bodies of the first couple would lie in state at the palace from Tuesday, their coffins closed, and the public would be permitted to view them. Sasin said that officials were planning the funeral for Saturday but a final decision depended on when the bodies of all 96 victims are returned home. Medvedev has said he wants to attend, according to Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski. Among the victims Saturday was 90-year-old Ryszard Kaczorowski, the last leader of Poland's exiled government in London. The exile leadership was established during the Nazi occupation of Poland and continued to declare itself the rightful government during the decades of communism, until Lech Walesa became Poland's first popularly elected president in 1990. The crash also took an icon of Poland's Solidarity freedom movement, 80-year-old Anna Walentynowicz. Workers at the Lenin Shipyard in Gdansk went on strike when Walentynowicz was fired from her job as a crane operator in August 1980 for her opposition activity. That injustice sparked strikes that spread like wildfire to other plants across the nation, giving rise to the movement that helped bring about the demise of communism in Poland nine years later. Also aboard the Tupolev were the army chief of staff, the navy chief commander, and heads of the air and land forces, the national bank president, the deputy foreign minister, the army chaplain, the head of the National Security Office, the deputy parliament speaker, the Olympic Committee head and at least two presidential aides and 17 lawmakers. Acting President Bronislaw Komorowski said he was moving to fill the seats in parliament left empty because of the crash. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 04-12-10 1515EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Italy Derailment 2 Monday, 12 April 2010 STORY:Italy Derailment 2- REPLAY At least nine dead as landslide derails train LENGTH: 01:47 FIRST RUN: 1430 RESTRICTIONS: No Access Italy TYPE: Natsound SOURCE: YOUREPORTER STORY NUMBER: 642740 DATELINE: Laces - 12 Apr 2010 LENGTH: 01:47 ++CLIENTS PLEASE NOTE UPDATED STORYLINE WITH AMENDED DEATH TOLL++ YouReporter - NO ACCESS ITALY SHOTLIST (FIRST RUN 1330 EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 12 APRIL, 2010) 1. Various top shots of derailed train and emergency workers at site 2. Emergency workers pulling debris from train (FIRST RUN 1430 ME EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 12 APRIL, 2010) 3. Wide tilt down from landslide to derailed train 4. Various of derailed train 5. Tilt up broken doors 6. Tilt down from landslide to train (FIRST RUN 1330 EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 12 APRIL, 2010) 7. Wide of derailed train 8. Landslide above railway track 9. Wide of train 10. Emergency crew digging at site 11. Pan across derailed train to emergency workers 12. Mid of broken doors 13. Various of emergency workers 14. Pan across derailed train STORYLINE A mass of mud and water slammed into a small commuter train traveling in the Italian Alps Monday, knocking the front car into a ditch and killing nine people aboard, officials said. A Bolzano province official, Francesca De Carlini, said the two-car train, filled with local commuters and students, was passing by at the exact moment that a large irrigation pipe on higher elevation burst. "A mass of mud and water knocked down the first car into the ditch," she said. "All of the dead were in the first car, which was pulled down into the ditch," De Carlini said by telephone. She discounted earlier media reports of the possibility of three missing, saying the death toll was definitive at nine and that all bodies had been identified. There were also 28 injured, including seven hospitalized in serious condition, De Carlini said. A geologist was examining the terrain, near the border with Austria, but it was not clear why the pipe burst, she said. A magistrate has begun an investigation into the cause, but the rupture didn't appear to be due to cold weather. De Carlini said the accident occurred shortly after 9 a.m. (0800 GMT) and that help arrived within a few minutes. Helicopters, ambulances and firefighters rushed to the scene to rescue survivors. The train had been nearing its destination of Merano, about 300 kilometres (185 miles) north of Venice, after departing from the small town of Malles. The train line runs between the Adige river and mountains. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 04-12-10 1525EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Kyrgyzstan Tension 3 Monday, 12 April 2010 STORY:Kyrgyzstan Tension 3- EDIT Interim government leader on Bakiyev role, Bakiyev rally LENGTH: 01:54 FIRST RUN: 1230 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/Russian/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 642774 DATELINE: Various - 12 Apr 2010 LENGTH: 01:54 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST (FIRST RUN 1230 NEWS UPDATE - 12 APRIL 2010) Bishkek 1. Zoom in as Roza Otunbayeva, head of the interim government of Kyrgyzstan, enters news conference 2. SOUNDBITE (English) Roza Otunbayeva, Leader of Kyrgyz interim government: "No I don't think that he's in control of military forces, only bodyguards and relatives, and some probably of his allies around him. We have full control of military forces throughout the country." (Q: And the internal security and police?) "And internal security and police but some of them yes they have probably sympathies, I should tell the truth, because those forces have been formed up over the last years by Bakiyev's family, his brother and other allies." 3. Cutaway media 4. SOUNDBITE (Russian) Roza Otunbayeva, Leader of Kyrgyz interim government: (Soundbite includes a cutaway of media) "Bakiyev is of course putting the question forward - as he says "what shall I have in return?". This question of what he could have in return is being discussed at the moment, we are working on it. His isolation continues. I think at some point he will understand there is no way out of this deadlock." (FIRST RUN 0830 EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 12 APRIL 2010) Teyit, Jalal-Abad region, southern Kyrgyzstan 5. Wide pan right of rally 6. Deposed president of Kyrgyzstan, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, on stage addressing supporters 7. Cutaway of supporters, chanting his name 8. SOUNDBITE (Russian) Kurmanbek Bakiyev, Deposed president of Kyrgyzstan: (Asked about the reports government troops plan to seize him) "Well, let them try to seize me. Let them try to destroy me. This attempt will lead to so much blood no one will be able to justify." ++AUDIO AS INCOMING++ 9. Wide of rally STORYLINE The head of the self-declared interim government in Kyrgyzstan said on Monday that her side had "full control" of the country's military forces, while the deposed president rallied supporters in his home village, testing his ability to mount resistance to the opposition forces that drove him out of the capital last week. Speaking to reporters after a meeting with European Union representatives in Bishkek, Roza Otunbayeva said ousted President Kurmanbek Bakiyev had to realise that "there is no way out of this deadlock". As about 500 people gathered in a muddy field in Kurmanbek Bakiyev's native village of Teyit, the deputy head of the self-declared interim government said in the capital that an operation to arrest Bakiyev was being organised. "Well, let them try to seize me. Let them try to destroy me. This attempt will lead to so much blood no one will be able to justify," Bakiyev told reporters who asked him about the statement by Almazbek Atambayev. Atambayev did not give details about the arrest plans, but said "we do not want fresh bloodshed." At least 81 people died in the capital last Wednesday when a confrontation between police and protesters exploded into gunfire and chaos. Protesters stormed government buildings and Bakiyev fled to his native southern region. He has refused to step down and the rally in Teyit brought an array of speakers who vowed their support and waved banners with slogans such as "Hands off the legitimate president." There were no uniformed police in view at the rally, and the loyalty of the country's security forces remains a significant question. The stalemate has left Kyrgyzstan's near-term stability in doubt. That worries the West because a US air base in Kyrgyzstan is crucial in the military campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The base is used both as the launch point for refuelling flights over Afghanistan and as a troop transit point. Troop transit flights had been diverted for several days, but the US Embassy said Monday those flights have returned to normal operation and that the refuelling flights are continuing. US Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake is to travel to Kyrgyzstan on Wednesday for talks including the base status. Atambayev, echoing previous statements by interim government leader Roza Otunbayeva, said the base's status will be discussed with the United States and "we shall decide everything in a civilised way." Many Kyrgyz oppose the base and Atambayev expressed deep ambivalence. Alleged corruption by members of the Bakiyev family, including enriching themselves through fuel contracts for the base, was one of the top issues that brought out protesters last week. "While trying to preserve the base, you lost the respect of the people," Atambayev said of the United States. Bakiyev told The Associated Press in an interview on Sunday that he had not ordered police to fire at protesters in the capital. He strongly urged the United Nations to send a peacekeeping force to Kyrgyzstan, arguing that the nation's police and the military are too weak to keep the unrest from spreading. In taking power on Thursday, the interim leaders said they controlled four of Kyrgyzstan's seven regions. By Saturday they claimed to have expanded their control throughout the country. The interim leadership on Monday announced the dismissal of Kyrgyzstan's ambassadors to the United States, Germany, Russia and Turkey. But the ambassador to Russia, Raimkul Attakurov, rejected the order, telling the Russian state news agency RIA Novosti that he would leave only on Bakiyev's order. Kyrgyzstan's society is strongly clan-based, but there are few signs that Bakiyev could muster any significant tribal support in the south to challenge the self-declared interim government. Some analysts say that a hike in utility prices and massive corruption has set many southerners against Bakiyev. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com. (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 04-12-10 1502EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Vatican Scandal Monday, 12 April 2010 STORY:Vatican Scandal- REPLAY Vatican clarifies for 1st time clergy must report abuse to police LENGTH: 02:44 FIRST RUN: 1130 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION/VATICAN TV STORY NUMBER: 642717 DATELINE: Rome - 10/12 Apr 2010/ File LENGTH: 02:44 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY VATICAN TV - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Rome, 10 April 2010 1. Wide of St. Peter's 2. Close of Statue of Angel holding cross 3. Pan of building to doorway of the office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) VATICAN TV - AP CLIENTS ONLY FILE: 19 February 2008 4. Pan down of offices with old files and paintings/photos of Popes inside CDF 5. Close of ancient files in CDF offices dated 1602-1699 6. Medium of ancient files on shelf 7. Close of hand of Cardinal Levada, current president of CDF writing on document, pull out to Levada 8. Medium of corridor of files 9. Medium of opening rows of files 10. Pan down of files titled "Cause Sacredotali", Priestly Cases related to the 1970s AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Rome, 12 April 2010 11. Pan of Piazza Santa Maria in Trastevere 12. Medium of Vatican analyst Marco Politi reading paper at coffee bar 13. SOUNDBITE (English) Marco Politi, Pope biographer and Vatican analyst for Italian daily paper "Il Fatto Quotidiano": "These guidelines are very important not only from a practical point of view because they tell exactly what a bishop has to do but also because they show the determination of the Pope to follow the zero-tolerance line. The Pope wants that the victims are listened. The Pope wants that nothing has to be covered up from now on and the Pope wants that these priests are punished, are removed and are brought before state courts." 14. Pan up church bell tower 15. SOUNDBITE (English) Marco Politi, Pope biographer and Vatican analyst for Italian daily paper "Il Fatto Quotidiano": "The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of course has always worked with great secrecy. And now it is in a transition. It must also learn to be quick in answering the issues, to be very transparent in its policy and also to give exact figures." 16. Monitor showing Vatican website www.vatican.va 17. Close-up of Vatican website link to "focus - abuse on minors, the Church response" 18. Pan down from photo of Benedict XVI to content of site 19. Close-up of title of link "Guide to understanding Basic CDF Procedures" STORYLINE The Vatican responded Monday to allegations that it had concealed years of clerical sex abuse by making it clear for the first time that bishops and other high-ranking clerics should report such crimes to police if required by law. Victims have charged that the Catholic Church created what amounted to a conspiracy to cover up abuse by keeping allegations of abuse secret and not reporting them to civil authorities. The Vatican has insisted that it has long been the Catholic Church's policy for bishops, like all Christians, to obey civil laws. In a new guide for lay readers posted on its Web site, the Vatican explicitly spells out such a policy. "Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed," the Vatican guidelines said. That phrase was not included in a draft of the guidelines obtained Friday by The Associated Press. The rest of the guidelines follow previously known and public procedures for handling canonical investigations and trials of suspected abuse. The Vatican offered no explanation for the addition. A Vatican spokesman, the Reverend Ciro Benedettini, said the reporting requirement had been the internal policy of the Vatican's office, known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) since 2003. Asked how bishops were supposed to know of this internal policy, he declined to comment. Pope Benedict XVI had told Irish bishops last month that they should cooperate with civil authorities in investigating abuse. But the guidelines mark the first time that such procedures for the universal church, in which bishops are explicitly told they should follow civil reporting laws, have been laid out publicly. Before he became Pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was head of the CDF, that was once known more chillingly as the Inquisition. This office has long epitomised the secrecy and mystery of the Vatican, with responsibility for banning books and meting out punishments as severe as excommunication and burning at the stake. Now, as the office's handling of child-molesting priests comes increasingly under fire, the Vatican claims that is starting to open up. The laymen's guide doesn't contain any information that isn't available to the public through a trip to a specialised religious library or a Vatican bookstore. But it puts various sources of complicated canonical procedures together in a concise, easy-to-read, one-page guide, without cumbersome canon law citations and Latin phrases. Marco Politi, Pope biographer and Vatican analyst for Italian daily paper "Il Fatto Quotidiano", said not only were the guidelines "practical" but they also "show the determination of the Pope to follow the zero-tolerance line." He also said of the CDF that it had "always worked with great secrecy" but was now "in a transition". The church's internal justice system for dealing with abuse allegations has come under attack because of claims by victims that their accusations were long ignored by bishops more concerned about protecting the church and by the Congregation, and was headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger from 1981 until he was elected pope in 2005. While running the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger resisted pleas from a California diocese to laicize a priest who had pleaded no contest to lewd conduct for tying up and molesting two boys, according to correspondence obtained by The Associated Press. The Vatican's lawyer has insisted the California bishop was responsible for making sure the priest, the Reverend Stephen Kiesle, didn't abuse while Rome processed his case to remove him from the priesthood. According to Vatican norms, issued in 2001 and summarised in the new guide, a bishop must investigate every allegation of sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric. If the accusation has a semblance of truth, the case is referred to the Congregation, which decides how to proceed. The Congregation's disciplinary department can decide to authorise the diocese to pursue either a judicial or an administrative trial, both of which can condemn a priest to a number of penalties, including defrocking, or what the church calls being reduced to the lay state. Victims can also seek damages. Or the Congregation can conduct a trial on its own, although that is rare. If the evidence is overwhelming, the Congregation can refer the case directly to the pope, who can issue a decree dismissing the priest from the priesthood altogether. The norms themselves are full of fascinating details particular to the church: Judges who mete out justice must be priests "of mature age," must hold doctorates in canon law, and must be "outstanding in good morals." If the Congregation authorises the diocese to conduct a canonical trial, three to five judges sit in judgment. The trial is conducted according to the continental system, in which judges weigh the evidence but do the investigating too, as opposed to the American justice system, an adversarial process where facts are evaluated by a jury of peers. The confidentiality provisions in canonical proceedings are offensive to some in the US. But their purpose is to ensure the integrity of the proceedings and not to hide information from civil authorities, said Jeffrey Lena, the Vatican's US attorney. The Congregation traces its origins to the Congregation for the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition, the commission created in 1542 that functioned as a tribunal to root out heresy, punish crimes against the faith and name Inquisitors for the church. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 04-12-10 1434EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Thailand Protest 4 Monday, 12 April 2010 STORY:Thailand Protest 4- REPLAY PM statement, army chief comments, coroners, coffins LENGTH: 02:27 FIRST RUN: 1130 RESTRICTIONS: Part No Thailand TYPE: Thai/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION/TPBS STORY NUMBER: 642706 DATELINE: Bangkok - 12 Apr 2010 LENGTH: 02:27 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY TPBS - NO ACCESS THAILAND SHOTLIST AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY 1. Various of red-shirted protesters (supporters of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra) and security forces outside residence of Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva TPBS - NO ACCESS THAILAND 2. SOUNDBITE (Thai) Abhisit Vejjajiva, Thai Prime Minister: "Looking at the overview of what's happening currently, we are able to see clearly that a group of people, whom we can consider as terrorists, had taken advantage of the gathering of innocent people who rallied for democracy and against injustice, and used it as a tool of create unrest in the country, hoping for a major change." TPBS - NO ACCESS THAILAND 3. Wide of news conference with deputy prime minister and Chief of Army 4. SOUNDBITE (Thai) General Anupong Paochinda, Chief of Army: "If the issue can't be resolved through political means, I understand that the parliament dissolution has to come, now it seems like I'm involved in politics, I think it would end in dissolution. When to dissolve is for them to discuss, as well as the time frame and constitution amendment. Now I'm too involved. I understand that it will end with parliament dissolution. Some people have suggested a government of national unity, I don't know. I'll leave the matter to them. I only want peace, that's all I'm asking." AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY 5. News conference of Autopsy Committee 6. Mid of media 7. SOUNDBITE (Thai) Doctor Somchai Pomeamake, Head of Autopsy Committee: "The family, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Japanese Government did not want us to give the details of the death." 8. Cutaway of committee members 9. SOUNDBITE (Thai) Doctor Somchai Pomeamake, Head of Autopsy Committee: "I can only tell that from the wounds, they (the wounds) were caused by high speed bullets." 10. Wide of media 11. Various of Red Shirt protesters gathered around medical team as bodies of autopsied patient are wrapped up 12. Man placing lid on coffin STORYLINE Thailand's Election Commission recommended the embattled ruling party be dissolved on Monday, potentially handing victory to anti-government protesters who have demanded the prime minister step down. The ruling comes the same day that Thailand's influential army chief appeared to back a key demand of the protesters, saying Parliament might need to be dissolved to resolve the country's violent political standoff. Together, the comments by General Anupong Paochinda and the election body's decision could spell the end of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's rule, which the protesters say is illegitimate. Abhisit was largely seen as having the backing of the powerful military, which has traditionally played an important role in the country's politics, and has not hesitated to step in with coups in times of political instability. But his control of security forces has increasingly been called into question over the past month as protesters repeatedly marched through the capital. On Saturday, soldiers and police failed to dislodge demonstrators, setting off clashes that killed 21. The commission found the Democrat Party - Thailand's oldest - guilty of misusing campaign donations. The ruling will have to be endorsed by the Constitutional Court before the party of Abhisit is disbanded. No date was set for the court to hear the case. "If the issue can't be resolved through political means, I understand that the parliament dissolution has to come," Anupong told reporters. "Some people have suggested a government of national unity, I don't know. I'll leave the matter to them. I only want peace, that's all I'm asking," he added. Meanwhile, red-shirted protesters have paraded coffins through Thailand's capital in a renewed attempt to pressure the government to step down, pushing this Southeast Asian nation closer to political anarchy. Neither side appeared willing to end the stalemate, which descended into the worst political violence Thailand has seen in two decades this weekend. On Monday, Abhisit blamed the bloodshed on a small group of troublemakers, whom he called "terrorists", rather than the entire protest movement, but he continued to refuse to dissolve his government. In his live broadcast speech on Monday, Abhisit praised the protests as "innocent people who rallied for democracy and against injustice" and said an independent inquiry will be held into the deaths. Those found guilty would be prosecuted, he promised. The anti-government protesters are made up of mostly poor and rural supporters of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, whose populist policies eased the plight of many. They have massed in the city over the past month, basing themselves in the historic old city and on the capital's main shopping boulevard. On the other side is the government of Prime Minister Vejjajiva, whom the Red Shirts see as a symbol of the ruling elite they say orchestrated the 2006 military coup that removed Thaksin from power amid corruption allegations. In Saturday's violence, four soldiers and 17 civilians died, including a Thomson Reuters cameraman, according to the news agency and the government's Erawan emergency centre. The government was conducting autopsies on nine bodies on Monday. Autopsies have been carried out in the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Bangkok and were conducted by an independent panel comprising of doctors from many hospitals and representatives from the Red Shirt protesters. "I can only tell that from the wounds, they (the wounds) were caused by high speed bullets," Doctor Somchai Pomeamake, Head of Autopsy Committee told the media on Monday. Both sides accuse each other of firing battlefield weapons during the confrontation. The disruptive protests began a month ago, when the demonstrators began pressing their demand that Abhisit dissolve Parliament and call new elections with renewed fervour. The protesters see the Oxford-educated Abhisit as a symbol - and stooge - of the old guard that has traditionally ruled Thailand. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 04-12-10 1434EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Thailand Politics Monday, 12 April 2010 STORY:Thailand Politics- REPLAY More pressure for PM as poll body rules party must be dissolved LENGTH: 00:34 FIRST RUN: 1530 RESTRICTIONS: See Script TYPE: Thai/Nat SOURCE: TNN STORY NUMBER: 642742 DATELINE: Bangkok - 12 Apr 2010 LENGTH: 00:34 TNN - NO ACCESS THAILAND/MUST ONSCREEN CREDIT TNN FOR THIS PARTICULAR STORY SHOTLIST: 1. Wide of Thanis Sriprates, Deputy Secretary General of the Election Commission of Thailand at lectern making statement 2. SOUNDBITE: (Thai) Thanis Sriprates, Deputy Secretary General of the Election Commission of Thailand: "In the first accusation, the election commissioners have examined the case and the majority have voted for the political party registrar to inform and provide evidence to the Attorney General to submit the case to the Constitutional Court to order a dissolution of the Democrat Party thereafter." 3. Wide of Thanis walking away from lectern 4. Mid of Thanis talking to reporters STORYLINE: Thailand's Election Commission ordered the ruling party be dissolved for allegedly misusing campaign donations, in a potential victory for protesters who paraded slain comrades through Bangkok on Monday to demand the prime minister's resignation. The decision, which must be endorsed by the Constitutional Court to take effect, came soon after Thailand's influential army chief appeared to back the protesters call, saying new elections might be needed to resolve the country's political crisis. Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, who was largely seen as having the backing of the powerful military, has remained defiant in his refusal to resign. But the about-face of the head of the army, which has not hesitated to stage coups during previous political instability, puts Abhisit under unprecedented pressure. The latest turmoil is part of a yearslong struggle for power, pitting the rural supporters of ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra against members of the country's traditional ruling elite, which includes business leaders, the military brass and bureaucrats - supported by the urban middle class. Thailand has seen three governments in the four years since a coup drove Thaksin from power in 2006. Protesters have taken to the streets each time their rivals came to power. The latest standoff descended into the deadliest political clashes in nearly two decades on Saturday, when 21 people died in clashes. The repeated unrest has threatened to ruin the country's reputation as a stable haven for commerce, investment and tourism. Monday's ruling could set the stage for another change in power. But it is unlikely to be the last word, observers said. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 04-12-10 1434EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: +US Nuclear Summit 2 Monday, 12 April 2010 STORY:+US Nuclear Summit 2- WRAP World leaders arrive for summit ADDS more arrivals, Ban, bilats LENGTH: 03:47 FIRST RUN: 1830 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: VARIOUS STORY NUMBER: 642768 DATELINE: Various - 12 Apr 2010 LENGTH: 03:47 POOL - AP CLIENTS ONLY AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY AGENCY POOL - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST: (FIRST RUN 1730 NEW UPDATE - 12 APRIL 2010) AGENCY POOL - AP CLIENTS ONLY Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland 1. Wide of Air China aircraft touching down 2. Wide of Air China aircraft taxiing on tarmac 3. Chinese President Hu Jintao walking down steps, being met by US and consular officials 4. Pan of car driving away 5. Wide of Czech Republic aircraft 6. Zoom in to Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer shaking hands with US officials 7. Mid of US and Japanese flags on top of Japanese aircraft, pull out to wide of plane taxiing on tarmac 8. Cutaway of assembled media 9. Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama walking down aircraft steps, greeting officials 10. Italian aircraft taxiing 11. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi walking down aircraft steps, greeting officials 12. Various of motorcade driving away ++NEW (FIRST RUN 1830 NORTH AMERICA PRIME NEWS - 12 APRIL 2010) AGENCY POOL - AP CLIENTS ONLY Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland 13. Canadian aircraft taxiing on runway 14. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper walking down plane steps and greeting officials 15. Pull out from Mexican aircraft taxiing on tarmac 16. Zoom in to Mexican President Felipe Calderon disembarking ++NEW (FIRST RUN 1830 NORTH AMERICA PRIME NEWS - 12 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY New York City, New York 17. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at podium 18. SOUNDBITE: (English) Ban Ki-moon, United Nations Secretary-General: "Nuclear terrorism is one of the greatest threats we face today. That is why I repeatedly urge the conference on disarmament to immediately start negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices. And that is why in Washington I will call on all world leaders to come together, perhaps at the United Nations in September, to further advance these essential calls for humankind." ++NEW (FIRST RUN 1830 NORTH AMERICA PRIME NEWS - 12 APRIL, 2010) POOL - AP CLIENTS ONLY Washington, DC 19. Zoom into US President Barack Obama meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan STORYLINE: World leaders, presidents, prime ministers and top officials from 47 countries, started mingling on Monday on the threshold of US President Barack Obama's nuclear proliferation summit, the largest assembly hosted by a US leader since the founding conference of the United Nations in 1945. Obama wants world leaders to confront the threat of nuclear arms falling into the hands of extremists. And he's looking at the high-profile security forum to help him reach his goal of ensuring that all nuclear materials worldwide are secured from theft or diversion within four years. After months of friction with the US, Chinese President Hu Jintao's aircraft touched down at Andrews Air Force Base on Monday morning. The Chinese leader is due to have a one-on-one meeting with Obama before the official welcoming of the National Security Summit at a Washington convention centre. Czech Republic Prime Minister Jan Fischer, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon also arrived on Monday morning ahead of the summit. Obama began the day with a series of meetings with international visitors, including Jordan's King Abdullah II. While sweeping or even bold new strategies were unlikely to emerge from the two-day gathering, the president declared himself pleased with what he heard in warm-up meetings on Sunday with the leaders of Kazakhstan, South Africa, India and Pakistan. Obama says he's striving to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Speaking in New York, United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, said "nuclear terrorism is one of the greatest threats we face today". He called on participants of the Washington summit to "immediately start negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices". The United States is the only country to use the weapons, two bombs dropped on Japan to force its surrender in World War II. The high-flown ambition, which the president admits will probably not be a reality in his lifetime, began a year ago in Prague when he laid out plans for significant nuclear reductions and a nuclear-weapons-free world. In the meantime, he has approved a new nuclear policy for the United States, promising last week to reduce America's nuclear arsenal, refrain from nuclear tests and not use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them. North Korea and Iran were not included in that pledge because they do not cooperate with other countries on nonproliferation standards. That was last Tuesday, and two days later, on the anniversary of the Prague speech, Obama flew back to the Czech Republic capital where he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a new treaty that reduces each side's deployed nuclear arsenal to 1,550 weapons. Throughout the two-day gathering, Iran will be a subtext as Obama works to gain support for a fourth round of UN sanctions against Tehran for its refusal to shut down what the United States and many key allies assert is a nuclear weapons programme. Iran maintains it only wants to build reactors to generate electricity. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 04-12-10 1543EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: MidEast Holocaust 2 Monday, 12 April 2010 STORY:MidEast Holocaust 2- REPLAY Holocaust commemorations, PM, Peres at main ceremony LENGTH: 02:47 FIRST RUN: 1130 RESTRICTIONS: Part No Israel TYPE: Natsound SOURCE: VARIOUS STORY NUMBER: 642707 DATELINE: Jerusalem/Tel Aviv - 12 Apr 2010 LENGTH: 02:47 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY CHANNEL 10 - NO ACCESS ISRAEL KNESSET TV - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST (FIRST RUN 1130 ME EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 12 APRIL 2010) CHANNEL 10 - NO ACCESS ISRAEL Jerusalem 1. Wide of Holocaust Memorial day ceremony at Yad Vashem holocaust museum 2. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres arriving at ceremony 3. Wide shot of ceremony, AUDIO: sirens starting up to mark Holocaust Memorial day 4. Pull out from monument to wide of ceremony 5. Peres laying wreath and walking back 6. Netanyahu laying wreath and walking back 7. Zoom in to Peres and Netanyahu leaving ceremony (FIRST RUN 0830 EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 12 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Tel Aviv, Israel 8. Various of people standing by cars stopped on road, AUDIO: sirens marking Holocaust Memorial day (FIRST RUN 0830 EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 12 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Jerusalem 9. Pan left from man and woman standing by car to woman standing on the other side of the car, AUDIO: sirens marking Holocaust Memorial day 10. Various of people standing on street 11. Two women standing with pushchair in street (FIRST RUN 0830 EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 12 APRIL 2010) KNESSET TV - AP CLIENTS ONLY Jerusalem 12. Pan from army officer from the rabbinical unit singing in prayer, zoom in to candles at opening of name reading ceremony in Knesset 13. Wide of Peres walking to podium 14. UPSOUND: Peres speaking at beginning of name reading ceremony 15. Wide of Netanyahu walking to podium 16. UPSOUND: Netanyahu speaking about relatives who died in Holocaust (FIRST RUN 1130 ME EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 12 APRIL 2010) KNESSET TV - AP CLIENTS ONLY Jerusalem 17. Peres and Netanyahu leaving at end of ceremony STORYLINE The mournful wail of air raid sirens pierced the air on Monday and the country came to a standstill as Israel, built on the ashes of the Nazi Holocaust, remembered the six (m) million Jews who perished during the dark days of World War II. Melancholy music floated over the airwaves and tales of the fast-dwindling number of Holocaust survivors dominated the media as Israel mourned the dead. During a two-minute siren at 10 am (0700 GMT), an annual ritual heard across Israel, drivers switched off their engines and people put aside their daily activities to stand at attention and reflect on the horrors of the holocaust in silence. Sixty five years after the end of World War II, about 207-thousand aging survivors, many of them destitute and alone, live in Israel, down 63-thousand from just two years earlier. The Jewish state is home to the largest survivor community. Yad Vashem, Israel's state Holocaust memorial authority, picked "Voices of the Survivors" as the theme of this year's commemoration, which began on Sunday night with a state ceremony and continues through to Monday evening. At a ceremony on Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres laid wreaths at the monument to the 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising, the largest Jewish insurgency during the Holocaust, ultimately crushed by the Germans. "The voice of the survivors is the link that binds the painful and tormented history of the Jewish people during the Holocaust to the future, to hope and to rebirth," Yad Vashem said on its Web site. President Barack Obama issued a statement on Sunday honouring the memory of "those who endured the horrors" of the Nazi atrocities of World War II and calling on all people to prevent genocide and "confront anti-Semitism and prejudice in all its forms." At the Israeli parliament on Monday, people read the names of Holocaust victims under the "Every Person Has a Name" project, which is meant to break down the number of six (m) million into stories of individuals, families and communities wiped out during the war. Netanyahu, Peres, Cabinet ministers, lawmakers and survivors read names of loved ones who were murdered. The annual remembrance is one of the most solemn on Israel's calendar. Restaurants, cafes and places of entertainment shut down, and radio and TV programming is dedicated almost exclusively to documentaries about the Holocaust, interviews with survivors, discussions about the significance of the genocide and lessons for the future. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 04-12-10 1434EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Caribbean Vents Monday, 12 April 2010 STORY:Caribbean Vents- REPLAY UK team says its found deepest known undersea volcanic vent LENGTH: 00:58 FIRST RUN: 1430 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Mute SOURCE: NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY CENTRE STORY NUMBER: 642735 DATELINE: Caribbean - Apr 2010 LENGTH: 00:58 National Oceanography Centre - AP Clients only SHOTLIST ++MUTE++ 1. Mid of robot submarine Autosub6000 being launched from the RRS James Cook 2. Engineers preparing HyBIS, the remotely-controlled underwater vehicle used to film the world's deepest 'black smoker' vents 3. Pan right of scientists piloting HyBIS across the ocean floor, three miles deep 4. Tilt down to close-up of pilot's hands driving the HyBIS underwater vehicle 5. First footage of the world's deepest 'black smoker' vents 6. A wider shot of the world's deepest black smoker vents, showing the top of a two-storey high mineral spire made of copper and iron ores 7. Graphic image of the ocean floor of the Cayman Trough STORYLINE: A British scientific expedition said on Monday that it has discovered the world's deepest known underwater volcanic vent in the Caribbean. Experts aboard the RRS James Cook claim they've found the vent five kilometres (three miles) beneath the surface of the Caribbean in an area known as the Cayman Trough, a gap in the ocean floor that served as the setting for James Cameron's underwater thriller film "The Abyss." The Cayman Trough is the world's deepest undersea volcanic rift, running across the seafloor of the Caribbean. Using two separate remotely operated underwater vehicles to view and film the vents, known as 'black smokers', the team also made a new 3-D map of the sea bed showing an underwater mountain twice the height of UK's highest peak Ben Nevis, but with its summit one-and-a-half miles beneath the waves. The vent's depth and isolation has raised hopes that new and exotic forms of life may be found basking in the warmth of the superheated mineral-rich water. According to scientists the water erupting from the vents is hot enough to melt lead but they believe it sustains unknown colonies of sea creatures. Marine geophysicist Maya Tolstoy said on Monday that the new discovery is nearly one kilometre (3,000 feet) deeper than the next-deepest vent. The expedition will continue its research in the Caribbean until the 20 April. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 04-12-10 1434EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Sudan Voting Monday, 12 April 2010 STORY:Sudan Voting- REPLAY Election commission extends voting by two more days LENGTH: 01:57 FIRST RUN: 1630 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Arabic/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 642752 DATELINE: Omdoraman - 12 Apr 2010 LENGTH: 01:57 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST: 1. Wide of woman walking towards polling station 2. Mid of women searching for their names on the voters register 3. Close up of woman looking a voting register 4. Wide exterior of polling station 5. Mid interior of voters casting their ballots 6. Woman trying put ballot into full box 7. Polling station official trying to put ballot into full box 8. Woman trying to cast ballot into full box, push in to full slot 9. SOUNDBITE (Arabic) Mariam Ismail, Local election observer: "We have called the operations room to bring us more ballot boxes, God willing because the ballot boxes we have are full and we have practically shut down the voting process here." 10. Wide exterior of people waiting to vote 11. Various of women waiting to vote STORYLINE: Sudan's election commission announced on Monday that it was extending voting by two more days to ensure technical problems do not prevent anyone from participating. The three-day election had been scheduled to run from Sunday through until Tuesday but Salah Habib, spokesman for the Sudanese National Election Commission, said that the final day of voting will now be Thursday. Sudanese election monitors have complained that voting has not even begun in some parts of the country, including semiautonomous southern Sudan. There are also reports that some voting stations were moved without notice, voter registries or other crucial equipment is missing and observers have not been allowed in to witness the process. In one polling station in Omdoraman a lack of ballot boxes was causing problems for officials. "We have called the operations room to bring us more ballot boxes, God willing because the ballot boxes we have are full and we have practically shut down the voting process here," said local election observer, Mariam Ismail. Sudan's first multiparty elections in a quarter century will determine whether President Omar al-Bashir, under an international indictment for war crimes in Darfur, wins another term. He is expected to win easily after two major parties decided to pull out fully or partially at the last minute. The vote was supposed to bring a democratically elected government for the impoverished country, prepare the ground for a vital referendum on South Sudan independence and begin healing the wounds of the Darfur conflict. However, major opposition parties have boycotted it, claiming it was unfair. In addition to the president, the Sudanese are electing a national parliament, local governors and parliaments and the president of the semiautonomous government of South Sudan. The elections are supposed to be an essential step in a 2005 peace plan that ended two decades of civil war between the mostly Arab and Muslim north and rebels in the Christian-animist south. The conflict claimed some 2 (m) million lives. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 04-12-10 1452EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM -------------------
UNITED STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2100
HOUSE FLOOR DEBATE The House meets at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and 12:00 p.m. for legislative business. Unlimited ?one minutes? Suspensions (10 Bills): 1) H.R. 2711 - FBI Families of Fallen Heroes Act (Rep. Rogers (MI) / Oversight and Government Reform) 2) H.Res. 1172 - Recognizing the life and achievements of Will Keith Kellogg (Rep. Schauer / Oversight and Government Reform) 3) H.Res. 1189 - Commending Lance Mackey on winning a record 4th straight Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race (Rep. Young (AK) / Oversight and Government Reform) 4) H.Res. 1316 - Celebrating Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month (Rep. Honda / Oversight and Government Reform) 5) H.Res. 1385 - Recognizing and honoring the courage and sacrifice of the members of the Armed Forces and veterans (Rep. Skelton / Armed Services) 6) H.Res. 1353 - Supporting the goals and ideals of Student Financial Aid Awareness Month (Rep. Bishop (NY) / Education and Labor) 7) H.Res. 1169 - Honoring the 125th anniversary of Rollins College (Rep. Grayson / Education and Labor) 8) H.Res. 1161 - Honoring the Centennial Celebration of Women at Marquette University (Rep. Moore (WI) / Education and Labor) 9) H.Res. 1372 - Honoring the University of Georgia Graduate School (Rep. Broun / Education and Labor) // 10) H.Res. 407 - Expressing support for designation of May as "National Asthma and Allergy Awareness Month" (Rep. Castor / Energy and Commerce) Postponed Suspensions Votes (5 Bills): 1) H.Res. 1258 - Expressing support for designation of May 2010 as Mental Health Month (Rep. Napolitano / Energy and Commerce) 2) H.Res. 1382 - Expressing sympathy to the families of those killed by North Korea in the sinking of the Republic of Korea Ship Cheonan, and solidarity with the Republic of Korea in the aftermath of this tragic incident (Del. Faleomavaega / Foreign Affairs) 3) H.Res. 584 - Recognizing the importance of manufactured and modular housing in the United States (Rep. Donnelly / Financial Services) 4) H.R. 3885 - Veterans Dog Training Therapy Act (Rep. Brown (SC) / Veterans' Affairs) 5) H.R. 5145 - Assuring Quality Care for Veterans Act (Rep. McNerney / Veterans' Affairs) 21:00:00them against americans. and when americans are victims of this, we need to ask this question, what happens in the mind of that al qaeda terrorist that's sitting in that mud hult making that bomb, watching al-jazeera tv and sees the 21:00:18speaker speak up and oppose the war in iraq and afghanistan? what happens when there is a debate on the floor that goes on over and over and over again and the left win, radicals in this congress, the progressives, say 21:00:36we should pull out of those countries without any hesitation and do the best we can to keep from getting shot in the back? do you think, mr. speaker, and this is a rhetorical question, do you think that terrorist is likely to plant more bombs or 21:00:53less, detonate more bombs or less, are there more americans lost or fewer because the enemy has been encouraged by 44 votes on the floor of the house of representatives in 2007 and 2008 in that congress? 21:01:09. that's what's happened here, mr. speaker. this country was going to move forward. and even though the president of the united states now, our commander in chief, in the 21:01:27spring of 2008 took the position that he wanted to pull the troops out of iraq immediately, without any hesitation, just simply try to keep from being shot in the back on the way out of iraq, that was his position and i argued that if that was 21:01:44his position, then if he's elected president, the enemy will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on september 11 in 2001. now, we don't know if that turned out to be a true prediction because now president obama, then candidate and 21:01:59senator obama, changed his position. from the spring of 2008 until election day in novene of 2008 he walked a -- november of 2008 he walked a line of changing his position for being for immediate withdrawal to being for a slower withdrawal from iraq. 21:02:18and what we've seen also happen is, now president obama has adopted the exact position in iraq that president bush negotiated. it's called the status of forces agreement, mr. speaker. 21:02:32the sofa agreement. that was negotiated by the bush administration and it was with the iraqis and it was signed on november 17, 2008, by ambassador to iraq ryan crocker. and just a very impressive 21:02:47public servant who never received his due respect for the job that he did for all of us in that country, for the time that he was there. ryan crocker. i want to say a few more things about ryan crocker. i've met with him very late in the night, i've sat there in 21:03:04those hot and uncomfortable places in iraq, with top officers, with admiral mullen, for example, ryan crocker, general petraeus, a number of other very top leaders in our military and our state department personnel. 21:03:18ryan crocker understands the middle east, ryan crocker served well there. he was as instrumental in the negotiations and the status of forces agreement, he was the one who put his hands to that agreement in 2008 and today the letter of the status of forces agreement is being followed by 21:03:36president obama. good for him. i appreciate that. i support it. it's something i called for. if it were president bush doing that, i would be for that. i just don't think the american people see it the same way because he's not as proud of 21:03:50that decision as perhaps he would be of a different posture that we have in that part of the country. so, mr. speaker, we have a number of interests in america. our national security interests are paramount. those are constitutional. the responsibility of the 21:04:06president of the united states and the federal government is to defend us, to defend our shores, to defend the american people. 21:04:13and our military and our troops and those people that put on uniforms day after day after day are the ones that deserve our gratitude and our respect -- respect. and we need to do them just duty here on the floor of the house and not back up from those 21:04:29responsibilities just to provide them with the resources that they need. and that means a consistent message from the commander in chief on down and a strategy that we believe that we can win and it means to say to the left wing radicals in the united 21:04:44states of america, don't tell me you're for the troops and tell me you're also against their mission. you have to pour the -- support the troops and their mission. and what's interesting is that when george bush was the commander in chief, you said you supported the troops but not their mission. 21:05:01now that barack obama is the commander in chief, you don't really answer to that at all. except for the most part you left wing radicals -- part, you left wing radicals, you say you support the troops to a level of pandering to the mission of patriotism, but you don't 21:05:16support their mission. we cannot, mr. speaker, ask our military to put their lives on the line on a mission that we don't believe in. no, week of got to ask them to put their lives on the line for the cause of liberty and a mission that we believe in. 21:05:33if we don't believe in the mission we should not send them. they should not go. but it's up to the call of the commander in chief to do so. after all, he is the commander in chief. until he orders our armed forces, he sets the foreign policy and if we don't like what the president of the united 21:05:48states does when it comes to that, we've got about two choices. one is elect a new president and the other is to look into the constitution for another solution. i'm not ready to do that because i don't believe there's just cause at this point to look in the constitution for another solution. and in fact, i believe that the president of the united states 21:06:05has eclipsed my anticipation for what he might have been doing in iraq and in afghanistan it's relatively stable. it's not been extraordinarily brilliant, he did send only 75% of the minimum number of troops that were requested by general 21:06:21mcchrystal and they have a very difficult task. but the prospects of being successful in that task, i believe, are greater than the prospects of the state department being successful in setting up institutions that never existed before in parts of the country of afghanistan that don't have a history of those institutions of centralized 21:06:38government reaching out. so, with the foreign policy question that's before us, mr. speaker, and we have the question of the united states economy. and we have a bunch of people that are self-professed experts that come here to this floor 21:06:55that never signed a front of a paycheck. they don't have the first idea of what it takes for a free market economy to thrive or prosper. they believe that if you raise taxes it's just taking a little more out of the pot of their greedy capitalists and if you 21:07:11raise regulations they've got blenty of time to fill out the paperwork because after all, what are they going to do with the resources? it creates jobs. why would you want these people to be in charge of our economy? they demagogue republicans and 21:07:27say that we are in support of wall street. it's democrats that are cashing checks from wall street and it's big banking and international banking and investment banking, large interests, that are sending the biggest checks to democrats, all the while they're 21:07:46hedging their bets. and if you're a big business interest and you have a crony relationship with the united states congress, you've got a pretty good deal going because you can have the united states congress raise the regulations 21:07:59and raise the burden of government to keep your competition out. what's the simple solution to that complex problem? raise the regulations. raise the taxes. you're only competing against fewer people. i've seen this happen in my lifetime over and over again. i spent my life in the 21:08:15contracting business as a small contractor. i started out from this tiny little old guy that bought an old beaten up bulldozer and then i worked it for a while and fixed it a lot and then i bought another machine and hired a man and after a while we had enough machines we could go out and do 21:08:31a job. when i looked at building state highways i began to look around and i realized that we're only a handful of contractors that are big enough to bid these projects. so i went to the state and said, i'll break these projects up. i'd like to bid some projects that are under $1 million. he said -- they said, we don't 21:08:47like to do that because it takes a lot of administrative hassle. we'd rather deal with these half a dozen that we've got. so i had to run for the state senate to get that changed and we lohred that standard down, we brought more competition in. it's not enough. it's a small part of the 21:09:02solution. but it illustrates a problem, mr. speaker. big business will always try to promote regulation to keep their competition out. 21:09:11it's how it works. think of it this way. i'll take it down to the lowest common denominator. simple thing that can explain this to everyone who's listening. imagine they hadn't discovered gold in colorado. 21:09:25and so some miner out there with a pan is panning his way up the stream and he finds a nugget of gold and he pans his way in and he goes around and he finds that vain. then he starts to chop out this rock and here's the gold in the rock. 21:09:42son of a gun. gold in colorado. there's no settlements around there. so he breaks out his gold and processes it and takes it down and sells it and pretty soon the rumor goes like wildfire. there's gold in colorado. the gold rushes on. people come rushing in, everybody gets their pick axe 21:09:57and they start to mine for gold. now, you may think that this doesn't connect, mr. speaker, but it does. because the miners then set up their tents and they're there, they're working away and now that they're making money and selling their gold, they need 21:10:12some things. somebody's got to bring them food, somebody will open up a bar, somebody will start a band so they've got some entertainment to draw the stress down at night. and these miners are out there and after a while their hair gets so long they have to climb newspaper a tree to get a hair cut. 21:10:28and sooner or later one of those miners is going to get out a clipper and cut somebody's hair. when that happens, mr. speaker, that somebody else will line up and disease, that's a pretty good hair cut for what i need out here. so he'll get in the line and climb into the chair and there will be a second hair cut, then a third hair cut and after a 21:10:44while, this fellow that's pretty good cutting hair will be so busy being a barber he doesn't have time to pick up his pick axe and mine for gold. then he decides, i'm going to have to charge you guys. you're taking me out of my cash flow endeavor. and so he begins to charge the people that he's cutting their 21:11:01hair, maybe a dime for a hair cut. now he's making a little bit of money. and pretty soon, eventually, somebody else will see that and decide, i can get in this business, that guy's making a dime for every hair cut. he can cut 10 head as day, that's $1 a day, pretty good 21:11:18wages in those days, he'll do it for a nickel. then that first barber is thinking, i would be better to stay out there mining gold. so week of got two barbers that are competing, then a third and a fourth and a fifth. and pretty soon the first barber 21:11:32that got in, he decides that it isn't fair because he has all of this technological equipment, egot the electric clippers and he's got the -- he's got the electric clippers and he's got the nice clean sheet to put around their neck and he's better at taking care of those ingrown hairs and he does a 21:11:50little antiseptic while he's at it and his equipment is clean and well maintained and the other guy has a pair of sisers and comb. so he'll go to the -- scissors and a comb. so he'll go to the state legislature and argue that barbers should be licensed so there's a standard quality of 21:12:04care for hair cuts. it isn't because he believes so much in that standard of quality of care. it's because he knows that he 21:12:20can regulate some of his competition out of business. that's what goes on in the barber shops, in the gold mining towns in colorado 150 years ago, but that's also what goes on in big business in the united states of america today. that's what's going on, mr. speaker. big business says, come and regulate me because it's a cost of doing business at big business level, the 21:12:37multimillion-dollar level. and by the way, those people who can only do business down in the few millions, they're not going to be able to compete. so we should not accept big business as the purest form of free enterprise capitalism. we should look at big business as coming here to this capitol 21:12:53to ask us to level the playing field. all the while they're looking to turn onto a playing field that it's often difficult for small business to climb into. so, mr. speaker, that is the status of big businesses remainlation versus small 21:13:09business regulation and it sets the tone for -- it sets the tone for, i think, what we're about to take up next. although i recognize, i recognize that in a moment we will be asked to yield for the esteemed chair of the rules 21:13:23committee as soon as she gets prepared. but in the meantime i see that the gentleman from texas is about prepared to get prepared and so at this point i would suggest that, mr. speaker, we need to take a look at this 21:13:39regulation that's coming in from the senate and the regulation of the financial services industry and the credit industry in america. this idea that here in the united states of america we would establish government entities that would look in on 21:13:56every business in america, anybody that's got a credit transaction, with whether it would be a.i.g. doing business -- whether it would be a.i.g. doing business with a large investment bank or some smaller entity, mr. speaker, i'll pick 21:14:11that up in a moment but i'd be so happy to yield so that the gentlelady it conduct business. Slaughter, L. (D-NY):i'll only take 30 seconds, mr. speaker. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? 21:14:24Slaughter, L. (D-NY):i send to the desk a privileged report for filing under the rule. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the clerk will report the title. THE CLERK:report to accompany house resolution 1392, a resolution waiving a requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 with respect to consideration of 21:14:40certain resolutions reported from the committee on rules and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. Slaughter, L. (D-NY):thank you, mr. speaker. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:referred to the house calendar and ordered to be printed. the gentleman from iowa. 21:14:58King, S. (R-IA):thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as i watch this regulation that's coming through in the financial services component of this, that's a regulation that sets up tim geithner, the secretary of the treasury, to decide which businesses are too big to be allowed to fail, which 21:15:14businesses would be deemed to fail and all he needs is the agreement of the fdic and the agreement of the secretary of the chairman of the fed and those things concern me a great deal. 21:15:34but this conversation could go in any direction, because i am prepared to yield to my good friend, the gentleman and judge from texas, louie gohmert. Gohmert (R-TX):i want to follow up on that very point. 21:15:46we're told there's going to be a financial reform bill that sounds more like a financial deform bill. all these reforms end up being deformities. but this in particular, financial reform, to get us out 21:16:04of the mess that had been building through the 1990's and through this past decade, the last 20 years? and nonetheless, as i understand, in this bill we're going to take up, it still has 21:16:22the systemic risk council that is going to pick the winners and losers in america. that is so grossly un-american. it has no place in our law 21:16:39coming out of this body. that's kind of thing that the revolution was started over that some king was going to get to tell them who would be the 21:16:52business that would stand and who would fall. because the americans here wanted to be able to let the market decide that. now one thing we've seen, and it's been accentuated, is you do need a government that will 21:17:11ensure that people play fairly and play right. we saw that down on the coast as president obama expressed that we have gotten a relationship too cozy between his administration and the big 21:17:28oil companies. we've had people say on television, the republicans took contribution, the democrats take contributions, but it was the department of interior in 1988, 1998, 1999, some of the clinton 21:17:50administration, people that pulled the language from the offshore leases that would allow the oil companies ultimately to make millions and millions and millions at the expense of the government and the taxpayer getting full value 21:18:06for the leases for those offshore oil and gas developments. when we had the inspector general in front of us in the natural resources hearing a couple of years ago, i asked why he had not talked to the 21:18:22couple of people that the inspector general said were apparently responsible for that language being pulled out of the leases that hurt the revenue of the government and helped the massive oil 21:18:39companies at the time. he said well they're government service, we can't talk to them. certainly you can at least try to talk to them by thptor general indicated they left 21:18:55government service. after i heard the president announce that we had to end the cozy relationship between people in his administration and the big oil company, i wonder whatever happened to those two people? 21:19:10it turns out one of the people that apparently the inspector general did not talk to, but felt probably had the best information on why that language was left out turns out when she was not working for 21:19:28the government, she went and worked for a company called british petroleum. perhaps my friend has heard of british petroleum. in fact, after the inspector general said he couldn't talk 21:19:42to her about why that language was pulled that helped the oil company so much during 1998-1999, and why she would pull language that hurt our government, turns out she has 21:19:59now returned to government service, in fact, did last summer this administration hired her to be the deputy assistant secretary of m.m.s. the minerals management 21:20:15service. it is the agency of this administration that is supposed to ensure that blowout preventers work properly. well, we've got people here in the house that have asked for 21:20:33the results of the test that were done by m.m.s. within two weeks of the blowout preventers failing and apparently, the information has come back from this administration's m.m.s., we're not providing that 21:20:50information to you. maybe a democratic chairman of a committee, but not to you guys. you would think that this was public information that m.m.s. would want to be as transparent as they're demand that the c.i.a. be. 21:21:06but apparently they're not willing to be as transparent as they want the c.i.a. to be. they're more in the nature of on security, like the federal reserve continues to try to be and is. so they won't release the 21:21:23information of how badly bungled the test was. you have to figure it didn't go well or they would have released that information to show that they were exonerated, that they did proper tests. in fact, as a trial judge, back in my days in the courtroom, 21:21:43oftentimes, one side would produce evidence to show that the fact that there is no evidence indicates a fact. and i think here, the fact that they won't produce those test results indicates that the 21:21:59m.m.s., this administration that is too cozy with british petroleum, because of the interactive business that's gone on here, it must not have gone well. certainly, i yield to my friend. 21:22:13Gohmert (R-TX):just reclaiming, i'm standing here thinking, we're drawing a rational conclusion that m.m.s. -- the mineral managements -- minerals management service would not release the information that showed the result of the testing of the blowout preventer. 21:22:29Gohmert (R-TX):if they'd actually done the testing, actually. Gohmert (R-TX):there's reports out there that's -- that there's testing that failed some 10 days or so before the test failed. i don't want to start a rumor. but are we drawing a rational 21:22:47conclusion that we could have a government we have to draw conclusions from based on their response, or lack of response, not the answer to the question? i yield. Gohmert (R-TX):it would certainly 21:23:02appear that's exactly right. if the m.m.s. of this administration will not produce the records to show exactly what testing was done and exactly what the results were, which should be public record, for heaven's sake, they're 21:23:19public waters, controlled by our government, if they're not producing those records, then you've got to pretty well figure it would not make this administration look very good. Gohmert (R-TX):but we've got an open 21:23:38government. this is the most open, the most honest government in history and we're drawing conclusions based upon not getting an answer as opposed to the answer we might get if they would simply give us the information. 21:23:54this really saddens my heart to hear this, i'm not surprised, but it saddens my heart, mr. gohmert. Gohmert (R-TX):and that also brings you can ba -- us back to the problem with the federal reserve and the secretary of 21:24:07the treasury and yes, we had 21:24:10some people saying, we've got to confirm timothy geithner as the secretary of the treasury, because he worked with paulson in the early days of tarp. he knows the plan that tells me he should never have been 21:24:24confirmed if he worked with paulson on the original plan because it was a disaster and it should never have been allowed to have happened as it did. but now we've got these guys, federal reserve, head of the treasury, they're going to pick 21:24:39the winners and losers in the country. i yield. Gohmert (R-TX):would we go choose some mainline i.v. drug user off the street to go in and do i.v.'s in the hospital because they happen to have had the kind of experience that they're good at it, even though it's 21:24:57illegal? if somebody was proficient in how they operated turbo tax, was able to avoid their taxes that means they'd be a good person to have as head of the i.r.s., so they could set up a system to prevent other people 21:25:13paying a -- paying taxes? Gohmert (R-TX):it's an interesting issue. secretary geithner had great problems complying with his certification four years in a row where he swore he would pay the tax that was shown on the form and certified that they 21:25:29would just pay him that money, he would pay it, then he didn't pay it. but in answer to the question, i guess an analogy comes to mind, the f.b.i., for example, the gentleman that was -- there 21:25:47was a movie about, shofse good at forging and acting as someone else, he could create a forged document out of anything. the f.b.i. ended up hiring him because he was so good at forging checks and making fraudulent checks, the f.b.i. 21:26:04hired him because he knew more about ways to cheat other people and to cheat the government, they felt like he could be of immense help and apparently was and has helped -- as i understand it, helped 21:26:20prepare more secure documents and more secure institutions because he was so good at cheating those very institutions. Gohmert (R-TX):so that's not tax cheelts. 21:26:40Gohmert (R-TX):maybe that was the thinking, this guy would be the expert of not paying taxes, maybe that's who we want in charge of the tax entity, the i.r.s. it's an interesting point. but it still cuts to my core to think that the land of the 21:26:59free, home of the brave is being converted into a land of the unfree, where liberties are taken away because people have decided the secretary of 21:27:17treasury, the federal reserve chairman, get to pick and choose what entities, what banks get to stand when the smoke clears. what happened to competition? why not let people play and 21:27:33play fairly and just enforce their rules. that's why -- that's what is needed here. we don't need a federal government telling what companies that they are going to support and never let them 21:27:47fail, because as soon as the federal government says, we're not going to ever let this bank or this company fail, then that's going to be the last one standing because they know they can operate in the red and their competition can't do that. 21:28:02and at the send of the day that government-supported entity or bank will end up being the one left. that is outrageous. it is un-american. and anybody that would stand for that proposition, that we're not going to let these companies compete fairly, we're 21:28:20going to come in and pick the winners and losers. they need to start wearing a name tag that says, king george iii wannabe. i want to pick the winners and losers. i want to tell you who prevails and who doesn't. 21:28:34i will tell you who ends up getting to be the dominant force in america. instead of letting people live in freedom and in liberty and pursue happiness and pursue opportunity. the constitution never 21:28:51guaranteed equality of outcome. it guaranteed equality of opportunity. and that's what ought to be done. anybody that says they support a systemic risk council that gets to pick the winners and 21:29:09losers, these are too big to fail, we can't let them fail, they are enemies of this country, as it was founded. Gohmert (R-TX):reclaiming my time, then i have to pose the question, if you're in business if you're an investment banker, for example, if you have a 21:29:24large credit operation going on, and you've watched the barney frank bill and the chris dodd bill and now your knees have to be knocking on what might be going on in a future conference committee that's going to produce a bill that likely spills out here here to the house for passage, sent to 21:29:41the senate and rammed through there, put on the president's desk we know the president will sign the bill. but what is your business model? say you're providing credit transactions, mr. speaker, to a large portion of america, whether it's credit cards or whether it is the toxic assets 21:29:57of mortgage-backed securities, the subprime loans that might be out there. whatever it might be. now if you're sitting there with billions of dollars in those kinds of assets and you're making your profit off those margins of the assets 21:30:11going through, i'm going to suggest that if you don't already have a lobbyist, you better hire a bunch of them. bring them into this congress and start to convince people like chairman of the financial services committee, barney frank and the majority of the members on that committee, 21:30:28others, perhaps through the ways and means committee, start to work your ankle. because your business mot el, mr. speaker, is no longer that of providing the most competitive, most service oriented, most customer-focused service there is. your business model is, do what 21:30:44you have to do out here on the streets in the business world of america, treat customers fine, come to washington and get that playing field, not level, but tipped in your favor, because you can't do business without so you have the kind of chips when the time comes that the regulators would 21:31:00come in and take a look at your balance sheet and determine, well you weren't quite big enough to be allowed to fail so we're going to shove you into receivership and we'll chop you up and deal you out to our preferred companies. i know the model, i know the 21:31:16papt patern, even though it's done in a pretty good fashion with the fdic when a company has to go under. in the 1980's we had 3,000 banks that went under. they were split up, sometimes, and dealt out and sold to other investors that had a better 21:31:33track record with managing banks. all right. that was good and it works well in the micro version. but when you -- when you get into the macro version of big business and you have tim geithner as the secretary of the 21:31:49treasury making the decision on a business that's too big to be allowed to fail and calling in sheila bare and calling in ben bernanke and saying, don't you agree, they're too big to be alloyd to fail, so -- allowed to fail so let's prop these people 21:32:06up? what would help is if we deal the assets of that company over into the company that's too big to fail. you pick the winners and pick the losers out of government and who wins? the people that pay the lobbyists, the people that have 21:32:19paid for the most political influence. government cannot make rational decisions on business. they make political decisions on business. peter walson spoke today on fannie mae and freddie mac. the american enterprise institute scholar, one of the 21:32:35brightest minds that we have on free enterprise economics in america. a very solid man and many times i've listened to him imlume nate the issue -- illuminate the issue for me. he spoke today about fannie mae and freddie mac. and his sense is that they 21:32:51aren't yet nationalized. that they're still a quasi-government. my position is that they aren't actualized because the government calls all their shots and we've got roughly $50 billion each dumped into each of them and another $50 billion rolled on top that have $100 billion so around $130 billion 21:33:09range peter thinks that thress not $360 billion but $400 billion in losses that will have to be swallowed up by the american taxpayers. and we knew, and we know now that we were looking at $5.5 trillion in contingent 21:33:24liabilities that the federal taxpayers would have to swallow if fannie and freddie were flushed down completely the way the markets might drive them. Gohmert (R-TX):will the gentleman yield? king concluding my statement and yielding, that was -- Gohmert (R-TX):concluding my 21:33:39statement and yielding, fannie mae and freddie mac is an example of how government can't set values, neither can they evaluate risk because they're doing political calculations based on political pressure, not economic calculations based upon the risk of success and failure. i yield to the gentleman from texas. Gohmert (R-TX):just asking will 21:33:55the gentleman yield for a question, if he would? Gohmert (R-TX):i would. Gohmert (R-TX):with regard to the financial deform package that apparently is going to be coming 21:34:08to the house, is the gentleman aware of whether or not these two entities, fannie and freddie, that kicked us into a spiral downward in the fall of 2008, whether they're included 21:34:24in this reform package? is there any reform of these two entities that nearly brought our economic house of cards down? i yield back. King, S. (R-IA):reclaiming. in scowering the financial reform package in the barney 21:34:41frank bill or the chris dodd bill and setting up the word search and chasing it through there, mr. speaker, i don't find anything in either one of those bills that addresses the necessary form for fannie mae and freddie mac. they are completely insulated and i recall the debate here on 21:34:58the floor of the house in october 26, 2005, that the chairman of the financial services committee, mr. frank, was very much engaged in. he came to the floor to vigorously oppose an amendment that was offered by mr. leech of iowa that would have established 21:35:15higher levels of collateralization for fannie mae and freddie mac, higher stads -- standards for underwriting in the secondary market and higher standards for capitalization for fannie and freddie. the vigorous opposition that mr. 21:35:29frank flowed out on that day and the gentleman from texas remembers the exchange that took place on the thursday before easter in 2009, here on this floor, the gentleman from texas was there. the gentleman from massachusetts 21:35:44there. i think me up there somewhere. as we talked about what had happened with fannie mae and freddie mac and in that debate on october 26, 2005, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, said, if you're going to invest in shares of fannie and freddie, don't do so 21:36:00believing that he would ever vote to bail out fannie mae and freddie mac. because he would never do that. he would let them go down instead. that's the core and the essence of the statement that was headpy -- made by the gentleman from massachusetts who now is the chairman of the financial services committee. well, we know what's happened. 21:36:17fannie and freddie have been bailed out. and on that day the gentleman from massachusetts said that he wasn't biased, in favor of or against fannie or freddie, because the man whom he'd had an intimate relationship was not a 21:36:33senior executive. it's in the congressional record. i don't pull this out of thin air. i suggest, mr. speaker, that you check the record. for me, that's an astonishing confession, to draw a fine line between the reason for bias and not bias is because this 21:36:50individual was not a senior but more apparently a junior executive for fannie mae. and so that's a little too ins mat -- intimate for me, mr. speaker. i don't choose to go there any further except to point out that a lot of things going on in this 21:37:05united states government that are not what meets the eye. there are undercurrents here that threaten to swallow up the united states of america. there's a driven philosophy on this side of the aisle that wants to swallow up free enterprise capitalism, that 21:37:19abhors the words of capitalism. there's a driven philosophy that's reflected by 77 members of the progressive caucus, who come to this floor with their blue charts and say, come visit our website. well, not that long ago, a few years ago, the progressive website was hosted by, managed 21:37:38by and taken care of by the socialists in america. but when they took a little bit of heat, they decided they would manage their own website, so they didn't have to take the criticism. so the socialists ran the 21:37:52progressives' website. and now the d.s.a. -- dsausa.org. it stands for democratic socialists of america, dsausa.org, mr. speaker, you should go visit that website and understand who your colleagues 21:38:09are. 77 of them are self-professed progressives. the progressives, according to the socialist website, are their legislative arm. they write that they are not communists, they're socialists. 21:38:24that's a step above a communist. they don't want to nationalize everything, they just want to nationalize the fortune 500 companies in america. and they've got a big start on it. and they don't run candidates on the banner or under the 21:38:39political party calls the socialists because there's a stigma attached to being a socialist in america. so what do they could, mr. speaker? -- do, mr. speaker? they push the candidates that are self-professed progressives. progressives are not distinct from socialist, they're one and 21:38:55the same. they're just wearing a little bit different color jersey and they're the people here who have driven the idea that we should national ites the fortune 500 companies, nationalize the oil refinery industry, mr. hinchey 21:39:08of new york, take over the oil industry, maxine watters from los angeles, and operate these fortune 500 companies and i quote, for the benefit of the people affected about i them, closed quote -- by them, closed 21:39:21quote. that's the unions. the speaker is a member. the speaker advocated and said that she would not give, in the case of the car companies, bargaining advantage of the automakers over that of the unions. right off of the web page of the 21:39:37socialists. and she followed through on it and today 17.5% of general motors is owned by the unions without a cash outlay, without a concession of any kind, the president of the united states, who voted to the left of self-professed senator bernie 21:39:52sanders, crammed that down the throats of the investors, the security investors in general motors and now we have the unions owning 17.5%. the federal government owning 61% and the canadian government owning 12.5% of general motors. exactly off of the playbook of 21:40:10the socialist website, mr. speaker. the american people need to go visit the website, they need to understand the playbook is written. it's being carried out by the progressives in this congress, 77 of them are the core driving force here. 21:40:25when you add to that the congressional black caucus, the hispanic caucus, a whole lot of these people that are self-segregating caucuses instead of integrated caucuses, you understand who's running america today, mr. speaker. i yield to the gentleman from texas. King, S. (R-IA):if we go back to 21:40:41the day that the wall street bailout passed, that first week in october of 2008, i made the statement that when the federal government buys private assets 21:41:00and holds them in order to try to make money, when the federal government decides it's going to start trying to make money for the taxpayer, it's called socialism. 21:41:17and i was belittled by colleagues that served here in this body for saying that it was socialist. one person even said, well, i only know three socialists in america and they're all against the wall street bailout. well, i was pretty depressed and 21:41:36devastated when the wall street bailout passed. the next morning, saturday morning, i was watching neil cavuto and he had the presidential nominee of the 21:41:50socialist party and the socialist candidate for president being interviewed by neil cavuto, was asked, basically, what's the deal? i thought you guys were against 21:42:05the tarp bailout, the wall street bailout? and now this morning you're saying it was a good thing. and in essence, the presidential nominee of the socialist party said, well, yes, they were against the tarp wall street 21:42:23bailout, in essence they didn't feel like the government should pay anything to take over the assets they were taking over. but once it passed and was signed into law, they realized, this is probably the greatest 21:42:38day for socialists in american history. because the federal government has begun the takeover in a substantial way of private assets. and of course he went on to say now that they've made this 21:42:55wonderful great step of taking over socializing, nationalizing private assets from the financial sector, the government just needs to go in and finish taking over the rest of the financial sector because, as he said, because we know then the 21:43:13government takeover of all of that area would not be done out of greed and so they would do a much better job of spreading the wealth around the country and under the present system greed rules the day and just that 21:43:31great wonderful step of the tarp bailout, socializing america, as he saw it, just needed to be followed by the final step of completing the takeover of the financial sector. 21:43:43so the gentleman from iowa is exactly right according to the presidential candidate of the socialist party in 2008, this is a socialist move to nationalize more and more of the assets just 21:44:00as the presidential nominee of the socialist had hoped would happen. 21:44:06i yield back. King, S. (R-IA):reclaiming and thanking the gentleman from texas, i'd point out into the record, mr. speaker, that some months ago the secretary of the treasury, tim geithner, came before a couple of committees, financial services and ag. and the question that i posed to him and he was bound to answer 21:44:21that question under oath was, made the point that president obama was elected at least in part because he had declared and effectively made an argument, however it might have been true or untrue, that president bush had gone into iraq without an 21:44:38exit strategy. so i made the point in my question that president obama had engaged in, supported and participated in the nationalization of about half of our private sector. and that is the three large investment banks, a.i.g., fannie 21:44:53mae and freddie mac, general motors, chrysler, i didn't go on into the nationalization of our skin and everything inside it, which is obamacare, but in that letter that he was obligated to answer under oath, two months late irgot a response back. i do want to give secretary 21:45:10geithner credit. there are some members of this cabinet that simply don't answer my letters. they have -- they apparently don't think they're accountable to members of congress and they don't think that we might decide to send them a little less money when they decide to do the budget. 21:45:24geithner did answer the letter. it was seven pages long and took two months to get it back and it's not a particular complaint of mine because i know that it's difficult to make the machinery of government work. but this those seven pages of answering the question, what is 21:45:40your exit strategy for taking over all of these huge chunks of the private sector? his answer was, well, it's not a written strategy and he would know when the time was right and he would execute that when the time is right. in other words, don't you be 21:46:01asking me. i'm secretary of the treasury, i don't answer to you or anybody else. i'm going to submit this. there is no plan. there's no exit strategy. the president of the united states is delighted to have these companies taken over by 21:46:20the federal government, as are most of the members of the cabinet, because it fits in with the website of the democratic socialist of america there used to be some resistance on this side of the aisle when someone applied -- 21:46:39when when someone implied the president is a socialist. but president obama voted to 21:46:56the left of bernie sanders, and when i saw the picture of the president next to hugo chavez 21:47:10and he's doing that double-grip glad-hand handshake, you know what, hugo chavez is a piker when it comes to nationalizing. barack obama has way outdone him. 21:47:26i don't think he would have been a man who could have done that on his own he surrounded himself with people who for years worked through this vision. had i been assigned the task of writing the screen play, trying to turn america into a socialist state and if they even created for me a 21:47:43charismatic figure that matches that of the president and started me down the path on my imagination and with three years to get ready to do it, could not have unfolded a scenario close to what's reality today for the 21:47:56businesses taken over by the federal government. neither could have anticipated some of the things they're seeking to do now. but when you add these up and you add up the takeover of three large investment banks, bank of america, bear stearns, citigroup, when you see that 21:48:16a.i.g., for $180 billion, swallowed up by the federal government and fannie mae and freddie mac to the tune of $130 billion and perhaps another $400 billion piled on top of that and still remaining at $5.5 trillion in contingent 21:48:32liability and the takeover of general motors and chrysler, both of them now under the control or influence of the federal government being managed now exactly off the socialist website, run for the benefit of the people affected 21:48:46by them, close quote? the unions who made no concession whatsoever except to concede future claims that they think are going to be paid anyway by obamacare. and the student loan program, 21:49:02taken over completely, exactly within the mold of what 21:49:06happened when we had federal flood insurance that came in to provide one more competitor for the private market back in 1963, now there is no private market. now the federal government runs it all. when the federal government steps in to compete on student loans, people said, well, you 21:49:22know, we need to keep these people honest. somebody is making money off these students. now the federal government runs it all. and the president's idea was that he would set up one more insurance company to provide health insurance for americans to compete against these 21:49:38insurance company whoms he demagogued relentlessly, forgetting one more company, correct. but there existed up until obamacare passed, 1,300 health insurance companies in america. 1,300 companies that produced a 21:49:56variety of policies numbering to 100,000 policies. so who could imagine that one more company and a handful more policies was going to provide more options for people that would help with the competition, take some of the 21:50:10profits out of the industry? if these 1,300 companies competing against each other, mr. speaker, could take the profit out of the industry, how could the federal government do that? regulate and subsidize. that's what governments do. they regulate and subsidize their competition out of 21:50:27existence like they did on the flood insurance programs in 1963 and the student loan programs, cullmy nated this year and now here -- culminated this year, and now here we are, obamacare, the law of the land 21:50:43that nationalized not just three large investment banks, fannie and freddie, and student loan, now they've nationalized our body the most sovereign thing we have, the federal government has taken over the management of our skin and everything inside it and 21:50:59decided who will buy what policy and what the premium will be. and now they're trying to decide our diet. and now they're deciding on a mission across the country that the retailers need to cut $1.5 trillion calories out of the 21:51:14products going to these kids because 1/3 of our kids are obese, they want to cut the calories on the bag of do retoes. i think they just take a few calories out of the do retoes. 21:51:33a 150 calorie power bar gets redeuced to 90 calories because some fat kids will eat too many. but what do with we do with the 2/3 of the kid that are too skinny that need measure 150 21:51:49calories, or what we do with the fat kid who hordes three power barses for 270 calories as opposed to one at 150 calories, but we cannot put a one size fits all regulation and reduce calories going into 21:52:06kids for energy and growth. more kids need more food, rather than all kids need less food. so those kids that are overweight they need more exercise. and maybe they need to watch their diet a little bit, that's education and that's parents, 21:52:20yes. but don't starve the hungry kids to so that those who are eating too much have to work harder to keep getting too much. the super nanny state that -- the recycling of all these components. here, the speaker of the house and the house of 21:52:36representatives has decreed that you can't go to the cafe over here and eat an only let unless the eggs that are broken from are from a free-range hen. i think the chicken is probably not free range, it doesn't taste like free range to me. 21:52:53but the eggs are from a free range hen. the paper, the napkins around the capitol, most of them are brown. because they're recycled paper. when i go look at my coffee filters, i wonder why they're running over, they're recycled paper. 21:53:09so we have these decrees that come down from on high and the light bulbs themselveses are regulated by the speaker of the house. how much nanny state does this country need? and how much nanny state can we stand? 21:53:25i want american people making their own decisions. free market economy. i want to be able to exercise all their constitutional rights. i want them to be able to own guns and defend themselves and hunt and target shoot and be in a position to defend us against tyranny. 21:53:41if we do not -- there's something about constitutional rights and liberty. it's use it or lose it. if you don't use it, you'll lose it. you've got to use your freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press, second amendment right, you've got to exercise those 21:53:57rights. we must do so. mr. speaker, we have to take this country back. and i yield back the balance of my time. i thank the gentleman from 21:54:05texas for joining me tonight. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:under the speaker's announced spoil of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from arizona, ms. giffords, for 60 minutes. 21:54:37Giffords (D-AZ):thank you, mr. speaker. i rise tonight to address the border security crisis that's part of daily life in my southern arizona district, in arizona's eighth congressional district. i'm proud to represent one of the most diverse parts of the entire country. i represent a district that's 21:54:56over 9,000 square miles and is one of 10 u.s.-mexico border districts. the u.s.-mexico -- mexico border has changed a lot over the years. i'm a third generation arizonan. 21:55:10i represent a lot of people who are multigeneration arizonans. after years of building up the word for the california and texas, there's been a systematic funneling of illegal immigration, the flow of traffic, illegally, through southern arizona. this has become the most po 21:55:27rouse part of the u.s.-mexico border. today, together, my constituents live in a situation on the front lines of a national border security crisis. we live and breathe the federal government's failure to secure the board we are mexico and every day, my constituents are 21:55:43subjected to home invasions and to burglaries and to cut water lines and to graffiti, an unbelievable amount of garbage and trash left behind by illegal immigrants who are crossing through the border and by people increasingly who are drug smugglers, people that are 21:56:01human smugglers, the cutting of fences, the threats and intimidation by armed smugglers and the violence they experience on their own land, their own ranches, their own property. in this hour, i'm going to talk 21:56:16about action i and others have taken along the u.s.-mexico border. more importantly, i'm going to talk about the lives of people i represent, the people of cochise county, the ranchers who live on the u.s.-mexico border. 21:56:30it's always been my belief that if the decisionmaker here's in washington if they could hear, the stories, the impact that illegal immigration has on the lives my constituents there would be greater action here in washington. a decision -- that decisionmakers, elected 21:56:46official, people in the administration, they would move to greatly enhance the security along the u.s.-mexico border. so that's what we're going to talk about tonight. i think it's important to begin this hour with the most heart-wrenching story of all. 21:57:02the tragic death of robert trents, a fourth generation rancher, whose family has been on his land for over 100 years. actually, the cents family has had their ranch before arizona achieved statehood. 21:57:18on march 27, rob crants was murdered by an assailant, who was tracked to the mexico border. he and his dog were both ruthlessly murdered on his land. they were left to die. they were shot. law enforcement officials 21:57:33belief that rob was killed by a smuggler. next to me is a photograph of rob and his brother phil, the two crents brothers. this was -- cents brothers. this was run of the front page of the "tucson weekly." 21:57:52this tells it all. you see them, the tack room their boots, their hands, their lives represented. reportedly -- a reporter wrote the companion story in which he interviewed the family and 21:58:08neighbors. he wrote, what has to be noted first is the nevittability of what happened. something like the krentz murder was coming and everybody knew it. the stories residents told this newspaper of the frustration they feel in trying to keep property and family safe in 21:58:27smuggler-occupied territory were like a freight train in the night. down the tracks you see the faint light coming closer and closer. on march 27 in cochise county, the train arrived. the aftershock has been so 21:58:42powerful because the killing exploded the lie about the secure boarder that washington, d.c. has been working hard to promote. its front page, "the tucson weekly" asked the question, will the murder of a respected cochise county rancher change 21:58:57anything on our board her tonight, i ask the same question. will the murder of robert krenz 21:59:07, a respected rancher in my district, will it change anything on the board her it has changed. we know that today. the president announced the deployment of the national guard to the u.s.-mexico border. i knew rob krentz, i knew his family he participated in 21:59:24meetings i convened between ranchers and border patrol. he was a family man. he was a good neighbor. and he was a friend to all who knew him. he was described as a humanitarian who would give 21:59:38water and aid to illegal immigrants who suffered from heat exhaustion and physical injury as they treked from mexico across his land. he was, like fellow ranchers out in cochise county a straight talker and he, like them, saw their lives change by 21:59:54the increased flow of illegal immigrants and drug smugglers. tonight i'll share additional stories about the ranchers in this area and call on my colleague in demanding that our government step up and co-more, the responsibility here in
DN-LB-543 Beta SP
Universal International Newsreels
UNITED STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2200
HOUSE FLOOR DEBATE The House meets at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and 12:00 p.m. for legislative business. Unlimited ?one minutes? Suspensions (10 Bills): 1) H.R. 2711 - FBI Families of Fallen Heroes Act (Rep. Rogers (MI) / Oversight and Government Reform) 2) H.Res. 1172 - Recognizing the life and achievements of Will Keith Kellogg (Rep. Schauer / Oversight and Government Reform) 3) H.Res. 1189 - Commending Lance Mackey on winning a record 4th straight Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race (Rep. Young (AK) / Oversight and Government Reform) 4) H.Res. 1316 - Celebrating Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month (Rep. Honda / Oversight and Government Reform) 5) H.Res. 1385 - Recognizing and honoring the courage and sacrifice of the members of the Armed Forces and veterans (Rep. Skelton / Armed Services) 6) H.Res. 1353 - Supporting the goals and ideals of Student Financial Aid Awareness Month (Rep. Bishop (NY) / Education and Labor) 7) H.Res. 1169 - Honoring the 125th anniversary of Rollins College (Rep. Grayson / Education and Labor) 8) H.Res. 1161 - Honoring the Centennial Celebration of Women at Marquette University (Rep. Moore (WI) / Education and Labor) 9) H.Res. 1372 - Honoring the University of Georgia Graduate School (Rep. Broun / Education and Labor) // 10) H.Res. 407 - Expressing support for designation of May as "National Asthma and Allergy Awareness Month" (Rep. Castor / Energy and Commerce) Postponed Suspensions Votes (5 Bills): 1) H.Res. 1258 - Expressing support for designation of May 2010 as Mental Health Month (Rep. Napolitano / Energy and Commerce) 2) H.Res. 1382 - Expressing sympathy to the families of those killed by North Korea in the sinking of the Republic of Korea Ship Cheonan, and solidarity with the Republic of Korea in the aftermath of this tragic incident (Del. Faleomavaega / Foreign Affairs) 3) H.Res. 584 - Recognizing the importance of manufactured and modular housing in the United States (Rep. Donnelly / Financial Services) 4) H.R. 3885 - Veterans Dog Training Therapy Act (Rep. Brown (SC) / Veterans' Affairs) 5) H.R. 5145 - Assuring Quality Care for Veterans Act (Rep. McNerney / Veterans' Affairs) 21:00:00them against americans. and when americans are victims of this, we need to ask this question, what happens in the mind of that al qaeda terrorist that's sitting in that mud hult making that bomb, watching al-jazeera tv and sees the 21:00:18speaker speak up and oppose the war in iraq and afghanistan? what happens when there is a debate on the floor that goes on over and over and over again and the left win, radicals in this congress, the progressives, say 21:00:36we should pull out of those countries without any hesitation and do the best we can to keep from getting shot in the back? do you think, mr. speaker, and this is a rhetorical question, do you think that terrorist is likely to plant more bombs or 21:00:53less, detonate more bombs or less, are there more americans lost or fewer because the enemy has been encouraged by 44 votes on the floor of the house of representatives in 2007 and 2008 in that congress? 21:01:09. that's what's happened here, mr. speaker. this country was going to move forward. and even though the president of the united states now, our commander in chief, in the 21:01:27spring of 2008 took the position that he wanted to pull the troops out of iraq immediately, without any hesitation, just simply try to keep from being shot in the back on the way out of iraq, that was his position and i argued that if that was 21:01:44his position, then if he's elected president, the enemy will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on september 11 in 2001. now, we don't know if that turned out to be a true prediction because now president obama, then candidate and 21:01:59senator obama, changed his position. from the spring of 2008 until election day in novene of 2008 he walked a -- november of 2008 he walked a line of changing his position for being for immediate withdrawal to being for a slower withdrawal from iraq. 21:02:18and what we've seen also happen is, now president obama has adopted the exact position in iraq that president bush negotiated. it's called the status of forces agreement, mr. speaker. 21:02:32the sofa agreement. that was negotiated by the bush administration and it was with the iraqis and it was signed on november 17, 2008, by ambassador to iraq ryan crocker. and just a very impressive 21:02:47public servant who never received his due respect for the job that he did for all of us in that country, for the time that he was there. ryan crocker. i want to say a few more things about ryan crocker. i've met with him very late in the night, i've sat there in 21:03:04those hot and uncomfortable places in iraq, with top officers, with admiral mullen, for example, ryan crocker, general petraeus, a number of other very top leaders in our military and our state department personnel. 21:03:18ryan crocker understands the middle east, ryan crocker served well there. he was as instrumental in the negotiations and the status of forces agreement, he was the one who put his hands to that agreement in 2008 and today the letter of the status of forces agreement is being followed by 21:03:36president obama. good for him. i appreciate that. i support it. it's something i called for. if it were president bush doing that, i would be for that. i just don't think the american people see it the same way because he's not as proud of 21:03:50that decision as perhaps he would be of a different posture that we have in that part of the country. so, mr. speaker, we have a number of interests in america. our national security interests are paramount. those are constitutional. the responsibility of the 21:04:06president of the united states and the federal government is to defend us, to defend our shores, to defend the american people. 21:04:13and our military and our troops and those people that put on uniforms day after day after day are the ones that deserve our gratitude and our respect -- respect. and we need to do them just duty here on the floor of the house and not back up from those 21:04:29responsibilities just to provide them with the resources that they need. and that means a consistent message from the commander in chief on down and a strategy that we believe that we can win and it means to say to the left wing radicals in the united 21:04:44states of america, don't tell me you're for the troops and tell me you're also against their mission. you have to pour the -- support the troops and their mission. and what's interesting is that when george bush was the commander in chief, you said you supported the troops but not their mission. 21:05:01now that barack obama is the commander in chief, you don't really answer to that at all. except for the most part you left wing radicals -- part, you left wing radicals, you say you support the troops to a level of pandering to the mission of patriotism, but you don't 21:05:16support their mission. we cannot, mr. speaker, ask our military to put their lives on the line on a mission that we don't believe in. no, week of got to ask them to put their lives on the line for the cause of liberty and a mission that we believe in. 21:05:33if we don't believe in the mission we should not send them. they should not go. but it's up to the call of the commander in chief to do so. after all, he is the commander in chief. until he orders our armed forces, he sets the foreign policy and if we don't like what the president of the united 21:05:48states does when it comes to that, we've got about two choices. one is elect a new president and the other is to look into the constitution for another solution. i'm not ready to do that because i don't believe there's just cause at this point to look in the constitution for another solution. and in fact, i believe that the president of the united states 21:06:05has eclipsed my anticipation for what he might have been doing in iraq and in afghanistan it's relatively stable. it's not been extraordinarily brilliant, he did send only 75% of the minimum number of troops that were requested by general 21:06:21mcchrystal and they have a very difficult task. but the prospects of being successful in that task, i believe, are greater than the prospects of the state department being successful in setting up institutions that never existed before in parts of the country of afghanistan that don't have a history of those institutions of centralized 21:06:38government reaching out. so, with the foreign policy question that's before us, mr. speaker, and we have the question of the united states economy. and we have a bunch of people that are self-professed experts that come here to this floor 21:06:55that never signed a front of a paycheck. they don't have the first idea of what it takes for a free market economy to thrive or prosper. they believe that if you raise taxes it's just taking a little more out of the pot of their greedy capitalists and if you 21:07:11raise regulations they've got blenty of time to fill out the paperwork because after all, what are they going to do with the resources? it creates jobs. why would you want these people to be in charge of our economy? they demagogue republicans and 21:07:27say that we are in support of wall street. it's democrats that are cashing checks from wall street and it's big banking and international banking and investment banking, large interests, that are sending the biggest checks to democrats, all the while they're 21:07:46hedging their bets. and if you're a big business interest and you have a crony relationship with the united states congress, you've got a pretty good deal going because you can have the united states congress raise the regulations 21:07:59and raise the burden of government to keep your competition out. what's the simple solution to that complex problem? raise the regulations. raise the taxes. you're only competing against fewer people. i've seen this happen in my lifetime over and over again. i spent my life in the 21:08:15contracting business as a small contractor. i started out from this tiny little old guy that bought an old beaten up bulldozer and then i worked it for a while and fixed it a lot and then i bought another machine and hired a man and after a while we had enough machines we could go out and do 21:08:31a job. when i looked at building state highways i began to look around and i realized that we're only a handful of contractors that are big enough to bid these projects. so i went to the state and said, i'll break these projects up. i'd like to bid some projects that are under $1 million. he said -- they said, we don't 21:08:47like to do that because it takes a lot of administrative hassle. we'd rather deal with these half a dozen that we've got. so i had to run for the state senate to get that changed and we lohred that standard down, we brought more competition in. it's not enough. it's a small part of the 21:09:02solution. but it illustrates a problem, mr. speaker. big business will always try to promote regulation to keep their competition out. 21:09:11it's how it works. think of it this way. i'll take it down to the lowest common denominator. simple thing that can explain this to everyone who's listening. imagine they hadn't discovered gold in colorado. 21:09:25and so some miner out there with a pan is panning his way up the stream and he finds a nugget of gold and he pans his way in and he goes around and he finds that vain. then he starts to chop out this rock and here's the gold in the rock. 21:09:42son of a gun. gold in colorado. there's no settlements around there. so he breaks out his gold and processes it and takes it down and sells it and pretty soon the rumor goes like wildfire. there's gold in colorado. the gold rushes on. people come rushing in, everybody gets their pick axe 21:09:57and they start to mine for gold. now, you may think that this doesn't connect, mr. speaker, but it does. because the miners then set up their tents and they're there, they're working away and now that they're making money and selling their gold, they need 21:10:12some things. somebody's got to bring them food, somebody will open up a bar, somebody will start a band so they've got some entertainment to draw the stress down at night. and these miners are out there and after a while their hair gets so long they have to climb newspaper a tree to get a hair cut. 21:10:28and sooner or later one of those miners is going to get out a clipper and cut somebody's hair. when that happens, mr. speaker, that somebody else will line up and disease, that's a pretty good hair cut for what i need out here. so he'll get in the line and climb into the chair and there will be a second hair cut, then a third hair cut and after a 21:10:44while, this fellow that's pretty good cutting hair will be so busy being a barber he doesn't have time to pick up his pick axe and mine for gold. then he decides, i'm going to have to charge you guys. you're taking me out of my cash flow endeavor. and so he begins to charge the people that he's cutting their 21:11:01hair, maybe a dime for a hair cut. now he's making a little bit of money. and pretty soon, eventually, somebody else will see that and decide, i can get in this business, that guy's making a dime for every hair cut. he can cut 10 head as day, that's $1 a day, pretty good 21:11:18wages in those days, he'll do it for a nickel. then that first barber is thinking, i would be better to stay out there mining gold. so week of got two barbers that are competing, then a third and a fourth and a fifth. and pretty soon the first barber 21:11:32that got in, he decides that it isn't fair because he has all of this technological equipment, egot the electric clippers and he's got the -- he's got the electric clippers and he's got the nice clean sheet to put around their neck and he's better at taking care of those ingrown hairs and he does a 21:11:50little antiseptic while he's at it and his equipment is clean and well maintained and the other guy has a pair of sisers and comb. so he'll go to the -- scissors and a comb. so he'll go to the state legislature and argue that barbers should be licensed so there's a standard quality of 21:12:04care for hair cuts. it isn't because he believes so much in that standard of quality of care. it's because he knows that he 21:12:20can regulate some of his competition out of business. that's what goes on in the barber shops, in the gold mining towns in colorado 150 years ago, but that's also what goes on in big business in the united states of america today. that's what's going on, mr. speaker. big business says, come and regulate me because it's a cost of doing business at big business level, the 21:12:37multimillion-dollar level. and by the way, those people who can only do business down in the few millions, they're not going to be able to compete. so we should not accept big business as the purest form of free enterprise capitalism. we should look at big business as coming here to this capitol 21:12:53to ask us to level the playing field. all the while they're looking to turn onto a playing field that it's often difficult for small business to climb into. so, mr. speaker, that is the status of big businesses remainlation versus small 21:13:09business regulation and it sets the tone for -- it sets the tone for, i think, what we're about to take up next. although i recognize, i recognize that in a moment we will be asked to yield for the esteemed chair of the rules 21:13:23committee as soon as she gets prepared. but in the meantime i see that the gentleman from texas is about prepared to get prepared and so at this point i would suggest that, mr. speaker, we need to take a look at this 21:13:39regulation that's coming in from the senate and the regulation of the financial services industry and the credit industry in america. this idea that here in the united states of america we would establish government entities that would look in on 21:13:56every business in america, anybody that's got a credit transaction, with whether it would be a.i.g. doing business -- whether it would be a.i.g. doing business with a large investment bank or some smaller entity, mr. speaker, i'll pick 21:14:11that up in a moment but i'd be so happy to yield so that the gentlelady it conduct business. Slaughter, L. (D-NY):i'll only take 30 seconds, mr. speaker. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? 21:14:24Slaughter, L. (D-NY):i send to the desk a privileged report for filing under the rule. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the clerk will report the title. THE CLERK:report to accompany house resolution 1392, a resolution waiving a requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 with respect to consideration of 21:14:40certain resolutions reported from the committee on rules and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. Slaughter, L. (D-NY):thank you, mr. speaker. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:referred to the house calendar and ordered to be printed. the gentleman from iowa. 21:14:58King, S. (R-IA):thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as i watch this regulation that's coming through in the financial services component of this, that's a regulation that sets up tim geithner, the secretary of the treasury, to decide which businesses are too big to be allowed to fail, which 21:15:14businesses would be deemed to fail and all he needs is the agreement of the fdic and the agreement of the secretary of the chairman of the fed and those things concern me a great deal. 21:15:34but this conversation could go in any direction, because i am prepared to yield to my good friend, the gentleman and judge from texas, louie gohmert. Gohmert (R-TX):i want to follow up on that very point. 21:15:46we're told there's going to be a financial reform bill that sounds more like a financial deform bill. all these reforms end up being deformities. but this in particular, financial reform, to get us out 21:16:04of the mess that had been building through the 1990's and through this past decade, the last 20 years? and nonetheless, as i understand, in this bill we're going to take up, it still has 21:16:22the systemic risk council that is going to pick the winners and losers in america. that is so grossly un-american. it has no place in our law 21:16:39coming out of this body. that's kind of thing that the revolution was started over that some king was going to get to tell them who would be the 21:16:52business that would stand and who would fall. because the americans here wanted to be able to let the market decide that. now one thing we've seen, and it's been accentuated, is you do need a government that will 21:17:11ensure that people play fairly and play right. we saw that down on the coast as president obama expressed that we have gotten a relationship too cozy between his administration and the big 21:17:28oil companies. we've had people say on television, the republicans took contribution, the democrats take contributions, but it was the department of interior in 1988, 1998, 1999, some of the clinton 21:17:50administration, people that pulled the language from the offshore leases that would allow the oil companies ultimately to make millions and millions and millions at the expense of the government and the taxpayer getting full value 21:18:06for the leases for those offshore oil and gas developments. when we had the inspector general in front of us in the natural resources hearing a couple of years ago, i asked why he had not talked to the 21:18:22couple of people that the inspector general said were apparently responsible for that language being pulled out of the leases that hurt the revenue of the government and helped the massive oil 21:18:39companies at the time. he said well they're government service, we can't talk to them. certainly you can at least try to talk to them by thptor general indicated they left 21:18:55government service. after i heard the president announce that we had to end the cozy relationship between people in his administration and the big oil company, i wonder whatever happened to those two people? 21:19:10it turns out one of the people that apparently the inspector general did not talk to, but felt probably had the best information on why that language was left out turns out when she was not working for 21:19:28the government, she went and worked for a company called british petroleum. perhaps my friend has heard of british petroleum. in fact, after the inspector general said he couldn't talk 21:19:42to her about why that language was pulled that helped the oil company so much during 1998-1999, and why she would pull language that hurt our government, turns out she has 21:19:59now returned to government service, in fact, did last summer this administration hired her to be the deputy assistant secretary of m.m.s. the minerals management 21:20:15service. it is the agency of this administration that is supposed to ensure that blowout preventers work properly. well, we've got people here in the house that have asked for 21:20:33the results of the test that were done by m.m.s. within two weeks of the blowout preventers failing and apparently, the information has come back from this administration's m.m.s., we're not providing that 21:20:50information to you. maybe a democratic chairman of a committee, but not to you guys. you would think that this was public information that m.m.s. would want to be as transparent as they're demand that the c.i.a. be. 21:21:06but apparently they're not willing to be as transparent as they want the c.i.a. to be. they're more in the nature of on security, like the federal reserve continues to try to be and is. so they won't release the 21:21:23information of how badly bungled the test was. you have to figure it didn't go well or they would have released that information to show that they were exonerated, that they did proper tests. in fact, as a trial judge, back in my days in the courtroom, 21:21:43oftentimes, one side would produce evidence to show that the fact that there is no evidence indicates a fact. and i think here, the fact that they won't produce those test results indicates that the 21:21:59m.m.s., this administration that is too cozy with british petroleum, because of the interactive business that's gone on here, it must not have gone well. certainly, i yield to my friend. 21:22:13Gohmert (R-TX):just reclaiming, i'm standing here thinking, we're drawing a rational conclusion that m.m.s. -- the mineral managements -- minerals management service would not release the information that showed the result of the testing of the blowout preventer. 21:22:29Gohmert (R-TX):if they'd actually done the testing, actually. Gohmert (R-TX):there's reports out there that's -- that there's testing that failed some 10 days or so before the test failed. i don't want to start a rumor. but are we drawing a rational 21:22:47conclusion that we could have a government we have to draw conclusions from based on their response, or lack of response, not the answer to the question? i yield. Gohmert (R-TX):it would certainly 21:23:02appear that's exactly right. if the m.m.s. of this administration will not produce the records to show exactly what testing was done and exactly what the results were, which should be public record, for heaven's sake, they're 21:23:19public waters, controlled by our government, if they're not producing those records, then you've got to pretty well figure it would not make this administration look very good. Gohmert (R-TX):but we've got an open 21:23:38government. this is the most open, the most honest government in history and we're drawing conclusions based upon not getting an answer as opposed to the answer we might get if they would simply give us the information. 21:23:54this really saddens my heart to hear this, i'm not surprised, but it saddens my heart, mr. gohmert. Gohmert (R-TX):and that also brings you can ba -- us back to the problem with the federal reserve and the secretary of 21:24:07the treasury and yes, we had 21:24:10some people saying, we've got to confirm timothy geithner as the secretary of the treasury, because he worked with paulson in the early days of tarp. he knows the plan that tells me he should never have been 21:24:24confirmed if he worked with paulson on the original plan because it was a disaster and it should never have been allowed to have happened as it did. but now we've got these guys, federal reserve, head of the treasury, they're going to pick 21:24:39the winners and losers in the country. i yield. Gohmert (R-TX):would we go choose some mainline i.v. drug user off the street to go in and do i.v.'s in the hospital because they happen to have had the kind of experience that they're good at it, even though it's 21:24:57illegal? if somebody was proficient in how they operated turbo tax, was able to avoid their taxes that means they'd be a good person to have as head of the i.r.s., so they could set up a system to prevent other people 21:25:13paying a -- paying taxes? Gohmert (R-TX):it's an interesting issue. secretary geithner had great problems complying with his certification four years in a row where he swore he would pay the tax that was shown on the form and certified that they 21:25:29would just pay him that money, he would pay it, then he didn't pay it. but in answer to the question, i guess an analogy comes to mind, the f.b.i., for example, the gentleman that was -- there 21:25:47was a movie about, shofse good at forging and acting as someone else, he could create a forged document out of anything. the f.b.i. ended up hiring him because he was so good at forging checks and making fraudulent checks, the f.b.i. 21:26:04hired him because he knew more about ways to cheat other people and to cheat the government, they felt like he could be of immense help and apparently was and has helped -- as i understand it, helped 21:26:20prepare more secure documents and more secure institutions because he was so good at cheating those very institutions. Gohmert (R-TX):so that's not tax cheelts. 21:26:40Gohmert (R-TX):maybe that was the thinking, this guy would be the expert of not paying taxes, maybe that's who we want in charge of the tax entity, the i.r.s. it's an interesting point. but it still cuts to my core to think that the land of the 21:26:59free, home of the brave is being converted into a land of the unfree, where liberties are taken away because people have decided the secretary of 21:27:17treasury, the federal reserve chairman, get to pick and choose what entities, what banks get to stand when the smoke clears. what happened to competition? why not let people play and 21:27:33play fairly and just enforce their rules. that's why -- that's what is needed here. we don't need a federal government telling what companies that they are going to support and never let them 21:27:47fail, because as soon as the federal government says, we're not going to ever let this bank or this company fail, then that's going to be the last one standing because they know they can operate in the red and their competition can't do that. 21:28:02and at the send of the day that government-supported entity or bank will end up being the one left. that is outrageous. it is un-american. and anybody that would stand for that proposition, that we're not going to let these companies compete fairly, we're 21:28:20going to come in and pick the winners and losers. they need to start wearing a name tag that says, king george iii wannabe. i want to pick the winners and losers. i want to tell you who prevails and who doesn't. 21:28:34i will tell you who ends up getting to be the dominant force in america. instead of letting people live in freedom and in liberty and pursue happiness and pursue opportunity. the constitution never 21:28:51guaranteed equality of outcome. it guaranteed equality of opportunity. and that's what ought to be done. anybody that says they support a systemic risk council that gets to pick the winners and 21:29:09losers, these are too big to fail, we can't let them fail, they are enemies of this country, as it was founded. Gohmert (R-TX):reclaiming my time, then i have to pose the question, if you're in business if you're an investment banker, for example, if you have a 21:29:24large credit operation going on, and you've watched the barney frank bill and the chris dodd bill and now your knees have to be knocking on what might be going on in a future conference committee that's going to produce a bill that likely spills out here here to the house for passage, sent to 21:29:41the senate and rammed through there, put on the president's desk we know the president will sign the bill. but what is your business model? say you're providing credit transactions, mr. speaker, to a large portion of america, whether it's credit cards or whether it is the toxic assets 21:29:57of mortgage-backed securities, the subprime loans that might be out there. whatever it might be. now if you're sitting there with billions of dollars in those kinds of assets and you're making your profit off those margins of the assets 21:30:11going through, i'm going to suggest that if you don't already have a lobbyist, you better hire a bunch of them. bring them into this congress and start to convince people like chairman of the financial services committee, barney frank and the majority of the members on that committee, 21:30:28others, perhaps through the ways and means committee, start to work your ankle. because your business mot el, mr. speaker, is no longer that of providing the most competitive, most service oriented, most customer-focused service there is. your business model is, do what 21:30:44you have to do out here on the streets in the business world of america, treat customers fine, come to washington and get that playing field, not level, but tipped in your favor, because you can't do business without so you have the kind of chips when the time comes that the regulators would 21:31:00come in and take a look at your balance sheet and determine, well you weren't quite big enough to be allowed to fail so we're going to shove you into receivership and we'll chop you up and deal you out to our preferred companies. i know the model, i know the 21:31:16papt patern, even though it's done in a pretty good fashion with the fdic when a company has to go under. in the 1980's we had 3,000 banks that went under. they were split up, sometimes, and dealt out and sold to other investors that had a better 21:31:33track record with managing banks. all right. that was good and it works well in the micro version. but when you -- when you get into the macro version of big business and you have tim geithner as the secretary of the 21:31:49treasury making the decision on a business that's too big to be allowed to fail and calling in sheila bare and calling in ben bernanke and saying, don't you agree, they're too big to be alloyd to fail, so -- allowed to fail so let's prop these people 21:32:06up? what would help is if we deal the assets of that company over into the company that's too big to fail. you pick the winners and pick the losers out of government and who wins? the people that pay the lobbyists, the people that have 21:32:19paid for the most political influence. government cannot make rational decisions on business. they make political decisions on business. peter walson spoke today on fannie mae and freddie mac. the american enterprise institute scholar, one of the 21:32:35brightest minds that we have on free enterprise economics in america. a very solid man and many times i've listened to him imlume nate the issue -- illuminate the issue for me. he spoke today about fannie mae and freddie mac. and his sense is that they 21:32:51aren't yet nationalized. that they're still a quasi-government. my position is that they aren't actualized because the government calls all their shots and we've got roughly $50 billion each dumped into each of them and another $50 billion rolled on top that have $100 billion so around $130 billion 21:33:09range peter thinks that thress not $360 billion but $400 billion in losses that will have to be swallowed up by the american taxpayers. and we knew, and we know now that we were looking at $5.5 trillion in contingent 21:33:24liabilities that the federal taxpayers would have to swallow if fannie and freddie were flushed down completely the way the markets might drive them. Gohmert (R-TX):will the gentleman yield? king concluding my statement and yielding, that was -- Gohmert (R-TX):concluding my 21:33:39statement and yielding, fannie mae and freddie mac is an example of how government can't set values, neither can they evaluate risk because they're doing political calculations based on political pressure, not economic calculations based upon the risk of success and failure. i yield to the gentleman from texas. Gohmert (R-TX):just asking will 21:33:55the gentleman yield for a question, if he would? Gohmert (R-TX):i would. Gohmert (R-TX):with regard to the financial deform package that apparently is going to be coming 21:34:08to the house, is the gentleman aware of whether or not these two entities, fannie and freddie, that kicked us into a spiral downward in the fall of 2008, whether they're included 21:34:24in this reform package? is there any reform of these two entities that nearly brought our economic house of cards down? i yield back. King, S. (R-IA):reclaiming. in scowering the financial reform package in the barney 21:34:41frank bill or the chris dodd bill and setting up the word search and chasing it through there, mr. speaker, i don't find anything in either one of those bills that addresses the necessary form for fannie mae and freddie mac. they are completely insulated and i recall the debate here on 21:34:58the floor of the house in october 26, 2005, that the chairman of the financial services committee, mr. frank, was very much engaged in. he came to the floor to vigorously oppose an amendment that was offered by mr. leech of iowa that would have established 21:35:15higher levels of collateralization for fannie mae and freddie mac, higher stads -- standards for underwriting in the secondary market and higher standards for capitalization for fannie and freddie. the vigorous opposition that mr. 21:35:29frank flowed out on that day and the gentleman from texas remembers the exchange that took place on the thursday before easter in 2009, here on this floor, the gentleman from texas was there. the gentleman from massachusetts 21:35:44there. i think me up there somewhere. as we talked about what had happened with fannie mae and freddie mac and in that debate on october 26, 2005, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, said, if you're going to invest in shares of fannie and freddie, don't do so 21:36:00believing that he would ever vote to bail out fannie mae and freddie mac. because he would never do that. he would let them go down instead. that's the core and the essence of the statement that was headpy -- made by the gentleman from massachusetts who now is the chairman of the financial services committee. well, we know what's happened. 21:36:17fannie and freddie have been bailed out. and on that day the gentleman from massachusetts said that he wasn't biased, in favor of or against fannie or freddie, because the man whom he'd had an intimate relationship was not a 21:36:33senior executive. it's in the congressional record. i don't pull this out of thin air. i suggest, mr. speaker, that you check the record. for me, that's an astonishing confession, to draw a fine line between the reason for bias and not bias is because this 21:36:50individual was not a senior but more apparently a junior executive for fannie mae. and so that's a little too ins mat -- intimate for me, mr. speaker. i don't choose to go there any further except to point out that a lot of things going on in this 21:37:05united states government that are not what meets the eye. there are undercurrents here that threaten to swallow up the united states of america. there's a driven philosophy on this side of the aisle that wants to swallow up free enterprise capitalism, that 21:37:19abhors the words of capitalism. there's a driven philosophy that's reflected by 77 members of the progressive caucus, who come to this floor with their blue charts and say, come visit our website. well, not that long ago, a few years ago, the progressive website was hosted by, managed 21:37:38by and taken care of by the socialists in america. but when they took a little bit of heat, they decided they would manage their own website, so they didn't have to take the criticism. so the socialists ran the 21:37:52progressives' website. and now the d.s.a. -- dsausa.org. it stands for democratic socialists of america, dsausa.org, mr. speaker, you should go visit that website and understand who your colleagues 21:38:09are. 77 of them are self-professed progressives. the progressives, according to the socialist website, are their legislative arm. they write that they are not communists, they're socialists. 21:38:24that's a step above a communist. they don't want to nationalize everything, they just want to nationalize the fortune 500 companies in america. and they've got a big start on it. and they don't run candidates on the banner or under the 21:38:39political party calls the socialists because there's a stigma attached to being a socialist in america. so what do they could, mr. speaker? -- do, mr. speaker? they push the candidates that are self-professed progressives. progressives are not distinct from socialist, they're one and 21:38:55the same. they're just wearing a little bit different color jersey and they're the people here who have driven the idea that we should national ites the fortune 500 companies, nationalize the oil refinery industry, mr. hinchey 21:39:08of new york, take over the oil industry, maxine watters from los angeles, and operate these fortune 500 companies and i quote, for the benefit of the people affected about i them, closed quote -- by them, closed 21:39:21quote. that's the unions. the speaker is a member. the speaker advocated and said that she would not give, in the case of the car companies, bargaining advantage of the automakers over that of the unions. right off of the web page of the 21:39:37socialists. and she followed through on it and today 17.5% of general motors is owned by the unions without a cash outlay, without a concession of any kind, the president of the united states, who voted to the left of self-professed senator bernie 21:39:52sanders, crammed that down the throats of the investors, the security investors in general motors and now we have the unions owning 17.5%. the federal government owning 61% and the canadian government owning 12.5% of general motors. exactly off of the playbook of 21:40:10the socialist website, mr. speaker. the american people need to go visit the website, they need to understand the playbook is written. it's being carried out by the progressives in this congress, 77 of them are the core driving force here. 21:40:25when you add to that the congressional black caucus, the hispanic caucus, a whole lot of these people that are self-segregating caucuses instead of integrated caucuses, you understand who's running america today, mr. speaker. i yield to the gentleman from texas. King, S. (R-IA):if we go back to 21:40:41the day that the wall street bailout passed, that first week in october of 2008, i made the statement that when the federal government buys private assets 21:41:00and holds them in order to try to make money, when the federal government decides it's going to start trying to make money for the taxpayer, it's called socialism. 21:41:17and i was belittled by colleagues that served here in this body for saying that it was socialist. one person even said, well, i only know three socialists in america and they're all against the wall street bailout. well, i was pretty depressed and 21:41:36devastated when the wall street bailout passed. the next morning, saturday morning, i was watching neil cavuto and he had the presidential nominee of the 21:41:50socialist party and the socialist candidate for president being interviewed by neil cavuto, was asked, basically, what's the deal? i thought you guys were against 21:42:05the tarp bailout, the wall street bailout? and now this morning you're saying it was a good thing. and in essence, the presidential nominee of the socialist party said, well, yes, they were against the tarp wall street 21:42:23bailout, in essence they didn't feel like the government should pay anything to take over the assets they were taking over. but once it passed and was signed into law, they realized, this is probably the greatest 21:42:38day for socialists in american history. because the federal government has begun the takeover in a substantial way of private assets. and of course he went on to say now that they've made this 21:42:55wonderful great step of taking over socializing, nationalizing private assets from the financial sector, the government just needs to go in and finish taking over the rest of the financial sector because, as he said, because we know then the 21:43:13government takeover of all of that area would not be done out of greed and so they would do a much better job of spreading the wealth around the country and under the present system greed rules the day and just that 21:43:31great wonderful step of the tarp bailout, socializing america, as he saw it, just needed to be followed by the final step of completing the takeover of the financial sector. 21:43:43so the gentleman from iowa is exactly right according to the presidential candidate of the socialist party in 2008, this is a socialist move to nationalize more and more of the assets just 21:44:00as the presidential nominee of the socialist had hoped would happen. 21:44:06i yield back. King, S. (R-IA):reclaiming and thanking the gentleman from texas, i'd point out into the record, mr. speaker, that some months ago the secretary of the treasury, tim geithner, came before a couple of committees, financial services and ag. and the question that i posed to him and he was bound to answer 21:44:21that question under oath was, made the point that president obama was elected at least in part because he had declared and effectively made an argument, however it might have been true or untrue, that president bush had gone into iraq without an 21:44:38exit strategy. so i made the point in my question that president obama had engaged in, supported and participated in the nationalization of about half of our private sector. and that is the three large investment banks, a.i.g., fannie 21:44:53mae and freddie mac, general motors, chrysler, i didn't go on into the nationalization of our skin and everything inside it, which is obamacare, but in that letter that he was obligated to answer under oath, two months late irgot a response back. i do want to give secretary 21:45:10geithner credit. there are some members of this cabinet that simply don't answer my letters. they have -- they apparently don't think they're accountable to members of congress and they don't think that we might decide to send them a little less money when they decide to do the budget. 21:45:24geithner did answer the letter. it was seven pages long and took two months to get it back and it's not a particular complaint of mine because i know that it's difficult to make the machinery of government work. but this those seven pages of answering the question, what is 21:45:40your exit strategy for taking over all of these huge chunks of the private sector? his answer was, well, it's not a written strategy and he would know when the time was right and he would execute that when the time is right. in other words, don't you be 21:46:01asking me. i'm secretary of the treasury, i don't answer to you or anybody else. i'm going to submit this. there is no plan. there's no exit strategy. the president of the united states is delighted to have these companies taken over by 21:46:20the federal government, as are most of the members of the cabinet, because it fits in with the website of the democratic socialist of america there used to be some resistance on this side of the aisle when someone applied -- 21:46:39when when someone implied the president is a socialist. but president obama voted to 21:46:56the left of bernie sanders, and when i saw the picture of the president next to hugo chavez 21:47:10and he's doing that double-grip glad-hand handshake, you know what, hugo chavez is a piker when it comes to nationalizing. barack obama has way outdone him. 21:47:26i don't think he would have been a man who could have done that on his own he surrounded himself with people who for years worked through this vision. had i been assigned the task of writing the screen play, trying to turn america into a socialist state and if they even created for me a 21:47:43charismatic figure that matches that of the president and started me down the path on my imagination and with three years to get ready to do it, could not have unfolded a scenario close to what's reality today for the 21:47:56businesses taken over by the federal government. neither could have anticipated some of the things they're seeking to do now. but when you add these up and you add up the takeover of three large investment banks, bank of america, bear stearns, citigroup, when you see that 21:48:16a.i.g., for $180 billion, swallowed up by the federal government and fannie mae and freddie mac to the tune of $130 billion and perhaps another $400 billion piled on top of that and still remaining at $5.5 trillion in contingent 21:48:32liability and the takeover of general motors and chrysler, both of them now under the control or influence of the federal government being managed now exactly off the socialist website, run for the benefit of the people affected 21:48:46by them, close quote? the unions who made no concession whatsoever except to concede future claims that they think are going to be paid anyway by obamacare. and the student loan program, 21:49:02taken over completely, exactly within the mold of what 21:49:06happened when we had federal flood insurance that came in to provide one more competitor for the private market back in 1963, now there is no private market. now the federal government runs it all. when the federal government steps in to compete on student loans, people said, well, you 21:49:22know, we need to keep these people honest. somebody is making money off these students. now the federal government runs it all. and the president's idea was that he would set up one more insurance company to provide health insurance for americans to compete against these 21:49:38insurance company whoms he demagogued relentlessly, forgetting one more company, correct. but there existed up until obamacare passed, 1,300 health insurance companies in america. 1,300 companies that produced a 21:49:56variety of policies numbering to 100,000 policies. so who could imagine that one more company and a handful more policies was going to provide more options for people that would help with the competition, take some of the 21:50:10profits out of the industry? if these 1,300 companies competing against each other, mr. speaker, could take the profit out of the industry, how could the federal government do that? regulate and subsidize. that's what governments do. they regulate and subsidize their competition out of 21:50:27existence like they did on the flood insurance programs in 1963 and the student loan programs, cullmy nated this year and now here -- culminated this year, and now here we are, obamacare, the law of the land 21:50:43that nationalized not just three large investment banks, fannie and freddie, and student loan, now they've nationalized our body the most sovereign thing we have, the federal government has taken over the management of our skin and everything inside it and 21:50:59decided who will buy what policy and what the premium will be. and now they're trying to decide our diet. and now they're deciding on a mission across the country that the retailers need to cut $1.5 trillion calories out of the 21:51:14products going to these kids because 1/3 of our kids are obese, they want to cut the calories on the bag of do retoes. i think they just take a few calories out of the do retoes. 21:51:33a 150 calorie power bar gets redeuced to 90 calories because some fat kids will eat too many. but what do with we do with the 2/3 of the kid that are too skinny that need measure 150 21:51:49calories, or what we do with the fat kid who hordes three power barses for 270 calories as opposed to one at 150 calories, but we cannot put a one size fits all regulation and reduce calories going into 21:52:06kids for energy and growth. more kids need more food, rather than all kids need less food. so those kids that are overweight they need more exercise. and maybe they need to watch their diet a little bit, that's education and that's parents, 21:52:20yes. but don't starve the hungry kids to so that those who are eating too much have to work harder to keep getting too much. the super nanny state that -- the recycling of all these components. here, the speaker of the house and the house of 21:52:36representatives has decreed that you can't go to the cafe over here and eat an only let unless the eggs that are broken from are from a free-range hen. i think the chicken is probably not free range, it doesn't taste like free range to me. 21:52:53but the eggs are from a free range hen. the paper, the napkins around the capitol, most of them are brown. because they're recycled paper. when i go look at my coffee filters, i wonder why they're running over, they're recycled paper. 21:53:09so we have these decrees that come down from on high and the light bulbs themselveses are regulated by the speaker of the house. how much nanny state does this country need? and how much nanny state can we stand? 21:53:25i want american people making their own decisions. free market economy. i want to be able to exercise all their constitutional rights. i want them to be able to own guns and defend themselves and hunt and target shoot and be in a position to defend us against tyranny. 21:53:41if we do not -- there's something about constitutional rights and liberty. it's use it or lose it. if you don't use it, you'll lose it. you've got to use your freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press, second amendment right, you've got to exercise those 21:53:57rights. we must do so. mr. speaker, we have to take this country back. and i yield back the balance of my time. i thank the gentleman from 21:54:05texas for joining me tonight. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:under the speaker's announced spoil of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from arizona, ms. giffords, for 60 minutes. 21:54:37Giffords (D-AZ):thank you, mr. speaker. i rise tonight to address the border security crisis that's part of daily life in my southern arizona district, in arizona's eighth congressional district. i'm proud to represent one of the most diverse parts of the entire country. i represent a district that's 21:54:56over 9,000 square miles and is one of 10 u.s.-mexico border districts. the u.s.-mexico -- mexico border has changed a lot over the years. i'm a third generation arizonan. 21:55:10i represent a lot of people who are multigeneration arizonans. after years of building up the word for the california and texas, there's been a systematic funneling of illegal immigration, the flow of traffic, illegally, through southern arizona. this has become the most po 21:55:27rouse part of the u.s.-mexico border. today, together, my constituents live in a situation on the front lines of a national border security crisis. we live and breathe the federal government's failure to secure the board we are mexico and every day, my constituents are 21:55:43subjected to home invasions and to burglaries and to cut water lines and to graffiti, an unbelievable amount of garbage and trash left behind by illegal immigrants who are crossing through the border and by people increasingly who are drug smugglers, people that are 21:56:01human smugglers, the cutting of fences, the threats and intimidation by armed smugglers and the violence they experience on their own land, their own ranches, their own property. in this hour, i'm going to talk 21:56:16about action i and others have taken along the u.s.-mexico border. more importantly, i'm going to talk about the lives of people i represent, the people of cochise county, the ranchers who live on the u.s.-mexico border. 21:56:30it's always been my belief that if the decisionmaker here's in washington if they could hear, the stories, the impact that illegal immigration has on the lives my constituents there would be greater action here in washington. a decision -- that decisionmakers, elected 21:56:46official, people in the administration, they would move to greatly enhance the security along the u.s.-mexico border. so that's what we're going to talk about tonight. i think it's important to begin this hour with the most heart-wrenching story of all. 21:57:02the tragic death of robert trents, a fourth generation rancher, whose family has been on his land for over 100 years. actually, the cents family has had their ranch before arizona achieved statehood. 21:57:18on march 27, rob crants was murdered by an assailant, who was tracked to the mexico border. he and his dog were both ruthlessly murdered on his land. they were left to die. they were shot. law enforcement officials 21:57:33belief that rob was killed by a smuggler. next to me is a photograph of rob and his brother phil, the two crents brothers. this was -- cents brothers. this was run of the front page of the "tucson weekly." 21:57:52this tells it all. you see them, the tack room their boots, their hands, their lives represented. reportedly -- a reporter wrote the companion story in which he interviewed the family and 21:58:08neighbors. he wrote, what has to be noted first is the nevittability of what happened. something like the krentz murder was coming and everybody knew it. the stories residents told this newspaper of the frustration they feel in trying to keep property and family safe in 21:58:27smuggler-occupied territory were like a freight train in the night. down the tracks you see the faint light coming closer and closer. on march 27 in cochise county, the train arrived. the aftershock has been so 21:58:42powerful because the killing exploded the lie about the secure boarder that washington, d.c. has been working hard to promote. its front page, "the tucson weekly" asked the question, will the murder of a respected cochise county rancher change 21:58:57anything on our board her tonight, i ask the same question. will the murder of robert krenz 21:59:07, a respected rancher in my district, will it change anything on the board her it has changed. we know that today. the president announced the deployment of the national guard to the u.s.-mexico border. i knew rob krentz, i knew his family he participated in 21:59:24meetings i convened between ranchers and border patrol. he was a family man. he was a good neighbor. and he was a friend to all who knew him. he was described as a humanitarian who would give 21:59:38water and aid to illegal immigrants who suffered from heat exhaustion and physical injury as they treked from mexico across his land. he was, like fellow ranchers out in cochise county a straight talker and he, like them, saw their lives change by 21:59:54the increased flow of illegal immigrants and drug smugglers. tonight i'll share additional stories about the ranchers in this area and call on my colleague in demanding that our government step up and co-more, the responsibility here in
AFP-50BE 16mm AFP-50BF 16mm VTM-50BE Beta SP VTM-50BF Beta SP
WHAT PRICE FREEDOM?
SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT HEARING - COMMITTEE ISO - 1000-1200
SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE HEARING "Iran Nuclear Agreement Review" ISOLATED CAMERA ON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Witnesses The Honorable John F. Kerry Secretary Of State U.S. Department of State Washington , DC The Honorable Ernest Moniz Secretary U.S. Department of Energy Washington , DC The Honorable Jacob Lew Secretary U.S. Department of the Treasury Washington , DC (APPLAUSE) CORKER: The Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. I want to thank the witnesses for being here today, and we look forward to a fulsome hearing. I want to thank all of those also who are in attendance. I know there was a little bit of an outbreak prior to us convening. We thank you for being here. We do hope you'll respect that now the meeting's in order, outbursts of any kind are unwarranted and will respect the democratic process that is taking place here. CORKER: So again, we thank you for being here. We also thank you for your courtesy as we move ahead. I know the witnesses have agreed to be here as long as we wish. So we'll start with seven-minute questions. I do know based on last night's presentation, there's sometimes a tendency for witnesses to want to interject. And what I would say is, obviously we conduct our meetings with a lot of respect and courtesy. And I would just ask the witnesses, if they would, to respond directly to the question from senators on both sides of the aisle as if they ask -- when you ask it directly to a witness, get them to respond. If someone else wants to interject, they can indicate they want to do so. But senators should feel free to say, no, I just wanted that witness and move on to the next to make sure that we don't end up in a somewhat filibustered situation -- we're able to fully get our questions answered. I want to start today by thanking our committee. We would not be here today, we would not have the information that we have today if we had not passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. This would not be taking place. I think the American people now understand what this debate is all about. When Congress put in place sanctions to bring Iran successfully to the table as we did, we granted the executive branch something called a National Security Waiver. What that meant was the executive branch had the ability to weigh our congressionally mandated sanctions to suspend them, until such a time as we permanently waive them down the road. And as you know, unfortunately, over the objections of Senator Cardin and myself, unfortunately, the executive branch went directly to the United Nations this Monday morning, something that was certainly not in the spirit of this, but this was what was always intended. I do want to say that while Secretary Kerry has often said, well, Congress will have the ability to weigh in at some point in time, prior to this law being passed and causing this hearing to happen today. We now read the agreement and realize what they meant was eight years from now, we would have the opportunity to weigh in, because that's what it's -- that's what's stated in the agreement. So, I want to thank everybody. All 19 members for coming together unanimously making that happen, and giving us a role, it's a heavy lift, as we know. But a role that did not exist prior to that passing. I would like to say we had a briefing last night, and I left there, I talked to members on both sides of the aisle. I was fairly depressed after last night's presentation. With every detail of the deal that was laid out, our witnesses successfully batted them away with the hyperbole that it's either this deal or war. And therefore, we were never able to appropriately question or get into any of the details because every time we did, it was either this deal or war. So, I believe that to be hyperbole. I know the Secretary last night pulled out a letter that was written in 2008 by the prior administration. I don't know if he'll refer to that today, but as I thought about it laying last night in bed, I realized that what he was really pointing out with that letter is, unless we give Iran what they want, X, I mean, that's what that letter was used for last night. So, let me walk through that. We've been through an incredible journey. We began 20 months or so ago with a country that was a rogue nation that had a boot on its neck, and our goal was to dismantle their program. We've ended up in a situation where it's a deal on the table basically codifies the industrialization of their nuclear program. It's amazing, amazing transition that has occurred. And yet, everyone here, not a person in this room, including our witnesses, everyone here knows there's not one practical need for the program that they're building. Not one. Not one. CORKER: We've not had a single scientist, not a single witness can lay out any reasoning, not a single reason, for Iran to be developing this program from the standpoint of what it means to them from a civil standpoint. Not one. Nine months after this agreement goes into effect, we realize that after Monday's U.N. adoption, unless Congress intervenes, in 90 days, this will be implemented, and then six months after that, in a total of nine months from now, all the sanctions that exist against Iran will be lifted. Incredible. Now, there'll be a few remaining sanctions, but the big ones that matter will be lifted. So they'll have access to billions and billions of dollars. Their economy will be growing. They'll be shipping all around the world. It's an amazing thing. And so what happens -- I think all of us figured this out as we went through the deal -- right now, we have some leverage, but nine months from now, the leverage shifts to them, because we have a sanction snap-back. What they have, if we ever tried to apply that, is what's called a nuclear snap-back. The way the deal is structured, they can immediately just begin. They can say, "Well, if you add sanctions, we're out of the deal." They can immediately snap back. So the leverage shifts to them. The PMD piece, the possible military dimensions -- I think most of us call it the previous military dimensions, because we know they were involved in that -- basically, that has no bearing, no bearing per the agreement. And I know our witness will say, "Well, if they don't deal with this properly, won't implement." But according to the agreement, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether the sanctions are removed or not. And yet that was such an important piece for everyone to know. Anytime/anywhere inspections, last night, we had witnesses saying, "I never said that." It's been a part of our mantra from day one. It's been a part of their mantra from day one, anywhere/anytime inspections. Now we have a process that they're declaring is 24 days, but we all know that's not right. 24 days begins after, by the way, the IAEA has found violations that they're concerned about, and then you give Iran time to respond to that, and then by the time it kicks in, there is a 24-day process, but it could be months. And as we know, in laboratories, when you're developing a -- a nuclear warhead that is about this big, it's very easy to cover things up like that. And they're all the -- all the focus has been on finding uranium. There's other aspects of this that are very difficult to find. I know they said this is the most comprehensive inspection regime that we've ever had. That's not true. That is not true. I've talked to secretaries of state and others. We had a far more comprehensive and rapid inspection program in Iraq. Far more. That certainly didn't service particularly well. Ben and I have written a letter asking for additional materials that we don't now have. One of the -- one of the items we don't have is regarding the agreement between Iran and the IAEA, and my sense is, we're never going to get that letter. So the inspection entity that we're relying upon to find out whether Iran is cheating, we -- we're not even going to have access to that agreement. But let me just say this. We do know one of the characteristics is very interesting. We have a professional athlete in Chattanooga that spends about a month there. He's incredibly -- the role model. He has got incredible integrity. He's a role model to the world. And I was talking to him a couple of weeks ago about the program that professional athletes go through for drug testing. It's incredible. That is anytime anywhere. There are qualities to this that, unfortunately, I'm told I cannot get into. But there are qualities to this program that would not be unlike causing athletes to just mail in their own urine specimens in the mail and -- and -- and us believing that's where it -- that it came from them. So look, I've got some questions. I want to talk a little bit about who we're dealing with here. CORKER: Most of us have been to Iraq many times, and I'll never forget visiting General Odierno in Baghdad. And every time we'd visit General Odierno in Baghdad, he'd have on his coffee table the -- the IFPs (sic) that were used to -- to maim and kill Americans. They were laying out. They were made -- the IEDs -- they were laying there on the coffee table, every single one of them made by Iran. Once we developed the technology, by the way, to counter that, what they did next was develop something called an EFP, explosively formed penetrator. Now this is -- what they do is they have an explosion that heats up copper to go through a piece of machinery to maim and dismember Americans. This was all Iran, every single bit of it. We've all been out to Walter Reed and we've visited these incredible heroes that have lost, in some cases, two arms and a leg; in some cases, two legs and two arms. We see them all over the country. They're living with this today. This is the country that we're dealing with, a country that created some of the most disturbing types and methods of maiming Americans that have ever been seen. They tried to kill an ambassador here in Washington, D.C., not long ago. I mean, that's -- we know that. Ben and I went over to, with others, to the -- the other day to see something the Holocaust Museum had put together. A young man named Caesar (ph) had taken photographs of the Syrian presence, Syrian presence, which, by the way, Iran supports. Syria would not even -- Bashar Assad would not even be in office today if it weren't for Iran. We went over and envisioned what the torture that's happening, that's been photographed and chronicled -- many of you have seen it on the Internet. It's an amazing thing. It's happening right now, by the way, as we sit here. Some people might say, well, that was Iraq and, I don't know, should we have been there or not? This is happening this very second with the support of Iran. Do you understand that? People's genitals right now being amputated, people are being electrocuted. This is happening this very second in a prison in Iran -- I mean, in Syria, that Iran is supporting. Some would say we haven't done as much as we could to stop it because, because of these negotiations. When I was in college, I wasn't a particularly good student. First part of college, I was interested in sports. The latter part, I was interested in working. I learned one thing, I learned about the critical path method. And I ended up building buildings all over our country. And I learned that you could start with something like this, and you lay out a vision and then you build it out. And you begin with the end in mind and you put first things first. It's sort of the critical path. And what I've seen our secretary do is -- I know he's developed a tremendous warmth with Iran's foreign minister, Zarif, and he talks about it often. But what I think you've actually done in these negotiations is codify a perfectly aligned pathway for Iran to get a nuclear weapon just by abiding by this agreement. I look at the things that they need to do, the way it's laid out, and I don't think you could more perfectly lay it out. From my perspective, Mr. Secretary, I'm sorry. Not unlike a hotel guest that leaves only with a hotel bathrobe on his back, I believe you've been fleeced. In the process of being fleeced, what you've really done here is you have turned Iran from being a pariah to now Congress, Congress being a pariah. A few weeks ago, you were saying that no deal is better than a bad deal. And I know that there's no way that you could have possibly been thinking about war a few weeks ago, no way. And yet, what you say to us now and said it over and over yesterday and I've seen you say it over and over in television that if somehow Congress were to turn this down, if Congress were to turn this down, the only option is war; whereas a few weeks ago, for you, for you to turn it down, the only option is war. I don't think you can have it both ways. Let me just say this. If Congress were to say these sanctions cannot be lifted, it wouldn't be any different than the snapback that we now have where, in essence, the United States, on its own, the United States, on its own, can implement snapback. But my guess is, the other countries, as you've stated before, wouldn't come along. So, we've got to decide which way that it is. I know you speak with a degree of disdain about our regional partners when you describe their reaction to this deal. But one of the things we have to remember is if we had actually dealt with dismantling their nuclear program, they wouldn't be responding in the way that they have. But not only is this not occurred, in addition, we are lifting the ballistic missile embargo in eight years. I have no idea how that even entered into the equation, but it did at the end. We are lifting conventional weapons embargo in five years. And in a very cute way, with hortatory language in the agreement, unbelievably, we are immediately listing -- lifting the ballistic missile testing program. We're lifting that ban. So I'd have to say that, based on my reading -- and I believe that you have crossed a new threshold in U.S. foreign policy -- where now it is a policy of the United States to enable a state sponsor of terror to obtain sophisticated, industrial nuclear development program that has, as we know, only one real practical need. That is what you're here today to ask us to support. I look forward to your testimony and the appropriate questions afterwise (sic). Senator Cardin? CARDIN: Well, first, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for convening this hearing. I want to thank Secretary Kerry, Secretary Moniz and Secretary Lew and your entire negotiating team, Wendy Sherman and many others, who have devoted the last two years to negotiating with Iran, incredible service to our country, incredible sacrifice to their families. And we thank you very much for your dedicated service, your hard work and what you have -- your service to America. The Iranian Nuclear Agreement Review Act that Senator Corker referred to, passed earlier this year, was an effort by the members of Congress to set up the appropriate review for a potential deal with Iran. We are extremely pleased that, after very difficult negotiations, we were able to get a unanimous vote of this committee, get the support of the White House and we believe we accomplished two major objectives in passing that statute. First, of course, we set up the appropriate review for Congress. It allows us to take action -- or we don't have to take action. It recognizes the fact that the sanction regime was passed by Congress and that we have a role to play in regards to implementing any agreement, as we now see in the JCPOA, that Congress has a role to play. So it's set up an orderly process. And this hearing is part of that process. It took you two years to negotiate this agreement. It took you two months in Vienna to get to the final details. We're on day four of our review of 60 days. I have not reached a conclusion. And I would hope that most members, I would hope the members of the Congress would want to get all the information, allow those who are directly involved to make their case. We have hearings set up next week and the following week, and we'll get outside experts. Many of us have taken advantage of that opportunity in the past. And I would hope that we've all used that opportunity before drawing a conclusion. This is a very important agreement from the point of view of U.S. foreign policy. Iran, in the region, is critically important to the United States' security. But there's a second objective to the Iran Nuclear Review Act, and that is to concentrate all our effort on the bad guy, Iran, and speak with unity as much as we could in the United States so that our negotiators could concentrate on Vienna and not on Washington in dealing with getting the very best possible agreement. CARDIN: And I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, I looked at the framework that was agreed to in April, and looking at the final agreements that we've gotten today. And our negotiators got an awful lot, particularly on the nuclear front, which is beyond my expertise. We got things that there were many rumors during these last couple of months of what was going to be in this agreement, and how it was going to be weakened from the April framework that, in fact, have been strengthened since the April framework. So I just want to applaud our negotiators for taking the strength of our unity and turning it into results in Vienna. And we'll be talking a little bit about that as we go forward. The objective is clearly to prevent Iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapon power, that is our simple objective. We know who we are dealing with. This is a state sponsor of terrorism. This is a country that abuses human rights, that violates the ballistic missile area -- we know all that. But we singularly are trying to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power because we know that is a game changer in the region. That's the objective of this agreement. And the standard that we have to use because there is no trust in Iran. The Supreme Leader on Friday after the agreements were entered into said, we will trample upon America. We don't trust Iran, but we've got to leave a motion out of this. We've got to look at the agreements. And we've got to determine whether the compliance with this agreement by the United States will put us on a path that makes it less likely or more likely that Iran will become a nuclear weapon power. That's got to be the test that we use. So, Mr. Chairman, I have many questions that I hope we will get answers today. I hope those answers will provoke a debate among us in Congress and American people, and help us make the right decisions. Since there is no trust, the inspection and enforcement regime is particularly important. We need to understand how it works. Do we have sufficient time to discover if Iran is violating the terms of this agreement in order to take effective action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power? That's a question that we need to understand. We need to know the breakout times, we need to know what happens after the time periods. Do we have sufficient opportunity to prevent Iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapon state? The commitment they make under this agreement. Are the inspections robust enough to deter Iran from cheating? And if they do, will we discover and be able to take action? Mr. Chairman, you raised the 24-hour window. I think all of us recognized there was going to be a protocol for inspection, that doesn't get up by surprise. But we need to know whether the 24-hour delay knowing what Iran is likely to do, does that compromise our ability to have effective inspections? And I hope our witnesses will deal with that today because that is a matter of major concern. We need to know the answer to that. Have we cut off all pathways for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon? particularly the covert military operations? We know that's a major concern. That's why the PMD is particularly important, the chairman mentioned the PMD, and the work that the IAEA are inspectors, international inspectors. They have great credibility in this area, but we will want to know whether they have the capacity to do what we're asking them to do. Will they have the access that we need? Because we do need to know about their prior military dimension in order to be able to go forward to make sure that we can contain any opportunity they may use for covert activities, will we discover it and be able to take action? these are questions that we -- we're going to ask. We've read the agreement and still have questions, and we still have questions, and we hope we'll get answers as to whether we have effectively prevented Iran from using covert activities to develop a nuclear weapon. Will this agreement provide us, IAEA with sufficient access to the people, places and documents, so that we know their prior military dimension? Are the snapback provisions for reimposing sanctions adequate if Iran violates this agreement? That's an issue that I hope we will have a chance to talk about. At the end of the time limits in the agreement, Iran will have the capacity to expand, as the Chairman rightly pointed out to an industrial capacity. They can get through there in nuclear enrichment, and uranium enrichment. That, they can do. Do we have sufficient capacity knowing their commitments for nonproliferation, knowing their requirements of the additional protocols, is that going to be adequate to prevent Iran? Do we have a sufficient enough breakout time that if Iran tries to become a nuclear weapon state after the time period that we have sufficient tools to prevent them from becoming a nuclear weapon power? These are questions we need to have answers to before we can make our judgments. Now, there are other areas. I wanted to be reassured that the United States still has the flexibility to impose non-nuclear sanctions on Iran for the support of terrorism, human rights abuses, and against a ballistic missile program. No one expects Iran's bad behavior to change on implementation date -- we know who we're dealing with. Will we be able to use the powers we've used in the past and build upon them to take action against Iran, particularly in light that they'll have additional resources? Can we do that? And can Congress work with the administration to strengthen those tools without violating the JCPOA? I want to know how the administration is updating the regional deterrent strategy against nefarious and stabilizing Iranian activities, and how we're going to work with our partners to build up their capacity to counter Iran, especially Israel. The chairman mentioned the lifting of the International Arms Embargo. That's of great concern as to how it would impact on our regional partners. How will it impact an arm's race in that region of the world? These are questions we need to get the best information we can in making our decisions. And lastly, let me mention this, because I think it's critically important. What are our options if the United States walks away from this? How will we be perceived internationally? Will we be able to maintain effective enforcement of sanctions with our international partners? And will Iran come back to a negotiating table with a country that has walked away from an agreement? These are questions that we need to understand. We need to know that the options are right now, do we go forward? We're not. And what are the options, what are the consequences if we don't go forward? So, Mr. Chairman, we have a full plate. And I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I hope that the members of this committee will use the information that we get today to debate the issue, take the time that we have, and do what's right for the American people, and ultimately make the decision that we think is best to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power. CORKER: Thank you, Senator Cardin, I appreciate so much the way we've worked together on so many issues and the entire committee. With that, I know that our witnesses here today need no introduction, they're well known not only here, around the world in spite of our policy differences, I think each of us deeply appreciate the -- that make this. There may not be policy differences in some cases. But we deeply appreciate the tremendous effort that you put up, put out on behalf of our country. We thank you for being here today, we thank you for being willing to be here today as long as it takes for everybody to get their answers. And with that, I'd like to introduce collectively Secretary John Kerry, he used to serve with us and sit on this side of the dais. Secretary Ernie Moniz, who has been incredible helpful to all of us in understanding the technical aspects of the deal, and someone we all appreciate deeply. Secretary Lew who served in multiple positions here has been certainly affirmed by this committee in several times. We thank you all for your great service to our nation, in spite of some of the concerns that we have here today. I think you all understand the drill. Take five minutes or so to explain -- as I've looked at your testimony. I know it's very brief. Just to warn people in advance, I'm going to defer my questions, Ben, and move to you immediately thereafter, and use my time to interject as things move along. So with that, Secretary Kerry. KERRY: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cardin, members of the committee, and friends and former colleagues. We really do appreciate the chance to discuss with you the comprehensive plan that we in our P5+1 partners have developed with Iran, regarding the future of its nuclear program. KERRY: And let me emphasize to everybody here, this isn't just the United States of America. These are other nuclear powers. France, Britain, Russia, China, they have a pretty good understanding of this field and of the challenges. And I appreciate the way in which they and Germany, which was the plus one, all came together, all contributed, all were part of this debate. So you're not just looking at what this table negotiated, you're looking at what the international community, the P5+1, under the auspices of the United Nations, negotiated. And they're not dumb. They're experts, every one of them, in nuclear technology, in ratification, in verification, are smart people who've spent a lifetime at this. And they've signed off on this agreement. And I'm joined by two Cabinet secretaries whose help was absolutely invaluable in reaching this deal, and I thank all of you for the role that Congress played. I was privileged to be the chairman of this committee when we passed the Iran sanctions effort. And we all remember the debate, we passed it unanimously, and it played a very significant role in bringing Iran to the table and in helping to make it clear that we needed to bring about a serious and productive negotiation with Iran. From the day that those talks began, we were crystal clear that we would not accept anything less than a good deal. And we defined it up front as a deal that closed off the four pathways to a bomb. The two uranium pathways, the one plutonium pathway and the covert pathway. So we set our standard, and we believe we have achieved that standard. After almost two years of very intensive talks, the facts are really crystal clear that the plan that was announced last week in Vienna is, in fact, a deal that does shut off those pathways and provides us with guarantees through the lifetime of the NPT and the participation of Iran that we will know what they are doing. Now, the chairman mentioned in his opening comments some phrase about unless we give Iran what they want. Folks, they already have what they want. They got it 10 years ago or more. They already have conquered the fuel cycle. When we began our negotiations, Iran had enough fissile material for 10 to 12 bombs. They had 19,000 centrifuges, up from the 163 that they had back in 2003, when the prior administration was engaged with them on this very topic. So this isn't a question in giving them what they want. I mean, it's a question of how do you hold their program back? How do you dismantle their weapons program, not their whole program. Let's understand what was really on the table here. We set out to dismantle their ability to be able to build a nuclear weapon, and we've achieved that. Nobody has ever talked about actually dismantling their entire program because when that was being talked about, that's when they went from 163 centrifuges to 19,000. And everybody here at this dais knows what the options are for actually stopping. It's called military action, because they're not going to stop it otherwise. They've already proven that. They proved it during all those years. So under this terms of this agreement, Iran has agreed now to remove 98 percent of its stockpile. Voluntarily. They're going to destroy 98 percent of the stockpile of enriched uranium. They're going to dismantle two-thirds of their installed centrifuges, and they're going to take out the existing core of an existing heavy water reactor and fill it with concrete. Iran has agreed to refrain from producing or acquiring highly enriched uranium and weapons grade plutonium for at least 15 years. And if they began to do that, Ernie Moniz will tell you we will know it immediately. Iran has also agreed to accept the additional protocol, and the additional protocol is an outgrowth of the failure of the North Korea experience, which put in additional access requirements precisely so that we do know what Iran is doing. And they have to ratify it before the U.N. sanctions are lifted at the end of this process. They have to have ratified -- they have to have passed it and (inaudible). They've agreed to live by it from day one. They're going to live by the additional protocol. KERRY: In addition, there are additional transparency measures we can go into in the course of this hearing. Now, if Iran fails to comply, we will know it, and we will know it quickly, and we will be able to respond accordingly by reinstituting sanctions all the way up to the most draconian options that we have today. None of them are off the table at any point in time. So many of the measures that are in this agreement are there for -- not just for 10 years, not just for 15 years, not just for 20 years, not just for 25 years of which there are measures for each of those periods of time, but they are for life forever as long as Iran is within the NPT. By the way, North Korea pulled out of the NPT. Iran has not pulled out of the NPT. Remember that two years ago when our negotiations began, we faced an Iran that was enriching uranium up to 20 percent at a facility that was secret and buried underground, and they were rapidly stockpiling enriched uranium and had installed nearly 20,000 nuclear centrifuges. They were building a heavy water reactor that could produce weapons-grade plutonium at the rate of enough to produce one or two bombs a year, and experts assess that the breakout time then as a result, the interval required to rush to be able to produce enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon, was about two to three months. If this deal is rejected, we return immediately to this reality, except that the diplomatic support that we have build with all these other countries that we have accumulated would disappear overnight. Let me underscore, the alternative to the deal that we have reached is not what I've seen some adds on TV suggesting disingenuously. It isn't a, quote, "better deal," some sort of unicorn arrangement involving Iran's complete capitulation. That is a fantasy, plain and simple, and our intelligence community will tell you that. Every single department of our intelligence community will reinforce that to you. The choice we face is between an agreement that will ensure Iran's nuclear program is limited, rigorously scrutinized and wholly peaceful or no deal at all. That's the choice. The fact is that there are 189 nations that live by the NPT. Five of them are, as we know, the main nuclear powers of the U.N., and 184 of them are nonnuclear in power, but they live by it, and we have lived by what the IAEA does with respect to ensuring the surety of what all of those 184 nations are doing, including 12 that enrich. Now, if the U.S. Congress moves to unilaterally reject what was agreed to in Vienna, the result will be the United States of America walking away from every one of the restrictions that we have achieved, and a great big green light for Iran to double the pace of its uranium enrichment, proceed full speed ahead with a heavy water reactor, install new and more efficient centrifuges and do it all without the unprecedented inspection and transparency measures that we have secured. Everything that we have prevented will then start taking place, and all the voluntary rollbacks of their program will be undone. Moreover, if the U.S., after laboriously negotiating this multilateral agreement with five other partners, were to walk away from those partners, we're on our own. Our partners will not walk away with us. Instead, they will walk away from the tough multilateral sanctions regime that they've helped to put in place, and we will have squandered the best chance we have to solve this problem through peaceful means. Now, make no mistake. President Obama has made it crystal clear that we will never accept the nuclear-armed Iran. He is the only president who has developed a weapon capable of guaranteeing that. And he has not only developed it, he has deployed it. But the fact is that Iran now has -- we all don't like it, but whether we like it or not, Iran has developed experience with a nuclear fuel cycle. They have developed the ability to produce the fissile material for a bomb. And we can't bomb that knowledge away, nor can we sanction the knowledge away. Remember, sanctions did not stop Iran's nuclear program from growing steadily to the point that it had accumulated enough fissile material to produce those 10 nuclear weapons. By the way, they didn't choose to produce them. Unlike North Korea, that created a nuclear weapon and exploded one and pulled out of the NPT, Iran has done none of that. The truth is that the Vienna plan will provide a stronger, more comprehensive, more lasting means of limiting Iran's nuclear program than any alternative that has been spoken of. And to those who are thinking about opposing the deal because of what might happen in year 15 or 16 or 20, remember, if we walk away, year 15 or 16 or 20 starts tomorrow and without any of the long-term verification or transparency safeguards that we have put in place. Now, over the past week, I have spoken at length about what exactly this deal is. I also want to make clear what this deal was never intended to be. First of all, as the chief negotiator, I can tell you I never uttered the words "anywhere anytime" nor was it every part of the discussion that we had with the Iranians. This plan was designed to address the nuclear issue, the nuclear issue alone, because we knew that if we got caught up with all the other issues, we'd never get where we needed to to stop the nuclear program. It would be rope-a-dope, staying there forever, negotiating one aspect or another. And the highest priority of President Obama was to make sure that Iran couldn't get a nuclear weapon, so we were disciplined in that. We didn't set out -- even though we don't like it, and I have extensive plans that I will lay out if you want them about how we're going to push back against Iran's other activities, against terrorism, support, its contributions to sectarian violence in the Middle East and other things. All of those are unacceptable. They're as unacceptable to us as they are to you. But I got news for you. Pushing back against an Iran with a nuclear weapon is very different from pushing back against an Iran without one, and we're guaranteeing they won't have one. So we're working very closely with the Gulf states. Just today, in Saudi Arabia -- Ash Carter was there yesterday -- the foreign minister said that Iran's nuclear deal appears to have all the provisions necessary to curtail Iran's ability to obtain a nuclear weapon. That's Saudi Arabia. The Emiratis are supportive. The foreign minister of Iran's going to be in the Emirates this weekend. So I would suggests effectively that we are going to continue to press Iran for information about the missing American, about the immediate release of Americans who've been unjustly held, and there isn't a challenge in the entire region that we won't push back against if Iran is involved in it. But I will tell you, it wouldn't -- none of those challenges will be enhanced if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. So the outcome cannot be guaranteed by sanctions alone. I wish it could, but it can't be. And by the way, it can't be guaranteed by military action alone. Our own military tells us that. The only viable option here is a comprehensive diplomatic resolution of the type that was reached in Vienna. And that deal, we believe -- and we believe we will show it to you today and in the days ahead -- will make our country and our allies safer, it will insure that Iran's nuclear program remains under intense scrutiny forever and we will know what they are doing, and it will ensure that the world community is united in insuring that Iran's nuclear activities will remain wholly peaceful, even as we also stay united in pushing back against its other activities in the region which we object to. We believe this is a good deal for the world, a good deal for America and a good deal for our allies and friends in the region, and we think it does deserve your support. CORKER: Thank you. Secretary Moniz? MONIZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cardin and members of the committee. I do appreciate the opportunity to come here to discuss the JCPOA reached between the E3 -- E.U.-plus-3 and Iran. The agreement prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, provides strong verification measures that give us time to respond if Iran chose to violate the terms, and fundamentally takes none of our options off the table. MONIZ: I want to stress that America's leading nuclear experts at the Department of Energy and our national laboratories were involved throughout these negotiations, Argonne, Livermore, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Pacific Northwest, Sandia, Savannah River, the Y-12 national security complex and the Kansas City plant all played important roles. These nuclear experts were essential to evaluating and developing technical proposals in support of the U.S. delegation. As a result of their work, I am confident that the technical underpinnings of this deal are solid and the Department of Energy stands ready to assist in the implementation. The deal meets the president's objectives, verification of Iranian nuclear program that is exclusively peaceful and sufficient lead time to respond if it proves otherwise. The JCPOA will extend for at least 10 years, the time it would take for Iran to produce just the fissile material for a first nuclear explosive to at least one year from the current breakout time of two, perhaps three months. The deal addresses the uranium enrichment, plutonium and covert pathways to a nuclear weapon. The first point I would like to make is that the Lausanne parameters, as the ranking member mentioned, are maintained and, in fact, strengthened, not weakened, but strengthened in the -- in the final agreement. This means restricting the number, type and location of centrifuges, dialing back the R&D program, dramatically reducing Iran's enriched uranium stockpile from 12,000 to 300 kilograms of low enriched uranium hexafluoride, and prohibiting introduction of any fissile material to Fordo. Excess infrastructure is also removed from both Natanz and Fordo. All these reasons taken together establish the one-year breakout timeline for accumulating highly enriched uranium. And something that we have not stressed but I do want to add, at the end of these 10 years, Iran will have far fewer than 19,000 centrifuges because they acknowledge the breakage rate, if you like, of IR-1s and they will not have a large replacement capacity because of the agreement. In addition, Iran will have no source of weapons grade plutonium. The Arak reactor is transformed under international oversight and participation to produce far less plutonium than their current design, no weapons grade plutonium in normal operation and essentially immediate recognition if they try to deviate from that -- from that practice. Furthermore, all of the irradiated fuel, plutonium-bearing fuel from that reactor goes out of the country for life, the life of the reactor. This deal goes beyond the parameters in Lausanne in a number of ways. One area is that Iran will not engage in several activities that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device, including multiple point explosive systems. These -- and neutron -- special neutron sources. These commitments are indefinite. And in addition, for 15 years, Iran will not pursue plutonium or uranium or uranium alloy metal -- metallurgy. Because Iran will not engage in activities needed to use weapons grade material for an explosive device, an additional period should be added to our stated breakout timeline. To be clear, the deal is not built on trust; it's pretty hard- nosed -- hard-nosed requirements that will limit Iran's activities and ensure inspections transparency and verification. I can assure you this is not what Iran wanted. It is a substantial dialing back of their -- of their program. To preclude cheating, international inspectors will be given unprecedented access to all of Iran's declared nuclear facilities; I guess we could (ph) make an exception if there were military occupation, but that is not the case here, and any other sites of concern, as well as the entire nuclear supply chain from the Iranian supply to centrifuge manufacturing and operation. This access to the Iranian supply chain comes with a 25-year commitment and, beyond 25 years, even after a quarter century of compliance with a peaceful program -- assuming we get there -- we still have, as we have said many times, the additional protocol in place to monitor Iran's nuclear activities. But another thing that we have also in perpetuity is their adherence to modified Code 3.1, which means that they must notify the IAEA even before they start building any nuclear facility. This eliminates kind of a loophole where one could do something covertly and then say, you know, oops, we were planning to notify before we bought any nuclear material. They must do this now in the planning stage, so it's another thing that we have beyond 25 years. The IAEA will be permitted to use advanced technologies -- and again this was nailed down after Lausanne -- including things like real-time enrichment monitoring, which I must -- might say is a technology developed by our DUE laboratories. In this case, by the way, Oak Ridge played a major role, Mr. Chairman. If the international community suspects Iran is trying to cheat, the IAEA can request access to any suspicious location. Much has been made about a 24-day process for ensuring IAEA inspectors can get access. I would say that I'd -- like Secretary Kerry, I did say the words "anytime, anywhere," and I am very pleased that yesterday a member of your caucus acknowledged, however, that the full sentence was "anytime, anywhere in the sense of a well-defined process with a well- defined end time." So I am pleased that we have established that. In fact, the IAEA can request access to any suspicious location with 24 hours' notice under the additional protocol, which Iran, again, will implement. The deal does not change that baseline. The issue if there is then -- agreement is not reached, then when the IAEA requests access, this 24-day clock will start. The -- and this is a new tool, a finite time, a new tool for resolving disputes within what we think is a short period of time -- and short is defined because of our confidence in environmental sampling that we will then be able to have to implement to detect microscopic traces of nuclear materials even after attempts are made to remove the evidence of activities with nuclear material. And in fact, Iran's history provides a good example. In February 2003, the IAEA requested access to a suspicious facility in Tehran; it was denied and negotiations dragged out for six months. But even after that long delay environmental samples taken by the IAEA revealed nuclear activity, even though Iran had made a substantial effort to remove and cover up the evidence. And we have, in addition, conducted our own experiments to verify the ability to detect very, very small traces of uranium. The agreement will be implemented in phases, as has been said already; some 10 years, 15 years, 20, 25 years, and then as I've already described, the key transparency measures that stay beyond 25 years, of course, as long -- as long as Iran is in the NPT, and if they were not in the NPT, every alarm bell would go off all over the place and appropriate actions would of course be taken. In closing I just want to acknowledge the tireless work of the negotiating team and led by my colleague, Secretary Kerry, and the U.S. agency -- the U.S. multiagency delegation worked together seamlessly, and the E3 -- E.U.-plus-3 displayed a remarkable cohesion throughout this very complex endeavor. The continued collaboration and cooperation among the leading nations, in particular the P5, the U.N. Security Council, is really crucial to ensuring that Iran complies with the JCPOA so as to avoid the reimposition of a major international sanctions regime and probably other responses as well. And I just want to say again, the deal is based on science and analysis because of its deep grounding and exhaustive technical analysis carried out largely by our DOE scientists and engineers. Again, I'm confident that this is a good deal for America, for our allies and for our global security. And just to respond to Ranking Member Cardin's criterion, Iran will be farther from a nuclear weapon capability all the time with rather than without this agreement. So again, thank you for the opportunity to be here. Look forward to the discussion. CORKER: Thank you very much. Secretary Lew. LEW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin, members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to speak today about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. A foreign policy decision of this significance deserves thorough review. I'm confident that a full and fair debate on the merits will make it clear that this deal will strengthen our national security and that of our allies. The powerful array of U.S. and international sanctions on Iran constitutes the most effective sanctions regime in history. These measures have clearly demonstrated to Iran's leaders the costs of flouting international law, cutting them off from the world's markets and crippling their economy. Today the Iranian economy is about 20 percent smaller than it would have been had it remained on a pre-2012 growth path. LEW: The United States government stood at the forefront of this effort across two administrations and with the bipartisan support in Congress and of this committee. Together, we established a web of far-reaching U.S. and international sanctions that ultimately persuaded Iran's leadership, after years of intransigence, to come to the table prepared to roll back its nuclear program. International consensus and cooperation to achieve this pressure is vital. The world's major powers have been and remain united in preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. That unity of purpose produced four tough U.N. Security Council resolutions, and national level sanctions in many countries, and secured adherence to U.S. sanctions by countries around the world. The point of the sanctions was to change Iran's nuclear behavior while holding out the prospect of relief if the world's concerns were addressed. Accordingly, once the IAEA verifies that Iran has completed provided key steps to roll back its nuclear program, and extend its breakout time to at least one-year, phased sanctions relief would come into effect. There is no signing bonus. To be clear, there will be no immediate changes to U.N., or E.U. or U.S. sanctions. Only if Iran fulfills the necessary nuclear conditions, will the U.S. begin suspending nuclear related secondary sanctions on a phased in basis; sanctions that target third-country parties doing business with Iran. Of course, we must guard against the possibility Iran does not hold up its side of the deal. That's why if Iran violates the commitments once we suspended the sanctions, we will be able to promptly snap back both U.S. and U.N. sanctions. Since preventing the snapback requires an affirmative vote from the U.N. Security Council, the United States has the ability to effectively force the re- imposition of those sanctions. Even as we phase in nuclear related sanctions relief, we'll maintain significant sanctions that fall outside the scope of the nuclear deal, including our primary U.S. trade embargo. With very limited exceptions Iran will continue to be denied access to the largest market, and we will maintain powerful sanctions targeting Iran's support for terrorists groups such as Hezbollah, its destabilizing role in Yemen, its backing of the Assad regime, its missile program and its human rights abuses at home. Just this week, Treasury sanctions several Hezbollah leaders, building on designations last month targeting the group's front companies and facilitators, and we will not be relieving sanctions on Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, its Quds force, and of their subsidiaries, or their senior officials. Some argue that sanctions relief is premature until Iran ceases these activities, and the funds Iran recovers could be diverted for malign purposes. I understand the concerns, but Iran's ties to terrorists groups are exactly why we must keep it from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. The combination of those two threats would raise a nightmare scenario. A nuclear armed Iran will be a far more menacing threat, if we cannot solve both concerns at once we need to address them in turn. JCPOA will address the nuclear danger, freeing us and our allies to check Iran's regional activities aggressively. By contest, walking away from the deal would leave the world's leading sponsor of terrorism with a short and decreasing nuclear breakout time. We must be measured and realistic in understanding what sanctions relief will mean to Iran. Iran's $100 billion in restricted foreign reserves, which many fear will be directed for nefarious purposes, constitute the country's long-term savings, and not the budgetary allowance. We estimate that after sanctions relief, Iran will only be able to freely access around half of these reserves, or about $50 billion, and that's because over $20 billion is committed to projects with China, where it cannot be spent; and tens of billions in additional funds are non-performing loans to Iran's energy and banking sector. As a matter of financial reality, Iran can't simply spend the usable resources as they will likely to be needed to meet international payment obligations, such as financing for imports and external debt. Moreover, President Rouhani was elected on a platform of economic revitalization, and faces a political imperative to meet those unfulfilled promises. He faces over half a trillion dollars in pressing investment requirements and government obligations. Iran is in a massive economic hole, from which it will take years to climb out. Meanwhile, we will aggressively target any attempts by Iran to finance Hezbollah, or use funds gained from sanctions relief to support militant proxies, including by enhancing our cooperation with Israel, and our partners in the Gulf. Backing away from this deal to escalate the economic pressure and try to obtain a broader capitulation from Iran would be a mistake. Even if one believed that extending sanctions pressure was a better course than resolving the threat of Iran's nuclear program, that choice is not available. Our partners agreed to impose costly sanctions on Iran for one reason, to put a stop to its elicit nuclear program. If we change our terms now and insist that these countries now escalate those sanctions and apply them to all of Iran's objectionable activities, they'd buck. And we could be left with neither a nuclear deal nor effective sanctions. So it's unrealistic to think that additional sanctions pressure would force Iran to totally capitulate, and impractical to believe we could marshal a global coalition of partners to impose just pressure after turning down a deal our partners believe is a good one. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is a strong deal, with phased relief only after Iran fulfills its commitments to roll back a nuclear program, and a powerful snap back built in later if they break the deal. Its terms achieve the objective they were meant to achieve, blocking Iran's path to a nuclear bomb. That's an overriding national security priority, and it should not be put at risk, not when the prospects of an unconstrained Iranian nuclear program presents such a threat to America and the world. Thank you and we look forward to answering your questions. CORKER: Thank you all very much. Senator Cardin? CARDIN: Once again, thank you for testimony. It has been stated many times the United States maintains its ability to impose sanctions relative to support terrorism, and human rights violations and ballistic missile issues. And I have read the JCPOA, and there are several paragraphs in the JCPOA that give me concern. Let me just read one. That's paragraph 29, where the parties will refrain from any policy specifically intended to directly or adversely affect normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran. So, Secretary Lew, I want to get your assurance we have full ability to use the tools of sanctions against Iran for its support of terrorism, human rights, and nonnuclear type of activities, which include congressional action that Congress might want to take? LEW: Senator Cardin, it was a matter of extensive discussion in the negotiations. We made clear in the negotiations that we retained the ability, and we were going to keep in place sanctions on terrorism, on regional destabilization, and human rights violations. In fact, we are not lifting sanctions that are based on those authorities, and we are not designating entities that were designated for those reasons. We also have made clear we reserve the right to put additional sanctions in place to address concerns about terrorism, human rights... CARDIN: When you say we, that includes the Congress of the United States? LEW: So, Congress has authorities in this area. I know there is legislation pending regarding Hezbollah, and we would work with you on legislation. The thing that we can't do, is we can't just put it right back in place everything that was part of the nuclear sanctions, and just put a new label on it. We have reserved our rights to put sanctions in place that address those continuing malign activities. CARDIN: The Iran Sanctions Act expires at the end of 2016. We will still be in the JCPOA period of time where a snap back of sanctions a viable hedge against Iran's cheating. Congress may well want to extend that law so that that power is available immediately if Iran were to violate the agreement. Is that permitted under the JCPOA? LEW: I think that if it's on expiration, it's one thing, if it's well advanced it's another. I think the idea of coming out of the box right now is very different than what you do when it expires. CARDIN: Let me ask the Secretary -- the question is why would that be, it's either allowed or not allowed? But we will get to that. I want to get to Secretary Moniz, if I might. The 24 days you referred to, and I appreciate your explanation, but there are three types of activities that could place in violation of the JCPOA by Iran. They could be using material that is in violation, and you have already addressed that issue as far as the 24 days. But it could involve weaponization, or it could involve research, not using nuclear material. Would the 24-day delay, in those cases, compromise our ability to determine whether Iran is in compliance with the agreement? MONIZ: Senator Cardin, again, let's put the -- the nuclear material, I think we have addressed and is quite secure. Clearly, when one goes into weaponization activities, even there there is a spectrum. For example, working with uranium metal is something that would still involve nuclear material, and I think we would have very, very strong tools there. When we go to some other activities, without getting into too many specifics, there will still be a variety of signatures. For example, my second priority on the weaponization list would be explosively driven neutron sources, and I think that there are quite -- there are certainly tell tale signs that I think we would have access to, or the IAEA inspectors more precisely, would have -- would have access to. Clearly as one gets into other areas, such as computer modeling, that's a different kind of detection challenge. And in all of these cases to go to undeclared sites, we are going to rely upon our intelligence capabilities, those of our partners, to be able to point the IAEA to suspicious activities. But there are nonnuclear signatures, but it does -- it does get more complicated. CARDIN: Thank you. Secretary Kerry, I want to -- I want you to elaborate a little bit more on our capacity after the time limits and Iran's obligations after the time limits on its nuclear enrichment towards a weapon -- weaponization of a nuclear weapon. I understand they still have obligations under their nonproliferation treaty, they still have obligations with the additional protocols under the NPT, but could you tell us how much lead time we will have, what a breakout looks like after the 15 years and what assurances do we have that we will be able to detect and take action before Iran becomes a nuclear weapon state after the 15 years? KERRY: Well, first of all, Senator, after -- throughout the entire life of the agreement, the additional protocol provides for the right of access. That is where the 24-hour notice for access comes from and they have to respond to it. So if we had any intelligence regarding suspicious activity or a suspicious site, shared, I might add ,among many, among all the P5+1, Israel, countries in the region, we will have an incredible amount of sourcing for this. We would be able to put the ask to them and they have to respond to that. And if they don't respond to that, then we have the ability to convene to vote and put back in place sanctions or to take other actions if we deem that appropriate. But... CARDIN: After the 15 years? KERRY: Yes, but -- yes, but let me just fill out for you, we also have a 20-year component which allows us televised tracking of their centrifuge production, of their rotors and bellows on the centrifuges, and we have a 25-year, quite remarkable insight, which is a access and monitoring tracking of their life of the uranium cycle, so from the mining, the mills, the yellow cake production, the gasification, the centrifuge out into the waste, we will have an ability, the IAEA will have the ability, to appropriately monitor that every step of the way. So if we have X amount of raw uranium ore coming out, or in the mill, if there is X amount of milling taking place and then some is diverted somewhere, we don't see it going into the place it next has to go to, we're going to have extraordinary insight into this. In addition that, under the additional protocol and under the IAEA process for civil nuclear programs, we -- all of the facilities are declared because it is a civil nuclear program. As such, there is literally 24/7 visitation in those sites. They're not even request sort of situations, it's only for the undeclared facility about which you have a suspicion that you have to go through the other process. But we're going to have amazing insight because they are living by the NPT, or allegedly they're going to live by the NPT, and that's what we have to make sure they are doing. And so we have day-to-day insight to that. I might add to all our colleagues that under the interim agreement -- which by the way a number of people called an historic mistake and a tragedy and you heard all of the same rhetoric you're hearing now -- those same people asked for us to keep that in place two years later because it's worked. KERRY: And the fact is, Iran has lived up to every component of that over the course of the last years. They reduced the 20 percent uranium, they undid Iraq and so on and so forth; I won't go through it all now. So we will have this level of insight, which I think is not being examined enough and understood enough. It's not -- nothing ends at 15 years. Simply the size of the stockpile limitation ends, and -- and the enrichment, they can enrich further. But we will have insight to that enrichment. A civil nuclear program requires enrichment of approximately 5 percent or so. I mean, that's the high -- high end of it. If you start to enrich higher, up around the 20 percent, you're talking about the Tehran research reactor or a few other things. But there's no rationale whatsoever for enrichment above that, and we would insight to that enrichment program that would instantly know if they're beginning to go somewhere else. Red flags go off everywhere, and we'd be all over it and able to respond. We'd actually have months to respond, to be honest with you. And -- and so the fact is, the breakout team never goes down to a level below which we have an ability to be able to respond, and I think Ernie can speak to the full breath of the scrutiny. CORKER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. MONIZ: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask one -- one quick note? Because it's kind of -- what could be a collateral benefit, actually, of this agreement is that going to the uranium supply chain, the safeguards, I just want to add that this is something that the IAEA really wants to have something more broadly, and so this would actually be a first in -- in moving towards cradle-to-grave safeguards. CORKER: I might add, there're some other firsts that unfortunately we cannot talk about relative to some of their procedures, which I eluded to. And I would say to Mr. Secretary, yes, people have said that they'd rather keep JPOA in place than move to something worse. That doesn't mean that people particular like JPOA in the first place but on comparison. So I -- I -- I just want to clarify that. Senator Risch? RISCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it's -- Senator Cardin, who I have highest respect for, made a statement, which I really agree with, and that is that we really need to leave emotion out of this. And I couldn't agree with you more. This should be done in a nonemotional way. But that doesn't mean we gotta leave common sense out of this, with all due respect. You know, we've gone from the mantra of "No deal's better than -- than a bad deal" -- and I've heard everybody say that a couple -- a few weeks ago -- and now we've gotten to the point, where, "Well, you have to accept this, or else, it's war." The mantra has changed dramatically. And all I can say is, after reviewing this, even -- even in a cursory fashion, anyone who believes this is a good deal really joins the ranks of the most naive people on the face of the earth. When you're dealing with the people that we're dealing with here, with the history they have of cheating and everything else, anyone who can say this is a good deal -- I know the justification is, "Well, it's not perfect." Well, the word "perfect" shouldn't even be used in the sentence with this agreement. It isn't even close to that. One of the most disappointing things -- and I joined the chairman in this in a closed hearing yesterday -- is, we've -- that we've been told we have no choice in this. We have no choice in this, because we have gone from the position where we started, where we had Iran isolated and they were viewed on the world stage as a pariah. If we don't go along with this, we're told, our -- the -- the other negotiators are going to go along with this and the United States will be isolated on this issue and we will be the pariah on the national stage. Now, just think about that. Where we have -- where this -- where these negotiations have taken us, from the -- from a situation where we had Iran exactly where we wanted them to now, if we don't go along with this, then we are going to be the isolated pariah character on the national stage. Well, look, the other thing that was so important in this was verification. We have to have verification. Everybody said, "This is -- this is the number-one thing on verification." Well, everyone here knows that there's a site called Parchin, and Parchin was a subject of these negotiations, and Parchin was designed -- and I heard the secretary say that we're going to ensure that their nuclear ambitions are only for peaceful purposes. How in the world does Parchin fit that? Parchin was designed and operated as an explosive testing place where they designed a detonation trigger for a nuclear weapon. Parchin stays in place. Now, does that sound like it's for peaceful purposes? Let me tell you the worst thing about Parchin. What you guys agreed to was, we can't even take samples there. IAEA can't take samples there. They're going to be able to test by themselves. Even the NFL wouldn't go along with this. How in the world can you have a nation like Iran doing their own testing? Now, I know Secretary Moniz, who -- who, by the way, I -- I think is one of the brightest guys that I know, has told us, "Oh, don't worry. We're going to be able to watch it on TV, and there's a good chain of -- of custody for the samples that are going to be taken." Are we going to trust Iran to do this? This is a -- a good deal? This is what we were told we were going to get when we were told, "Don't worry. We're going to be watching over their shoulder, and we are going to put in place verifications that -- that are absolutely bulletproof." We're going to trust Iran to do their own testing? This is -- this is absolutely ludicrous. Well, the one thing that bothers me incredibly about this is the billions of dollars that Iran's going to get. We've been briefed on the fact that while they have been in the horrible financial condition and we have gotten them to a horrible financial condition, one of their national priorities has been to support terrorism. They have supported Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis with financial aid, with military aid, with every kind of aid there is. Everything we're trying to do in the world has their fingerprints on it trying to do us in. So these billions of dollars are going to be put back in their hands within, I'm told, about nine months. And again, we were told yesterday, "It doesn't matter what we do. Congress, go ahead and do your little thing. It doesn't matter, because we don't have control over this money. Actually, it is the -- the other people who were sitting at the table that have control over the money, and no matter what we do, they're going to release the billions of dollars." Well, I -- I -- I got to tell you, this is a very heavy lift when you sleep at night, and you say, "Well, I'm going to vote to release $50 billion" -- started at $100 billion. Now you've got it down to $50 billion. Whatever it is, knowing -- knowing that that money is -- a portion of that money is going to be directly transferred to people who are going to be trying to kill Americans and who are trying to kill innocent people and -- and -- and that are trying to kill our allies. To say this is -- to be able to walk away from this and say that this is a good deal is ludicrous. With all due respect, you guys've been bamboozled, and the American people are going to pay for that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CORKER: Senator Boxer? KERRY: Can we respond at all to any of that? (LAUGHTER) RISCH: My time's up, Mr. Chairman. I suspect we're going to hear lots of responses. KERRY: Isn't there time built in for answers or comments? CORKER: I'm -- I'm more than glad for you to take a moment to answer. KERRY: Well, let me -- let me start... CORKER: I want to make sure this gets a full and fair hearing, so... KERRY: Yeah. Let me start with the beginning here. The comment was made that, what is it -- naive if you think this is a good deal. This is an article from the Washington Post. I urge you all to read it. "How the Iran deal is good for Israel, according to Israelis who know what they're talking about." I urge you to read it. It says here, "A host of prominent members of the country's security establishment have came out at various stages of negotiations in support of the Obama administration's efforts." In an interview this week with the Daily Beast, Ami Ayalon, former head of Shin Bet, or Israel's top domestic security agency, suggested Israel's politicians were playing with fears in a fearful society. He praised the Vienna agreement as a useful measure to curb the Iranian threat. I don't think he's naive. He praised -- he -- Efraim Halevi, former chief of the Mossad, Israel's spies agency, hailed Obama's victory. Look, folks, you know, you can throw it around. Senator, you said we had them exactly where we wanted them. 19,000 centrifuges, enough fissile material for 10 to 12 bombs -- is that where we wanted them? What was the purpose of the sanctions? I was chairman... RISCH: To dismantle their operation. KERR: Let me just finish. I was chairman when we passed those sanctions, and our purpose was to bring them to negotiations. So we've negotiated. And I guarantee you, for the first 15 years, you have unbelievable restraints that make it impossible to even think about making a bomb. Well, they can think about it. Can't do anything about it. So at the end of 15 years, you have every option that you have today. Your decision is whether you want those 15 years to be right now or take the 15 years and figure out whether or not this is going to work. That's really the choice. KERRY: I don't know what you mean by, "We had them right where we wanted them." To what end? CORKER: Before I turn to Senator Boxer, since we gave you time, I do want to say that I think Iran has done a masterful job in giving you a talking point with the 19,000 centrifuges, 10 of which are operating, but we all know they are antiques. They are antiques. And so we all talk about the number of centrifuges but this deal lays out their ability to continue research and development on the IR- 2Bs, the IR-4s, the IR-6s, the IR-8s. And in year eight they can industrialize that... KERRY: For a peaceful program, for a peaceful program that's under the IAEA... CORKER: Let me finish. I'll let you talk. They said the IR-8 is their future. You know the IR-1 is an antique; it doesn't even operate most of the time or at least it operates 60 percent -- it's slow. They want to get rid of those. So they did a masterful job in getting the West and other countries to focus over here on something that is of no use to them while they are able to draft an agreement that allows them a pathway to continue sophisticated development on something that can put in a covert facility and then enrich in levels and pace that they never imagined. So with that, Secretary (sic) Boxer. MONIZ (?): Mr. Chairman, if I may add, I think I must say that every element of the R&D program is rolled back in time. The fact is they right now have very -- they are very active in all these areas and it is significantly delayed. And so that's a fact. CORKER: And it is a fact, in year eight, they are given the time... MONIZ (?): In year -- I'm sorry... CORKER: ... year eight, that's why the president said in year 13 there's zero breakout. But let me move to Senator Boxer. KERRY: ... zero... MONIZ: But, sir, it is -- it is an incorrect characterization, I apologize, for saying that in year eight they are in an industrial activity. It's a small cascade that they can start to do years after their current plans. CORKER: And many people thought it was going to take that long for them to even have the capacity to do that. So as I mentioned, from critical path standpoint, they have been brilliant. BOXER: You ready for me? (LAUGHTER) OK. Colleagues, put me down as someone who thinks Iran is a bad and dangerous actor and I don't think there's one person involved that doesn't believe that. And so that's why I believe we need to curb their nuclear ambitions. I think it's essential. And I don't think the American people want another war and, at the end of the day -- I know some disagree with this -- I think that's -- at the end of the day, that's really the option, which everyone tiptoes around. Now, you know -- I support the right of my colleagues to say anything they want, but you've sat there and you've heard two of my colleagues go after you with words that I am going to repeat. You were fleeced, one said. The other said you have been bamboozled. So putting aside the fact that I think that's disrespectful and insulting, it -- that's their right to do. There are other ways to express your disagreement, but that goes to the -- your core as a human being and your intelligence, and I think you are highly intelligent. So let me ask you, and if you could just answer yes or no -- I know it's hard for you, Secretary Kerry, to do so... (LAUGHTER) ... because we're senators and it's not our way. But I -- then I can get through the rest of my list. So my colleagues think that you were fleeced, that you were bamboozled, that means everybody was fleeced and bamboozled, everybody, almost everybody in the world. So I want to ask you, does the United Kingdom, our strong ally support this accord? KERRY: Yes. BOXER: Does Australia, one of our strongest allies, support this accord? KERRY: Yes. BOXER: Does Germany support this accord? KERRY: Yes. BOXER: Does France support this accord? KERRY: Yes. BOXER: Does New Zealand support this accord? KERRY: I haven't seen their statement. (LAUGHTER) BOXER: Well, they are on the Security Council, are they not? And they voted for it. KERRY: Oh, you mean in the vote? Yes. BOXER: Well, I mean... KERRY: All... BOXER: ... either by voice support or a vote. Did Jordan voice its support in their vote? KERRY: Yes. BOXER: Did Spain, did Nigeria, did Lithuania? Yes. You get the drift. If you were bamboozled, the world has been bamboozled. That's ridiculous and it's unfair and it's wrong. You can disagree for sure with aspects of this agreement, but I think we need to stay away from that kind of rhetoric. Now, I have the agreement right here and I have read it, and one thing that I was surprised, as I sat down to read it, I thought, you know, will I be able to understand this document? It's very understandable. So I want to say -- cite a couple of things in here. "Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons." That's one phrase. Another one is, and that's -- that's -- this one is number 16. "Iran will not engage in activities, including at the R&D level, that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device" -- a nuclear explosive device -- "including uranium or plutonium." And that's in this accord. So one of the things I want to do is send out a message to Iran, not to the people of Iran, who I think are really good people, but to those folks there that are so dangerous. And that is you said it real clearly, and if you don't live up to it, I guarantee you the consequences will not be pretty, and I think that's an important message that has to go out, because they signed it and they said it and the whole world is watching them. Secretary Kerry, I authored the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act, and the U.S.-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act. So proud of that. And President Obama signed both of those. And it means that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our closest ally and we know Israel does not like this agreement. I am very glad you read those comments of the Shin Bet person because the truth is there is division. It's quiet but there is some who think this was the way to go. So I would hope, as someone who has stood so -- I was going to say tall, but it's hard for me to say that -- stood so tall for this relationship with Israel. At the end of the day, I think this relationship is going to be even more strengthened. And I want to get your view on that, because I know that Ash Carter went to Israel. Do you have anything to report about that meeting and how that went? KERRY: Well, Secretary Carter went with the intention of laying out and beginning a dialogue in great detail, which he did with the defense minister of Israel. And they had, I think, almost a day-long meeting in which they discussed the many ways in which we are prepared to work with Israel, understanding the -- obviously understanding the very dangerous dynamics of the region right now. So -- and Secretary Carter, in fact, went up towards the Golan Heights to review with them what the threat is currently from ISIL, Daish, and so forth. These are all things that we are prepared to push back on in any number of ways, and we also believe there's the potential of a kind of new alignment in the region. And I will be going to speak with all of the GCC members in a few days to talk about the ways in which the Gulf can come together with Israel and others in a more -- in a, really, a new alignment, a new alliance... BOXER: Well, I want to press you on that, because we were reading about Saudi Arabia's words today in the press, and I just am -- I don't -- haven't had time to check it out and I wanted to ask you. Do you believe the Saudis are supportive now, despite the fact they view Iran as a regional adversary? KERRY: I believe they will be supportive of this. And I was very heartened to see -- I met with Adel al-Jubeir, the foreign minister, just a few days ago. He indicated to me that they were prepared to support it if certain things are going to happen. Those things I believe are going to happen. So I anticipate that. And, Senator, I'm sorry to divert, but I just wanted to mention; I forgot the quote, because I don't want to be accused of being a person, you know, saying the choice is military or otherwise. KERRY: Efraim Halevy, the chief of the Mossad, also said, quote, "Anyone who followed events in Iran in recent decades or has studied the matter has to admit truthfully that he never believed Iran would ever agree to discuss these issues, let alone agree to the measures imposed on them by the world powers. The alternative would be military strikes, which would plunge the region into deeper insecurity and would likely not be successful," he said. So we're not alone in describing what the choice is, here. And I think, Senator, there's a real potential to have a change in the Middle East, there's also a potential to have a confrontation. BOXER: Right. KERRY: This does not end the possibility of a confrontation with Iran, obviously, depending on the choices they make. BOXER: OK, I want to say, would you just thank Wendy Sherman for me personally, for her work. Donald Trump said something, why don't you bring women into this negotiation, it would go much better. Well, she was a true (ph) negotiator, she's fantastic and I wish she was here. KERRY: She is absolutely spectacular. She did an extraordinary job. We would not be where we are without Wendy, without Jack, without Moniz, and an incredible team. A team, by the way, all across the government of the United States, experts whose life is spent analyzing Iran, analyzing nuclear proliferation, who came from the energy department, from intelligence community, and from the State Department, elsewhere, all who worked together. And believe me, they're a savvy group of people and nobody pulled any wool over their eyes. CORKER: Thank you. Senator Rubio. RUBIO: Thank you, thank you all for being here today. Secretary Kerry, the administration has publicly stated that you expect this deal is going to be rejected by majorities in both houses of Congress. And you said while winning approval of Congress would be nice, your goal is to basically convince enough Democrats so that you can avoid an override of the president's veto. So as far as the administration is concerned, this is a done deal. But I do it's important for the world, and especially for Iran to understand, as far as American sanctions are concerned, this is a deal whose survival is not guaranteed beyond the term of the president. And I hope the next president is somebody that will remove the national security waiver and reimpose the congressional sanctions passed by Congress, because this deal is fundamentally and irrevocably flawed. I believe it weakens our national security, and makes the world a more dangerous place. And throughout the process, by the way, this administration in my opinion repeatedly capitulated on important items, and the examples are endless. It begins by allowing a perception to be created that we were pressing for anywhere/anytime inspections, and now denying that that was ever part of the process, or ever promised. I understand all the disputes about the terms, but clearly there was a perception created among my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that we were pressing for anytime/anywhere inspections, including of potential covert sites, and then the snapback sanctions I think, are also hollow. We have a complicated 24-day arbitration process that Iran is going to test and exploit over and over again. They realize this, by the way, that they know that once the international sanctions are gone, they will be impossible to snap back. As your Iranian counterpart Mr. Zarif has bragged, quote, "Once the structure of the sanctions collapse, it will be impossible to reconstruct it." He also bragged earlier this week, by the way, that incremental violations of the agreement would not be prosecuted. No matter what happens Iran will keep the more than billions of dollars its going to receive up front, basically as a signing bonus, and Iran will be allowed to continue to develop long-range ballistic weapons, ICBMs, that know only one purpose, and that is for nuclear warfare. And so, all of these promises that they are making about never pursuing a weapon, they are all revealed as lies when they are developing a long-range rocket capable of reaching this very room, one day, not so far off in the future. There's only one reason to develop those rockets -- that's to put a nuclear warhead on them. By the way, the deal also allows the arms embargo to eventually end. On terrorism, this deal provides billions, possibly hundreds of billions to a regime that according to the director of National Intelligence, directly threatens the interests of the United States and our allies. And lastly, nothing in the deal holds Iran to account for human rights. Quite the opposite. The Iranian regime is being rewarded for its atrocious human rights record. I know you said you brought up the American hostages in every negotiation, and I -- I think we all thank you for that, but for the families of Americans who are missing or detained in Iran, such as that of my constituent, Robert Levinson, this deal brought no new information regarding their loved ones' whereabouts. This deal does nothing for Washington Post reporter, Jason Rezaian, whose brother Ali (ph) is with us in this room today. In fact, you personally met and negotiate with an Iranian official, who impressed on Jason's case, lied to the world -- he lied to the world by saying, we don't jail people for their opinions. This deal does nothing for the Marine Corps Sergeant Amir Hekmati, who dictated a letter from prison that said, quote, "Secretary Kerry sits politely with the Iranians shaking hands and offering large economic concessions to save them from economic meltdown," unquote, as Iran adds hostages. Does nothing for Pastor Saeed Abedini, whose only crime was practicing his religion. In fact, the only people this deal does anything for directly are the Iranian officials who want to continue to jail and execute their people, who hate Israel think to wipe the Jewish state and its people from the face of the planet, who want to spread mayhem throughout the Middle East, and continue to help Assad slaughter the Syrian people, and perhaps kill some Americans and Israelis while they're at it. Secretary Kerry, I do not fault you for trying to engage in diplomacy, and striking a deal for Iran, I don't. I do fault the president for striking a terrible deal with Iran. I hope enough of my Democratic colleagues can be persuaded to vote against this deal and prevent the president from executing it. But even if this deal narrowly avoids congressional defeat, because we can't get to that veto-proof majority, the Iranian regime and the world should know this deal -- this deal is your deal with Iran, I mean yours meaning this administration, and the next president is under no legal or moral obligation to live up to it. The Iranian regime and the world should know the majority of the members of this Congress do not support this deal, and that the deal could go away on the day that President Obama leaves office. And in that realm, I wanted to ask about this. If you, today, are a company that after this deal is signed and go into Iran and build a manufacturing facility, and the next president of the United States lifts the national security waiver, or Iran violates the deal, do the sanctions -- obviously, do the sanctions apply against that facility moving forward? In essence, I go in, if a company goes into Iran now after this deal, and builds a manufacturing facility of any kind -- they build car batteries, and then Iran violates the deal, and the sanctions kick back in, will that facility be able to continue to operate without facing sanctions? LEW: Senator, if a company acts to go in and do business with Iran while the sanctions are lifting, that would be permitted. If Iran violates the deal and the sanctions snap back they would be able to continue doing things that are in violation of the sanctions. RUBIO: OK. The reason why it's important, it's important for companies anywhere in the world to know that whatever investment they make in Iran, they risking it, in essence, they are betting on the hope that Iran never violates the deal, and they are also hoping that the next president of the United States does not reimpose U.S. congressional sanctions, by which they would become a sanction entity. I have one more specific question about the deal. There's a section titled "Nuclear Security," and the document that states those that negotiated the deal are prepared to cooperate with Iran on the implementation on nuclear security guidelines and best practices. There's a provision 10.2, it reads, "cooperation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran's ability to protect against and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems." Here is my question. If Israel decides it doesn't like this deal and it wants to sabotage an Iranian nuclear program or facility, does this deal that we have just signed, obligate us to help Iran defend itself against Israeli sabotage, or for that matter, the sabotage of any other country in the world? MONIZ: The -- I believe that refers to things like physical security and safeguards. I think all of our options and those of our allies and friends will remain in place. RUBIO: Well, I guess that's my point. If Israel conducts an air strike against the physical facility, does this deal, the way I read it, does it require us to help Iran protect and respond to that threat? MONIZ: No. RUBIO: It does not? MONIZ: No. KERRY: The purpose of that is to be able to have longer-term guarantees as we enter a world in which cyber warfare is increasingly a concern for everybody, that if you are going to have nuclear capacities, you clearly want to be able to make sure that those are adequately protected. But I can assure you, we will coordinate in every possible way with Israel with respect to Israel's concern. RUBIO: So, if Israel conducts a cyber attack against the Iranian nuclear program are we obligated to help defend themselves against the Israeli cyber attacks? KERRY: No, no, I assure you that we will be coordinating very, very closely with Israel as we do on every aspect of Israel's security, and... RUBIO: That's not how I read this. KERRY: I don't see -- I don't see any way possible that we will be in conflict with Israel with respect to what we might want to do there. And I think we just have to wait until we get to that point. But I do think, Senator, you know, I listened to a long list of your objections here about it, but there's no alternative that you or anybody else has proposed as to what you... RUBIO: I sure have, Secretary Kerry. I have. KERRY: And I am confident that the next President of the United States will have enough common sense that if this is being applied properly, if it's being implemented fully, they're not just going to arbitrarily end it. They might want to engage and find a way, if they think there's some way to strengthen or do something. But I cannot see somebody just arbitrarily deciding, let's go back to where we are, where they are completely free to do whatever they want, without any inspections, without any input, without any restraints, without any insight. I don't think any president would do that. RUBIO: Well, even -- and the status quo was there already in violation before you signed this deal, Iran was already in violation of existing mandates and restrictions, including things they had signed on to in the past. (CROSSTALK) KERRY: And this deal brings them back into compliance, Senator. That is exactly the purpose of this deal. RUBIO: Or this deal brings them back... KERRY: They have to live... (CROSSTALK) KERRY: ... and if they don't live up to it, every option we have today is on the table. So we don't lose anything here. But we -- the way we lose is by rejecting the deal because then you have no restraints, you have no sanctions, you have no insight, you have no inspectors, you have no diminution of their centrifuges. You have no reduction of their -- of their stockpile. And if you want to just conveniently forget the fact that they had enough fissile material to build 10 to 12 bombs, that's the threat to Israel. I mean, if you go back to that, without any alternative other than what, you know, most people think is going to be the alternative, which is confrontation. Nobody has a plan that is articulated, that is reasonable as to how you are going to strengthen this, do something more, when the Supreme Leader of Iran and the president of Iran and others believe they've signed an agreement with the world. And the rest of the world thinks it's a good agreement. Now if you think the ayatollah's going to come back and negotiate again with an American, that's fantasy. You're never going to see that because we will have proven we're not trustworthy. We got 535 secretaries of state and you can't deal with anybody. And that's going to undo a whole bunch of efforts and a whole bunch of things that matter in the world. That's what's at stake here. RUBIO: Yes. CORKER: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, just to ensure that I have appropriately addressed the situation, I want to refrain and say we have been fleeced and not make that a thing that's directed at an individual. I do want to say one of the ways we brought them into compliance is that we have agreed to let them do what they are doing and actually agreed to let them do it on an industrialized basis. So I will have to say that's how we brought them into compliance. But if I could, Senator... (CROSSTALK) KERRY: But, Senator, this is a very important point because we're not alone in this, folks. The Bush administration proposed the exact same thing. This is not something that President Obama just sort of dreamed up and thought was a good idea. In June 12th of 2008, President Bush, in -- through Condoleezza Rice, who signed the memorandum with the P5+1, said that, in return for Iran doing things with their nuclear program, here's what we were ready to do: recognize Iran's right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, that's all we're doing. Treat Iran's nuclear program in the same manner as that of any non-nuclear weapons state party to the NPT once international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature is restored. Provide technical and financial assistance for peaceful nuclear energy, including the state-of-the-art power reactor, support for R&D and legally binding fuel supply guarantees. Improve relations with Iran and support Iran in playing an important and constructive role in international affairs. Think about that. Work with Iran and others in the region on confidence-building measures and regional security, reaffirmation of the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force, cooperation on Afghanistan, steps toward normalization of trade and economic relations, energy partnership, civilian projects, civil aviation cooperation, assistance in Iran's economic and social development. All of that was offered by President George W. Bush June 12th, 2008, but didn't happen because Iran was not... (CROSSTALK) CORKER: You're sort of filibustering here. The one element that you left out that they did not agree to is... KERRY: ... was stopping... CORKER: ... to allow... KERRY: ... enriching. CORKER: ... allowing them to enrich. So if I could, so, you did... KERRY: But... CORKER: Senator Menendez? (UNKNOWN) Let... (CROSSTALK) KERRY: That's fine. MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start off by saying that I appreciate the enormous work and the arduous quest that you have been in pursuit of. And I think that no one would want to be applauding you more than I, who has been following Iran since my days in the House International Relations Committee nearly 20 years ago and as one of the authors of the sanctions regime that are recognized to bring Iran to the negotiating table. However, I am concerned that the deal enshrines for Iran and, in fact, commits the international community over time to assisting Iran in developing an industrial scale nuclear power program complete with industrial scale enrichment. And while I understand the program's going to be subject to Iran's NPT obligations, I think it fails to appreciate Iran's history of deception in its nuclear program and its violations of the NPT. And it will, in the long run, I think, make it harder to demonstrate that Iran's program is not, in fact, being used for peaceful purpose because Iran will have legitimate reasons to have advanced centrifuges and an enrichment program. We will then have to demonstrate if, in fact, that is the case, that its intention is dual use and not justified by its industrial nuclear power program. That's a much more difficult burden. Now, Mr. Secretary, you've always been skeptical about sanctions. I know you sort of like embrace them here today. But when you were chairman of this committee in a hearing on sanctions legislation that I was authoring, when the administration was vigorously, vigorously arguing against it, your comment was to Wendy Sherman and David Cohen, so what you are really saying is that this is a very blunt instrument which risks adverse reaction as opposed to a calculated effort. So in that hearing -- I remember I had to come back because I didn't expect that even the question of the amendment was going to come up. And they were there, trying to excoriate the effort. It passed 99-0 and then subsequently was embraced by the administration as the reason why Iran has come back to the negotiating table. So let me ask, under the sanctions heading of the agreement, paragraph 26 says, and I quote, "the United States administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the president and the Congress, will refrain from reintroducing or reimposing sanctions specified in annex 2, which is basically the sanctions that this committees and the Congress passed, that has ceased applying under the JPO (ph). So Secretary Lew, I read that to mean that we cannot reintroduce or reimpose the existing sanctions that Congress passed into law. Is that right? LEW: Senator, we have been very clear that we retain our right and we will, if we need to, reimpose sanctions for reasons that are not nuclear, if they live with the nuclear agreement and they violate other... (CROSSTALK) MENENDEZ: No, I'm talking about existing nuclear sanctions, which expire next year, if snapback provisions of the sanctions are to be an effective deterrent as the administration has suggested of Iranians breaking the agreement, will the administration agree to support the reauthorization of the existing sanctions that passed the Senate 99-0, and which expire next year? Yes or no? LEW: So let me be clear that the sanctions that are being lifted, if Iran complies, if they comply, we said we would not reimpose nuclear sanctions if they live with the nuclear agreement. MENENDEZ: I know. But my point is this. If you're going to snap back, you got to snap back to something. LEW: But... MENENDEZ: So if you're not snapping back... LEW: Senator, let me finish... (CROSSTALK) MENENDEZ: Please, don't eat up my time. I'm sorry, with all due respect, don't eat up my time. If, in fact, the sanctions which exist that you all heralded and said brought Iran to the table expire next year, 2016, and we don't reauthorize it, there is nothing at least in that context to snap back to. MENENDEZ: So why won't you simply say that the administration supports, under all the same provisions, including the president's waivers, the reauthorization of those sanctions so that the Iranians know if they violate that the snapback will also include snapback to what the Congress passed. LEW: Senator, what I said earlier was that right now the sanctions remain in effect. We have a regime in effect. If Iran complies, we will lift sanctions and it's premature to talk about extending a law... MENENDEZ: This expires next year. Iran's obligations go out at least eight years before the ratification of the additional protocol, and that ratification only takes place if Congress lifts the sanctions. So I don't understand how we ultimately have a credible belief that snapback means something, if in fact, you're not have the ability to have those sanctions in place. Let me ask this to the secretary. Is the president willing to make a clear and unequivocal statement, not that all options are all the table because Iran does not believe that's a credible military threat
PA-2325 Beta SP; PA-0686 Digibeta
Freedom Highway
SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT HEARING - WITNESS ISO - 1000-1200
SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE HEARING "Iran Nuclear Agreement Review" ISOLATED CAMERA ON WITNESSES Witnesses The Honorable John F. Kerry Secretary Of State U.S. Department of State Washington , DC The Honorable Ernest Moniz Secretary U.S. Department of Energy Washington , DC The Honorable Jacob Lew Secretary U.S. Department of the Treasury Washington , DC (APPLAUSE) CORKER: The Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. I want to thank the witnesses for being here today, and we look forward to a fulsome hearing. I want to thank all of those also who are in attendance. I know there was a little bit of an outbreak prior to us convening. We thank you for being here. We do hope you'll respect that now the meeting's in order, outbursts of any kind are unwarranted and will respect the democratic process that is taking place here. CORKER: So again, we thank you for being here. We also thank you for your courtesy as we move ahead. I know the witnesses have agreed to be here as long as we wish. So we'll start with seven-minute questions. I do know based on last night's presentation, there's sometimes a tendency for witnesses to want to interject. And what I would say is, obviously we conduct our meetings with a lot of respect and courtesy. And I would just ask the witnesses, if they would, to respond directly to the question from senators on both sides of the aisle as if they ask -- when you ask it directly to a witness, get them to respond. If someone else wants to interject, they can indicate they want to do so. But senators should feel free to say, no, I just wanted that witness and move on to the next to make sure that we don't end up in a somewhat filibustered situation -- we're able to fully get our questions answered. I want to start today by thanking our committee. We would not be here today, we would not have the information that we have today if we had not passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. This would not be taking place. I think the American people now understand what this debate is all about. When Congress put in place sanctions to bring Iran successfully to the table as we did, we granted the executive branch something called a National Security Waiver. What that meant was the executive branch had the ability to weigh our congressionally mandated sanctions to suspend them, until such a time as we permanently waive them down the road. And as you know, unfortunately, over the objections of Senator Cardin and myself, unfortunately, the executive branch went directly to the United Nations this Monday morning, something that was certainly not in the spirit of this, but this was what was always intended. I do want to say that while Secretary Kerry has often said, well, Congress will have the ability to weigh in at some point in time, prior to this law being passed and causing this hearing to happen today. We now read the agreement and realize what they meant was eight years from now, we would have the opportunity to weigh in, because that's what it's -- that's what's stated in the agreement. So, I want to thank everybody. All 19 members for coming together unanimously making that happen, and giving us a role, it's a heavy lift, as we know. But a role that did not exist prior to that passing. I would like to say we had a briefing last night, and I left there, I talked to members on both sides of the aisle. I was fairly depressed after last night's presentation. With every detail of the deal that was laid out, our witnesses successfully batted them away with the hyperbole that it's either this deal or war. And therefore, we were never able to appropriately question or get into any of the details because every time we did, it was either this deal or war. So, I believe that to be hyperbole. I know the Secretary last night pulled out a letter that was written in 2008 by the prior administration. I don't know if he'll refer to that today, but as I thought about it laying last night in bed, I realized that what he was really pointing out with that letter is, unless we give Iran what they want, X, I mean, that's what that letter was used for last night. So, let me walk through that. We've been through an incredible journey. We began 20 months or so ago with a country that was a rogue nation that had a boot on its neck, and our goal was to dismantle their program. We've ended up in a situation where it's a deal on the table basically codifies the industrialization of their nuclear program. It's amazing, amazing transition that has occurred. And yet, everyone here, not a person in this room, including our witnesses, everyone here knows there's not one practical need for the program that they're building. Not one. Not one. CORKER: We've not had a single scientist, not a single witness can lay out any reasoning, not a single reason, for Iran to be developing this program from the standpoint of what it means to them from a civil standpoint. Not one. Nine months after this agreement goes into effect, we realize that after Monday's U.N. adoption, unless Congress intervenes, in 90 days, this will be implemented, and then six months after that, in a total of nine months from now, all the sanctions that exist against Iran will be lifted. Incredible. Now, there'll be a few remaining sanctions, but the big ones that matter will be lifted. So they'll have access to billions and billions of dollars. Their economy will be growing. They'll be shipping all around the world. It's an amazing thing. And so what happens -- I think all of us figured this out as we went through the deal -- right now, we have some leverage, but nine months from now, the leverage shifts to them, because we have a sanction snap-back. What they have, if we ever tried to apply that, is what's called a nuclear snap-back. The way the deal is structured, they can immediately just begin. They can say, "Well, if you add sanctions, we're out of the deal." They can immediately snap back. So the leverage shifts to them. The PMD piece, the possible military dimensions -- I think most of us call it the previous military dimensions, because we know they were involved in that -- basically, that has no bearing, no bearing per the agreement. And I know our witness will say, "Well, if they don't deal with this properly, won't implement." But according to the agreement, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether the sanctions are removed or not. And yet that was such an important piece for everyone to know. Anytime/anywhere inspections, last night, we had witnesses saying, "I never said that." It's been a part of our mantra from day one. It's been a part of their mantra from day one, anywhere/anytime inspections. Now we have a process that they're declaring is 24 days, but we all know that's not right. 24 days begins after, by the way, the IAEA has found violations that they're concerned about, and then you give Iran time to respond to that, and then by the time it kicks in, there is a 24-day process, but it could be months. And as we know, in laboratories, when you're developing a -- a nuclear warhead that is about this big, it's very easy to cover things up like that. And they're all the -- all the focus has been on finding uranium. There's other aspects of this that are very difficult to find. I know they said this is the most comprehensive inspection regime that we've ever had. That's not true. That is not true. I've talked to secretaries of state and others. We had a far more comprehensive and rapid inspection program in Iraq. Far more. That certainly didn't service particularly well. Ben and I have written a letter asking for additional materials that we don't now have. One of the -- one of the items we don't have is regarding the agreement between Iran and the IAEA, and my sense is, we're never going to get that letter. So the inspection entity that we're relying upon to find out whether Iran is cheating, we -- we're not even going to have access to that agreement. But let me just say this. We do know one of the characteristics is very interesting. We have a professional athlete in Chattanooga that spends about a month there. He's incredibly -- the role model. He has got incredible integrity. He's a role model to the world. And I was talking to him a couple of weeks ago about the program that professional athletes go through for drug testing. It's incredible. That is anytime anywhere. There are qualities to this that, unfortunately, I'm told I cannot get into. But there are qualities to this program that would not be unlike causing athletes to just mail in their own urine specimens in the mail and -- and -- and us believing that's where it -- that it came from them. So look, I've got some questions. I want to talk a little bit about who we're dealing with here. CORKER: Most of us have been to Iraq many times, and I'll never forget visiting General Odierno in Baghdad. And every time we'd visit General Odierno in Baghdad, he'd have on his coffee table the -- the IFPs (sic) that were used to -- to maim and kill Americans. They were laying out. They were made -- the IEDs -- they were laying there on the coffee table, every single one of them made by Iran. Once we developed the technology, by the way, to counter that, what they did next was develop something called an EFP, explosively formed penetrator. Now this is -- what they do is they have an explosion that heats up copper to go through a piece of machinery to maim and dismember Americans. This was all Iran, every single bit of it. We've all been out to Walter Reed and we've visited these incredible heroes that have lost, in some cases, two arms and a leg; in some cases, two legs and two arms. We see them all over the country. They're living with this today. This is the country that we're dealing with, a country that created some of the most disturbing types and methods of maiming Americans that have ever been seen. They tried to kill an ambassador here in Washington, D.C., not long ago. I mean, that's -- we know that. Ben and I went over to, with others, to the -- the other day to see something the Holocaust Museum had put together. A young man named Caesar (ph) had taken photographs of the Syrian presence, Syrian presence, which, by the way, Iran supports. Syria would not even -- Bashar Assad would not even be in office today if it weren't for Iran. We went over and envisioned what the torture that's happening, that's been photographed and chronicled -- many of you have seen it on the Internet. It's an amazing thing. It's happening right now, by the way, as we sit here. Some people might say, well, that was Iraq and, I don't know, should we have been there or not? This is happening this very second with the support of Iran. Do you understand that? People's genitals right now being amputated, people are being electrocuted. This is happening this very second in a prison in Iran -- I mean, in Syria, that Iran is supporting. Some would say we haven't done as much as we could to stop it because, because of these negotiations. When I was in college, I wasn't a particularly good student. First part of college, I was interested in sports. The latter part, I was interested in working. I learned one thing, I learned about the critical path method. And I ended up building buildings all over our country. And I learned that you could start with something like this, and you lay out a vision and then you build it out. And you begin with the end in mind and you put first things first. It's sort of the critical path. And what I've seen our secretary do is -- I know he's developed a tremendous warmth with Iran's foreign minister, Zarif, and he talks about it often. But what I think you've actually done in these negotiations is codify a perfectly aligned pathway for Iran to get a nuclear weapon just by abiding by this agreement. I look at the things that they need to do, the way it's laid out, and I don't think you could more perfectly lay it out. From my perspective, Mr. Secretary, I'm sorry. Not unlike a hotel guest that leaves only with a hotel bathrobe on his back, I believe you've been fleeced. In the process of being fleeced, what you've really done here is you have turned Iran from being a pariah to now Congress, Congress being a pariah. A few weeks ago, you were saying that no deal is better than a bad deal. And I know that there's no way that you could have possibly been thinking about war a few weeks ago, no way. And yet, what you say to us now and said it over and over yesterday and I've seen you say it over and over in television that if somehow Congress were to turn this down, if Congress were to turn this down, the only option is war; whereas a few weeks ago, for you, for you to turn it down, the only option is war. I don't think you can have it both ways. Let me just say this. If Congress were to say these sanctions cannot be lifted, it wouldn't be any different than the snapback that we now have where, in essence, the United States, on its own, the United States, on its own, can implement snapback. But my guess is, the other countries, as you've stated before, wouldn't come along. So, we've got to decide which way that it is. I know you speak with a degree of disdain about our regional partners when you describe their reaction to this deal. But one of the things we have to remember is if we had actually dealt with dismantling their nuclear program, they wouldn't be responding in the way that they have. But not only is this not occurred, in addition, we are lifting the ballistic missile embargo in eight years. I have no idea how that even entered into the equation, but it did at the end. We are lifting conventional weapons embargo in five years. And in a very cute way, with hortatory language in the agreement, unbelievably, we are immediately listing -- lifting the ballistic missile testing program. We're lifting that ban. So I'd have to say that, based on my reading -- and I believe that you have crossed a new threshold in U.S. foreign policy -- where now it is a policy of the United States to enable a state sponsor of terror to obtain sophisticated, industrial nuclear development program that has, as we know, only one real practical need. That is what you're here today to ask us to support. I look forward to your testimony and the appropriate questions afterwise (sic). Senator Cardin? CARDIN: Well, first, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for convening this hearing. I want to thank Secretary Kerry, Secretary Moniz and Secretary Lew and your entire negotiating team, Wendy Sherman and many others, who have devoted the last two years to negotiating with Iran, incredible service to our country, incredible sacrifice to their families. And we thank you very much for your dedicated service, your hard work and what you have -- your service to America. The Iranian Nuclear Agreement Review Act that Senator Corker referred to, passed earlier this year, was an effort by the members of Congress to set up the appropriate review for a potential deal with Iran. We are extremely pleased that, after very difficult negotiations, we were able to get a unanimous vote of this committee, get the support of the White House and we believe we accomplished two major objectives in passing that statute. First, of course, we set up the appropriate review for Congress. It allows us to take action -- or we don't have to take action. It recognizes the fact that the sanction regime was passed by Congress and that we have a role to play in regards to implementing any agreement, as we now see in the JCPOA, that Congress has a role to play. So it's set up an orderly process. And this hearing is part of that process. It took you two years to negotiate this agreement. It took you two months in Vienna to get to the final details. We're on day four of our review of 60 days. I have not reached a conclusion. And I would hope that most members, I would hope the members of the Congress would want to get all the information, allow those who are directly involved to make their case. We have hearings set up next week and the following week, and we'll get outside experts. Many of us have taken advantage of that opportunity in the past. And I would hope that we've all used that opportunity before drawing a conclusion. This is a very important agreement from the point of view of U.S. foreign policy. Iran, in the region, is critically important to the United States' security. But there's a second objective to the Iran Nuclear Review Act, and that is to concentrate all our effort on the bad guy, Iran, and speak with unity as much as we could in the United States so that our negotiators could concentrate on Vienna and not on Washington in dealing with getting the very best possible agreement. CARDIN: And I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, I looked at the framework that was agreed to in April, and looking at the final agreements that we've gotten today. And our negotiators got an awful lot, particularly on the nuclear front, which is beyond my expertise. We got things that there were many rumors during these last couple of months of what was going to be in this agreement, and how it was going to be weakened from the April framework that, in fact, have been strengthened since the April framework. So I just want to applaud our negotiators for taking the strength of our unity and turning it into results in Vienna. And we'll be talking a little bit about that as we go forward. The objective is clearly to prevent Iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapon power, that is our simple objective. We know who we are dealing with. This is a state sponsor of terrorism. This is a country that abuses human rights, that violates the ballistic missile area -- we know all that. But we singularly are trying to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power because we know that is a game changer in the region. That's the objective of this agreement. And the standard that we have to use because there is no trust in Iran. The Supreme Leader on Friday after the agreements were entered into said, we will trample upon America. We don't trust Iran, but we've got to leave a motion out of this. We've got to look at the agreements. And we've got to determine whether the compliance with this agreement by the United States will put us on a path that makes it less likely or more likely that Iran will become a nuclear weapon power. That's got to be the test that we use. So, Mr. Chairman, I have many questions that I hope we will get answers today. I hope those answers will provoke a debate among us in Congress and American people, and help us make the right decisions. Since there is no trust, the inspection and enforcement regime is particularly important. We need to understand how it works. Do we have sufficient time to discover if Iran is violating the terms of this agreement in order to take effective action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power? That's a question that we need to understand. We need to know the breakout times, we need to know what happens after the time periods. Do we have sufficient opportunity to prevent Iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapon state? The commitment they make under this agreement. Are the inspections robust enough to deter Iran from cheating? And if they do, will we discover and be able to take action? Mr. Chairman, you raised the 24-hour window. I think all of us recognized there was going to be a protocol for inspection, that doesn't get up by surprise. But we need to know whether the 24-hour delay knowing what Iran is likely to do, does that compromise our ability to have effective inspections? And I hope our witnesses will deal with that today because that is a matter of major concern. We need to know the answer to that. Have we cut off all pathways for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon? particularly the covert military operations? We know that's a major concern. That's why the PMD is particularly important, the chairman mentioned the PMD, and the work that the IAEA are inspectors, international inspectors. They have great credibility in this area, but we will want to know whether they have the capacity to do what we're asking them to do. Will they have the access that we need? Because we do need to know about their prior military dimension in order to be able to go forward to make sure that we can contain any opportunity they may use for covert activities, will we discover it and be able to take action? these are questions that we -- we're going to ask. We've read the agreement and still have questions, and we still have questions, and we hope we'll get answers as to whether we have effectively prevented Iran from using covert activities to develop a nuclear weapon. Will this agreement provide us, IAEA with sufficient access to the people, places and documents, so that we know their prior military dimension? Are the snapback provisions for reimposing sanctions adequate if Iran violates this agreement? That's an issue that I hope we will have a chance to talk about. At the end of the time limits in the agreement, Iran will have the capacity to expand, as the Chairman rightly pointed out to an industrial capacity. They can get through there in nuclear enrichment, and uranium enrichment. That, they can do. Do we have sufficient capacity knowing their commitments for nonproliferation, knowing their requirements of the additional protocols, is that going to be adequate to prevent Iran? Do we have a sufficient enough breakout time that if Iran tries to become a nuclear weapon state after the time period that we have sufficient tools to prevent them from becoming a nuclear weapon power? These are questions we need to have answers to before we can make our judgments. Now, there are other areas. I wanted to be reassured that the United States still has the flexibility to impose non-nuclear sanctions on Iran for the support of terrorism, human rights abuses, and against a ballistic missile program. No one expects Iran's bad behavior to change on implementation date -- we know who we're dealing with. Will we be able to use the powers we've used in the past and build upon them to take action against Iran, particularly in light that they'll have additional resources? Can we do that? And can Congress work with the administration to strengthen those tools without violating the JCPOA? I want to know how the administration is updating the regional deterrent strategy against nefarious and stabilizing Iranian activities, and how we're going to work with our partners to build up their capacity to counter Iran, especially Israel. The chairman mentioned the lifting of the International Arms Embargo. That's of great concern as to how it would impact on our regional partners. How will it impact an arm's race in that region of the world? These are questions we need to get the best information we can in making our decisions. And lastly, let me mention this, because I think it's critically important. What are our options if the United States walks away from this? How will we be perceived internationally? Will we be able to maintain effective enforcement of sanctions with our international partners? And will Iran come back to a negotiating table with a country that has walked away from an agreement? These are questions that we need to understand. We need to know that the options are right now, do we go forward? We're not. And what are the options, what are the consequences if we don't go forward? So, Mr. Chairman, we have a full plate. And I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I hope that the members of this committee will use the information that we get today to debate the issue, take the time that we have, and do what's right for the American people, and ultimately make the decision that we think is best to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power. CORKER: Thank you, Senator Cardin, I appreciate so much the way we've worked together on so many issues and the entire committee. With that, I know that our witnesses here today need no introduction, they're well known not only here, around the world in spite of our policy differences, I think each of us deeply appreciate the -- that make this. There may not be policy differences in some cases. But we deeply appreciate the tremendous effort that you put up, put out on behalf of our country. We thank you for being here today, we thank you for being willing to be here today as long as it takes for everybody to get their answers. And with that, I'd like to introduce collectively Secretary John Kerry, he used to serve with us and sit on this side of the dais. Secretary Ernie Moniz, who has been incredible helpful to all of us in understanding the technical aspects of the deal, and someone we all appreciate deeply. Secretary Lew who served in multiple positions here has been certainly affirmed by this committee in several times. We thank you all for your great service to our nation, in spite of some of the concerns that we have here today. I think you all understand the drill. Take five minutes or so to explain -- as I've looked at your testimony. I know it's very brief. Just to warn people in advance, I'm going to defer my questions, Ben, and move to you immediately thereafter, and use my time to interject as things move along. So with that, Secretary Kerry. KERRY: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cardin, members of the committee, and friends and former colleagues. We really do appreciate the chance to discuss with you the comprehensive plan that we in our P5+1 partners have developed with Iran, regarding the future of its nuclear program. KERRY: And let me emphasize to everybody here, this isn't just the United States of America. These are other nuclear powers. France, Britain, Russia, China, they have a pretty good understanding of this field and of the challenges. And I appreciate the way in which they and Germany, which was the plus one, all came together, all contributed, all were part of this debate. So you're not just looking at what this table negotiated, you're looking at what the international community, the P5+1, under the auspices of the United Nations, negotiated. And they're not dumb. They're experts, every one of them, in nuclear technology, in ratification, in verification, are smart people who've spent a lifetime at this. And they've signed off on this agreement. And I'm joined by two Cabinet secretaries whose help was absolutely invaluable in reaching this deal, and I thank all of you for the role that Congress played. I was privileged to be the chairman of this committee when we passed the Iran sanctions effort. And we all remember the debate, we passed it unanimously, and it played a very significant role in bringing Iran to the table and in helping to make it clear that we needed to bring about a serious and productive negotiation with Iran. From the day that those talks began, we were crystal clear that we would not accept anything less than a good deal. And we defined it up front as a deal that closed off the four pathways to a bomb. The two uranium pathways, the one plutonium pathway and the covert pathway. So we set our standard, and we believe we have achieved that standard. After almost two years of very intensive talks, the facts are really crystal clear that the plan that was announced last week in Vienna is, in fact, a deal that does shut off those pathways and provides us with guarantees through the lifetime of the NPT and the participation of Iran that we will know what they are doing. Now, the chairman mentioned in his opening comments some phrase about unless we give Iran what they want. Folks, they already have what they want. They got it 10 years ago or more. They already have conquered the fuel cycle. When we began our negotiations, Iran had enough fissile material for 10 to 12 bombs. They had 19,000 centrifuges, up from the 163 that they had back in 2003, when the prior administration was engaged with them on this very topic. So this isn't a question in giving them what they want. I mean, it's a question of how do you hold their program back? How do you dismantle their weapons program, not their whole program. Let's understand what was really on the table here. We set out to dismantle their ability to be able to build a nuclear weapon, and we've achieved that. Nobody has ever talked about actually dismantling their entire program because when that was being talked about, that's when they went from 163 centrifuges to 19,000. And everybody here at this dais knows what the options are for actually stopping. It's called military action, because they're not going to stop it otherwise. They've already proven that. They proved it during all those years. So under this terms of this agreement, Iran has agreed now to remove 98 percent of its stockpile. Voluntarily. They're going to destroy 98 percent of the stockpile of enriched uranium. They're going to dismantle two-thirds of their installed centrifuges, and they're going to take out the existing core of an existing heavy water reactor and fill it with concrete. Iran has agreed to refrain from producing or acquiring highly enriched uranium and weapons grade plutonium for at least 15 years. And if they began to do that, Ernie Moniz will tell you we will know it immediately. Iran has also agreed to accept the additional protocol, and the additional protocol is an outgrowth of the failure of the North Korea experience, which put in additional access requirements precisely so that we do know what Iran is doing. And they have to ratify it before the U.N. sanctions are lifted at the end of this process. They have to have ratified -- they have to have passed it and (inaudible). They've agreed to live by it from day one. They're going to live by the additional protocol. KERRY: In addition, there are additional transparency measures we can go into in the course of this hearing. Now, if Iran fails to comply, we will know it, and we will know it quickly, and we will be able to respond accordingly by reinstituting sanctions all the way up to the most draconian options that we have today. None of them are off the table at any point in time. So many of the measures that are in this agreement are there for -- not just for 10 years, not just for 15 years, not just for 20 years, not just for 25 years of which there are measures for each of those periods of time, but they are for life forever as long as Iran is within the NPT. By the way, North Korea pulled out of the NPT. Iran has not pulled out of the NPT. Remember that two years ago when our negotiations began, we faced an Iran that was enriching uranium up to 20 percent at a facility that was secret and buried underground, and they were rapidly stockpiling enriched uranium and had installed nearly 20,000 nuclear centrifuges. They were building a heavy water reactor that could produce weapons-grade plutonium at the rate of enough to produce one or two bombs a year, and experts assess that the breakout time then as a result, the interval required to rush to be able to produce enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon, was about two to three months. If this deal is rejected, we return immediately to this reality, except that the diplomatic support that we have build with all these other countries that we have accumulated would disappear overnight. Let me underscore, the alternative to the deal that we have reached is not what I've seen some adds on TV suggesting disingenuously. It isn't a, quote, "better deal," some sort of unicorn arrangement involving Iran's complete capitulation. That is a fantasy, plain and simple, and our intelligence community will tell you that. Every single department of our intelligence community will reinforce that to you. The choice we face is between an agreement that will ensure Iran's nuclear program is limited, rigorously scrutinized and wholly peaceful or no deal at all. That's the choice. The fact is that there are 189 nations that live by the NPT. Five of them are, as we know, the main nuclear powers of the U.N., and 184 of them are nonnuclear in power, but they live by it, and we have lived by what the IAEA does with respect to ensuring the surety of what all of those 184 nations are doing, including 12 that enrich. Now, if the U.S. Congress moves to unilaterally reject what was agreed to in Vienna, the result will be the United States of America walking away from every one of the restrictions that we have achieved, and a great big green light for Iran to double the pace of its uranium enrichment, proceed full speed ahead with a heavy water reactor, install new and more efficient centrifuges and do it all without the unprecedented inspection and transparency measures that we have secured. Everything that we have prevented will then start taking place, and all the voluntary rollbacks of their program will be undone. Moreover, if the U.S., after laboriously negotiating this multilateral agreement with five other partners, were to walk away from those partners, we're on our own. Our partners will not walk away with us. Instead, they will walk away from the tough multilateral sanctions regime that they've helped to put in place, and we will have squandered the best chance we have to solve this problem through peaceful means. Now, make no mistake. President Obama has made it crystal clear that we will never accept the nuclear-armed Iran. He is the only president who has developed a weapon capable of guaranteeing that. And he has not only developed it, he has deployed it. But the fact is that Iran now has -- we all don't like it, but whether we like it or not, Iran has developed experience with a nuclear fuel cycle. They have developed the ability to produce the fissile material for a bomb. And we can't bomb that knowledge away, nor can we sanction the knowledge away. Remember, sanctions did not stop Iran's nuclear program from growing steadily to the point that it had accumulated enough fissile material to produce those 10 nuclear weapons. By the way, they didn't choose to produce them. Unlike North Korea, that created a nuclear weapon and exploded one and pulled out of the NPT, Iran has done none of that. The truth is that the Vienna plan will provide a stronger, more comprehensive, more lasting means of limiting Iran's nuclear program than any alternative that has been spoken of. And to those who are thinking about opposing the deal because of what might happen in year 15 or 16 or 20, remember, if we walk away, year 15 or 16 or 20 starts tomorrow and without any of the long-term verification or transparency safeguards that we have put in place. Now, over the past week, I have spoken at length about what exactly this deal is. I also want to make clear what this deal was never intended to be. First of all, as the chief negotiator, I can tell you I never uttered the words "anywhere anytime" nor was it every part of the discussion that we had with the Iranians. This plan was designed to address the nuclear issue, the nuclear issue alone, because we knew that if we got caught up with all the other issues, we'd never get where we needed to to stop the nuclear program. It would be rope-a-dope, staying there forever, negotiating one aspect or another. And the highest priority of President Obama was to make sure that Iran couldn't get a nuclear weapon, so we were disciplined in that. We didn't set out -- even though we don't like it, and I have extensive plans that I will lay out if you want them about how we're going to push back against Iran's other activities, against terrorism, support, its contributions to sectarian violence in the Middle East and other things. All of those are unacceptable. They're as unacceptable to us as they are to you. But I got news for you. Pushing back against an Iran with a nuclear weapon is very different from pushing back against an Iran without one, and we're guaranteeing they won't have one. So we're working very closely with the Gulf states. Just today, in Saudi Arabia -- Ash Carter was there yesterday -- the foreign minister said that Iran's nuclear deal appears to have all the provisions necessary to curtail Iran's ability to obtain a nuclear weapon. That's Saudi Arabia. The Emiratis are supportive. The foreign minister of Iran's going to be in the Emirates this weekend. So I would suggests effectively that we are going to continue to press Iran for information about the missing American, about the immediate release of Americans who've been unjustly held, and there isn't a challenge in the entire region that we won't push back against if Iran is involved in it. But I will tell you, it wouldn't -- none of those challenges will be enhanced if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. So the outcome cannot be guaranteed by sanctions alone. I wish it could, but it can't be. And by the way, it can't be guaranteed by military action alone. Our own military tells us that. The only viable option here is a comprehensive diplomatic resolution of the type that was reached in Vienna. And that deal, we believe -- and we believe we will show it to you today and in the days ahead -- will make our country and our allies safer, it will insure that Iran's nuclear program remains under intense scrutiny forever and we will know what they are doing, and it will ensure that the world community is united in insuring that Iran's nuclear activities will remain wholly peaceful, even as we also stay united in pushing back against its other activities in the region which we object to. We believe this is a good deal for the world, a good deal for America and a good deal for our allies and friends in the region, and we think it does deserve your support. CORKER: Thank you. Secretary Moniz? MONIZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cardin and members of the committee. I do appreciate the opportunity to come here to discuss the JCPOA reached between the E3 -- E.U.-plus-3 and Iran. The agreement prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, provides strong verification measures that give us time to respond if Iran chose to violate the terms, and fundamentally takes none of our options off the table. MONIZ: I want to stress that America's leading nuclear experts at the Department of Energy and our national laboratories were involved throughout these negotiations, Argonne, Livermore, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Pacific Northwest, Sandia, Savannah River, the Y-12 national security complex and the Kansas City plant all played important roles. These nuclear experts were essential to evaluating and developing technical proposals in support of the U.S. delegation. As a result of their work, I am confident that the technical underpinnings of this deal are solid and the Department of Energy stands ready to assist in the implementation. The deal meets the president's objectives, verification of Iranian nuclear program that is exclusively peaceful and sufficient lead time to respond if it proves otherwise. The JCPOA will extend for at least 10 years, the time it would take for Iran to produce just the fissile material for a first nuclear explosive to at least one year from the current breakout time of two, perhaps three months. The deal addresses the uranium enrichment, plutonium and covert pathways to a nuclear weapon. The first point I would like to make is that the Lausanne parameters, as the ranking member mentioned, are maintained and, in fact, strengthened, not weakened, but strengthened in the -- in the final agreement. This means restricting the number, type and location of centrifuges, dialing back the R&D program, dramatically reducing Iran's enriched uranium stockpile from 12,000 to 300 kilograms of low enriched uranium hexafluoride, and prohibiting introduction of any fissile material to Fordo. Excess infrastructure is also removed from both Natanz and Fordo. All these reasons taken together establish the one-year breakout timeline for accumulating highly enriched uranium. And something that we have not stressed but I do want to add, at the end of these 10 years, Iran will have far fewer than 19,000 centrifuges because they acknowledge the breakage rate, if you like, of IR-1s and they will not have a large replacement capacity because of the agreement. In addition, Iran will have no source of weapons grade plutonium. The Arak reactor is transformed under international oversight and participation to produce far less plutonium than their current design, no weapons grade plutonium in normal operation and essentially immediate recognition if they try to deviate from that -- from that practice. Furthermore, all of the irradiated fuel, plutonium-bearing fuel from that reactor goes out of the country for life, the life of the reactor. This deal goes beyond the parameters in Lausanne in a number of ways. One area is that Iran will not engage in several activities that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device, including multiple point explosive systems. These -- and neutron -- special neutron sources. These commitments are indefinite. And in addition, for 15 years, Iran will not pursue plutonium or uranium or uranium alloy metal -- metallurgy. Because Iran will not engage in activities needed to use weapons grade material for an explosive device, an additional period should be added to our stated breakout timeline. To be clear, the deal is not built on trust; it's pretty hard- nosed -- hard-nosed requirements that will limit Iran's activities and ensure inspections transparency and verification. I can assure you this is not what Iran wanted. It is a substantial dialing back of their -- of their program. To preclude cheating, international inspectors will be given unprecedented access to all of Iran's declared nuclear facilities; I guess we could (ph) make an exception if there were military occupation, but that is not the case here, and any other sites of concern, as well as the entire nuclear supply chain from the Iranian supply to centrifuge manufacturing and operation. This access to the Iranian supply chain comes with a 25-year commitment and, beyond 25 years, even after a quarter century of compliance with a peaceful program -- assuming we get there -- we still have, as we have said many times, the additional protocol in place to monitor Iran's nuclear activities. But another thing that we have also in perpetuity is their adherence to modified Code 3.1, which means that they must notify the IAEA even before they start building any nuclear facility. This eliminates kind of a loophole where one could do something covertly and then say, you know, oops, we were planning to notify before we bought any nuclear material. They must do this now in the planning stage, so it's another thing that we have beyond 25 years. The IAEA will be permitted to use advanced technologies -- and again this was nailed down after Lausanne -- including things like real-time enrichment monitoring, which I must -- might say is a technology developed by our DUE laboratories. In this case, by the way, Oak Ridge played a major role, Mr. Chairman. If the international community suspects Iran is trying to cheat, the IAEA can request access to any suspicious location. Much has been made about a 24-day process for ensuring IAEA inspectors can get access. I would say that I'd -- like Secretary Kerry, I did say the words "anytime, anywhere," and I am very pleased that yesterday a member of your caucus acknowledged, however, that the full sentence was "anytime, anywhere in the sense of a well-defined process with a well- defined end time." So I am pleased that we have established that. In fact, the IAEA can request access to any suspicious location with 24 hours' notice under the additional protocol, which Iran, again, will implement. The deal does not change that baseline. The issue if there is then -- agreement is not reached, then when the IAEA requests access, this 24-day clock will start. The -- and this is a new tool, a finite time, a new tool for resolving disputes within what we think is a short period of time -- and short is defined because of our confidence in environmental sampling that we will then be able to have to implement to detect microscopic traces of nuclear materials even after attempts are made to remove the evidence of activities with nuclear material. And in fact, Iran's history provides a good example. In February 2003, the IAEA requested access to a suspicious facility in Tehran; it was denied and negotiations dragged out for six months. But even after that long delay environmental samples taken by the IAEA revealed nuclear activity, even though Iran had made a substantial effort to remove and cover up the evidence. And we have, in addition, conducted our own experiments to verify the ability to detect very, very small traces of uranium. The agreement will be implemented in phases, as has been said already; some 10 years, 15 years, 20, 25 years, and then as I've already described, the key transparency measures that stay beyond 25 years, of course, as long -- as long as Iran is in the NPT, and if they were not in the NPT, every alarm bell would go off all over the place and appropriate actions would of course be taken. In closing I just want to acknowledge the tireless work of the negotiating team and led by my colleague, Secretary Kerry, and the U.S. agency -- the U.S. multiagency delegation worked together seamlessly, and the E3 -- E.U.-plus-3 displayed a remarkable cohesion throughout this very complex endeavor. The continued collaboration and cooperation among the leading nations, in particular the P5, the U.N. Security Council, is really crucial to ensuring that Iran complies with the JCPOA so as to avoid the reimposition of a major international sanctions regime and probably other responses as well. And I just want to say again, the deal is based on science and analysis because of its deep grounding and exhaustive technical analysis carried out largely by our DOE scientists and engineers. Again, I'm confident that this is a good deal for America, for our allies and for our global security. And just to respond to Ranking Member Cardin's criterion, Iran will be farther from a nuclear weapon capability all the time with rather than without this agreement. So again, thank you for the opportunity to be here. Look forward to the discussion. CORKER: Thank you very much. Secretary Lew. LEW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin, members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to speak today about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. A foreign policy decision of this significance deserves thorough review. I'm confident that a full and fair debate on the merits will make it clear that this deal will strengthen our national security and that of our allies. The powerful array of U.S. and international sanctions on Iran constitutes the most effective sanctions regime in history. These measures have clearly demonstrated to Iran's leaders the costs of flouting international law, cutting them off from the world's markets and crippling their economy. Today the Iranian economy is about 20 percent smaller than it would have been had it remained on a pre-2012 growth path. LEW: The United States government stood at the forefront of this effort across two administrations and with the bipartisan support in Congress and of this committee. Together, we established a web of far-reaching U.S. and international sanctions that ultimately persuaded Iran's leadership, after years of intransigence, to come to the table prepared to roll back its nuclear program. International consensus and cooperation to achieve this pressure is vital. The world's major powers have been and remain united in preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. That unity of purpose produced four tough U.N. Security Council resolutions, and national level sanctions in many countries, and secured adherence to U.S. sanctions by countries around the world. The point of the sanctions was to change Iran's nuclear behavior while holding out the prospect of relief if the world's concerns were addressed. Accordingly, once the IAEA verifies that Iran has completed provided key steps to roll back its nuclear program, and extend its breakout time to at least one-year, phased sanctions relief would come into effect. There is no signing bonus. To be clear, there will be no immediate changes to U.N., or E.U. or U.S. sanctions. Only if Iran fulfills the necessary nuclear conditions, will the U.S. begin suspending nuclear related secondary sanctions on a phased in basis; sanctions that target third-country parties doing business with Iran. Of course, we must guard against the possibility Iran does not hold up its side of the deal. That's why if Iran violates the commitments once we suspended the sanctions, we will be able to promptly snap back both U.S. and U.N. sanctions. Since preventing the snapback requires an affirmative vote from the U.N. Security Council, the United States has the ability to effectively force the re- imposition of those sanctions. Even as we phase in nuclear related sanctions relief, we'll maintain significant sanctions that fall outside the scope of the nuclear deal, including our primary U.S. trade embargo. With very limited exceptions Iran will continue to be denied access to the largest market, and we will maintain powerful sanctions targeting Iran's support for terrorists groups such as Hezbollah, its destabilizing role in Yemen, its backing of the Assad regime, its missile program and its human rights abuses at home. Just this week, Treasury sanctions several Hezbollah leaders, building on designations last month targeting the group's front companies and facilitators, and we will not be relieving sanctions on Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, its Quds force, and of their subsidiaries, or their senior officials. Some argue that sanctions relief is premature until Iran ceases these activities, and the funds Iran recovers could be diverted for malign purposes. I understand the concerns, but Iran's ties to terrorists groups are exactly why we must keep it from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. The combination of those two threats would raise a nightmare scenario. A nuclear armed Iran will be a far more menacing threat, if we cannot solve both concerns at once we need to address them in turn. JCPOA will address the nuclear danger, freeing us and our allies to check Iran's regional activities aggressively. By contest, walking away from the deal would leave the world's leading sponsor of terrorism with a short and decreasing nuclear breakout time. We must be measured and realistic in understanding what sanctions relief will mean to Iran. Iran's $100 billion in restricted foreign reserves, which many fear will be directed for nefarious purposes, constitute the country's long-term savings, and not the budgetary allowance. We estimate that after sanctions relief, Iran will only be able to freely access around half of these reserves, or about $50 billion, and that's because over $20 billion is committed to projects with China, where it cannot be spent; and tens of billions in additional funds are non-performing loans to Iran's energy and banking sector. As a matter of financial reality, Iran can't simply spend the usable resources as they will likely to be needed to meet international payment obligations, such as financing for imports and external debt. Moreover, President Rouhani was elected on a platform of economic revitalization, and faces a political imperative to meet those unfulfilled promises. He faces over half a trillion dollars in pressing investment requirements and government obligations. Iran is in a massive economic hole, from which it will take years to climb out. Meanwhile, we will aggressively target any attempts by Iran to finance Hezbollah, or use funds gained from sanctions relief to support militant proxies, including by enhancing our cooperation with Israel, and our partners in the Gulf. Backing away from this deal to escalate the economic pressure and try to obtain a broader capitulation from Iran would be a mistake. Even if one believed that extending sanctions pressure was a better course than resolving the threat of Iran's nuclear program, that choice is not available. Our partners agreed to impose costly sanctions on Iran for one reason, to put a stop to its elicit nuclear program. If we change our terms now and insist that these countries now escalate those sanctions and apply them to all of Iran's objectionable activities, they'd buck. And we could be left with neither a nuclear deal nor effective sanctions. So it's unrealistic to think that additional sanctions pressure would force Iran to totally capitulate, and impractical to believe we could marshal a global coalition of partners to impose just pressure after turning down a deal our partners believe is a good one. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is a strong deal, with phased relief only after Iran fulfills its commitments to roll back a nuclear program, and a powerful snap back built in later if they break the deal. Its terms achieve the objective they were meant to achieve, blocking Iran's path to a nuclear bomb. That's an overriding national security priority, and it should not be put at risk, not when the prospects of an unconstrained Iranian nuclear program presents such a threat to America and the world. Thank you and we look forward to answering your questions. CORKER: Thank you all very much. Senator Cardin? CARDIN: Once again, thank you for testimony. It has been stated many times the United States maintains its ability to impose sanctions relative to support terrorism, and human rights violations and ballistic missile issues. And I have read the JCPOA, and there are several paragraphs in the JCPOA that give me concern. Let me just read one. That's paragraph 29, where the parties will refrain from any policy specifically intended to directly or adversely affect normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran. So, Secretary Lew, I want to get your assurance we have full ability to use the tools of sanctions against Iran for its support of terrorism, human rights, and nonnuclear type of activities, which include congressional action that Congress might want to take? LEW: Senator Cardin, it was a matter of extensive discussion in the negotiations. We made clear in the negotiations that we retained the ability, and we were going to keep in place sanctions on terrorism, on regional destabilization, and human rights violations. In fact, we are not lifting sanctions that are based on those authorities, and we are not designating entities that were designated for those reasons. We also have made clear we reserve the right to put additional sanctions in place to address concerns about terrorism, human rights... CARDIN: When you say we, that includes the Congress of the United States? LEW: So, Congress has authorities in this area. I know there is legislation pending regarding Hezbollah, and we would work with you on legislation. The thing that we can't do, is we can't just put it right back in place everything that was part of the nuclear sanctions, and just put a new label on it. We have reserved our rights to put sanctions in place that address those continuing malign activities. CARDIN: The Iran Sanctions Act expires at the end of 2016. We will still be in the JCPOA period of time where a snap back of sanctions a viable hedge against Iran's cheating. Congress may well want to extend that law so that that power is available immediately if Iran were to violate the agreement. Is that permitted under the JCPOA? LEW: I think that if it's on expiration, it's one thing, if it's well advanced it's another. I think the idea of coming out of the box right now is very different than what you do when it expires. CARDIN: Let me ask the Secretary -- the question is why would that be, it's either allowed or not allowed? But we will get to that. I want to get to Secretary Moniz, if I might. The 24 days you referred to, and I appreciate your explanation, but there are three types of activities that could place in violation of the JCPOA by Iran. They could be using material that is in violation, and you have already addressed that issue as far as the 24 days. But it could involve weaponization, or it could involve research, not using nuclear material. Would the 24-day delay, in those cases, compromise our ability to determine whether Iran is in compliance with the agreement? MONIZ: Senator Cardin, again, let's put the -- the nuclear material, I think we have addressed and is quite secure. Clearly, when one goes into weaponization activities, even there there is a spectrum. For example, working with uranium metal is something that would still involve nuclear material, and I think we would have very, very strong tools there. When we go to some other activities, without getting into too many specifics, there will still be a variety of signatures. For example, my second priority on the weaponization list would be explosively driven neutron sources, and I think that there are quite -- there are certainly tell tale signs that I think we would have access to, or the IAEA inspectors more precisely, would have -- would have access to. Clearly as one gets into other areas, such as computer modeling, that's a different kind of detection challenge. And in all of these cases to go to undeclared sites, we are going to rely upon our intelligence capabilities, those of our partners, to be able to point the IAEA to suspicious activities. But there are nonnuclear signatures, but it does -- it does get more complicated. CARDIN: Thank you. Secretary Kerry, I want to -- I want you to elaborate a little bit more on our capacity after the time limits and Iran's obligations after the time limits on its nuclear enrichment towards a weapon -- weaponization of a nuclear weapon. I understand they still have obligations under their nonproliferation treaty, they still have obligations with the additional protocols under the NPT, but could you tell us how much lead time we will have, what a breakout looks like after the 15 years and what assurances do we have that we will be able to detect and take action before Iran becomes a nuclear weapon state after the 15 years? KERRY: Well, first of all, Senator, after -- throughout the entire life of the agreement, the additional protocol provides for the right of access. That is where the 24-hour notice for access comes from and they have to respond to it. So if we had any intelligence regarding suspicious activity or a suspicious site, shared, I might add ,among many, among all the P5+1, Israel, countries in the region, we will have an incredible amount of sourcing for this. We would be able to put the ask to them and they have to respond to that. And if they don't respond to that, then we have the ability to convene to vote and put back in place sanctions or to take other actions if we deem that appropriate. But... CARDIN: After the 15 years? KERRY: Yes, but -- yes, but let me just fill out for you, we also have a 20-year component which allows us televised tracking of their centrifuge production, of their rotors and bellows on the centrifuges, and we have a 25-year, quite remarkable insight, which is a access and monitoring tracking of their life of the uranium cycle, so from the mining, the mills, the yellow cake production, the gasification, the centrifuge out into the waste, we will have an ability, the IAEA will have the ability, to appropriately monitor that every step of the way. So if we have X amount of raw uranium ore coming out, or in the mill, if there is X amount of milling taking place and then some is diverted somewhere, we don't see it going into the place it next has to go to, we're going to have extraordinary insight into this. In addition that, under the additional protocol and under the IAEA process for civil nuclear programs, we -- all of the facilities are declared because it is a civil nuclear program. As such, there is literally 24/7 visitation in those sites. They're not even request sort of situations, it's only for the undeclared facility about which you have a suspicion that you have to go through the other process. But we're going to have amazing insight because they are living by the NPT, or allegedly they're going to live by the NPT, and that's what we have to make sure they are doing. And so we have day-to-day insight to that. I might add to all our colleagues that under the interim agreement -- which by the way a number of people called an historic mistake and a tragedy and you heard all of the same rhetoric you're hearing now -- those same people asked for us to keep that in place two years later because it's worked. KERRY: And the fact is, Iran has lived up to every component of that over the course of the last years. They reduced the 20 percent uranium, they undid Iraq and so on and so forth; I won't go through it all now. So we will have this level of insight, which I think is not being examined enough and understood enough. It's not -- nothing ends at 15 years. Simply the size of the stockpile limitation ends, and -- and the enrichment, they can enrich further. But we will have insight to that enrichment. A civil nuclear program requires enrichment of approximately 5 percent or so. I mean, that's the high -- high end of it. If you start to enrich higher, up around the 20 percent, you're talking about the Tehran research reactor or a few other things. But there's no rationale whatsoever for enrichment above that, and we would insight to that enrichment program that would instantly know if they're beginning to go somewhere else. Red flags go off everywhere, and we'd be all over it and able to respond. We'd actually have months to respond, to be honest with you. And -- and so the fact is, the breakout team never goes down to a level below which we have an ability to be able to respond, and I think Ernie can speak to the full breath of the scrutiny. CORKER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. MONIZ: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask one -- one quick note? Because it's kind of -- what could be a collateral benefit, actually, of this agreement is that going to the uranium supply chain, the safeguards, I just want to add that this is something that the IAEA really wants to have something more broadly, and so this would actually be a first in -- in moving towards cradle-to-grave safeguards. CORKER: I might add, there're some other firsts that unfortunately we cannot talk about relative to some of their procedures, which I eluded to. And I would say to Mr. Secretary, yes, people have said that they'd rather keep JPOA in place than move to something worse. That doesn't mean that people particular like JPOA in the first place but on comparison. So I -- I -- I just want to clarify that. Senator Risch? RISCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it's -- Senator Cardin, who I have highest respect for, made a statement, which I really agree with, and that is that we really need to leave emotion out of this. And I couldn't agree with you more. This should be done in a nonemotional way. But that doesn't mean we gotta leave common sense out of this, with all due respect. You know, we've gone from the mantra of "No deal's better than -- than a bad deal" -- and I've heard everybody say that a couple -- a few weeks ago -- and now we've gotten to the point, where, "Well, you have to accept this, or else, it's war." The mantra has changed dramatically. And all I can say is, after reviewing this, even -- even in a cursory fashion, anyone who believes this is a good deal really joins the ranks of the most naive people on the face of the earth. When you're dealing with the people that we're dealing with here, with the history they have of cheating and everything else, anyone who can say this is a good deal -- I know the justification is, "Well, it's not perfect." Well, the word "perfect" shouldn't even be used in the sentence with this agreement. It isn't even close to that. One of the most disappointing things -- and I joined the chairman in this in a closed hearing yesterday -- is, we've -- that we've been told we have no choice in this. We have no choice in this, because we have gone from the position where we started, where we had Iran isolated and they were viewed on the world stage as a pariah. If we don't go along with this, we're told, our -- the -- the other negotiators are going to go along with this and the United States will be isolated on this issue and we will be the pariah on the national stage. Now, just think about that. Where we have -- where this -- where these negotiations have taken us, from the -- from a situation where we had Iran exactly where we wanted them to now, if we don't go along with this, then we are going to be the isolated pariah character on the national stage. Well, look, the other thing that was so important in this was verification. We have to have verification. Everybody said, "This is -- this is the number-one thing on verification." Well, everyone here knows that there's a site called Parchin, and Parchin was a subject of these negotiations, and Parchin was designed -- and I heard the secretary say that we're going to ensure that their nuclear ambitions are only for peaceful purposes. How in the world does Parchin fit that? Parchin was designed and operated as an explosive testing place where they designed a detonation trigger for a nuclear weapon. Parchin stays in place. Now, does that sound like it's for peaceful purposes? Let me tell you the worst thing about Parchin. What you guys agreed to was, we can't even take samples there. IAEA can't take samples there. They're going to be able to test by themselves. Even the NFL wouldn't go along with this. How in the world can you have a nation like Iran doing their own testing? Now, I know Secretary Moniz, who -- who, by the way, I -- I think is one of the brightest guys that I know, has told us, "Oh, don't worry. We're going to be able to watch it on TV, and there's a good chain of -- of custody for the samples that are going to be taken." Are we going to trust Iran to do this? This is a -- a good deal? This is what we were told we were going to get when we were told, "Don't worry. We're going to be watching over their shoulder, and we are going to put in place verifications that -- that are absolutely bulletproof." We're going to trust Iran to do their own testing? This is -- this is absolutely ludicrous. Well, the one thing that bothers me incredibly about this is the billions of dollars that Iran's going to get. We've been briefed on the fact that while they have been in the horrible financial condition and we have gotten them to a horrible financial condition, one of their national priorities has been to support terrorism. They have supported Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis with financial aid, with military aid, with every kind of aid there is. Everything we're trying to do in the world has their fingerprints on it trying to do us in. So these billions of dollars are going to be put back in their hands within, I'm told, about nine months. And again, we were told yesterday, "It doesn't matter what we do. Congress, go ahead and do your little thing. It doesn't matter, because we don't have control over this money. Actually, it is the -- the other people who were sitting at the table that have control over the money, and no matter what we do, they're going to release the billions of dollars." Well, I -- I -- I got to tell you, this is a very heavy lift when you sleep at night, and you say, "Well, I'm going to vote to release $50 billion" -- started at $100 billion. Now you've got it down to $50 billion. Whatever it is, knowing -- knowing that that money is -- a portion of that money is going to be directly transferred to people who are going to be trying to kill Americans and who are trying to kill innocent people and -- and -- and that are trying to kill our allies. To say this is -- to be able to walk away from this and say that this is a good deal is ludicrous. With all due respect, you guys've been bamboozled, and the American people are going to pay for that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CORKER: Senator Boxer? KERRY: Can we respond at all to any of that? (LAUGHTER) RISCH: My time's up, Mr. Chairman. I suspect we're going to hear lots of responses. KERRY: Isn't there time built in for answers or comments? CORKER: I'm -- I'm more than glad for you to take a moment to answer. KERRY: Well, let me -- let me start... CORKER: I want to make sure this gets a full and fair hearing, so... KERRY: Yeah. Let me start with the beginning here. The comment was made that, what is it -- naive if you think this is a good deal. This is an article from the Washington Post. I urge you all to read it. "How the Iran deal is good for Israel, according to Israelis who know what they're talking about." I urge you to read it. It says here, "A host of prominent members of the country's security establishment have came out at various stages of negotiations in support of the Obama administration's efforts." In an interview this week with the Daily Beast, Ami Ayalon, former head of Shin Bet, or Israel's top domestic security agency, suggested Israel's politicians were playing with fears in a fearful society. He praised the Vienna agreement as a useful measure to curb the Iranian threat. I don't think he's naive. He praised -- he -- Efraim Halevi, former chief of the Mossad, Israel's spies agency, hailed Obama's victory. Look, folks, you know, you can throw it around. Senator, you said we had them exactly where we wanted them. 19,000 centrifuges, enough fissile material for 10 to 12 bombs -- is that where we wanted them? What was the purpose of the sanctions? I was chairman... RISCH: To dismantle their operation. KERR: Let me just finish. I was chairman when we passed those sanctions, and our purpose was to bring them to negotiations. So we've negotiated. And I guarantee you, for the first 15 years, you have unbelievable restraints that make it impossible to even think about making a bomb. Well, they can think about it. Can't do anything about it. So at the end of 15 years, you have every option that you have today. Your decision is whether you want those 15 years to be right now or take the 15 years and figure out whether or not this is going to work. That's really the choice. KERRY: I don't know what you mean by, "We had them right where we wanted them." To what end? CORKER: Before I turn to Senator Boxer, since we gave you time, I do want to say that I think Iran has done a masterful job in giving you a talking point with the 19,000 centrifuges, 10 of which are operating, but we all know they are antiques. They are antiques. And so we all talk about the number of centrifuges but this deal lays out their ability to continue research and development on the IR- 2Bs, the IR-4s, the IR-6s, the IR-8s. And in year eight they can industrialize that... KERRY: For a peaceful program, for a peaceful program that's under the IAEA... CORKER: Let me finish. I'll let you talk. They said the IR-8 is their future. You know the IR-1 is an antique; it doesn't even operate most of the time or at least it operates 60 percent -- it's slow. They want to get rid of those. So they did a masterful job in getting the West and other countries to focus over here on something that is of no use to them while they are able to draft an agreement that allows them a pathway to continue sophisticated development on something that can put in a covert facility and then enrich in levels and pace that they never imagined. So with that, Secretary (sic) Boxer. MONIZ (?): Mr. Chairman, if I may add, I think I must say that every element of the R&D program is rolled back in time. The fact is they right now have very -- they are very active in all these areas and it is significantly delayed. And so that's a fact. CORKER: And it is a fact, in year eight, they are given the time... MONIZ (?): In year -- I'm sorry... CORKER: ... year eight, that's why the president said in year 13 there's zero breakout. But let me move to Senator Boxer. KERRY: ... zero... MONIZ: But, sir, it is -- it is an incorrect characterization, I apologize, for saying that in year eight they are in an industrial activity. It's a small cascade that they can start to do years after their current plans. CORKER: And many people thought it was going to take that long for them to even have the capacity to do that. So as I mentioned, from critical path standpoint, they have been brilliant. BOXER: You ready for me? (LAUGHTER) OK. Colleagues, put me down as someone who thinks Iran is a bad and dangerous actor and I don't think there's one person involved that doesn't believe that. And so that's why I believe we need to curb their nuclear ambitions. I think it's essential. And I don't think the American people want another war and, at the end of the day -- I know some disagree with this -- I think that's -- at the end of the day, that's really the option, which everyone tiptoes around. Now, you know -- I support the right of my colleagues to say anything they want, but you've sat there and you've heard two of my colleagues go after you with words that I am going to repeat. You were fleeced, one said. The other said you have been bamboozled. So putting aside the fact that I think that's disrespectful and insulting, it -- that's their right to do. There are other ways to express your disagreement, but that goes to the -- your core as a human being and your intelligence, and I think you are highly intelligent. So let me ask you, and if you could just answer yes or no -- I know it's hard for you, Secretary Kerry, to do so... (LAUGHTER) ... because we're senators and it's not our way. But I -- then I can get through the rest of my list. So my colleagues think that you were fleeced, that you were bamboozled, that means everybody was fleeced and bamboozled, everybody, almost everybody in the world. So I want to ask you, does the United Kingdom, our strong ally support this accord? KERRY: Yes. BOXER: Does Australia, one of our strongest allies, support this accord? KERRY: Yes. BOXER: Does Germany support this accord? KERRY: Yes. BOXER: Does France support this accord? KERRY: Yes. BOXER: Does New Zealand support this accord? KERRY: I haven't seen their statement. (LAUGHTER) BOXER: Well, they are on the Security Council, are they not? And they voted for it. KERRY: Oh, you mean in the vote? Yes. BOXER: Well, I mean... KERRY: All... BOXER: ... either by voice support or a vote. Did Jordan voice its support in their vote? KERRY: Yes. BOXER: Did Spain, did Nigeria, did Lithuania? Yes. You get the drift. If you were bamboozled, the world has been bamboozled. That's ridiculous and it's unfair and it's wrong. You can disagree for sure with aspects of this agreement, but I think we need to stay away from that kind of rhetoric. Now, I have the agreement right here and I have read it, and one thing that I was surprised, as I sat down to read it, I thought, you know, will I be able to understand this document? It's very understandable. So I want to say -- cite a couple of things in here. "Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons." That's one phrase. Another one is, and that's -- that's -- this one is number 16. "Iran will not engage in activities, including at the R&D level, that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device" -- a nuclear explosive device -- "including uranium or plutonium." And that's in this accord. So one of the things I want to do is send out a message to Iran, not to the people of Iran, who I think are really good people, but to those folks there that are so dangerous. And that is you said it real clearly, and if you don't live up to it, I guarantee you the consequences will not be pretty, and I think that's an important message that has to go out, because they signed it and they said it and the whole world is watching them. Secretary Kerry, I authored the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act, and the U.S.-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act. So proud of that. And President Obama signed both of those. And it means that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our closest ally and we know Israel does not like this agreement. I am very glad you read those comments of the Shin Bet person because the truth is there is division. It's quiet but there is some who think this was the way to go. So I would hope, as someone who has stood so -- I was going to say tall, but it's hard for me to say that -- stood so tall for this relationship with Israel. At the end of the day, I think this relationship is going to be even more strengthened. And I want to get your view on that, because I know that Ash Carter went to Israel. Do you have anything to report about that meeting and how that went? KERRY: Well, Secretary Carter went with the intention of laying out and beginning a dialogue in great detail, which he did with the defense minister of Israel. And they had, I think, almost a day-long meeting in which they discussed the many ways in which we are prepared to work with Israel, understanding the -- obviously understanding the very dangerous dynamics of the region right now. So -- and Secretary Carter, in fact, went up towards the Golan Heights to review with them what the threat is currently from ISIL, Daish, and so forth. These are all things that we are prepared to push back on in any number of ways, and we also believe there's the potential of a kind of new alignment in the region. And I will be going to speak with all of the GCC members in a few days to talk about the ways in which the Gulf can come together with Israel and others in a more -- in a, really, a new alignment, a new alliance... BOXER: Well, I want to press you on that, because we were reading about Saudi Arabia's words today in the press, and I just am -- I don't -- haven't had time to check it out and I wanted to ask you. Do you believe the Saudis are supportive now, despite the fact they view Iran as a regional adversary? KERRY: I believe they will be supportive of this. And I was very heartened to see -- I met with Adel al-Jubeir, the foreign minister, just a few days ago. He indicated to me that they were prepared to support it if certain things are going to happen. Those things I believe are going to happen. So I anticipate that. And, Senator, I'm sorry to divert, but I just wanted to mention; I forgot the quote, because I don't want to be accused of being a person, you know, saying the choice is military or otherwise. KERRY: Efraim Halevy, the chief of the Mossad, also said, quote, "Anyone who followed events in Iran in recent decades or has studied the matter has to admit truthfully that he never believed Iran would ever agree to discuss these issues, let alone agree to the measures imposed on them by the world powers. The alternative would be military strikes, which would plunge the region into deeper insecurity and would likely not be successful," he said. So we're not alone in describing what the choice is, here. And I think, Senator, there's a real potential to have a change in the Middle East, there's also a potential to have a confrontation. BOXER: Right. KERRY: This does not end the possibility of a confrontation with Iran, obviously, depending on the choices they make. BOXER: OK, I want to say, would you just thank Wendy Sherman for me personally, for her work. Donald Trump said something, why don't you bring women into this negotiation, it would go much better. Well, she was a true (ph) negotiator, she's fantastic and I wish she was here. KERRY: She is absolutely spectacular. She did an extraordinary job. We would not be where we are without Wendy, without Jack, without Moniz, and an incredible team. A team, by the way, all across the government of the United States, experts whose life is spent analyzing Iran, analyzing nuclear proliferation, who came from the energy department, from intelligence community, and from the State Department, elsewhere, all who worked together. And believe me, they're a savvy group of people and nobody pulled any wool over their eyes. CORKER: Thank you. Senator Rubio. RUBIO: Thank you, thank you all for being here today. Secretary Kerry, the administration has publicly stated that you expect this deal is going to be rejected by majorities in both houses of Congress. And you said while winning approval of Congress would be nice, your goal is to basically convince enough Democrats so that you can avoid an override of the president's veto. So as far as the administration is concerned, this is a done deal. But I do it's important for the world, and especially for Iran to understand, as far as American sanctions are concerned, this is a deal whose survival is not guaranteed beyond the term of the president. And I hope the next president is somebody that will remove the national security waiver and reimpose the congressional sanctions passed by Congress, because this deal is fundamentally and irrevocably flawed. I believe it weakens our national security, and makes the world a more dangerous place. And throughout the process, by the way, this administration in my opinion repeatedly capitulated on important items, and the examples are endless. It begins by allowing a perception to be created that we were pressing for anywhere/anytime inspections, and now denying that that was ever part of the process, or ever promised. I understand all the disputes about the terms, but clearly there was a perception created among my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that we were pressing for anytime/anywhere inspections, including of potential covert sites, and then the snapback sanctions I think, are also hollow. We have a complicated 24-day arbitration process that Iran is going to test and exploit over and over again. They realize this, by the way, that they know that once the international sanctions are gone, they will be impossible to snap back. As your Iranian counterpart Mr. Zarif has bragged, quote, "Once the structure of the sanctions collapse, it will be impossible to reconstruct it." He also bragged earlier this week, by the way, that incremental violations of the agreement would not be prosecuted. No matter what happens Iran will keep the more than billions of dollars its going to receive up front, basically as a signing bonus, and Iran will be allowed to continue to develop long-range ballistic weapons, ICBMs, that know only one purpose, and that is for nuclear warfare. And so, all of these promises that they are making about never pursuing a weapon, they are all revealed as lies when they are developing a long-range rocket capable of reaching this very room, one day, not so far off in the future. There's only one reason to develop those rockets -- that's to put a nuclear warhead on them. By the way, the deal also allows the arms embargo to eventually end. On terrorism, this deal provides billions, possibly hundreds of billions to a regime that according to the director of National Intelligence, directly threatens the interests of the United States and our allies. And lastly, nothing in the deal holds Iran to account for human rights. Quite the opposite. The Iranian regime is being rewarded for its atrocious human rights record. I know you said you brought up the American hostages in every negotiation, and I -- I think we all thank you for that, but for the families of Americans who are missing or detained in Iran, such as that of my constituent, Robert Levinson, this deal brought no new information regarding their loved ones' whereabouts. This deal does nothing for Washington Post reporter, Jason Rezaian, whose brother Ali (ph) is with us in this room today. In fact, you personally met and negotiate with an Iranian official, who impressed on Jason's case, lied to the world -- he lied to the world by saying, we don't jail people for their opinions. This deal does nothing for the Marine Corps Sergeant Amir Hekmati, who dictated a letter from prison that said, quote, "Secretary Kerry sits politely with the Iranians shaking hands and offering large economic concessions to save them from economic meltdown," unquote, as Iran adds hostages. Does nothing for Pastor Saeed Abedini, whose only crime was practicing his religion. In fact, the only people this deal does anything for directly are the Iranian officials who want to continue to jail and execute their people, who hate Israel think to wipe the Jewish state and its people from the face of the planet, who want to spread mayhem throughout the Middle East, and continue to help Assad slaughter the Syrian people, and perhaps kill some Americans and Israelis while they're at it. Secretary Kerry, I do not fault you for trying to engage in diplomacy, and striking a deal for Iran, I don't. I do fault the president for striking a terrible deal with Iran. I hope enough of my Democratic colleagues can be persuaded to vote against this deal and prevent the president from executing it. But even if this deal narrowly avoids congressional defeat, because we can't get to that veto-proof majority, the Iranian regime and the world should know this deal -- this deal is your deal with Iran, I mean yours meaning this administration, and the next president is under no legal or moral obligation to live up to it. The Iranian regime and the world should know the majority of the members of this Congress do not support this deal, and that the deal could go away on the day that President Obama leaves office. And in that realm, I wanted to ask about this. If you, today, are a company that after this deal is signed and go into Iran and build a manufacturing facility, and the next president of the United States lifts the national security waiver, or Iran violates the deal, do the sanctions -- obviously, do the sanctions apply against that facility moving forward? In essence, I go in, if a company goes into Iran now after this deal, and builds a manufacturing facility of any kind -- they build car batteries, and then Iran violates the deal, and the sanctions kick back in, will that facility be able to continue to operate without facing sanctions? LEW: Senator, if a company acts to go in and do business with Iran while the sanctions are lifting, that would be permitted. If Iran violates the deal and the sanctions snap back they would be able to continue doing things that are in violation of the sanctions. RUBIO: OK. The reason why it's important, it's important for companies anywhere in the world to know that whatever investment they make in Iran, they risking it, in essence, they are betting on the hope that Iran never violates the deal, and they are also hoping that the next president of the United States does not reimpose U.S. congressional sanctions, by which they would become a sanction entity. I have one more specific question about the deal. There's a section titled "Nuclear Security," and the document that states those that negotiated the deal are prepared to cooperate with Iran on the implementation on nuclear security guidelines and best practices. There's a provision 10.2, it reads, "cooperation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran's ability to protect against and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems." Here is my question. If Israel decides it doesn't like this deal and it wants to sabotage an Iranian nuclear program or facility, does this deal that we have just signed, obligate us to help Iran defend itself against Israeli sabotage, or for that matter, the sabotage of any other country in the world? MONIZ: The -- I believe that refers to things like physical security and safeguards. I think all of our options and those of our allies and friends will remain in place. RUBIO: Well, I guess that's my point. If Israel conducts an air strike against the physical facility, does this deal, the way I read it, does it require us to help Iran protect and respond to that threat? MONIZ: No. RUBIO: It does not? MONIZ: No. KERRY: The purpose of that is to be able to have longer-term guarantees as we enter a world in which cyber warfare is increasingly a concern for everybody, that if you are going to have nuclear capacities, you clearly want to be able to make sure that those are adequately protected. But I can assure you, we will coordinate in every possible way with Israel with respect to Israel's concern. RUBIO: So, if Israel conducts a cyber attack against the Iranian nuclear program are we obligated to help defend themselves against the Israeli cyber attacks? KERRY: No, no, I assure you that we will be coordinating very, very closely with Israel as we do on every aspect of Israel's security, and... RUBIO: That's not how I read this. KERRY: I don't see -- I don't see any way possible that we will be in conflict with Israel with respect to what we might want to do there. And I think we just have to wait until we get to that point. But I do think, Senator, you know, I listened to a long list of your objections here about it, but there's no alternative that you or anybody else has proposed as to what you... RUBIO: I sure have, Secretary Kerry. I have. KERRY: And I am confident that the next President of the United States will have enough common sense that if this is being applied properly, if it's being implemented fully, they're not just going to arbitrarily end it. They might want to engage and find a way, if they think there's some way to strengthen or do something. But I cannot see somebody just arbitrarily deciding, let's go back to where we are, where they are completely free to do whatever they want, without any inspections, without any input, without any restraints, without any insight. I don't think any president would do that. RUBIO: Well, even -- and the status quo was there already in violation before you signed this deal, Iran was already in violation of existing mandates and restrictions, including things they had signed on to in the past. (CROSSTALK) KERRY: And this deal brings them back into compliance, Senator. That is exactly the purpose of this deal. RUBIO: Or this deal brings them back... KERRY: They have to live... (CROSSTALK) KERRY: ... and if they don't live up to it, every option we have today is on the table. So we don't lose anything here. But we -- the way we lose is by rejecting the deal because then you have no restraints, you have no sanctions, you have no insight, you have no inspectors, you have no diminution of their centrifuges. You have no reduction of their -- of their stockpile. And if you want to just conveniently forget the fact that they had enough fissile material to build 10 to 12 bombs, that's the threat to Israel. I mean, if you go back to that, without any alternative other than what, you know, most people think is going to be the alternative, which is confrontation. Nobody has a plan that is articulated, that is reasonable as to how you are going to strengthen this, do something more, when the Supreme Leader of Iran and the president of Iran and others believe they've signed an agreement with the world. And the rest of the world thinks it's a good agreement. Now if you think the ayatollah's going to come back and negotiate again with an American, that's fantasy. You're never going to see that because we will have proven we're not trustworthy. We got 535 secretaries of state and you can't deal with anybody. And that's going to undo a whole bunch of efforts and a whole bunch of things that matter in the world. That's what's at stake here. RUBIO: Yes. CORKER: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, just to ensure that I have appropriately addressed the situation, I want to refrain and say we have been fleeced and not make that a thing that's directed at an individual. I do want to say one of the ways we brought them into compliance is that we have agreed to let them do what they are doing and actually agreed to let them do it on an industrialized basis. So I will have to say that's how we brought them into compliance. But if I could, Senator... (CROSSTALK) KERRY: But, Senator, this is a very important point because we're not alone in this, folks. The Bush administration proposed the exact same thing. This is not something that President Obama just sort of dreamed up and thought was a good idea. In June 12th of 2008, President Bush, in -- through Condoleezza Rice, who signed the memorandum with the P5+1, said that, in return for Iran doing things with their nuclear program, here's what we were ready to do: recognize Iran's right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, that's all we're doing. Treat Iran's nuclear program in the same manner as that of any non-nuclear weapons state party to the NPT once international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature is restored. Provide technical and financial assistance for peaceful nuclear energy, including the state-of-the-art power reactor, support for R&D and legally binding fuel supply guarantees. Improve relations with Iran and support Iran in playing an important and constructive role in international affairs. Think about that. Work with Iran and others in the region on confidence-building measures and regional security, reaffirmation of the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force, cooperation on Afghanistan, steps toward normalization of trade and economic relations, energy partnership, civilian projects, civil aviation cooperation, assistance in Iran's economic and social development. All of that was offered by President George W. Bush June 12th, 2008, but didn't happen because Iran was not... (CROSSTALK) CORKER: You're sort of filibustering here. The one element that you left out that they did not agree to is... KERRY: ... was stopping... CORKER: ... to allow... KERRY: ... enriching. CORKER: ... allowing them to enrich. So if I could, so, you did... KERRY: But... CORKER: Senator Menendez? (UNKNOWN) Let... (CROSSTALK) KERRY: That's fine. MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start off by saying that I appreciate the enormous work and the arduous quest that you have been in pursuit of. And I think that no one would want to be applauding you more than I, who has been following Iran since my days in the House International Relations Committee nearly 20 years ago and as one of the authors of the sanctions regime that are recognized to bring Iran to the negotiating table. However, I am concerned that the deal enshrines for Iran and, in fact, commits the international community over time to assisting Iran in developing an industrial scale nuclear power program complete with industrial scale enrichment. And while I understand the program's going to be subject to Iran's NPT obligations, I think it fails to appreciate Iran's history of deception in its nuclear program and its violations of the NPT. And it will, in the long run, I think, make it harder to demonstrate that Iran's program is not, in fact, being used for peaceful purpose because Iran will have legitimate reasons to have advanced centrifuges and an enrichment program. We will then have to demonstrate if, in fact, that is the case, that its intention is dual use and not justified by its industrial nuclear power program. That's a much more difficult burden. Now, Mr. Secretary, you've always been skeptical about sanctions. I know you sort of like embrace them here today. But when you were chairman of this committee in a hearing on sanctions legislation that I was authoring, when the administration was vigorously, vigorously arguing against it, your comment was to Wendy Sherman and David Cohen, so what you are really saying is that this is a very blunt instrument which risks adverse reaction as opposed to a calculated effort. So in that hearing -- I remember I had to come back because I didn't expect that even the question of the amendment was going to come up. And they were there, trying to excoriate the effort. It passed 99-0 and then subsequently was embraced by the administration as the reason why Iran has come back to the negotiating table. So let me ask, under the sanctions heading of the agreement, paragraph 26 says, and I quote, "the United States administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the president and the Congress, will refrain from reintroducing or reimposing sanctions specified in annex 2, which is basically the sanctions that this committees and the Congress passed, that has ceased applying under the JPO (ph). So Secretary Lew, I read that to mean that we cannot reintroduce or reimpose the existing sanctions that Congress passed into law. Is that right? LEW: Senator, we have been very clear that we retain our right and we will, if we need to, reimpose sanctions for reasons that are not nuclear, if they live with the nuclear agreement and they violate other... (CROSSTALK) MENENDEZ: No, I'm talking about existing nuclear sanctions, which expire next year, if snapback provisions of the sanctions are to be an effective deterrent as the administration has suggested of Iranians breaking the agreement, will the administration agree to support the reauthorization of the existing sanctions that passed the Senate 99-0, and which expire next year? Yes or no? LEW: So let me be clear that the sanctions that are being lifted, if Iran complies, if they comply, we said we would not reimpose nuclear sanctions if they live with the nuclear agreement. MENENDEZ: I know. But my point is this. If you're going to snap back, you got to snap back to something. LEW: But... MENENDEZ: So if you're not snapping back... LEW: Senator, let me finish... (CROSSTALK) MENENDEZ: Please, don't eat up my time. I'm sorry, with all due respect, don't eat up my time. If, in fact, the sanctions which exist that you all heralded and said brought Iran to the table expire next year, 2016, and we don't reauthorize it, there is nothing at least in that context to snap back to. MENENDEZ: So why won't you simply say that the administration supports, under all the same provisions, including the president's waivers, the reauthorization of those sanctions so that the Iranians know if they violate that the snapback will also include snapback to what the Congress passed. LEW: Senator, what I said earlier was that right now the sanctions remain in effect. We have a regime in effect. If Iran complies, we will lift sanctions and it's premature to talk about extending a law... MENENDEZ: This expires next year. Iran's obligations go out at least eight years before the ratification of the additional protocol, and that ratification only takes place if Congress lifts the sanctions. So I don't understand how we ultimately have a credible belief that snapback means something, if in fact, you're not have the ability to have those sanctions in place. Let me ask this to the secretary. Is the president willing to make a clear and unequivocal statement, not that all options are all the table because Iran does not believe that's a credible military threat
WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WITH JEN PSAKI - HEAD ON
FS23 WH PRESS BRFG HEAD ON POOL 3 CBS POOL WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WITH JEN PSAKI [13:06:19] PSAKI>> Hello. So, joining us today is Ambassador Roberta Jacobson, coordinator for the southern border. was the U. S ambassador to Mexico from 2016 to 2018. She previously served as U.S Assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere. Fairs I had the pleasure of working with her at that time, and has focused on Latin America for more than 30 years as a career civil servant. She's going to give some remarks and then happy to take some questions. And as always, I will be the bad cop. Thank you for joining. So Thank you all. JACOBSON>> Good afternoon. Wasn't Biden has made clear from day one that he wants to change our immigration system. Doing so means truly building back better. Because we can't just undo four years of the previous [13:07:22] administration's actions overnight. 130718 Those actions didn't just neglect our immigration system. They intentionally made it worse. When you add a pandemic to that, it's clear it will take significant time to overcome. We must build a better immigration system that reflects our values as Americans, enforces our laws, safeguards public health, and moves away from cycles of irregular migration. 130742 Today, I'm here to talk about what we are doing with partners in Mexico and Central America to ensure that people don't make this dangerous journey and instead have opportunities for economic advancement and safety at home. The President has committed to seeking $4 billion over four years to address the root causes of migration, including corruption, violence, and economic devastation exacerbated by climate change. [13:08:09] As part of that plan, we will address the causes that compel individuals to migrate, including improving governance and providing a foundation for investment and economic opportunity. Strengthening civilian security and the rule of law. Working across the whole of government. We will look at access to international protection and refugee resettlement. And rethinking asylum processing to ensure fair and faster consideration. Only by addressing those root causes. Can we break the cycle of desperation and provide hope for families who clearly would prefer to stay in their countries and provide a better future for their Children? President Biden when he was vice president visited the region many times and is clear eyed about the challenge. Insists now, as he did, then the government's commit to being true partners in creating the conditions for growth and security. I want to emphasize that the funds were asking for from Congress don't go to government leaders. They go to communities to training to climate mitigation to violence prevention to anti gang programs. In other words, they [13:09:23] go to the people who otherwise migrate in search of hope. And they will have to have the participation of the private sector's in those countries. For too long, have evaded taxes, underpaid workers and failed to be part of the solution to creating safe, prosperous and democratic countries. We've already begun. Specific actions to both undo the previous administration's policies and to advance a new vision of immigration. We have ended the so called migrant protection protocols, which sent people back to Mexico to wait sometimes for years for a chance to present their asylum claims. Working with the government of Mexico international organizations and ngos. We have safely admitted over 1400 migrants and closed the most dangerous face of the mpp. Matamoros Migrant camp. Today we're announcing the restarting of the Central American Minors Program for Children to be reunited with he parent who is legally in the United States. This program was ended abruptly by the [13:10:23] previous administration, leaving around 3000 Children already approved for travel stranded. In Phase two will be working to improve the camp program to expand safe and legal avenues for to the United States. 131033 I want to be clear. Neither in this -- neither this announcement nor any of the other measures suggest that anyone, especially children and families with young children should make the dangerous trip to try and enter the U. S in an irregular fashion. The border is not open. [13:10:51] Going forward. We will continue to look for ways to provide legal avenues in the region for people needing protection while we continue to enforce our laws. This is a process. We have a great deal to do. But this administration has made significant progress and we will continue to do so. It reflects who we are as Americans putting our values at the center of our policy. Thank you. Q>> You were doing this refer [13:11:25] to this $4 billion that the administration is seeking. Are you seeking this as part of a larger comprehensive immigration package or as a stand alone Bill? 131128 JACOBSON> Well, I think what you'll see is that $4 billion in a Central American Northern Triangle strategy will be part of our foreign assistance request and will focus on the things we know that work. [13:11:43] Obviously it's not our first rodeo, that vice president the president when he was vice president worked on these issues. We know how to get money to communities that are most likely. To send migrants but also that are suffering the greatest effective to hurricanes this season, etcetera, so it will be part of our overall foreign assistance package. In the meantime, we're focused on getting humanitarian assistance to these countries after hurricane said to an iota, so in that sense, it's part of a larger plan. But obviously there are parts of this that will be on the domestic side as [13:12:25] well to fix the whole extent of our immigration processing. Q>> What is the administration doing right now? To work with these home countries to send a message? People don't come here. Don't send your Children here, right? JACOBSON>> Well I think you know, one of the most important things is to make sure that. We get communications right? And the message right and I'm happy to repeat that, 131247 But I think it's also important that we work with the international organizations that have very credible voices and have very good networks among migrant sending communities to dispel the myths and misinformation that smugglers are using. Right? When we talk about the border not being open, and, you know, the ways in which we're trying to dissuade people from making that dangerous journeys, the smugglers are conveying exactly the opposite people. [13:13:15] So we need to make sure we get that message out. We also need to be looking at things like the camp program. The Central American Minors Program as they talked about. And how we can expand that How we can make that. You know, eligibility greater, 131330 But the next step is to look at solutions in the region, right? What more can we do to process people legally who really do require protection so they don't have to make that journey? [13:13:44] and we're looking at all of those things. Q>> And finally you said that this isn't your first rodeo. Should the administration have been better prepared to handle? This influx of Children before it changed the policy, allowing them to stay in the country. JACOBSON>> I think there's a couple things I think What we're doing right now is making a difference in the home countries beginning to work with governments. You know that couldn't start until January. 20th there. There is one government at a time. You can't start changing processes of government building facilities. All of this is part of the plan as quickly as possible to make sure that our [13:14:28] domestic processes work more smoothly more quickly as I mentioned, but also to work with foreign governments, and you can't do that. Obviously till January 20th when you when you take over, but. Have been multiple engagements with the government of Mexico it very high level with the government of Guatemala with the hunger and government in Salvadoran In the first six weeks of government, So I think we've gotten off to a big start a fast start. In that engagement. Thank you, Gentle man Investor on Honduras. How did the administration downs his need for cooperation from that government with ongoing concerns about corruption there? Particularly federal prosecutors, who would say that the president is working on a plan to flood the United States with cocaine. I think one of the things that I made clear in the opening comments, which I want to reiterate, is that none of the money that we're looking to get from from Congress from the taxpayers of the United States goes to government leaders. So I don't think that [13:15:30] means that presidents are unimportant in these countries, but I do think that it's important to understand that we will be working with civil society. With international organizations and international ngos on the ground. We will work with officials that we can work with, but we also think it's really important. But these countries make commitments really explicit commitments to advancing on anti corruption. And in some places that will be hard to do if you've got officials for whom. There is a cloud and I think we need to work with the organizations that we can in countries. In some places. We will work with religious organizations, ngos with etcetera. It's a challenge in countries that have confronted serious corruption risks. What mechanism is in place where how do you possibly safeguard. That [13:16:32] funding to make sure it stays out of the hands and perhaps crept politicians. Well I think one of the things that we've always done. Always and 31. Years of the state Department has taught me this is we do end use monitoring right? Our embassies and people that we work with are looked at before their recipients of funds. And we do checks and we look at what's being done with the funds, right? We also don't deliver money. In most cases, we delivered training we deliver. New lighting facilities that reduce violence and crime S. Oh, so a lot of what you do, it's not handing over blank checks, and I think that's really important in this. Q>> Thank you very much. You're talking about restarting Cam. These other long term goals for what immigration policy should look like. But right now, New CNN reporting shows that unaccompanied migrant Children are being held in these border patrol facilities. Or on average 107 hours That's up from I believe 77 hours on average last week. So what is the bite [13:17:32] administration doing right now to fix that? JACOBSON>> I think you know my part of this focuses. Much more on what we're doing at the end of this process in Central America and Mexico. 131741 I think all of us at every stage of this process are doing everything we can to make sure that children are well cared for and moved into facilities that are appropriate for them. [13:17:55] But I want to make a point again that it's really important that people not make the dangerous journey in the first place that we provide them with alternatives to making that journey. Because it's not safe. On route on dsa. So you know if I could just emphasize that that it's really important that that message get out because the perception is not the same as the reality in terms of the border, not being open. We want to provide through camp through [13:18:34] other mechanisms, ways for some of these young people to be reunited with family members in the United States. [SPEAKING SPANISH] 131855 Q>> You're telling them not to come -- just to follow up quickly. You're telling them they should not come. Would you describe what's happening on the border as a crisis given how these numbers are spiking so much week by week? 131905 You know, I think that I really -- I'm not trying to be cute here. But I think the fact of the matter is we have to do what we do regardless of what anybody calls the situation. And the fact is, we are all focused on improving the situation, on changing to a more humane and efficient system. And whatever you call it, it wouldn't change what we're doing, because we have urgency from the president on down to fix our system and make sure that we are better at dealing with the hopes and the dreams of these migrants in their home country. 131945 Q>> Do you think it's a coincidence that as soon as Trump and his immigration policy were on the way out and Biden and his stated policy were on the way in, this historic surge at the border started? 131956 JACOBSON>>> Well, first of all, one of the things I think is important is we've seen surges before. Surges tend to respond to hope. And there was a significant hope for a more humane policy after four years of, you know, pent up demand. So, I don't know whether I would call that a coincidence. But I certainly think that the idea that a more humane policy would be in place may have driven people to make that decision. 132027 But perhaps more importantly, it definitely drove smugglers to express disinformation, to spread disinformation about what was now possible. [13:20:40] Q>> We know that the change in administrations brought hope. Then from your perspective is this search good? JACOBSON>> I don't think that's what I just said. I think it's a reflection of how migrants feel at a particular time. I think what we are doing is making sure that we respond to that hope for people who need protection. We respond to that hope in a way that their cases can be adjudicated more quickly. But I don't think anybody would say that coming to the United States in an irregular fashion is a good thing. That's why I've tried repeatedly to dissuade. People from from listening to those smugglers, but we're going to try our best to do everything we can at each end of this in the United States, but especially in Central America and Mexico. To ensure we have safe, orderly and legal migration. President fighting [13:21:42] when he was president, very active on working with the northward triangle countries, and I was just wondering where their lessons that you are here. Other administration officials, many whom are in jobs in this administration. Have learned about how to deal with those countries or how to deal with foreign aid to them that are informing how you're approaching things now, and that's the kind of follow up a little bitn what Peter was asking. Uh, Are you concerned at all of that kind of mixed messaging tt at the same time that you're telling people not to come that the journey is dangerous because you are offering this this talk about more humanitarian process that people. Not, you know, pay attention to the fact that they could apply from home from their home country that they would still come that they're still so hopeful that there really is kind of a conflicting message coming from Washington. Your federal. So on the first question the question of learning things from when the vice president was leading a lot of our efforts in Central America Previously, I think, [13:22:43] yes, that's a resounding yes. Both the president and all of us who worked with him on that for him on that learned a great deal, and I think that it's really important that we put that to use. Now. One of the things he thinks is so important is being really explicit. With leadership in the countries from which migrants are coming about commitments that they need to make because overcing the reasons people migrate. He's not gonna be the United States job alone, right if we realize that it's lack of good governance, economic opportunity and security issues of violence. Then some of those require commitments by the governments on anti corruption and transparency on creating governments that function better to provide services for their country. So He's very clear on being. Sure that we gethose commitments from leaders and holding them to it right. The money is not a tap [13:23:44] that gets turned on all at once. You have to make sure that you're continuing to follow those issues. So I think there's a lot of things we learned. And a lot of things we learned about ensuring that funds get to Communities that are really in need, whether it's post Hurricane or coffee rust, which was ravaging Guatemala and Honduras, or, you know a historic drought. 132401 I think when you look at the issue of mixed messages, it is difficult at times to convey both hope in the future and the danger that is now, and that is what we're trying to do. And I -- I will certainly agree that we are trying to walk and chew gum at the same time. We are trying to convey to everybody in the region that we will have legal processes for people in the future, and we're standing those up as soon as we can. 132437 But, at the same time, you cannot come through irregular means. It's dangerous, and, you know, the majority of people will be sent out of the United States, because that is the truth of it. We want to be honest with people. And so, we are trying to send both messages and smugglers are only trying to send one message. [13:25:04] So we're relying on every means we can to get that. Message out there and that leads me to wanna reiterate as I did before L a from terrorists Tessera. Yes. No Anselmo Mental winning guru Momenta is a propaganda. The tells in the money. Iraq. Drew. Say a word more about what you're talking about You from the private sector. Explain what your enjoy winning there and like, what exactly do you need? And then just to sort of the second question. You kno you're talking about being really explicit with these countries. But what sort of leverage does the United States actually have. To Effect change [13:25:53] in those countries. But what exactly can you do? Yeah. Let me take that second one first only because. Look in the end. I think the implication of your question which is quite right is we can't make the changes. We can encourage them. We can help. Support them with resource is both technical assistance and funding, but we can't make those changes. The changes have to come in the Northern Triangle countries. What I should say is my own experience from traveling to those places. There are myriad people in organizations who are trying to make those changes and part of what we want to do is empower them. Whether that's more effective, um, you know, Economic support, whether it's training for young people, whether it's anti gang programs, whher it's mother's clubs and empowering local communities, all of that gets done through people on the ground, not by the United States. So we want [13:26:53] to be able to empower those actors. I also think that it's really important when you say what leverage do you have? Well I do think that working as partners with these countries means sitting down and talking about what we could do together. 132705 But also if American taxpayers' funds are going to be used, then that is a certain amount of leverage. The President really wants to move forward on this, but he won't unless he feels he has those commitments on an ongoing basis. Is that leverage? You know, funds are -- are sometimes important means of having that conversation. [13:27:28] Your first question was on. Q>> Let me let me discuss it with. You can't follow up. You have to go back to the first one will you? I mean, are you saying exicitly? The U. S could withhold funding. With the Red State Department aide Rusch JACOBSON>> You know, I think I think the really important thing to know is [13:27:53] we're looking forward to getting this, um. Proposal before Congress and having Congress Act on it and what comes after that, You know, I just don't know. You know, the unexamined of branch can always. You know, adjust things like that. I also think it's really important to understand you asked about the private sector. 132808 The private sector in all of these countries, in Central America in particular, is a really important player here. And I think, to be very honest, we have not seen them step up. [13:28:22] One of the mechanisms that was really effective under the Obama Biden administration was for every dollar that the U. S put into an assistance program. We asked for private sector organizations, local chambers of commerce or business organizations. To either match us or exceed us. This gives the private sector skin in the game it make sure that they are part of the solution. If the government's in these countries don't always [13:28:54] have enough resource is to do what they should to improve the economic opportunity for people. There are private sector organizations and members of the private sector, the business community. We need to be part of that solution, and so we just feel that that's really an important element to this. We talked about international organizations, Governments, ngos, I don't want to leave out the business community as a participant ok, last two less three if you have time. Thank you. To follow up a number of question. I mean, I understand what you're saying. You have to empower the civil societies at least part countries, But can you make the link between empowering those civil societies and actually eliminate eliminating the push back there to stop him from coming? To this country, so how much of it is an international age policy versus an anti, You know, um, immigration policy. That's my first question. And then the second one if you could speak more specifically about the requirements that you're. Making to these countries in terms of anti [13:29:55] corruption practices. What are the specific measures of success and how to ensure that there? Yeah, well on the first question, I think this is. Both unturned national aid issue as well as as a policy issue both for us and the countries that we're working with. On the one hand, it is clearly a resource issue. You have to greater than category for hurricanes and then iota within a 15 Day period. You've got reports that suggest that. Literally multiple millions of people in Guatemala and Honduras are food insecure Now that is clearly something you need to be looking at humanitarian assistance and aid to try and remedy. Now in the longer term. When you're looking at increased pace of natural disastersecause of climate change, or you're looking at ways to. Ensure that agricultural policy changes in [13:30:55] countries or that training is given or that students, including girls remain in school. Those are longer term policy questions. That need to be addressed with our partners in the region because they all have an impact on whether migration flows increase or not. And so when the president talks about root causes. Some of this is immediate humanitarian aid, but a lot of it is policy and aid together, making sure that you tackle the root causes of migration. Otherwise, what you see is continued cycles. Right to break that cycle of migration sustainably, you have to work both. On the on the specific commitments for governments. I think that's something that we would want to discuss with the countries involved before we discuss it publicly. Things. The president's executive powers. Do you think the president will consider using his executive powers to reunite families who have been separated under a 00 tolerance? [13:31:57] Well, that certainly. Outside of the family Reunification task force that was created which is exactly to do that. You know that. Are you talking about people who are not in the same country families that were that was separated what the president used anymore. Executive powers. I'm sorry, but you need families who were separated when in the United States are doing zero tolerance and well, that's exactly what the family reunification task force is doing Nothing beyond that. It deals with the whole universe of people separated during that policy, so not that I know of. Okay Last turn back. Questions Congress appropriated almost $1.4 billion with this fiscal year for the border wall that you're not building how much of that is left? Are you guys redirecting it at all? And what along the border right now. Secondly you discussed messaging arguably your predecessors entire theory of their immigration agenda was that they were trying to send [13:32:57] this message. Don't come. America is closed the regular migration. So obviously you're pursuing something policies But what can you actually do differently than they did to try to get that message? If you know it wasn't fixed already with that kind of oppressive messages. On the first question regarding the border while the president has been very clear about ending the national emergency or the emergency of the border that was used to justify the wall, and obviously not proceeding with it. T he exact. Legal requirements and where that those funds might go. I just I just don't know. I'm sorry. Let me let me talk about the message issue. I mean, I think. I think it's really important to understand that Okay? 133344 You can't and shouldn't say in this administration's opinion that the only way to message "do not come in irregular fashion" is to act as cruelly as you possibly can, separate children from their parents, return people to places that, like the camp -- migrant camp in Matamoros, you know for up to two plus years at a time, and that's the only way that you could get your message across. 133411 This administration's belief is that we can get our message across that it is a more humane policy by opening up avenues of legal migration which will encourage people to take those legal options and go through the asylum process if they're seeking that and not take the irregular road. 133436 I think you have to find different ways to message. But if messaging reflects your actions, that is why we are increasing the actions for legal migration so that the message is, you have another option. I'm from back. Q>> Thank [13:35:00] you. Let me ask you a question in Spanish for our audience [SPANISH] [13:35:14] JACOBSON>> [answers in Spanish] [13:36:51] Q>> [SPANISH] JACOBSON>> [answers in Spanish] [13:37:59] PSAKI>> Okay? I can't promise you'll always be that rapid when I promised to bring someone to the briefing room, But we'll try. We'll do our best. Well, we'll do our best couple of other items for all of you at the top. 133813 With today's expected passage of the Rescue Plan, I can announce that the President will sign the bill at the White House on Friday afternoon. We've spent a lot of time, of course, from the podium talking about the mechanics of how a bill becomes a law, and I know there's lots of interest in what comes next. So once it's passed, the bill text will be rechecked, printed, and signed by the appropriate leaders in the House and Senate. 133834 The House coach will then deliver it to the White House for the president's signature. We expect that delivery to happen sometime tomorrow, and then the President will sign it on Friday. [13:38:44] We, of course, are moving full speed ahead on the implementation of the bill because we know the American people need help. I need it as soon as possible. The way we are also working on looking ahead to implementation. I wanted to make sure you all saw [13:39:03] Secretary Yellen speech before the National League of Cities yesterday, promising to get at eight out to state and local governments. Obviously this is a key component of the package and one that will help keep. Cops, firefighters. Local officials in their jobs on we're looking there. They're looking for ways to maximize, of course, the impact of every dollar. That's exactly what the president did when he served as the point person on the implementation of the Recovery Act in 2009, partnering with mayors, governors and other officials to get help to them quickly and in a way that kept waste fraud and abuse to 2/10 of 1, 133935 So he knows directly that the passage and signing of the bill is just the beginning, and he will -- he plans to appoint somebody to run point on implementation. I don't have any personnel announcements today, but that will certainly be part of our path moving forward. Also today, as you know, the President will join the CEOs of Johnson & Johnson and Merck to discuss their historic partnership that will produce more lifesaving vaccines for Americans and the world. 134002 President Biden also announced that he is directing -- he is planning to direct -- he's directing, I should say, Jeff Zients, our covid coordinator, and HHS, and the HHS team to procure an additional 100 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. He's doing this because in a wartime effort, which is what we consider this, we need maximum flexibility. 134023 We want to be oversupplied and over-prepared. There's also a chance that we'll encounter an unexpected challenge on new need in our vaccination efforts, and we're preparing for just that. [13:40:32] The president also discussed the meeting today at the meeting is having today during his remarks and also address, of course, are the passage of the rescue plan during those remarks as well. Last item. I believe here. What's going on here today? On March 18th 19th, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Tony Blinken will meet with Director Gangjee Tour and State [13:41:04] Councilor Wang G. And Anchorage of China. Of course, the meeting will follow the president's convening of the quad at the leader level, as well as his participation in the G seven. Leaders meeting just a few weeks ago, Secretary Blinken on Secretary Austin's trip to Japan and Korea, two of our closest regional allies and national security Advisor Sullivan's multiple engagements with Japanese Korean, Australian, Canadian and European counterparts, including European quad meeting next week. It was important to us that this administration's first meeting with Chinese officials be held American soil and occur after we have met and consulted closely with partners and allies in both Asia and Europe. And as you know, my number of those conversations have happened at the presidential level and, of course at the secretary of state and National Secity Advisor level as well. Meeting is an opportunity to address a wide range of issues, including ones where we have deep disagreements. We intend to discuss her expectations and will be frank and explaining Beijing's actions and behavior behavior Challenge. To the [13:42:06] security, prosperity and our concerns about challenges. They post the security on values of the United States and our allies and partners. We will also talk about areas where we can cooperate of mutual interests on we're coming to these discussions, of course. Clear eyed. The meeting also provides an opportunity to emphasize H the United States will stand up for the rules based international system and a free and open Endo Pacific. As the president has said, We approach our relationship with the Chinese from a position of strength in lockstep with our allies and partners. That Go ahead, Jonathan. Q>> Thanks Judge. You said the president will be signing the bill on Friday and you walk us through what will happen next? The president himself has expressed regret that the 2009 got recovery happened was not sold. Well, let's put it to yourself that acknowledge that others veterans of the demonstration field similarly. Can you explain to us what we're going to see from the president from surrogates? How is this message to deliver to the American people? How do you sell this bill? 134258 PSAKI>> Sure. Well, the president, the vice president, the first lady, the second gentleman, a number of members of our Cabinet will be communicating directly with the American people, engaging directly with the American people, and all sending a clear message: help is on the way. [13:43:15] Over the next few weeks. We're going to swiftly put in place implementation plans. I've touched on a little bit of that. Andre plans to get aid to the people in places that need it the most as quickly as possible. This'll is, of course, a continuation of the work we've done over the last two months to build support for the rescue plan, communicating directly with the American people building support among mayors, governors, labor leaders, the business community and other stakeholders. 134338 We'll be emphasizing a number of components that are in the package and really having a conversation. This is important to the president personally. Having a conversation directly with people about how they could benefit, addressing questions they have, even taking their feedback on implementation and how to make it clear. [13:43:55] and we've talked a little bit about in here. People of questions like. Do I need to do anything to get my check? How do I benefit from the health benefits? What about you know what? What Funding will go to my school? He wants to ensure that people have access to the instant formacion 134410 So, he will be hitting the road. The vice president will be hitting the road. The first lady will be hitting the road. We will have people out communicating directly in communities, but we'll also use a range of tools at our disposal, including engaging in -- communicating through digital means, doing local interviews, and also utilizing a number of members of our Cabinet cabinet who have key roles in the implementation. [13:44:34] I referenced Secretary Yellin, of course in her role. Obviously the Iris has some key roles here, but he will be tapping into the Cabinet to also play a role in communicating and engaging with the public. Following this and one other matter on this, you know President Auntie is addressing the nation's right in prime time. Is this part of it? The idea of what happens next because of the package going to be. Part of that speech. We preview a little bit about what the message the American people is going to be to morning I expect we'll have more toe say tomorrow about the speech, and I want to just give him a [13:45:11] chance to go through the speech again and make sure I'm previewing it in a way that is consistent with where it will land. 134511 But as I've talked about a little bit in here, this is -- tomorrow marks the 50th day of the administration. It also marks one year since the country shut down. And the President believes it is important to take a look back of the journey the American people have been on, the sacrifices that have been made, the lives that have been lost, and also look ahead. And he will be talking more about how he will approach this war against the pandemic moving forward and lay out some more specifics of what the American people can expect. [13:45:43] U N report out today says the U. S Is among the countries lagging behind on climate friendly projects in covid Economic recovery Spending Club What is this administration has started moving forward on the $2 trillion climate change package that was such a big part of that candidate. Fighting's campaign. PSAKI>> It's only day 49. Jonathan We're about to pass a [13:46:11] historic the most Progressive bill in American history. It's be a passing today. Look I would say that the president believes that and he talked about this on the campaign trail is a zoo you mentioned was certainly a promise of his that. We can create the United States and many other countries around the world will will focus on here can create good paying union jobs that are also consistent with our objective of just addreing the climate crisis, and certainly that is central to how he's thinking about his agenda. Moving forward. Those policy discussions Air Sil ongoing but I can assure you that. He intends to Dever on the promises he made on the campaign trail on intends to deliver on the promises he made about creating good paying union jobs that also are consistent with his goal of addressing climate. ISIS. I should say, Go ahead on the 100 million new does since you said that the goal is to be over supply. What's the goal for that over supplies to be held in reserve for kids? Is it to be donated to other countries? Is it. To be held in reserve in [13:47:13] case people need to get shots again next year. What's the plan for that extra dosage Well first, the president's focus every day when he makes up is ensuring every American week. We can ensure that every American has access to a vaccine and that we are vaccinating the people in this country. But here a couple of the factors that we're have have weighed in on our decision to purchase. An additional 100 million doses. 134731 We still don't know which vaccine will be most effective on kids. We still don't know the impact of variants or the need for booster shots. And these doses can be used for booster shots as well as needed. Obviously, that's still being studied by the FDA. But, again, we want to be over prepared, as I noted earlier. 134749 We also need maximum flexibility. So Johnson & Johnson, the vaccine has unique benefits. It's a one shot vaccine. It can be stored in the fridge and not a freezer. It's highly effective, as the others are as well, against hospitalization and death. But we are really looking for maximum flexibility here, as we are still considering a couple of those pieces I mentioned, which is most effective with children, the effectiveness on addressing variants, and, and, of course, boosters as I noted. 134819 Q>> And then on the COVID relief bill, which is being voted on in the House right now, how quickly will school districts be able to access that money, and will they be able to implement it in time to make safety changes for this school year, which in many parts of the country is only the last another three months? 134836 You're absolutely right, and a fair amount of the funding is also -- we expect will be likely used for forward planning, right? So, so schools that need to plan for, we need to hire temporary teachers right now, but we need to ensure we can keep them on the job in a year, in two years. We need to make facility upgrades. 134854 It really depends school to school. In terms of the timeline for implementation, I know that's something that our Department of Education is going to be looking at. [13:49:02] And of course, the implementation team that will be focused on getting these dollars out the door so we will certainly plan to give you an update as we have a [13:49:16] better time line on the on the calendar. Q>> On another front registered journalist, Andrea Support is currently on trial over her coverage of a racial justice protest. Last summer. She's been charged with failure to disperse and interference with official access. The find administration believes that these charges should be dropped and will the president or anyone in the administration urged Polk County, Iowa prosecutors. Drop the charges. PSAKI>> I'm happy to discuss this with our team. I'm not as familiar with the case, but I will look into it. We'll get you back and answer. Q>> Sure Dracula first off has President Biden been briefed yet by his delegation that went to the border over the weekend. And does he now feel the need to go to the border if he has been briefed by the. 134951 PSAKI>> Sure. Well I can confirm for you that the President did receive a briefing earlier today from members of his team that visited the border region this past weekend. I will note, he receives regular briefings on immigration, and the economy, on COVID, on a range of issues that the country and the administration is facing. He heard from the delegation on what they observed during their visit to the border region and the facilities they toured. 135015 But they all -- they spent the majority of their time discussing what steps can be taken to expedite processes to move more quickly, to move the process more quickly to meet the administration's goal of getting these children placed with vetted and confirmed families. Moving them quickly, as related to your question earlier, out of border patrol facilities and into these shelters and then ultimately into these homes. 135037 I don't have anything to preview for you in terms of a trip. Obviously, a delegation going to the border and visiting these facilities is something that can be done with a much smaller footprint than the president of the United States traveling, but I don't have anything to preview in terms of a trip. [13:50:52] Q>> And earlier you said you're going to where the president is going to pick someone to kind of run the implementation of the coronavirus relief package. Does the White House anticipate that there could be delays in implementing that because it is such a big bill? PSAKI>> No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't imply our I was not trying to imply that on Lee that we know that this will not all be implemented in four days [13:51:19] or a week or what have you This will take some time on. 135116 And we want to ensure that there is a person responsible and accountable to the implementation. That's something the president felt worked when he was vice president, and so it was an indication of that. [13:51:25] But there are a number of Cabinet members who also played pivotal roles here. A reference, of course, Secretary Yellen Secretary Cardona will play a pivotal role, of course in the reopening of schools, and so they're already officials within the administration. But this this could be it has been used in the past is that more of a coordinating mechanism and how long do you think that implementation will take? I can't give you really a timeline of that. Obviously there are things they're different components as you well know, right, getting the checks out the door. Our Treasury, a team and our economic team are crunching the numbers on that. We hope to have an update for all of you soon on that. Obviously reopening schools, as Nancy was asking AUT it really is school district of school district in terms of what their needs what their needs will be which schools need funding which district's need funding? There are things like unemployment insurance, which [13:52:20] obviously is applied through different mechanisms. So there are pieces of this that are just going to be implemented over time. Some that could be Dunmore. Rapidly and quickly, but obviously this is our focus and are our priority in the days ahead. Last question on Johnson and Johnson, he is going to announce that they were trying to get another. 100 million doses this afternoon, but the administration told governors yesterday on their weekly called They should only expect to get 400,000 doses of Johnson and Johnson vaccine next week. That is far behind what the Johnson Johnson contract with the federal government. They were supposed to have ready when it was authorized by the fda. So is he going to confront the Johnson and Johnson executives? He's meeting with today about why they are so far behind on production. Well, as you know, Caitlyn, we hey, invoked the Defense Production act in part because he wanted Torno and our team Jeff Science and others have been working closely with Johnson and Johnson and Merck, of course, to expedite the production of vaccines to ensure that they could be. Available on the timeline they've committed to. 135319 I will say that this 100 million that was announced -- that's being announced this afternoon is more for the second half of this year and not for -- it's not -- we're not adding additional doses expected on that same timeline. But I'm certain they will be discussing, of course, the need to ensure that the deadlines are met and that, that we have the vaccines and the doses needed to get them in the arms of the American people. Go ahead, Andrew. Q>> So other vaccine the head of the W T, O and others are calling for greater efforts to be made by advanced economies, big countries in rich countries to get more vaccine into developing countries. You just announced that you wanna be over para here in the U. S. And what is the United States soon and sure that these vaccines get out to other countries and do you favor a waiver of intellectual property? Protections under the wt O to ensure that that moves more quickly, or, you know what's [13:54:24] your perspective and a kind of a third way that would be just increasing license? PSAKI>> First the president is deeply focused on the issue of expanding global vaccinations and manufacturing and delivery, which will be critical to end the pandemic. But as we've also said he is first and foremost focused on ensuring Americans have access to vaccines as soon as possible. Uh in the in this period of time on, we've obviously made a great deal of progress on that front. I don't anything more to preview for you in terms of what that will look like we first need to focus on right now. We're still in a circumstance where there isn't enough supply for the for the number of Americans who want to get the vaccination, so that's really our focus at this point in time, but certainly it's a point of discussion. With his counterparts and with a the counter parts of other members of our national security team. Say anything about the river. I don't have anything more for you to predict that question of vaccinating Children. You mentioned that you're not sure which vaccine will be most effective. Actually has talked [13:55:25] about getting high school students vaccinated fell in elementary school kids in the spring. You have a sense of when every American. Could be death. Maybe I mean, you know, you know, we've talked about having enough on hand for adults to be vaccinated by this summer. By the end of May, actually, Well, we will have enough supply right? But the president is the first to say that we can't do this alone, And that's certainly a component of this That is vitally important is ensuring that. People understand across the country that these vaccines are safe and they are effective and we're still going to focus on combating the issues of misinformation. And of course, the vaccine hesitancy in a range of communities you have today, as you know, would be the ones running point on approval of vaccines for Children. I can't really predict. When Children will be vaccinated. We don't know when the fda may approve a vaccine, but our role is ensuring [13:56:26] there's enough supply and that there is enough distribution. We've made a great deal of progress on that more work to be done, but I can't make any predictions beyond that. But. A couple things first President Biden when he was vice president, Kind of was the person who ran point on the 2009 recovery Bill. Would you expect that Vice President Harris might take on civil rule he had, you know? Give General lot put her in a very similar position to the one that he had with President Obama. That's true. I mean, the president has said that he wants the vice president to be the first in the room and the last in the room when he has important briefings when they're important policy decisions and discussions that are taking place, And that certainly is how he is operating, or they're operating as a team together in terms of what role she may play in the implementation. I don't have anything to preview for you on that She will certainly be traveling. She's a key. Voice and asset for the [13:57:26] administration, and she'll be communicating about the impact of the of the American rescue plan and how it's going to help with the American people over the course of the next few weeks. Lank Lean said last night that the president's speech to a joint session of Congress will be for a few weeks. He was kind of suggesting there was gonna be this time period. The administration. It's focused on. Promoting the bill that just passed. Can you kind of confirm that and provide any more information on sort of how you're thinking about the rest of March into April? You know, promoting this. They're fever since moving on to the fullback Better Sure, I don't have an exact breakdown of timeline. And I don't think Ron wasn't intending to give one either on Lee to convey, which is, I think what? You're asking that the president, the vice president and all of us in the administration believe it's important to take a moment to or a few moments I should say to communicate directly with the American people about. The [13:58:26] benefits of the package to ensure they understand that help is on the way and a range of forms and to do that, in communities and directly with people who were hoping understand the benefits of this package S O I expect that to mean a couple of trips for the president, the vice president, others, but I don't have kind of an end date for that on certainly par of the part of the focus internally is on ongoing discussions about what is next and what components of the president's build back. Better agenda. What the order is the format the size and there's just those decisions have been finalized quite yet. One other thing that you'd kind of into you might have an answer for yesterday, which is another thing related to Ron. That clearing National Clearinghouse for Vaccine informatio. Way here in the Blue Merc theater heard, And Justify no answer on very excited about the website, which which many people are. You know, I would say, you know. As you know it, the website is being implemented as a vaccine finder, I should say [13:59:27] is being implemented as a pilot program. We've always been open to expanding the pilot program, and we're certainly looking into that. We're also looking into, and others have asked this question. How we can better assist state and local governments who have their own websites where they are utilized by many members of the local community and effective but sometimes they have. Technical issues, So we're looking at addressing it from. Ah, couple of, um. Different directions, but every option remains on the table were also considering setting up call centers. Organizing navigators help to help individuals schedule appointments, which sometimes can be the issue so I don't have a major update, other than to convey that. It's a pilot program. We've always been open to expanding it on. Certainly a range of options remain on the table and sometimes in some states. Their local website is working quite well, and they just need some technical assistance. What. Q>> Jen you've been telling migrants from right there for a month now, probably back to February 10. But now is not the time to come, but ey are coming in [14:00:28] bigger numbers every day. 140025 So, do you have a messaging problem? 140027 PSAKI>> Well, I would say that in the last administration, we had a morality problem, and children were being pulled from the arms of their parents, and kids were being sent back on a treacherous journey, and that's not the approach of this administration. So, certainly we understand that means there will be more kids who are crossing the border. 140047 We made a policy decision that that was the right, humane step to take. But, I think it's also important for people to understand that the vast majority of people who come to our border are turned away, are sent back to their countries. What we're talking about here are unaccompanied children. [14:01:04] and what our focus is on is ensuring that there are safe places for these kids to go that have accent where they have access to educational resource is health and medical attention, legal assistance as need, and that we can expedite the vetting so that they can get to families and sponsors where they can have their case is adjudicated. 140125 Q>> But since the last administration is gone, tomorrow is 50 days of Biden, there are migrants showing up, wearing t-shirts that say, "Biden, please let us in." And candidate Biden is the one who said, "I would end this notion for the first time in history, the people seeking asylum have to be in squalor on the other side of the river." Why doesn't he come out and just say now is not the time? 140145 PSAKI>> Well, he actually did an interview with Univision about a week or week and a half ago where he conveyed a similar message. And we've conveyed that at every opportunity that we have. [14:01:55] I will say we are, as you noted almost 50 days in. We are Diggle digging ourselves out of a broken and dismantled system. Roberta Master Jacobson referenced this in her opening as well when it comes to engage with countries addressing the root causes. We couldn't start doing that until January. 20th There are programs like the relaunching of the Central American Minors Program, which was ended by the prior administration in 2017. And that meant that that that program which would have allowed for people to apply from the region. We had to restart that program, so we're working to fix the mess of the last couple of years. It's going to take some time. But this is clearly a priority for the president. We're looking at a range of options, which include the opening of additional facilities. It includes steps we can take to expedite the processing and includes application and implementation of the CDC guidelines that were just came out that allow for more Children to be house safely in these facilities, so we're looking at every option possible to help address the [14:03:05] challenges. We're facing a life in the White House. It's a problem that when the CDC tells these migrant shelter facilities that they can be a full capacity that they're careful about covid. Many of them do. But when the C D C tells schools that they can open in person at full capacity, many of them don't. Is there a school in particular that you have is an example that didn't do that? Our most schools in this country at full capacity within person learning. Are there a specific school, though that is not following the CDC guidelines of implementing the mitigation steps so they can re open the CDC saying schools you can't be at every school can be at full capacity. With the CDC guys. This CDC guidelines is to be clear because I think this is very important to be very clear and specific on. They gave eight mitigation steps that schools can take to safely reopen. A number of schools have actually recently reopened Schools and Washington D. C [14:04:05] Some have schools in many districts across the country. Each school district needs to make the decision about whether they are able to take those mitigation steps. The president has also been clear. Some of these school district's need additional funding. There's $160 billion in this package that he's going to sign into law later this week. Secretary of Education will be quite focused on working with school district's to help them reopen, but more school district's are reopening. More kids are in classrooms every single day since they are not all back from an administration position or from your perspective. Have the border Patrol unions and the HHS Union's been easier to work with than the teachers unions. I think that's a little bit of mixing different circumstances. I would say that in tight quarters Uhh I mean a classroom, but. Not quite. Not quite. I would say that. Let's let's take a responsible approach to the two issues. Okay, One is schools reopening, [14:05:06] There's been eight mitigation steps that have been announced by the CDC to implement right. Every school district is going to work to implement those on a timeline that is, they can effectively do. Many school districts are reopening right. Many are re opening every single weekend day and week, right, That is a different circumstance than what we're seeing at the border and the HHS overseas defense. These facilities, right they're working with. They're working on ensuring we could have more kids safely. They are working to implement CDC guidelines, but they're different circumstances and certainly we're working with the school district's and we're also working with HHS to open these facilities there to ensure that kids are treated With safety and care in these facilities. Okay, Go ahead. Thanks Dan. Just little bit more on the Clark. You mentioned yesterday that one of the issues that will be discussed it is how the leaders can work together to combat the pandemic. Might. That discussion include a strategy to counter Brexit diplomacy from China and Russia. You know, I think [14:06:10] they'll be a range of topics discussed and I know that is a concern of a number of leaders around the world, including, of course, President Biden on I'm sure we'll have a readout of the quad meeting tomorrow. Once it's completed. More on the announcement that you complete viewers. Can we expect anything in terms of how the spark. He was here in terms of helping others. Again I know they'll discuss a range of issues tomorrow, but I think it's important to just take a quick a little bit of a step back because this is a meeting that covers a range of topics. Of course, I'm sure covid which is a pandemic everyone in the world is dealing with will be a topic of discussion, but they'll be issues like climate that our address economic cooperation. I'm sure they'll have a range of issues to bring up and we will provide a readout when the meeting concludes tomorrow, the military balance I mean, we know that China just amount of huge defense spending 6.8% I believe for this year. Is that also a top item indigent? PSAKI>> I [14:07:13] don't think I have more to preview than what we've already offered. We will, of course, have a readout on the meeting concludes There are a range of topics on the minds of all of these leaders. As I've noted in here before we anticipate the meeting, discussing. ------ ---We'll bring up a number of issues and we'll have a robust readout when the meeting concludes. Go ahead. [14:07:33] Q>> A few questions. Sure. So, in California republicans are seeking to nationalize a recall after governor Gavin Newsom and really make it a referendum on on public policies you know the other day, Bernie Sanders tweeted that it's time for Democrats to unite and rally on his behalf against the Republicans, does the President have any plans to personally or otherwise support us and if this does make it on the ballot and you know becomes an off year campaign, PSAKI>> we're not quite there yet we've spoken out in support of Governor Newsome and against the recall so that remains our position. Q>> Also in California. He at the San Francisco Chronicle are finding that school districts are saying, even with this influx of money coming from the package, there's still lots of reasons they're not sure if they can reopen even unify this fall through building consensus around how to do it. There's been some criticism that the CDC guidance is actually too conservative and prohibitive, including the six feet distance rule that schools either have to ignore or not open. If there are still schools that aren't open by this fall that the administration considered a failure and what more could they possibly do to help those schools. [14:08:45] PSAKI>> We have several months before the fall sub six months, five months, I will stop doing math now. This is our Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, this is his number one priority what he is focused on the President has asked him to lead this effort. And he's holding a school summit, he will be working with school districts including I'm sure in California and San Francisco and others to work to address what they feel the challenges are to reopening, whether it's funding that's needed whether it's consensus building that needs to happen, the President wants schools to be open, five days a week, once kids to be learning in school and we're going to do everything we can to ensure that's happening. Q>> And lastly on the subject of today's briefing, you know. Immigration and Border policy it covers so many different agencies there's Public Security there's HHS as we discussed, there's State Department, Department of Justice, which we'll talk about as much as a huge piece of this. Is there someone in this administration who is coordinating all of these disparate pieces. Ultimately, you know, where does the buck stop who is making sure that all these different agencies are coordinating to the administration, [14:09:55] PSAKI>> Overall, well, ultimately, the President is responsible for the policy on key issues and key challenges for countries facing and immigration is certainly one of them. You're right. There are a number of agencies involved in this effort, but I will say, I would say they're all playing a pivotal role, the Department of Homeland Security. The. We don't have a Health and Human Services Secretary confirmed yet, when he is he will play a pivotal role but a whole team at HHS, as you know. So, this is being coordinated on part from our national security team but ultimately, it's the president who makes decisions about the policy that's why he asked the team to go to the border and my he asked to receive a briefing and that's something as I noted that happened this morning. Go ahead. [14:10:33] Q>> Okay, on the package implementation for your specific lessons that President Biden when he was in charge of this in 2009, that he learned about that effort that will be applied this effort, particularly in terms of efficiency and reducing waste and fraud that kinds of things but in general any specific lessons that he learned, other than it's good to have one person in charge. PSAKI>> Sure, is structured very differently as you remember, and I'm sure many people remember that a big chunk of the recovery out was around shovel ready project losses of course it very different type of bill. I think some of the lessons were already implementing, including having a point person in charge and including ensuring there's a sustained campaign that is not just about the President of the United States or the Vice President of the United States speaking about the benefits but that really engages our partners and allies, [14:11:28] whether it's Governor's or mayor's local community leaders to ensure there is effective implementation and communication about the package. He also wants to lift up and this is something that's been important to him in general but it's very applicable to this package, members of his cabinet so that they can be front facing and play a very public role in engaging with the public and ensuring the understand components and pieces of a package like this. There are pieces in this package that of course are related to the helping veterans there are pieces of this package that really relate to helping rural communities and he wants to ensure that members of his cabinet are are playing key roles there. That's something that, of course, was done a little bit in 2009 but can can definitely be built on and I think we would venture to do that. [14:12:18] Q>> Equal Rights Amendment The house is expected to vote soon I think next week on eliminating the now expired deadline for ratification and of course Virginia last year became the 38th state to ratify but last year the Justice Department issued a memo saying that we can't do that, that if people feel and move it to an area of constitution so starting the ratification process over. My question is whether the administration is going to rescind that memo and some Democrats have asked him to do. PSAKI>> That's an excellent question. I will have to talk to our team about that and get an update on it, which will then try to do for you after everything go ahead. Q>> Thanks a couple questions on behalf of printful for reporters who couldn't be here. One of my own. Jesse Hellman with modern healthcare wanted to know when President signs executives today from Johnson and Johnson and Mark does he practice he planned to press them on increasing costs of prescription drugs, [14:13:16] bring up his own agenda to lower drug prices, and PSAKI>> the primary focus of this meeting is on working together the two companies who have long been competitors, working together to ensure the efficient and effective manufacturing of vaccines. Q>> Tommy Christopher from media had a question on the filibuster said that President Biden expressed some openness filibuster reform during the campaign, you've said more recently, that it's not process to change the rules we wants to know if the john lewis Voting Rights Act represents a red line if Republicans do not support that that does not move forward in the Senate. Is that a red line that would prompt him to consider filibuster reform. [14:13:58] PSAKI>> Well, the President's preference is not to make changes to the filibuster rules, he believes that voting rights and access to voting, ensuring it's easier for the American people is enough of a huge priority it should be for everyone that's why you signed some executive orders, use the power. hesitancy to do that this weekend, and he is hopeful that Democrats and Republicans can work together to get that done. Q>> And then one last question on the overall agenda, you were saying earlier, you know, when you look at built back better you're sort of thinking through kind of what's next, but broadly speaking is infrastructure. The next big legislative priority on Capitol Hill for this administration. [14:1437] There's also pressure for an immigration bill to go through what's next for you guys, what is the next big priority after the bill that you're hoping to sign that's present don't miss out on Friday. PSAKI>> It's a very popular question, understandably, but our focus is on getting American rescue plan implemented. We will have more to say the President will have more to say on his build back better agenda and what the components of that look like, what the size the proposals the order of events will be, but I don't have anything to preview for you. [14:15:08] Q>> Before an immigration bill on Capitol Hill, 141509 PSAKI>> Well, I don't have a legislative order to preview for you either. I will say, given all of the conversations we're having, understandably, about the border and questions about the border, in the President's proposed immigration package, he has funding for -- to address the root causes in the region, as we talked about a little bit earlier, he has a pathway to citizenship, he proposes a pathway to citizenship -- citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and he also proposes an investment in smart security. 141537 So, given all of the concern by many in Congress about immigration and what's happening at the border, it sure seems like a good time to move that initiative forward. Go in the back. [14:15:51] Q>> Thank you, Jen, I understand you don't want to call it a crisis from this podium little funny you say, border patrol agents at the border or especially those within the union, who are calling it a crisis and who are saying that they're overworked and there's just too many encounters day in and day out. PSAKI>> We are saying that we recognize that are incumbent upon us and this administration is continuing to continue to work day and night to expedite the process of ensuring there are the resources and processes in place to move children from the border patrol facilities to the shelters. We are saying that it is incumbent upon our administration to look for additional facilities that can safely house children and incumbent upon us to ensure that we are communicating effectively and efficiently to the region as [14:16:42] Ambassador Jacobson talked about at the top of this briefing and those are all focuses of the President on down. You know, every single day. Q>> The Mexican government today, reports that over 4000 unaccompanied minors were actually deported back to Mexico between January and March. Can you confirm that this was done under the previous administration or any of those unaccompanied minors deported, under the Biden administration. PSAKI>> I know that CBP provides numbers and data on a regular basis and I think there's more data coming soon. From there, so I would certainly send to them for any statistics and data our policies that we don't turn children under 18 away at the border on of course as you know, though, even if, when they are in homes of family members or in sponsored homes that they still can go through processing [14:17:33] and may need to return home, Q>> the stimulus package you find me one last question I know I think this came up yesterday, but I wanted to ask the question, now that the stimulus package is passed on many undocumented immigrants are not benefited in any way by the money that's going out, the president blended the executive action or anything else to do to help that population. PSAKI>> Sorry I missed part of the last sentence. Q>> Now that the stimulus package has yes and the undocumented population. Many of the millions are not benefited in any way, does a president blind any executive actions or anything else to help a population. [14:18:06] PSAKI>> Well, certainly I think the President's priority given he proposed an immigration bill on the first day is to create a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants, of course, in this country. He's also been clear that, ensuring that everybody in this country is vaccinated and receives that so COVID COVID-19 vaccine is a key priority. And of course this is just the beginning of his agenda but I don't have anything more to preview for you. Go ahead Q>> and Vicki judge, given the current premise of vaccination around the world, what would your President consider organizing these climates in person in DC here for you to avoid practice. PSAKI>> I don't think we have any I think at this point the intention is to do it remotely [14:18:45] I believe and I don't think there's an intention to change that, but I'm happy to check on that for you. Q>> Do you know roughly how many states expert for the Chinese president will be one of them. PSAKI>> I don't have any more details on the summit I know it's coming up in about six weeks, five weeks, and I expect as we get closer we'll have more to preview, go into that part Q>> yeah just a follow up on filibusters I've said many times that President Biden's preference is not to change the rules around filibuster but if the next big pieces of his agenda are stymied in the Senate. Are there changes to the filibuster that he can live with such as talking filibuster. [14:19:22] PSAKI>> Well, the President believes that there are a range of issues where there's historic. There's historic precedent of Democrats and Republicans working together, whether it's infrastructure as we've been talking about or modernizing the immigration system. He's obviously had a number of bipartisan meetings in the Oval Office. So that's where his energy and focus will be moving forward, go in the back. Q>> Thank you. So the could just have held trouble than containing a dissident, a woman released from prison weeks ago, is it a sign that the White House message regarding the human rights abuse in the kingdom is not strong enough, PSAKI>> what you were referring to a human rights, somebody, a human rights activist who was released from prison, but Q>> was not able to travel outside the kingdom. PSAKI>> I would have to look into more specific details of that [14:20:15] I know we were pleased with the release, but I'd have to look into more specific details of the travel restrictions, Q>> but do you have any sort of eta for when the next cabinet secretaries will be approved, and when you're going to start nominating ambassadors PSAKI>> go ask our friends in the Senate. We expect that some will move forward with and we are hopeful, I should say that we will get a couple of additional cabinet members, confirmed in the coming days or over the course of the next week, the Presidents looking forward to that. They're certainly looking forward to at some point having a full cabinet meeting, [14:20:46] the President hasn't made any decisions about Ambassador all nominees so I don't expect them to be confirmed anytime soon, given we have to nominate them first. Well, again, it's really up to the Senate on the timeline for that but we are hopeful that they move forward with the remaining members of the Cabinet, given we are almost two months into an administration. Q>> Just to follow up on something that Ambassador Jacobson said, and I think you may have gotten a note about this, that she first time she said that the border is not closed and she then insist when she was speaking in Spanish and then you know later on spoken Spanish again for the border is closed. [14:21:32] I mean, it seems like she, I guess misspoke, the first time consider your overall message but your concern, but now that she is misspoken that that's going to be, you know, picked up and disseminated across the Spanish speaking world is the message from the administration, PSAKI>> well given she also said that the border is closed, we're hopeful that that is what will be picked up and that is clearly and consistently been our message. So, that is certainly our hope Q>> you're having a messaging, difficulty around this issue. hat just means and [14:22:05] PSAKI>> we certainly hope not. We have the power of the media here to make sure you're communicating effectively with the messages and as we knew we all have moments where we where we say something slightly differently than we would like to and we quickly try to correct it to make it easier to communicate with the administration's, you know, goals and policies are. Thanks everyone. [END]
WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WITH JEN PSAKI - ROBO CUTS
FS37 WH PRESS BRFG ROBO CUTS 1230 ABC UNI WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WITH JEN PSAKI [13:06:19] PSAKI>> Hello. So, joining us today is Ambassador Roberta Jacobson, coordinator for the southern border. was the U. S ambassador to Mexico from 2016 to 2018. She previously served as U.S Assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere. Fairs I had the pleasure of working with her at that time, and has focused on Latin America for more than 30 years as a career civil servant. She's going to give some remarks and then happy to take some questions. And as always, I will be the bad cop. Thank you for joining. So Thank you all. JACOBSON>> Good afternoon. Wasn't Biden has made clear from day one that he wants to change our immigration system. Doing so means truly building back better. Because we can't just undo four years of the previous [13:07:22] administration's actions overnight. 130718 Those actions didn't just neglect our immigration system. They intentionally made it worse. When you add a pandemic to that, it's clear it will take significant time to overcome. We must build a better immigration system that reflects our values as Americans, enforces our laws, safeguards public health, and moves away from cycles of irregular migration. 130742 Today, I'm here to talk about what we are doing with partners in Mexico and Central America to ensure that people don't make this dangerous journey and instead have opportunities for economic advancement and safety at home. The President has committed to seeking $4 billion over four years to address the root causes of migration, including corruption, violence, and economic devastation exacerbated by climate change. [13:08:09] As part of that plan, we will address the causes that compel individuals to migrate, including improving governance and providing a foundation for investment and economic opportunity. Strengthening civilian security and the rule of law. Working across the whole of government. We will look at access to international protection and refugee resettlement. And rethinking asylum processing to ensure fair and faster consideration. Only by addressing those root causes. Can we break the cycle of desperation and provide hope for families who clearly would prefer to stay in their countries and provide a better future for their Children? President Biden when he was vice president visited the region many times and is clear eyed about the challenge. Insists now, as he did, then the government's commit to being true partners in creating the conditions for growth and security. I want to emphasize that the funds were asking for from Congress don't go to government leaders. They go to communities to training to climate mitigation to violence prevention to anti gang programs. In other words, they [13:09:23] go to the people who otherwise migrate in search of hope. And they will have to have the participation of the private sector's in those countries. For too long, have evaded taxes, underpaid workers and failed to be part of the solution to creating safe, prosperous and democratic countries. We've already begun. Specific actions to both undo the previous administration's policies and to advance a new vision of immigration. We have ended the so called migrant protection protocols, which sent people back to Mexico to wait sometimes for years for a chance to present their asylum claims. Working with the government of Mexico international organizations and ngos. We have safely admitted over 1400 migrants and closed the most dangerous face of the mpp. Matamoros Migrant camp. Today we're announcing the restarting of the Central American Minors Program for Children to be reunited with he parent who is legally in the United States. This program was ended abruptly by the [13:10:23] previous administration, leaving around 3000 Children already approved for travel stranded. In Phase two will be working to improve the camp program to expand safe and legal avenues for to the United States. 131033 I want to be clear. Neither in this -- neither this announcement nor any of the other measures suggest that anyone, especially children and families with young children should make the dangerous trip to try and enter the U. S in an irregular fashion. The border is not open. [13:10:51] Going forward. We will continue to look for ways to provide legal avenues in the region for people needing protection while we continue to enforce our laws. This is a process. We have a great deal to do. But this administration has made significant progress and we will continue to do so. It reflects who we are as Americans putting our values at the center of our policy. Thank you. Q>> You were doing this refer [13:11:25] to this $4 billion that the administration is seeking. Are you seeking this as part of a larger comprehensive immigration package or as a stand alone Bill? 131128 JACOBSON> Well, I think what you'll see is that $4 billion in a Central American Northern Triangle strategy will be part of our foreign assistance request and will focus on the things we know that work. [13:11:43] Obviously it's not our first rodeo, that vice president the president when he was vice president worked on these issues. We know how to get money to communities that are most likely. To send migrants but also that are suffering the greatest effective to hurricanes this season, etcetera, so it will be part of our overall foreign assistance package. In the meantime, we're focused on getting humanitarian assistance to these countries after hurricane said to an iota, so in that sense, it's part of a larger plan. But obviously there are parts of this that will be on the domestic side as [13:12:25] well to fix the whole extent of our immigration processing. Q>> What is the administration doing right now? To work with these home countries to send a message? People don't come here. Don't send your Children here, right? JACOBSON>> Well I think you know, one of the most important things is to make sure that. We get communications right? And the message right and I'm happy to repeat that, 131247 But I think it's also important that we work with the international organizations that have very credible voices and have very good networks among migrant sending communities to dispel the myths and misinformation that smugglers are using. Right? When we talk about the border not being open, and, you know, the ways in which we're trying to dissuade people from making that dangerous journeys, the smugglers are conveying exactly the opposite people. [13:13:15] So we need to make sure we get that message out. We also need to be looking at things like the camp program. The Central American Minors Program as they talked about. And how we can expand that How we can make that. You know, eligibility greater, 131330 But the next step is to look at solutions in the region, right? What more can we do to process people legally who really do require protection so they don't have to make that journey? [13:13:44] and we're looking at all of those things. Q>> And finally you said that this isn't your first rodeo. Should the administration have been better prepared to handle? This influx of Children before it changed the policy, allowing them to stay in the country. JACOBSON>> I think there's a couple things I think What we're doing right now is making a difference in the home countries beginning to work with governments. You know that couldn't start until January. 20th there. There is one government at a time. You can't start changing processes of government building facilities. All of this is part of the plan as quickly as possible to make sure that our [13:14:28] domestic processes work more smoothly more quickly as I mentioned, but also to work with foreign governments, and you can't do that. Obviously till January 20th when you when you take over, but. Have been multiple engagements with the government of Mexico it very high level with the government of Guatemala with the hunger and government in Salvadoran In the first six weeks of government, So I think we've gotten off to a big start a fast start. In that engagement. Thank you, Gentle man Investor on Honduras. How did the administration downs his need for cooperation from that government with ongoing concerns about corruption there? Particularly federal prosecutors, who would say that the president is working on a plan to flood the United States with cocaine. I think one of the things that I made clear in the opening comments, which I want to reiterate, is that none of the money that we're looking to get from from Congress from the taxpayers of the United States goes to government leaders. So I don't think that [13:15:30] means that presidents are unimportant in these countries, but I do think that it's important to understand that we will be working with civil society. With international organizations and international ngos on the ground. We will work with officials that we can work with, but we also think it's really important. But these countries make commitments really explicit commitments to advancing on anti corruption. And in some places that will be hard to do if you've got officials for whom. There is a cloud and I think we need to work with the organizations that we can in countries. In some places. We will work with religious organizations, ngos with etcetera. It's a challenge in countries that have confronted serious corruption risks. What mechanism is in place where how do you possibly safeguard. That [13:16:32] funding to make sure it stays out of the hands and perhaps crept politicians. Well I think one of the things that we've always done. Always and 31. Years of the state Department has taught me this is we do end use monitoring right? Our embassies and people that we work with are looked at before their recipients of funds. And we do checks and we look at what's being done with the funds, right? We also don't deliver money. In most cases, we delivered training we deliver. New lighting facilities that reduce violence and crime S. Oh, so a lot of what you do, it's not handing over blank checks, and I think that's really important in this. Q>> Thank you very much. You're talking about restarting Cam. These other long term goals for what immigration policy should look like. But right now, New CNN reporting shows that unaccompanied migrant Children are being held in these border patrol facilities. Or on average 107 hours That's up from I believe 77 hours on average last week. So what is the bite [13:17:32] administration doing right now to fix that? JACOBSON>> I think you know my part of this focuses. Much more on what we're doing at the end of this process in Central America and Mexico. 131741 I think all of us at every stage of this process are doing everything we can to make sure that children are well cared for and moved into facilities that are appropriate for them. [13:17:55] But I want to make a point again that it's really important that people not make the dangerous journey in the first place that we provide them with alternatives to making that journey. Because it's not safe. On route on dsa. So you know if I could just emphasize that that it's really important that that message get out because the perception is not the same as the reality in terms of the border, not being open. We want to provide through camp through [13:18:34] other mechanisms, ways for some of these young people to be reunited with family members in the United States. [SPEAKING SPANISH] 131855 Q>> You're telling them not to come -- just to follow up quickly. You're telling them they should not come. Would you describe what's happening on the border as a crisis given how these numbers are spiking so much week by week? 131905 You know, I think that I really -- I'm not trying to be cute here. But I think the fact of the matter is we have to do what we do regardless of what anybody calls the situation. And the fact is, we are all focused on improving the situation, on changing to a more humane and efficient system. And whatever you call it, it wouldn't change what we're doing, because we have urgency from the president on down to fix our system and make sure that we are better at dealing with the hopes and the dreams of these migrants in their home country. 131945 Q>> Do you think it's a coincidence that as soon as Trump and his immigration policy were on the way out and Biden and his stated policy were on the way in, this historic surge at the border started? 131956 JACOBSON>>> Well, first of all, one of the things I think is important is we've seen surges before. Surges tend to respond to hope. And there was a significant hope for a more humane policy after four years of, you know, pent up demand. So, I don't know whether I would call that a coincidence. But I certainly think that the idea that a more humane policy would be in place may have driven people to make that decision. 132027 But perhaps more importantly, it definitely drove smugglers to express disinformation, to spread disinformation about what was now possible. [13:20:40] Q>> We know that the change in administrations brought hope. Then from your perspective is this search good? JACOBSON>> I don't think that's what I just said. I think it's a reflection of how migrants feel at a particular time. I think what we are doing is making sure that we respond to that hope for people who need protection. We respond to that hope in a way that their cases can be adjudicated more quickly. But I don't think anybody would say that coming to the United States in an irregular fashion is a good thing. That's why I've tried repeatedly to dissuade. People from from listening to those smugglers, but we're going to try our best to do everything we can at each end of this in the United States, but especially in Central America and Mexico. To ensure we have safe, orderly and legal migration. President fighting [13:21:42] when he was president, very active on working with the northward triangle countries, and I was just wondering where their lessons that you are here. Other administration officials, many whom are in jobs in this administration. Have learned about how to deal with those countries or how to deal with foreign aid to them that are informing how you're approaching things now, and that's the kind of follow up a little bitn what Peter was asking. Uh, Are you concerned at all of that kind of mixed messaging tt at the same time that you're telling people not to come that the journey is dangerous because you are offering this this talk about more humanitarian process that people. Not, you know, pay attention to the fact that they could apply from home from their home country that they would still come that they're still so hopeful that there really is kind of a conflicting message coming from Washington. Your federal. So on the first question the question of learning things from when the vice president was leading a lot of our efforts in Central America Previously, I think, [13:22:43] yes, that's a resounding yes. Both the president and all of us who worked with him on that for him on that learned a great deal, and I think that it's really important that we put that to use. Now. One of the things he thinks is so important is being really explicit. With leadership in the countries from which migrants are coming about commitments that they need to make because overcing the reasons people migrate. He's not gonna be the United States job alone, right if we realize that it's lack of good governance, economic opportunity and security issues of violence. Then some of those require commitments by the governments on anti corruption and transparency on creating governments that function better to provide services for their country. So He's very clear on being. Sure that we gethose commitments from leaders and holding them to it right. The money is not a tap [13:23:44] that gets turned on all at once. You have to make sure that you're continuing to follow those issues. So I think there's a lot of things we learned. And a lot of things we learned about ensuring that funds get to Communities that are really in need, whether it's post Hurricane or coffee rust, which was ravaging Guatemala and Honduras, or, you know a historic drought. 132401 I think when you look at the issue of mixed messages, it is difficult at times to convey both hope in the future and the danger that is now, and that is what we're trying to do. And I -- I will certainly agree that we are trying to walk and chew gum at the same time. We are trying to convey to everybody in the region that we will have legal processes for people in the future, and we're standing those up as soon as we can. 132437 But, at the same time, you cannot come through irregular means. It's dangerous, and, you know, the majority of people will be sent out of the United States, because that is the truth of it. We want to be honest with people. And so, we are trying to send both messages and smugglers are only trying to send one message. [13:25:04] So we're relying on every means we can to get that. Message out there and that leads me to wanna reiterate as I did before L a from terrorists Tessera. Yes. No Anselmo Mental winning guru Momenta is a propaganda. The tells in the money. Iraq. Drew. Say a word more about what you're talking about You from the private sector. Explain what your enjoy winning there and like, what exactly do you need? And then just to sort of the second question. You kno you're talking about being really explicit with these countries. But what sort of leverage does the United States actually have. To Effect change [13:25:53] in those countries. But what exactly can you do? Yeah. Let me take that second one first only because. Look in the end. I think the implication of your question which is quite right is we can't make the changes. We can encourage them. We can help. Support them with resource is both technical assistance and funding, but we can't make those changes. The changes have to come in the Northern Triangle countries. What I should say is my own experience from traveling to those places. There are myriad people in organizations who are trying to make those changes and part of what we want to do is empower them. Whether that's more effective, um, you know, Economic support, whether it's training for young people, whether it's anti gang programs, whher it's mother's clubs and empowering local communities, all of that gets done through people on the ground, not by the United States. So we want [13:26:53] to be able to empower those actors. I also think that it's really important when you say what leverage do you have? Well I do think that working as partners with these countries means sitting down and talking about what we could do together. 132705 But also if American taxpayers' funds are going to be used, then that is a certain amount of leverage. The President really wants to move forward on this, but he won't unless he feels he has those commitments on an ongoing basis. Is that leverage? You know, funds are -- are sometimes important means of having that conversation. [13:27:28] Your first question was on. Q>> Let me let me discuss it with. You can't follow up. You have to go back to the first one will you? I mean, are you saying exicitly? The U. S could withhold funding. With the Red State Department aide Rusch JACOBSON>> You know, I think I think the really important thing to know is [13:27:53] we're looking forward to getting this, um. Proposal before Congress and having Congress Act on it and what comes after that, You know, I just don't know. You know, the unexamined of branch can always. You know, adjust things like that. I also think it's really important to understand you asked about the private sector. 132808 The private sector in all of these countries, in Central America in particular, is a really important player here. And I think, to be very honest, we have not seen them step up. [13:28:22] One of the mechanisms that was really effective under the Obama Biden administration was for every dollar that the U. S put into an assistance program. We asked for private sector organizations, local chambers of commerce or business organizations. To either match us or exceed us. This gives the private sector skin in the game it make sure that they are part of the solution. If the government's in these countries don't always [13:28:54] have enough resource is to do what they should to improve the economic opportunity for people. There are private sector organizations and members of the private sector, the business community. We need to be part of that solution, and so we just feel that that's really an important element to this. We talked about international organizations, Governments, ngos, I don't want to leave out the business community as a participant ok, last two less three if you have time. Thank you. To follow up a number of question. I mean, I understand what you're saying. You have to empower the civil societies at least part countries, But can you make the link between empowering those civil societies and actually eliminate eliminating the push back there to stop him from coming? To this country, so how much of it is an international age policy versus an anti, You know, um, immigration policy. That's my first question. And then the second one if you could speak more specifically about the requirements that you're. Making to these countries in terms of anti [13:29:55] corruption practices. What are the specific measures of success and how to ensure that there? Yeah, well on the first question, I think this is. Both unturned national aid issue as well as as a policy issue both for us and the countries that we're working with. On the one hand, it is clearly a resource issue. You have to greater than category for hurricanes and then iota within a 15 Day period. You've got reports that suggest that. Literally multiple millions of people in Guatemala and Honduras are food insecure Now that is clearly something you need to be looking at humanitarian assistance and aid to try and remedy. Now in the longer term. When you're looking at increased pace of natural disastersecause of climate change, or you're looking at ways to. Ensure that agricultural policy changes in [13:30:55] countries or that training is given or that students, including girls remain in school. Those are longer term policy questions. That need to be addressed with our partners in the region because they all have an impact on whether migration flows increase or not. And so when the president talks about root causes. Some of this is immediate humanitarian aid, but a lot of it is policy and aid together, making sure that you tackle the root causes of migration. Otherwise, what you see is continued cycles. Right to break that cycle of migration sustainably, you have to work both. On the on the specific commitments for governments. I think that's something that we would want to discuss with the countries involved before we discuss it publicly. Things. The president's executive powers. Do you think the president will consider using his executive powers to reunite families who have been separated under a 00 tolerance? [13:31:57] Well, that certainly. Outside of the family Reunification task force that was created which is exactly to do that. You know that. Are you talking about people who are not in the same country families that were that was separated what the president used anymore. Executive powers. I'm sorry, but you need families who were separated when in the United States are doing zero tolerance and well, that's exactly what the family reunification task force is doing Nothing beyond that. It deals with the whole universe of people separated during that policy, so not that I know of. Okay Last turn back. Questions Congress appropriated almost $1.4 billion with this fiscal year for the border wall that you're not building how much of that is left? Are you guys redirecting it at all? And what along the border right now. Secondly you discussed messaging arguably your predecessors entire theory of their immigration agenda was that they were trying to send [13:32:57] this message. Don't come. America is closed the regular migration. So obviously you're pursuing something policies But what can you actually do differently than they did to try to get that message? If you know it wasn't fixed already with that kind of oppressive messages. On the first question regarding the border while the president has been very clear about ending the national emergency or the emergency of the border that was used to justify the wall, and obviously not proceeding with it. T he exact. Legal requirements and where that those funds might go. I just I just don't know. I'm sorry. Let me let me talk about the message issue. I mean, I think. I think it's really important to understand that Okay? 133344 You can't and shouldn't say in this administration's opinion that the only way to message "do not come in irregular fashion" is to act as cruelly as you possibly can, separate children from their parents, return people to places that, like the camp -- migrant camp in Matamoros, you know for up to two plus years at a time, and that's the only way that you could get your message across. 133411 This administration's belief is that we can get our message across that it is a more humane policy by opening up avenues of legal migration which will encourage people to take those legal options and go through the asylum process if they're seeking that and not take the irregular road. 133436 I think you have to find different ways to message. But if messaging reflects your actions, that is why we are increasing the actions for legal migration so that the message is, you have another option. I'm from back. Q>> Thank [13:35:00] you. Let me ask you a question in Spanish for our audience [SPANISH] [13:35:14] JACOBSON>> [answers in Spanish] [13:36:51] Q>> [SPANISH] JACOBSON>> [answers in Spanish] [13:37:59] PSAKI>> Okay? I can't promise you'll always be that rapid when I promised to bring someone to the briefing room, But we'll try. We'll do our best. Well, we'll do our best couple of other items for all of you at the top. 133813 With today's expected passage of the Rescue Plan, I can announce that the President will sign the bill at the White House on Friday afternoon. We've spent a lot of time, of course, from the podium talking about the mechanics of how a bill becomes a law, and I know there's lots of interest in what comes next. So once it's passed, the bill text will be rechecked, printed, and signed by the appropriate leaders in the House and Senate. 133834 The House coach will then deliver it to the White House for the president's signature. We expect that delivery to happen sometime tomorrow, and then the President will sign it on Friday. [13:38:44] We, of course, are moving full speed ahead on the implementation of the bill because we know the American people need help. I need it as soon as possible. The way we are also working on looking ahead to implementation. I wanted to make sure you all saw [13:39:03] Secretary Yellen speech before the National League of Cities yesterday, promising to get at eight out to state and local governments. Obviously this is a key component of the package and one that will help keep. Cops, firefighters. Local officials in their jobs on we're looking there. They're looking for ways to maximize, of course, the impact of every dollar. That's exactly what the president did when he served as the point person on the implementation of the Recovery Act in 2009, partnering with mayors, governors and other officials to get help to them quickly and in a way that kept waste fraud and abuse to 2/10 of 1, 133935 So he knows directly that the passage and signing of the bill is just the beginning, and he will -- he plans to appoint somebody to run point on implementation. I don't have any personnel announcements today, but that will certainly be part of our path moving forward. Also today, as you know, the President will join the CEOs of Johnson & Johnson and Merck to discuss their historic partnership that will produce more lifesaving vaccines for Americans and the world. 134002 President Biden also announced that he is directing -- he is planning to direct -- he's directing, I should say, Jeff Zients, our covid coordinator, and HHS, and the HHS team to procure an additional 100 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. He's doing this because in a wartime effort, which is what we consider this, we need maximum flexibility. 134023 We want to be oversupplied and over-prepared. There's also a chance that we'll encounter an unexpected challenge on new need in our vaccination efforts, and we're preparing for just that. [13:40:32] The president also discussed the meeting today at the meeting is having today during his remarks and also address, of course, are the passage of the rescue plan during those remarks as well. Last item. I believe here. What's going on here today? On March 18th 19th, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Tony Blinken will meet with Director Gangjee Tour and State [13:41:04] Councilor Wang G. And Anchorage of China. Of course, the meeting will follow the president's convening of the quad at the leader level, as well as his participation in the G seven. Leaders meeting just a few weeks ago, Secretary Blinken on Secretary Austin's trip to Japan and Korea, two of our closest regional allies and national security Advisor Sullivan's multiple engagements with Japanese Korean, Australian, Canadian and European counterparts, including European quad meeting next week. It was important to us that this administration's first meeting with Chinese officials be held American soil and occur after we have met and consulted closely with partners and allies in both Asia and Europe. And as you know, my number of those conversations have happened at the presidential level and, of course at the secretary of state and National Secity Advisor level as well. Meeting is an opportunity to address a wide range of issues, including ones where we have deep disagreements. We intend to discuss her expectations and will be frank and explaining Beijing's actions and behavior behavior Challenge. To the [13:42:06] security, prosperity and our concerns about challenges. They post the security on values of the United States and our allies and partners. We will also talk about areas where we can cooperate of mutual interests on we're coming to these discussions, of course. Clear eyed. The meeting also provides an opportunity to emphasize H the United States will stand up for the rules based international system and a free and open Endo Pacific. As the president has said, We approach our relationship with the Chinese from a position of strength in lockstep with our allies and partners. That Go ahead, Jonathan. Q>> Thanks Judge. You said the president will be signing the bill on Friday and you walk us through what will happen next? The president himself has expressed regret that the 2009 got recovery happened was not sold. Well, let's put it to yourself that acknowledge that others veterans of the demonstration field similarly. Can you explain to us what we're going to see from the president from surrogates? How is this message to deliver to the American people? How do you sell this bill? 134258 PSAKI>> Sure. Well, the president, the vice president, the first lady, the second gentleman, a number of members of our Cabinet will be communicating directly with the American people, engaging directly with the American people, and all sending a clear message: help is on the way. [13:43:15] Over the next few weeks. We're going to swiftly put in place implementation plans. I've touched on a little bit of that. Andre plans to get aid to the people in places that need it the most as quickly as possible. This'll is, of course, a continuation of the work we've done over the last two months to build support for the rescue plan, communicating directly with the American people building support among mayors, governors, labor leaders, the business community and other stakeholders. 134338 We'll be emphasizing a number of components that are in the package and really having a conversation. This is important to the president personally. Having a conversation directly with people about how they could benefit, addressing questions they have, even taking their feedback on implementation and how to make it clear. [13:43:55] and we've talked a little bit about in here. People of questions like. Do I need to do anything to get my check? How do I benefit from the health benefits? What about you know what? What Funding will go to my school? He wants to ensure that people have access to the instant formacion 134410 So, he will be hitting the road. The vice president will be hitting the road. The first lady will be hitting the road. We will have people out communicating directly in communities, but we'll also use a range of tools at our disposal, including engaging in -- communicating through digital means, doing local interviews, and also utilizing a number of members of our Cabinet cabinet who have key roles in the implementation. [13:44:34] I referenced Secretary Yellin, of course in her role. Obviously the Iris has some key roles here, but he will be tapping into the Cabinet to also play a role in communicating and engaging with the public. Following this and one other matter on this, you know President Auntie is addressing the nation's right in prime time. Is this part of it? The idea of what happens next because of the package going to be. Part of that speech. We preview a little bit about what the message the American people is going to be to morning I expect we'll have more toe say tomorrow about the speech, and I want to just give him a [13:45:11] chance to go through the speech again and make sure I'm previewing it in a way that is consistent with where it will land. 134511 But as I've talked about a little bit in here, this is -- tomorrow marks the 50th day of the administration. It also marks one year since the country shut down. And the President believes it is important to take a look back of the journey the American people have been on, the sacrifices that have been made, the lives that have been lost, and also look ahead. And he will be talking more about how he will approach this war against the pandemic moving forward and lay out some more specifics of what the American people can expect. [13:45:43] U N report out today says the U. S Is among the countries lagging behind on climate friendly projects in covid Economic recovery Spending Club What is this administration has started moving forward on the $2 trillion climate change package that was such a big part of that candidate. Fighting's campaign. PSAKI>> It's only day 49. Jonathan We're about to pass a [13:46:11] historic the most Progressive bill in American history. It's be a passing today. Look I would say that the president believes that and he talked about this on the campaign trail is a zoo you mentioned was certainly a promise of his that. We can create the United States and many other countries around the world will will focus on here can create good paying union jobs that are also consistent with our objective of just addreing the climate crisis, and certainly that is central to how he's thinking about his agenda. Moving forward. Those policy discussions Air Sil ongoing but I can assure you that. He intends to Dever on the promises he made on the campaign trail on intends to deliver on the promises he made about creating good paying union jobs that also are consistent with his goal of addressing climate. ISIS. I should say, Go ahead on the 100 million new does since you said that the goal is to be over supply. What's the goal for that over supplies to be held in reserve for kids? Is it to be donated to other countries? Is it. To be held in reserve in [13:47:13] case people need to get shots again next year. What's the plan for that extra dosage Well first, the president's focus every day when he makes up is ensuring every American week. We can ensure that every American has access to a vaccine and that we are vaccinating the people in this country. But here a couple of the factors that we're have have weighed in on our decision to purchase. An additional 100 million doses. 134731 We still don't know which vaccine will be most effective on kids. We still don't know the impact of variants or the need for booster shots. And these doses can be used for booster shots as well as needed. Obviously, that's still being studied by the FDA. But, again, we want to be over prepared, as I noted earlier. 134749 We also need maximum flexibility. So Johnson & Johnson, the vaccine has unique benefits. It's a one shot vaccine. It can be stored in the fridge and not a freezer. It's highly effective, as the others are as well, against hospitalization and death. But we are really looking for maximum flexibility here, as we are still considering a couple of those pieces I mentioned, which is most effective with children, the effectiveness on addressing variants, and, and, of course, boosters as I noted. 134819 Q>> And then on the COVID relief bill, which is being voted on in the House right now, how quickly will school districts be able to access that money, and will they be able to implement it in time to make safety changes for this school year, which in many parts of the country is only the last another three months? 134836 You're absolutely right, and a fair amount of the funding is also -- we expect will be likely used for forward planning, right? So, so schools that need to plan for, we need to hire temporary teachers right now, but we need to ensure we can keep them on the job in a year, in two years. We need to make facility upgrades. 134854 It really depends school to school. In terms of the timeline for implementation, I know that's something that our Department of Education is going to be looking at. [13:49:02] And of course, the implementation team that will be focused on getting these dollars out the door so we will certainly plan to give you an update as we have a [13:49:16] better time line on the on the calendar. Q>> On another front registered journalist, Andrea Support is currently on trial over her coverage of a racial justice protest. Last summer. She's been charged with failure to disperse and interference with official access. The find administration believes that these charges should be dropped and will the president or anyone in the administration urged Polk County, Iowa prosecutors. Drop the charges. PSAKI>> I'm happy to discuss this with our team. I'm not as familiar with the case, but I will look into it. We'll get you back and answer. Q>> Sure Dracula first off has President Biden been briefed yet by his delegation that went to the border over the weekend. And does he now feel the need to go to the border if he has been briefed by the. 134951 PSAKI>> Sure. Well I can confirm for you that the President did receive a briefing earlier today from members of his team that visited the border region this past weekend. I will note, he receives regular briefings on immigration, and the economy, on COVID, on a range of issues that the country and the administration is facing. He heard from the delegation on what they observed during their visit to the border region and the facilities they toured. 135015 But they all -- they spent the majority of their time discussing what steps can be taken to expedite processes to move more quickly, to move the process more quickly to meet the administration's goal of getting these children placed with vetted and confirmed families. Moving them quickly, as related to your question earlier, out of border patrol facilities and into these shelters and then ultimately into these homes. 135037 I don't have anything to preview for you in terms of a trip. Obviously, a delegation going to the border and visiting these facilities is something that can be done with a much smaller footprint than the president of the United States traveling, but I don't have anything to preview in terms of a trip. [13:50:52] Q>> And earlier you said you're going to where the president is going to pick someone to kind of run the implementation of the coronavirus relief package. Does the White House anticipate that there could be delays in implementing that because it is such a big bill? PSAKI>> No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't imply our I was not trying to imply that on Lee that we know that this will not all be implemented in four days [13:51:19] or a week or what have you This will take some time on. 135116 And we want to ensure that there is a person responsible and accountable to the implementation. That's something the president felt worked when he was vice president, and so it was an indication of that. [13:51:25] But there are a number of Cabinet members who also played pivotal roles here. A reference, of course, Secretary Yellen Secretary Cardona will play a pivotal role, of course in the reopening of schools, and so they're already officials within the administration. But this this could be it has been used in the past is that more of a coordinating mechanism and how long do you think that implementation will take? I can't give you really a timeline of that. Obviously there are things they're different components as you well know, right, getting the checks out the door. Our Treasury, a team and our economic team are crunching the numbers on that. We hope to have an update for all of you soon on that. Obviously reopening schools, as Nancy was asking AUT it really is school district of school district in terms of what their needs what their needs will be which schools need funding which district's need funding? There are things like unemployment insurance, which [13:52:20] obviously is applied through different mechanisms. So there are pieces of this that are just going to be implemented over time. Some that could be Dunmore. Rapidly and quickly, but obviously this is our focus and are our priority in the days ahead. Last question on Johnson and Johnson, he is going to announce that they were trying to get another. 100 million doses this afternoon, but the administration told governors yesterday on their weekly called They should only expect to get 400,000 doses of Johnson and Johnson vaccine next week. That is far behind what the Johnson Johnson contract with the federal government. They were supposed to have ready when it was authorized by the fda. So is he going to confront the Johnson and Johnson executives? He's meeting with today about why they are so far behind on production. Well, as you know, Caitlyn, we hey, invoked the Defense Production act in part because he wanted Torno and our team Jeff Science and others have been working closely with Johnson and Johnson and Merck, of course, to expedite the production of vaccines to ensure that they could be. Available on the timeline they've committed to. 135319 I will say that this 100 million that was announced -- that's being announced this afternoon is more for the second half of this year and not for -- it's not -- we're not adding additional doses expected on that same timeline. But I'm certain they will be discussing, of course, the need to ensure that the deadlines are met and that, that we have the vaccines and the doses needed to get them in the arms of the American people. Go ahead, Andrew. Q>> So other vaccine the head of the W T, O and others are calling for greater efforts to be made by advanced economies, big countries in rich countries to get more vaccine into developing countries. You just announced that you wanna be over para here in the U. S. And what is the United States soon and sure that these vaccines get out to other countries and do you favor a waiver of intellectual property? Protections under the wt O to ensure that that moves more quickly, or, you know what's [13:54:24] your perspective and a kind of a third way that would be just increasing license? PSAKI>> First the president is deeply focused on the issue of expanding global vaccinations and manufacturing and delivery, which will be critical to end the pandemic. But as we've also said he is first and foremost focused on ensuring Americans have access to vaccines as soon as possible. Uh in the in this period of time on, we've obviously made a great deal of progress on that front. I don't anything more to preview for you in terms of what that will look like we first need to focus on right now. We're still in a circumstance where there isn't enough supply for the for the number of Americans who want to get the vaccination, so that's really our focus at this point in time, but certainly it's a point of discussion. With his counterparts and with a the counter parts of other members of our national security team. Say anything about the river. I don't have anything more for you to predict that question of vaccinating Children. You mentioned that you're not sure which vaccine will be most effective. Actually has talked [13:55:25] about getting high school students vaccinated fell in elementary school kids in the spring. You have a sense of when every American. Could be death. Maybe I mean, you know, you know, we've talked about having enough on hand for adults to be vaccinated by this summer. By the end of May, actually, Well, we will have enough supply right? But the president is the first to say that we can't do this alone, And that's certainly a component of this That is vitally important is ensuring that. People understand across the country that these vaccines are safe and they are effective and we're still going to focus on combating the issues of misinformation. And of course, the vaccine hesitancy in a range of communities you have today, as you know, would be the ones running point on approval of vaccines for Children. I can't really predict. When Children will be vaccinated. We don't know when the fda may approve a vaccine, but our role is ensuring [13:56:26] there's enough supply and that there is enough distribution. We've made a great deal of progress on that more work to be done, but I can't make any predictions beyond that. But. A couple things first President Biden when he was vice president, Kind of was the person who ran point on the 2009 recovery Bill. Would you expect that Vice President Harris might take on civil rule he had, you know? Give General lot put her in a very similar position to the one that he had with President Obama. That's true. I mean, the president has said that he wants the vice president to be the first in the room and the last in the room when he has important briefings when they're important policy decisions and discussions that are taking place, And that certainly is how he is operating, or they're operating as a team together in terms of what role she may play in the implementation. I don't have anything to preview for you on that She will certainly be traveling. She's a key. Voice and asset for the [13:57:26] administration, and she'll be communicating about the impact of the of the American rescue plan and how it's going to help with the American people over the course of the next few weeks. Lank Lean said last night that the president's speech to a joint session of Congress will be for a few weeks. He was kind of suggesting there was gonna be this time period. The administration. It's focused on. Promoting the bill that just passed. Can you kind of confirm that and provide any more information on sort of how you're thinking about the rest of March into April? You know, promoting this. They're fever since moving on to the fullback Better Sure, I don't have an exact breakdown of timeline. And I don't think Ron wasn't intending to give one either on Lee to convey, which is, I think what? You're asking that the president, the vice president and all of us in the administration believe it's important to take a moment to or a few moments I should say to communicate directly with the American people about. The [13:58:26] benefits of the package to ensure they understand that help is on the way and a range of forms and to do that, in communities and directly with people who were hoping understand the benefits of this package S O I expect that to mean a couple of trips for the president, the vice president, others, but I don't have kind of an end date for that on certainly par of the part of the focus internally is on ongoing discussions about what is next and what components of the president's build back. Better agenda. What the order is the format the size and there's just those decisions have been finalized quite yet. One other thing that you'd kind of into you might have an answer for yesterday, which is another thing related to Ron. That clearing National Clearinghouse for Vaccine informatio. Way here in the Blue Merc theater heard, And Justify no answer on very excited about the website, which which many people are. You know, I would say, you know. As you know it, the website is being implemented as a vaccine finder, I should say [13:59:27] is being implemented as a pilot program. We've always been open to expanding the pilot program, and we're certainly looking into that. We're also looking into, and others have asked this question. How we can better assist state and local governments who have their own websites where they are utilized by many members of the local community and effective but sometimes they have. Technical issues, So we're looking at addressing it from. Ah, couple of, um. Different directions, but every option remains on the table were also considering setting up call centers. Organizing navigators help to help individuals schedule appointments, which sometimes can be the issue so I don't have a major update, other than to convey that. It's a pilot program. We've always been open to expanding it on. Certainly a range of options remain on the table and sometimes in some states. Their local website is working quite well, and they just need some technical assistance. What. Q>> Jen you've been telling migrants from right there for a month now, probably back to February 10. But now is not the time to come, but ey are coming in [14:00:28] bigger numbers every day. 140025 So, do you have a messaging problem? 140027 PSAKI>> Well, I would say that in the last administration, we had a morality problem, and children were being pulled from the arms of their parents, and kids were being sent back on a treacherous journey, and that's not the approach of this administration. So, certainly we understand that means there will be more kids who are crossing the border. 140047 We made a policy decision that that was the right, humane step to take. But, I think it's also important for people to understand that the vast majority of people who come to our border are turned away, are sent back to their countries. What we're talking about here are unaccompanied children. [14:01:04] and what our focus is on is ensuring that there are safe places for these kids to go that have accent where they have access to educational resource is health and medical attention, legal assistance as need, and that we can expedite the vetting so that they can get to families and sponsors where they can have their case is adjudicated. 140125 Q>> But since the last administration is gone, tomorrow is 50 days of Biden, there are migrants showing up, wearing t-shirts that say, "Biden, please let us in." And candidate Biden is the one who said, "I would end this notion for the first time in history, the people seeking asylum have to be in squalor on the other side of the river." Why doesn't he come out and just say now is not the time? 140145 PSAKI>> Well, he actually did an interview with Univision about a week or week and a half ago where he conveyed a similar message. And we've conveyed that at every opportunity that we have. [14:01:55] I will say we are, as you noted almost 50 days in. We are Diggle digging ourselves out of a broken and dismantled system. Roberta Master Jacobson referenced this in her opening as well when it comes to engage with countries addressing the root causes. We couldn't start doing that until January. 20th There are programs like the relaunching of the Central American Minors Program, which was ended by the prior administration in 2017. And that meant that that that program which would have allowed for people to apply from the region. We had to restart that program, so we're working to fix the mess of the last couple of years. It's going to take some time. But this is clearly a priority for the president. We're looking at a range of options, which include the opening of additional facilities. It includes steps we can take to expedite the processing and includes application and implementation of the CDC guidelines that were just came out that allow for more Children to be house safely in these facilities, so we're looking at every option possible to help address the [14:03:05] challenges. We're facing a life in the White House. It's a problem that when the CDC tells these migrant shelter facilities that they can be a full capacity that they're careful about covid. Many of them do. But when the C D C tells schools that they can open in person at full capacity, many of them don't. Is there a school in particular that you have is an example that didn't do that? Our most schools in this country at full capacity within person learning. Are there a specific school, though that is not following the CDC guidelines of implementing the mitigation steps so they can re open the CDC saying schools you can't be at every school can be at full capacity. With the CDC guys. This CDC guidelines is to be clear because I think this is very important to be very clear and specific on. They gave eight mitigation steps that schools can take to safely reopen. A number of schools have actually recently reopened Schools and Washington D. C [14:04:05] Some have schools in many districts across the country. Each school district needs to make the decision about whether they are able to take those mitigation steps. The president has also been clear. Some of these school district's need additional funding. There's $160 billion in this package that he's going to sign into law later this week. Secretary of Education will be quite focused on working with school district's to help them reopen, but more school district's are reopening. More kids are in classrooms every single day since they are not all back from an administration position or from your perspective. Have the border Patrol unions and the HHS Union's been easier to work with than the teachers unions. I think that's a little bit of mixing different circumstances. I would say that in tight quarters Uhh I mean a classroom, but. Not quite. Not quite. I would say that. Let's let's take a responsible approach to the two issues. Okay, One is schools reopening, [14:05:06] There's been eight mitigation steps that have been announced by the CDC to implement right. Every school district is going to work to implement those on a timeline that is, they can effectively do. Many school districts are reopening right. Many are re opening every single weekend day and week, right, That is a different circumstance than what we're seeing at the border and the HHS overseas defense. These facilities, right they're working with. They're working on ensuring we could have more kids safely. They are working to implement CDC guidelines, but they're different circumstances and certainly we're working with the school district's and we're also working with HHS to open these facilities there to ensure that kids are treated With safety and care in these facilities. Okay, Go ahead. Thanks Dan. Just little bit more on the Clark. You mentioned yesterday that one of the issues that will be discussed it is how the leaders can work together to combat the pandemic. Might. That discussion include a strategy to counter Brexit diplomacy from China and Russia. You know, I think [14:06:10] they'll be a range of topics discussed and I know that is a concern of a number of leaders around the world, including, of course, President Biden on I'm sure we'll have a readout of the quad meeting tomorrow. Once it's completed. More on the announcement that you complete viewers. Can we expect anything in terms of how the spark. He was here in terms of helping others. Again I know they'll discuss a range of issues tomorrow, but I think it's important to just take a quick a little bit of a step back because this is a meeting that covers a range of topics. Of course, I'm sure covid which is a pandemic everyone in the world is dealing with will be a topic of discussion, but they'll be issues like climate that our address economic cooperation. I'm sure they'll have a range of issues to bring up and we will provide a readout when the meeting concludes tomorrow, the military balance I mean, we know that China just amount of huge defense spending 6.8% I believe for this year. Is that also a top item indigent? PSAKI>> I [14:07:13] don't think I have more to preview than what we've already offered. We will, of course, have a readout on the meeting concludes There are a range of topics on the minds of all of these leaders. As I've noted in here before we anticipate the meeting, discussing. ------ ---We'll bring up a number of issues and we'll have a robust readout when the meeting concludes. Go ahead. [14:07:33] Q>> A few questions. Sure. So, in California republicans are seeking to nationalize a recall after governor Gavin Newsom and really make it a referendum on on public policies you know the other day, Bernie Sanders tweeted that it's time for Democrats to unite and rally on his behalf against the Republicans, does the President have any plans to personally or otherwise support us and if this does make it on the ballot and you know becomes an off year campaign, PSAKI>> we're not quite there yet we've spoken out in support of Governor Newsome and against the recall so that remains our position. Q>> Also in California. He at the San Francisco Chronicle are finding that school districts are saying, even with this influx of money coming from the package, there's still lots of reasons they're not sure if they can reopen even unify this fall through building consensus around how to do it. There's been some criticism that the CDC guidance is actually too conservative and prohibitive, including the six feet distance rule that schools either have to ignore or not open. If there are still schools that aren't open by this fall that the administration considered a failure and what more could they possibly do to help those schools. [14:08:45] PSAKI>> We have several months before the fall sub six months, five months, I will stop doing math now. This is our Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, this is his number one priority what he is focused on the President has asked him to lead this effort. And he's holding a school summit, he will be working with school districts including I'm sure in California and San Francisco and others to work to address what they feel the challenges are to reopening, whether it's funding that's needed whether it's consensus building that needs to happen, the President wants schools to be open, five days a week, once kids to be learning in school and we're going to do everything we can to ensure that's happening. Q>> And lastly on the subject of today's briefing, you know. Immigration and Border policy it covers so many different agencies there's Public Security there's HHS as we discussed, there's State Department, Department of Justice, which we'll talk about as much as a huge piece of this. Is there someone in this administration who is coordinating all of these disparate pieces. Ultimately, you know, where does the buck stop who is making sure that all these different agencies are coordinating to the administration, [14:09:55] PSAKI>> Overall, well, ultimately, the President is responsible for the policy on key issues and key challenges for countries facing and immigration is certainly one of them. You're right. There are a number of agencies involved in this effort, but I will say, I would say they're all playing a pivotal role, the Department of Homeland Security. The. We don't have a Health and Human Services Secretary confirmed yet, when he is he will play a pivotal role but a whole team at HHS, as you know. So, this is being coordinated on part from our national security team but ultimately, it's the president who makes decisions about the policy that's why he asked the team to go to the border and my he asked to receive a briefing and that's something as I noted that happened this morning. Go ahead. [14:10:33] Q>> Okay, on the package implementation for your specific lessons that President Biden when he was in charge of this in 2009, that he learned about that effort that will be applied this effort, particularly in terms of efficiency and reducing waste and fraud that kinds of things but in general any specific lessons that he learned, other than it's good to have one person in charge. PSAKI>> Sure, is structured very differently as you remember, and I'm sure many people remember that a big chunk of the recovery out was around shovel ready project losses of course it very different type of bill. I think some of the lessons were already implementing, including having a point person in charge and including ensuring there's a sustained campaign that is not just about the President of the United States or the Vice President of the United States speaking about the benefits but that really engages our partners and allies, [14:11:28] whether it's Governor's or mayor's local community leaders to ensure there is effective implementation and communication about the package. He also wants to lift up and this is something that's been important to him in general but it's very applicable to this package, members of his cabinet so that they can be front facing and play a very public role in engaging with the public and ensuring the understand components and pieces of a package like this. There are pieces in this package that of course are related to the helping veterans there are pieces of this package that really relate to helping rural communities and he wants to ensure that members of his cabinet are are playing key roles there. That's something that, of course, was done a little bit in 2009 but can can definitely be built on and I think we would venture to do that. [14:12:18] Q>> Equal Rights Amendment The house is expected to vote soon I think next week on eliminating the now expired deadline for ratification and of course Virginia last year became the 38th state to ratify but last year the Justice Department issued a memo saying that we can't do that, that if people feel and move it to an area of constitution so starting the ratification process over. My question is whether the administration is going to rescind that memo and some Democrats have asked him to do. PSAKI>> That's an excellent question. I will have to talk to our team about that and get an update on it, which will then try to do for you after everything go ahead. Q>> Thanks a couple questions on behalf of printful for reporters who couldn't be here. One of my own. Jesse Hellman with modern healthcare wanted to know when President signs executives today from Johnson and Johnson and Mark does he practice he planned to press them on increasing costs of prescription drugs, [14:13:16] bring up his own agenda to lower drug prices, and PSAKI>> the primary focus of this meeting is on working together the two companies who have long been competitors, working together to ensure the efficient and effective manufacturing of vaccines. Q>> Tommy Christopher from media had a question on the filibuster said that President Biden expressed some openness filibuster reform during the campaign, you've said more recently, that it's not process to change the rules we wants to know if the john lewis Voting Rights Act represents a red line if Republicans do not support that that does not move forward in the Senate. Is that a red line that would prompt him to consider filibuster reform. [14:13:58] PSAKI>> Well, the President's preference is not to make changes to the filibuster rules, he believes that voting rights and access to voting, ensuring it's easier for the American people is enough of a huge priority it should be for everyone that's why you signed some executive orders, use the power. hesitancy to do that this weekend, and he is hopeful that Democrats and Republicans can work together to get that done. Q>> And then one last question on the overall agenda, you were saying earlier, you know, when you look at built back better you're sort of thinking through kind of what's next, but broadly speaking is infrastructure. The next big legislative priority on Capitol Hill for this administration. [14:1437] There's also pressure for an immigration bill to go through what's next for you guys, what is the next big priority after the bill that you're hoping to sign that's present don't miss out on Friday. PSAKI>> It's a very popular question, understandably, but our focus is on getting American rescue plan implemented. We will have more to say the President will have more to say on his build back better agenda and what the components of that look like, what the size the proposals the order of events will be, but I don't have anything to preview for you. [14:15:08] Q>> Before an immigration bill on Capitol Hill, 141509 PSAKI>> Well, I don't have a legislative order to preview for you either. I will say, given all of the conversations we're having, understandably, about the border and questions about the border, in the President's proposed immigration package, he has funding for -- to address the root causes in the region, as we talked about a little bit earlier, he has a pathway to citizenship, he proposes a pathway to citizenship -- citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and he also proposes an investment in smart security. 141537 So, given all of the concern by many in Congress about immigration and what's happening at the border, it sure seems like a good time to move that initiative forward. Go in the back. [14:15:51] Q>> Thank you, Jen, I understand you don't want to call it a crisis from this podium little funny you say, border patrol agents at the border or especially those within the union, who are calling it a crisis and who are saying that they're overworked and there's just too many encounters day in and day out. PSAKI>> We are saying that we recognize that are incumbent upon us and this administration is continuing to continue to work day and night to expedite the process of ensuring there are the resources and processes in place to move children from the border patrol facilities to the shelters. We are saying that it is incumbent upon our administration to look for additional facilities that can safely house children and incumbent upon us to ensure that we are communicating effectively and efficiently to the region as [14:16:42] Ambassador Jacobson talked about at the top of this briefing and those are all focuses of the President on down. You know, every single day. Q>> The Mexican government today, reports that over 4000 unaccompanied minors were actually deported back to Mexico between January and March. Can you confirm that this was done under the previous administration or any of those unaccompanied minors deported, under the Biden administration. PSAKI>> I know that CBP provides numbers and data on a regular basis and I think there's more data coming soon. From there, so I would certainly send to them for any statistics and data our policies that we don't turn children under 18 away at the border on of course as you know, though, even if, when they are in homes of family members or in sponsored homes that they still can go through processing [14:17:33] and may need to return home, Q>> the stimulus package you find me one last question I know I think this came up yesterday, but I wanted to ask the question, now that the stimulus package is passed on many undocumented immigrants are not benefited in any way by the money that's going out, the president blended the executive action or anything else to do to help that population. PSAKI>> Sorry I missed part of the last sentence. Q>> Now that the stimulus package has yes and the undocumented population. Many of the millions are not benefited in any way, does a president blind any executive actions or anything else to help a population. [14:18:06] PSAKI>> Well, certainly I think the President's priority given he proposed an immigration bill on the first day is to create a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants, of course, in this country. He's also been clear that, ensuring that everybody in this country is vaccinated and receives that so COVID COVID-19 vaccine is a key priority. And of course this is just the beginning of his agenda but I don't have anything more to preview for you. Go ahead Q>> and Vicki judge, given the current premise of vaccination around the world, what would your President consider organizing these climates in person in DC here for you to avoid practice. PSAKI>> I don't think we have any I think at this point the intention is to do it remotely [14:18:45] I believe and I don't think there's an intention to change that, but I'm happy to check on that for you. Q>> Do you know roughly how many states expert for the Chinese president will be one of them. PSAKI>> I don't have any more details on the summit I know it's coming up in about six weeks, five weeks, and I expect as we get closer we'll have more to preview, go into that part Q>> yeah just a follow up on filibusters I've said many times that President Biden's preference is not to change the rules around filibuster but if the next big pieces of his agenda are stymied in the Senate. Are there changes to the filibuster that he can live with such as talking filibuster. [14:19:22] PSAKI>> Well, the President believes that there are a range of issues where there's historic. There's historic precedent of Democrats and Republicans working together, whether it's infrastructure as we've been talking about or modernizing the immigration system. He's obviously had a number of bipartisan meetings in the Oval Office. So that's where his energy and focus will be moving forward, go in the back. Q>> Thank you. So the could just have held trouble than containing a dissident, a woman released from prison weeks ago, is it a sign that the White House message regarding the human rights abuse in the kingdom is not strong enough, PSAKI>> what you were referring to a human rights, somebody, a human rights activist who was released from prison, but Q>> was not able to travel outside the kingdom. PSAKI>> I would have to look into more specific details of that [14:20:15] I know we were pleased with the release, but I'd have to look into more specific details of the travel restrictions, Q>> but do you have any sort of eta for when the next cabinet secretaries will be approved, and when you're going to start nominating ambassadors PSAKI>> go ask our friends in the Senate. We expect that some will move forward with and we are hopeful, I should say that we will get a couple of additional cabinet members, confirmed in the coming days or over the course of the next week, the Presidents looking forward to that. They're certainly looking forward to at some point having a full cabinet meeting, [14:20:46] the President hasn't made any decisions about Ambassador all nominees so I don't expect them to be confirmed anytime soon, given we have to nominate them first. Well, again, it's really up to the Senate on the timeline for that but we are hopeful that they move forward with the remaining members of the Cabinet, given we are almost two months into an administration. Q>> Just to follow up on something that Ambassador Jacobson said, and I think you may have gotten a note about this, that she first time she said that the border is not closed and she then insist when she was speaking in Spanish and then you know later on spoken Spanish again for the border is closed. [14:21:32] I mean, it seems like she, I guess misspoke, the first time consider your overall message but your concern, but now that she is misspoken that that's going to be, you know, picked up and disseminated across the Spanish speaking world is the message from the administration, PSAKI>> well given she also said that the border is closed, we're hopeful that that is what will be picked up and that is clearly and consistently been our message. So, that is certainly our hope Q>> you're having a messaging, difficulty around this issue. hat just means and [14:22:05] PSAKI>> we certainly hope not. We have the power of the media here to make sure you're communicating effectively with the messages and as we knew we all have moments where we where we say something slightly differently than we would like to and we quickly try to correct it to make it easier to communicate with the administration's, you know, goals and policies are. Thanks everyone. [END]
WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WITH JEN PSAKI - ROBO HEAD ON
FS36 WH PRESS BRFG ROBO STIX 1230 ABC UNI WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WITH JEN PSAKI [13:06:19] PSAKI>> Hello. So, joining us today is Ambassador Roberta Jacobson, coordinator for the southern border. was the U. S ambassador to Mexico from 2016 to 2018. She previously served as U.S Assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere. Fairs I had the pleasure of working with her at that time, and has focused on Latin America for more than 30 years as a career civil servant. She's going to give some remarks and then happy to take some questions. And as always, I will be the bad cop. Thank you for joining. So Thank you all. JACOBSON>> Good afternoon. Wasn't Biden has made clear from day one that he wants to change our immigration system. Doing so means truly building back better. Because we can't just undo four years of the previous [13:07:22] administration's actions overnight. 130718 Those actions didn't just neglect our immigration system. They intentionally made it worse. When you add a pandemic to that, it's clear it will take significant time to overcome. We must build a better immigration system that reflects our values as Americans, enforces our laws, safeguards public health, and moves away from cycles of irregular migration. 130742 Today, I'm here to talk about what we are doing with partners in Mexico and Central America to ensure that people don't make this dangerous journey and instead have opportunities for economic advancement and safety at home. The President has committed to seeking $4 billion over four years to address the root causes of migration, including corruption, violence, and economic devastation exacerbated by climate change. [13:08:09] As part of that plan, we will address the causes that compel individuals to migrate, including improving governance and providing a foundation for investment and economic opportunity. Strengthening civilian security and the rule of law. Working across the whole of government. We will look at access to international protection and refugee resettlement. And rethinking asylum processing to ensure fair and faster consideration. Only by addressing those root causes. Can we break the cycle of desperation and provide hope for families who clearly would prefer to stay in their countries and provide a better future for their Children? President Biden when he was vice president visited the region many times and is clear eyed about the challenge. Insists now, as he did, then the government's commit to being true partners in creating the conditions for growth and security. I want to emphasize that the funds were asking for from Congress don't go to government leaders. They go to communities to training to climate mitigation to violence prevention to anti gang programs. In other words, they [13:09:23] go to the people who otherwise migrate in search of hope. And they will have to have the participation of the private sector's in those countries. For too long, have evaded taxes, underpaid workers and failed to be part of the solution to creating safe, prosperous and democratic countries. We've already begun. Specific actions to both undo the previous administration's policies and to advance a new vision of immigration. We have ended the so called migrant protection protocols, which sent people back to Mexico to wait sometimes for years for a chance to present their asylum claims. Working with the government of Mexico international organizations and ngos. We have safely admitted over 1400 migrants and closed the most dangerous face of the mpp. Matamoros Migrant camp. Today we're announcing the restarting of the Central American Minors Program for Children to be reunited with he parent who is legally in the United States. This program was ended abruptly by the [13:10:23] previous administration, leaving around 3000 Children already approved for travel stranded. In Phase two will be working to improve the camp program to expand safe and legal avenues for to the United States. 131033 I want to be clear. Neither in this -- neither this announcement nor any of the other measures suggest that anyone, especially children and families with young children should make the dangerous trip to try and enter the U. S in an irregular fashion. The border is not open. [13:10:51] Going forward. We will continue to look for ways to provide legal avenues in the region for people needing protection while we continue to enforce our laws. This is a process. We have a great deal to do. But this administration has made significant progress and we will continue to do so. It reflects who we are as Americans putting our values at the center of our policy. Thank you. Q>> You were doing this refer [13:11:25] to this $4 billion that the administration is seeking. Are you seeking this as part of a larger comprehensive immigration package or as a stand alone Bill? 131128 JACOBSON> Well, I think what you'll see is that $4 billion in a Central American Northern Triangle strategy will be part of our foreign assistance request and will focus on the things we know that work. [13:11:43] Obviously it's not our first rodeo, that vice president the president when he was vice president worked on these issues. We know how to get money to communities that are most likely. To send migrants but also that are suffering the greatest effective to hurricanes this season, etcetera, so it will be part of our overall foreign assistance package. In the meantime, we're focused on getting humanitarian assistance to these countries after hurricane said to an iota, so in that sense, it's part of a larger plan. But obviously there are parts of this that will be on the domestic side as [13:12:25] well to fix the whole extent of our immigration processing. Q>> What is the administration doing right now? To work with these home countries to send a message? People don't come here. Don't send your Children here, right? JACOBSON>> Well I think you know, one of the most important things is to make sure that. We get communications right? And the message right and I'm happy to repeat that, 131247 But I think it's also important that we work with the international organizations that have very credible voices and have very good networks among migrant sending communities to dispel the myths and misinformation that smugglers are using. Right? When we talk about the border not being open, and, you know, the ways in which we're trying to dissuade people from making that dangerous journeys, the smugglers are conveying exactly the opposite people. [13:13:15] So we need to make sure we get that message out. We also need to be looking at things like the camp program. The Central American Minors Program as they talked about. And how we can expand that How we can make that. You know, eligibility greater, 131330 But the next step is to look at solutions in the region, right? What more can we do to process people legally who really do require protection so they don't have to make that journey? [13:13:44] and we're looking at all of those things. Q>> And finally you said that this isn't your first rodeo. Should the administration have been better prepared to handle? This influx of Children before it changed the policy, allowing them to stay in the country. JACOBSON>> I think there's a couple things I think What we're doing right now is making a difference in the home countries beginning to work with governments. You know that couldn't start until January. 20th there. There is one government at a time. You can't start changing processes of government building facilities. All of this is part of the plan as quickly as possible to make sure that our [13:14:28] domestic processes work more smoothly more quickly as I mentioned, but also to work with foreign governments, and you can't do that. Obviously till January 20th when you when you take over, but. Have been multiple engagements with the government of Mexico it very high level with the government of Guatemala with the hunger and government in Salvadoran In the first six weeks of government, So I think we've gotten off to a big start a fast start. In that engagement. Thank you, Gentle man Investor on Honduras. How did the administration downs his need for cooperation from that government with ongoing concerns about corruption there? Particularly federal prosecutors, who would say that the president is working on a plan to flood the United States with cocaine. I think one of the things that I made clear in the opening comments, which I want to reiterate, is that none of the money that we're looking to get from from Congress from the taxpayers of the United States goes to government leaders. So I don't think that [13:15:30] means that presidents are unimportant in these countries, but I do think that it's important to understand that we will be working with civil society. With international organizations and international ngos on the ground. We will work with officials that we can work with, but we also think it's really important. But these countries make commitments really explicit commitments to advancing on anti corruption. And in some places that will be hard to do if you've got officials for whom. There is a cloud and I think we need to work with the organizations that we can in countries. In some places. We will work with religious organizations, ngos with etcetera. It's a challenge in countries that have confronted serious corruption risks. What mechanism is in place where how do you possibly safeguard. That [13:16:32] funding to make sure it stays out of the hands and perhaps crept politicians. Well I think one of the things that we've always done. Always and 31. Years of the state Department has taught me this is we do end use monitoring right? Our embassies and people that we work with are looked at before their recipients of funds. And we do checks and we look at what's being done with the funds, right? We also don't deliver money. In most cases, we delivered training we deliver. New lighting facilities that reduce violence and crime S. Oh, so a lot of what you do, it's not handing over blank checks, and I think that's really important in this. Q>> Thank you very much. You're talking about restarting Cam. These other long term goals for what immigration policy should look like. But right now, New CNN reporting shows that unaccompanied migrant Children are being held in these border patrol facilities. Or on average 107 hours That's up from I believe 77 hours on average last week. So what is the bite [13:17:32] administration doing right now to fix that? JACOBSON>> I think you know my part of this focuses. Much more on what we're doing at the end of this process in Central America and Mexico. 131741 I think all of us at every stage of this process are doing everything we can to make sure that children are well cared for and moved into facilities that are appropriate for them. [13:17:55] But I want to make a point again that it's really important that people not make the dangerous journey in the first place that we provide them with alternatives to making that journey. Because it's not safe. On route on dsa. So you know if I could just emphasize that that it's really important that that message get out because the perception is not the same as the reality in terms of the border, not being open. We want to provide through camp through [13:18:34] other mechanisms, ways for some of these young people to be reunited with family members in the United States. [SPEAKING SPANISH] 131855 Q>> You're telling them not to come -- just to follow up quickly. You're telling them they should not come. Would you describe what's happening on the border as a crisis given how these numbers are spiking so much week by week? 131905 You know, I think that I really -- I'm not trying to be cute here. But I think the fact of the matter is we have to do what we do regardless of what anybody calls the situation. And the fact is, we are all focused on improving the situation, on changing to a more humane and efficient system. And whatever you call it, it wouldn't change what we're doing, because we have urgency from the president on down to fix our system and make sure that we are better at dealing with the hopes and the dreams of these migrants in their home country. 131945 Q>> Do you think it's a coincidence that as soon as Trump and his immigration policy were on the way out and Biden and his stated policy were on the way in, this historic surge at the border started? 131956 JACOBSON>>> Well, first of all, one of the things I think is important is we've seen surges before. Surges tend to respond to hope. And there was a significant hope for a more humane policy after four years of, you know, pent up demand. So, I don't know whether I would call that a coincidence. But I certainly think that the idea that a more humane policy would be in place may have driven people to make that decision. 132027 But perhaps more importantly, it definitely drove smugglers to express disinformation, to spread disinformation about what was now possible. [13:20:40] Q>> We know that the change in administrations brought hope. Then from your perspective is this search good? JACOBSON>> I don't think that's what I just said. I think it's a reflection of how migrants feel at a particular time. I think what we are doing is making sure that we respond to that hope for people who need protection. We respond to that hope in a way that their cases can be adjudicated more quickly. But I don't think anybody would say that coming to the United States in an irregular fashion is a good thing. That's why I've tried repeatedly to dissuade. People from from listening to those smugglers, but we're going to try our best to do everything we can at each end of this in the United States, but especially in Central America and Mexico. To ensure we have safe, orderly and legal migration. President fighting [13:21:42] when he was president, very active on working with the northward triangle countries, and I was just wondering where their lessons that you are here. Other administration officials, many whom are in jobs in this administration. Have learned about how to deal with those countries or how to deal with foreign aid to them that are informing how you're approaching things now, and that's the kind of follow up a little bitn what Peter was asking. Uh, Are you concerned at all of that kind of mixed messaging tt at the same time that you're telling people not to come that the journey is dangerous because you are offering this this talk about more humanitarian process that people. Not, you know, pay attention to the fact that they could apply from home from their home country that they would still come that they're still so hopeful that there really is kind of a conflicting message coming from Washington. Your federal. So on the first question the question of learning things from when the vice president was leading a lot of our efforts in Central America Previously, I think, [13:22:43] yes, that's a resounding yes. Both the president and all of us who worked with him on that for him on that learned a great deal, and I think that it's really important that we put that to use. Now. One of the things he thinks is so important is being really explicit. With leadership in the countries from which migrants are coming about commitments that they need to make because overcing the reasons people migrate. He's not gonna be the United States job alone, right if we realize that it's lack of good governance, economic opportunity and security issues of violence. Then some of those require commitments by the governments on anti corruption and transparency on creating governments that function better to provide services for their country. So He's very clear on being. Sure that we gethose commitments from leaders and holding them to it right. The money is not a tap [13:23:44] that gets turned on all at once. You have to make sure that you're continuing to follow those issues. So I think there's a lot of things we learned. And a lot of things we learned about ensuring that funds get to Communities that are really in need, whether it's post Hurricane or coffee rust, which was ravaging Guatemala and Honduras, or, you know a historic drought. 132401 I think when you look at the issue of mixed messages, it is difficult at times to convey both hope in the future and the danger that is now, and that is what we're trying to do. And I -- I will certainly agree that we are trying to walk and chew gum at the same time. We are trying to convey to everybody in the region that we will have legal processes for people in the future, and we're standing those up as soon as we can. 132437 But, at the same time, you cannot come through irregular means. It's dangerous, and, you know, the majority of people will be sent out of the United States, because that is the truth of it. We want to be honest with people. And so, we are trying to send both messages and smugglers are only trying to send one message. [13:25:04] So we're relying on every means we can to get that. Message out there and that leads me to wanna reiterate as I did before L a from terrorists Tessera. Yes. No Anselmo Mental winning guru Momenta is a propaganda. The tells in the money. Iraq. Drew. Say a word more about what you're talking about You from the private sector. Explain what your enjoy winning there and like, what exactly do you need? And then just to sort of the second question. You kno you're talking about being really explicit with these countries. But what sort of leverage does the United States actually have. To Effect change [13:25:53] in those countries. But what exactly can you do? Yeah. Let me take that second one first only because. Look in the end. I think the implication of your question which is quite right is we can't make the changes. We can encourage them. We can help. Support them with resource is both technical assistance and funding, but we can't make those changes. The changes have to come in the Northern Triangle countries. What I should say is my own experience from traveling to those places. There are myriad people in organizations who are trying to make those changes and part of what we want to do is empower them. Whether that's more effective, um, you know, Economic support, whether it's training for young people, whether it's anti gang programs, whher it's mother's clubs and empowering local communities, all of that gets done through people on the ground, not by the United States. So we want [13:26:53] to be able to empower those actors. I also think that it's really important when you say what leverage do you have? Well I do think that working as partners with these countries means sitting down and talking about what we could do together. 132705 But also if American taxpayers' funds are going to be used, then that is a certain amount of leverage. The President really wants to move forward on this, but he won't unless he feels he has those commitments on an ongoing basis. Is that leverage? You know, funds are -- are sometimes important means of having that conversation. [13:27:28] Your first question was on. Q>> Let me let me discuss it with. You can't follow up. You have to go back to the first one will you? I mean, are you saying exicitly? The U. S could withhold funding. With the Red State Department aide Rusch JACOBSON>> You know, I think I think the really important thing to know is [13:27:53] we're looking forward to getting this, um. Proposal before Congress and having Congress Act on it and what comes after that, You know, I just don't know. You know, the unexamined of branch can always. You know, adjust things like that. I also think it's really important to understand you asked about the private sector. 132808 The private sector in all of these countries, in Central America in particular, is a really important player here. And I think, to be very honest, we have not seen them step up. [13:28:22] One of the mechanisms that was really effective under the Obama Biden administration was for every dollar that the U. S put into an assistance program. We asked for private sector organizations, local chambers of commerce or business organizations. To either match us or exceed us. This gives the private sector skin in the game it make sure that they are part of the solution. If the government's in these countries don't always [13:28:54] have enough resource is to do what they should to improve the economic opportunity for people. There are private sector organizations and members of the private sector, the business community. We need to be part of that solution, and so we just feel that that's really an important element to this. We talked about international organizations, Governments, ngos, I don't want to leave out the business community as a participant ok, last two less three if you have time. Thank you. To follow up a number of question. I mean, I understand what you're saying. You have to empower the civil societies at least part countries, But can you make the link between empowering those civil societies and actually eliminate eliminating the push back there to stop him from coming? To this country, so how much of it is an international age policy versus an anti, You know, um, immigration policy. That's my first question. And then the second one if you could speak more specifically about the requirements that you're. Making to these countries in terms of anti [13:29:55] corruption practices. What are the specific measures of success and how to ensure that there? Yeah, well on the first question, I think this is. Both unturned national aid issue as well as as a policy issue both for us and the countries that we're working with. On the one hand, it is clearly a resource issue. You have to greater than category for hurricanes and then iota within a 15 Day period. You've got reports that suggest that. Literally multiple millions of people in Guatemala and Honduras are food insecure Now that is clearly something you need to be looking at humanitarian assistance and aid to try and remedy. Now in the longer term. When you're looking at increased pace of natural disastersecause of climate change, or you're looking at ways to. Ensure that agricultural policy changes in [13:30:55] countries or that training is given or that students, including girls remain in school. Those are longer term policy questions. That need to be addressed with our partners in the region because they all have an impact on whether migration flows increase or not. And so when the president talks about root causes. Some of this is immediate humanitarian aid, but a lot of it is policy and aid together, making sure that you tackle the root causes of migration. Otherwise, what you see is continued cycles. Right to break that cycle of migration sustainably, you have to work both. On the on the specific commitments for governments. I think that's something that we would want to discuss with the countries involved before we discuss it publicly. Things. The president's executive powers. Do you think the president will consider using his executive powers to reunite families who have been separated under a 00 tolerance? [13:31:57] Well, that certainly. Outside of the family Reunification task force that was created which is exactly to do that. You know that. Are you talking about people who are not in the same country families that were that was separated what the president used anymore. Executive powers. I'm sorry, but you need families who were separated when in the United States are doing zero tolerance and well, that's exactly what the family reunification task force is doing Nothing beyond that. It deals with the whole universe of people separated during that policy, so not that I know of. Okay Last turn back. Questions Congress appropriated almost $1.4 billion with this fiscal year for the border wall that you're not building how much of that is left? Are you guys redirecting it at all? And what along the border right now. Secondly you discussed messaging arguably your predecessors entire theory of their immigration agenda was that they were trying to send [13:32:57] this message. Don't come. America is closed the regular migration. So obviously you're pursuing something policies But what can you actually do differently than they did to try to get that message? If you know it wasn't fixed already with that kind of oppressive messages. On the first question regarding the border while the president has been very clear about ending the national emergency or the emergency of the border that was used to justify the wall, and obviously not proceeding with it. T he exact. Legal requirements and where that those funds might go. I just I just don't know. I'm sorry. Let me let me talk about the message issue. I mean, I think. I think it's really important to understand that Okay? 133344 You can't and shouldn't say in this administration's opinion that the only way to message "do not come in irregular fashion" is to act as cruelly as you possibly can, separate children from their parents, return people to places that, like the camp -- migrant camp in Matamoros, you know for up to two plus years at a time, and that's the only way that you could get your message across. 133411 This administration's belief is that we can get our message across that it is a more humane policy by opening up avenues of legal migration which will encourage people to take those legal options and go through the asylum process if they're seeking that and not take the irregular road. 133436 I think you have to find different ways to message. But if messaging reflects your actions, that is why we are increasing the actions for legal migration so that the message is, you have another option. I'm from back. Q>> Thank [13:35:00] you. Let me ask you a question in Spanish for our audience [SPANISH] [13:35:14] JACOBSON>> [answers in Spanish] [13:36:51] Q>> [SPANISH] JACOBSON>> [answers in Spanish] [13:37:59] PSAKI>> Okay? I can't promise you'll always be that rapid when I promised to bring someone to the briefing room, But we'll try. We'll do our best. Well, we'll do our best couple of other items for all of you at the top. 133813 With today's expected passage of the Rescue Plan, I can announce that the President will sign the bill at the White House on Friday afternoon. We've spent a lot of time, of course, from the podium talking about the mechanics of how a bill becomes a law, and I know there's lots of interest in what comes next. So once it's passed, the bill text will be rechecked, printed, and signed by the appropriate leaders in the House and Senate. 133834 The House coach will then deliver it to the White House for the president's signature. We expect that delivery to happen sometime tomorrow, and then the President will sign it on Friday. [13:38:44] We, of course, are moving full speed ahead on the implementation of the bill because we know the American people need help. I need it as soon as possible. The way we are also working on looking ahead to implementation. I wanted to make sure you all saw [13:39:03] Secretary Yellen speech before the National League of Cities yesterday, promising to get at eight out to state and local governments. Obviously this is a key component of the package and one that will help keep. Cops, firefighters. Local officials in their jobs on we're looking there. They're looking for ways to maximize, of course, the impact of every dollar. That's exactly what the president did when he served as the point person on the implementation of the Recovery Act in 2009, partnering with mayors, governors and other officials to get help to them quickly and in a way that kept waste fraud and abuse to 2/10 of 1, 133935 So he knows directly that the passage and signing of the bill is just the beginning, and he will -- he plans to appoint somebody to run point on implementation. I don't have any personnel announcements today, but that will certainly be part of our path moving forward. Also today, as you know, the President will join the CEOs of Johnson & Johnson and Merck to discuss their historic partnership that will produce more lifesaving vaccines for Americans and the world. 134002 President Biden also announced that he is directing -- he is planning to direct -- he's directing, I should say, Jeff Zients, our covid coordinator, and HHS, and the HHS team to procure an additional 100 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. He's doing this because in a wartime effort, which is what we consider this, we need maximum flexibility. 134023 We want to be oversupplied and over-prepared. There's also a chance that we'll encounter an unexpected challenge on new need in our vaccination efforts, and we're preparing for just that. [13:40:32] The president also discussed the meeting today at the meeting is having today during his remarks and also address, of course, are the passage of the rescue plan during those remarks as well. Last item. I believe here. What's going on here today? On March 18th 19th, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Tony Blinken will meet with Director Gangjee Tour and State [13:41:04] Councilor Wang G. And Anchorage of China. Of course, the meeting will follow the president's convening of the quad at the leader level, as well as his participation in the G seven. Leaders meeting just a few weeks ago, Secretary Blinken on Secretary Austin's trip to Japan and Korea, two of our closest regional allies and national security Advisor Sullivan's multiple engagements with Japanese Korean, Australian, Canadian and European counterparts, including European quad meeting next week. It was important to us that this administration's first meeting with Chinese officials be held American soil and occur after we have met and consulted closely with partners and allies in both Asia and Europe. And as you know, my number of those conversations have happened at the presidential level and, of course at the secretary of state and National Secity Advisor level as well. Meeting is an opportunity to address a wide range of issues, including ones where we have deep disagreements. We intend to discuss her expectations and will be frank and explaining Beijing's actions and behavior behavior Challenge. To the [13:42:06] security, prosperity and our concerns about challenges. They post the security on values of the United States and our allies and partners. We will also talk about areas where we can cooperate of mutual interests on we're coming to these discussions, of course. Clear eyed. The meeting also provides an opportunity to emphasize H the United States will stand up for the rules based international system and a free and open Endo Pacific. As the president has said, We approach our relationship with the Chinese from a position of strength in lockstep with our allies and partners. That Go ahead, Jonathan. Q>> Thanks Judge. You said the president will be signing the bill on Friday and you walk us through what will happen next? The president himself has expressed regret that the 2009 got recovery happened was not sold. Well, let's put it to yourself that acknowledge that others veterans of the demonstration field similarly. Can you explain to us what we're going to see from the president from surrogates? How is this message to deliver to the American people? How do you sell this bill? 134258 PSAKI>> Sure. Well, the president, the vice president, the first lady, the second gentleman, a number of members of our Cabinet will be communicating directly with the American people, engaging directly with the American people, and all sending a clear message: help is on the way. [13:43:15] Over the next few weeks. We're going to swiftly put in place implementation plans. I've touched on a little bit of that. Andre plans to get aid to the people in places that need it the most as quickly as possible. This'll is, of course, a continuation of the work we've done over the last two months to build support for the rescue plan, communicating directly with the American people building support among mayors, governors, labor leaders, the business community and other stakeholders. 134338 We'll be emphasizing a number of components that are in the package and really having a conversation. This is important to the president personally. Having a conversation directly with people about how they could benefit, addressing questions they have, even taking their feedback on implementation and how to make it clear. [13:43:55] and we've talked a little bit about in here. People of questions like. Do I need to do anything to get my check? How do I benefit from the health benefits? What about you know what? What Funding will go to my school? He wants to ensure that people have access to the instant formacion 134410 So, he will be hitting the road. The vice president will be hitting the road. The first lady will be hitting the road. We will have people out communicating directly in communities, but we'll also use a range of tools at our disposal, including engaging in -- communicating through digital means, doing local interviews, and also utilizing a number of members of our Cabinet cabinet who have key roles in the implementation. [13:44:34] I referenced Secretary Yellin, of course in her role. Obviously the Iris has some key roles here, but he will be tapping into the Cabinet to also play a role in communicating and engaging with the public. Following this and one other matter on this, you know President Auntie is addressing the nation's right in prime time. Is this part of it? The idea of what happens next because of the package going to be. Part of that speech. We preview a little bit about what the message the American people is going to be to morning I expect we'll have more toe say tomorrow about the speech, and I want to just give him a [13:45:11] chance to go through the speech again and make sure I'm previewing it in a way that is consistent with where it will land. 134511 But as I've talked about a little bit in here, this is -- tomorrow marks the 50th day of the administration. It also marks one year since the country shut down. And the President believes it is important to take a look back of the journey the American people have been on, the sacrifices that have been made, the lives that have been lost, and also look ahead. And he will be talking more about how he will approach this war against the pandemic moving forward and lay out some more specifics of what the American people can expect. [13:45:43] U N report out today says the U. S Is among the countries lagging behind on climate friendly projects in covid Economic recovery Spending Club What is this administration has started moving forward on the $2 trillion climate change package that was such a big part of that candidate. Fighting's campaign. PSAKI>> It's only day 49. Jonathan We're about to pass a [13:46:11] historic the most Progressive bill in American history. It's be a passing today. Look I would say that the president believes that and he talked about this on the campaign trail is a zoo you mentioned was certainly a promise of his that. We can create the United States and many other countries around the world will will focus on here can create good paying union jobs that are also consistent with our objective of just addreing the climate crisis, and certainly that is central to how he's thinking about his agenda. Moving forward. Those policy discussions Air Sil ongoing but I can assure you that. He intends to Dever on the promises he made on the campaign trail on intends to deliver on the promises he made about creating good paying union jobs that also are consistent with his goal of addressing climate. ISIS. I should say, Go ahead on the 100 million new does since you said that the goal is to be over supply. What's the goal for that over supplies to be held in reserve for kids? Is it to be donated to other countries? Is it. To be held in reserve in [13:47:13] case people need to get shots again next year. What's the plan for that extra dosage Well first, the president's focus every day when he makes up is ensuring every American week. We can ensure that every American has access to a vaccine and that we are vaccinating the people in this country. But here a couple of the factors that we're have have weighed in on our decision to purchase. An additional 100 million doses. 134731 We still don't know which vaccine will be most effective on kids. We still don't know the impact of variants or the need for booster shots. And these doses can be used for booster shots as well as needed. Obviously, that's still being studied by the FDA. But, again, we want to be over prepared, as I noted earlier. 134749 We also need maximum flexibility. So Johnson & Johnson, the vaccine has unique benefits. It's a one shot vaccine. It can be stored in the fridge and not a freezer. It's highly effective, as the others are as well, against hospitalization and death. But we are really looking for maximum flexibility here, as we are still considering a couple of those pieces I mentioned, which is most effective with children, the effectiveness on addressing variants, and, and, of course, boosters as I noted. 134819 Q>> And then on the COVID relief bill, which is being voted on in the House right now, how quickly will school districts be able to access that money, and will they be able to implement it in time to make safety changes for this school year, which in many parts of the country is only the last another three months? 134836 You're absolutely right, and a fair amount of the funding is also -- we expect will be likely used for forward planning, right? So, so schools that need to plan for, we need to hire temporary teachers right now, but we need to ensure we can keep them on the job in a year, in two years. We need to make facility upgrades. 134854 It really depends school to school. In terms of the timeline for implementation, I know that's something that our Department of Education is going to be looking at. [13:49:02] And of course, the implementation team that will be focused on getting these dollars out the door so we will certainly plan to give you an update as we have a [13:49:16] better time line on the on the calendar. Q>> On another front registered journalist, Andrea Support is currently on trial over her coverage of a racial justice protest. Last summer. She's been charged with failure to disperse and interference with official access. The find administration believes that these charges should be dropped and will the president or anyone in the administration urged Polk County, Iowa prosecutors. Drop the charges. PSAKI>> I'm happy to discuss this with our team. I'm not as familiar with the case, but I will look into it. We'll get you back and answer. Q>> Sure Dracula first off has President Biden been briefed yet by his delegation that went to the border over the weekend. And does he now feel the need to go to the border if he has been briefed by the. 134951 PSAKI>> Sure. Well I can confirm for you that the President did receive a briefing earlier today from members of his team that visited the border region this past weekend. I will note, he receives regular briefings on immigration, and the economy, on COVID, on a range of issues that the country and the administration is facing. He heard from the delegation on what they observed during their visit to the border region and the facilities they toured. 135015 But they all -- they spent the majority of their time discussing what steps can be taken to expedite processes to move more quickly, to move the process more quickly to meet the administration's goal of getting these children placed with vetted and confirmed families. Moving them quickly, as related to your question earlier, out of border patrol facilities and into these shelters and then ultimately into these homes. 135037 I don't have anything to preview for you in terms of a trip. Obviously, a delegation going to the border and visiting these facilities is something that can be done with a much smaller footprint than the president of the United States traveling, but I don't have anything to preview in terms of a trip. [13:50:52] Q>> And earlier you said you're going to where the president is going to pick someone to kind of run the implementation of the coronavirus relief package. Does the White House anticipate that there could be delays in implementing that because it is such a big bill? PSAKI>> No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't imply our I was not trying to imply that on Lee that we know that this will not all be implemented in four days [13:51:19] or a week or what have you This will take some time on. 135116 And we want to ensure that there is a person responsible and accountable to the implementation. That's something the president felt worked when he was vice president, and so it was an indication of that. [13:51:25] But there are a number of Cabinet members who also played pivotal roles here. A reference, of course, Secretary Yellen Secretary Cardona will play a pivotal role, of course in the reopening of schools, and so they're already officials within the administration. But this this could be it has been used in the past is that more of a coordinating mechanism and how long do you think that implementation will take? I can't give you really a timeline of that. Obviously there are things they're different components as you well know, right, getting the checks out the door. Our Treasury, a team and our economic team are crunching the numbers on that. We hope to have an update for all of you soon on that. Obviously reopening schools, as Nancy was asking AUT it really is school district of school district in terms of what their needs what their needs will be which schools need funding which district's need funding? There are things like unemployment insurance, which [13:52:20] obviously is applied through different mechanisms. So there are pieces of this that are just going to be implemented over time. Some that could be Dunmore. Rapidly and quickly, but obviously this is our focus and are our priority in the days ahead. Last question on Johnson and Johnson, he is going to announce that they were trying to get another. 100 million doses this afternoon, but the administration told governors yesterday on their weekly called They should only expect to get 400,000 doses of Johnson and Johnson vaccine next week. That is far behind what the Johnson Johnson contract with the federal government. They were supposed to have ready when it was authorized by the fda. So is he going to confront the Johnson and Johnson executives? He's meeting with today about why they are so far behind on production. Well, as you know, Caitlyn, we hey, invoked the Defense Production act in part because he wanted Torno and our team Jeff Science and others have been working closely with Johnson and Johnson and Merck, of course, to expedite the production of vaccines to ensure that they could be. Available on the timeline they've committed to. 135319 I will say that this 100 million that was announced -- that's being announced this afternoon is more for the second half of this year and not for -- it's not -- we're not adding additional doses expected on that same timeline. But I'm certain they will be discussing, of course, the need to ensure that the deadlines are met and that, that we have the vaccines and the doses needed to get them in the arms of the American people. Go ahead, Andrew. Q>> So other vaccine the head of the W T, O and others are calling for greater efforts to be made by advanced economies, big countries in rich countries to get more vaccine into developing countries. You just announced that you wanna be over para here in the U. S. And what is the United States soon and sure that these vaccines get out to other countries and do you favor a waiver of intellectual property? Protections under the wt O to ensure that that moves more quickly, or, you know what's [13:54:24] your perspective and a kind of a third way that would be just increasing license? PSAKI>> First the president is deeply focused on the issue of expanding global vaccinations and manufacturing and delivery, which will be critical to end the pandemic. But as we've also said he is first and foremost focused on ensuring Americans have access to vaccines as soon as possible. Uh in the in this period of time on, we've obviously made a great deal of progress on that front. I don't anything more to preview for you in terms of what that will look like we first need to focus on right now. We're still in a circumstance where there isn't enough supply for the for the number of Americans who want to get the vaccination, so that's really our focus at this point in time, but certainly it's a point of discussion. With his counterparts and with a the counter parts of other members of our national security team. Say anything about the river. I don't have anything more for you to predict that question of vaccinating Children. You mentioned that you're not sure which vaccine will be most effective. Actually has talked [13:55:25] about getting high school students vaccinated fell in elementary school kids in the spring. You have a sense of when every American. Could be death. Maybe I mean, you know, you know, we've talked about having enough on hand for adults to be vaccinated by this summer. By the end of May, actually, Well, we will have enough supply right? But the president is the first to say that we can't do this alone, And that's certainly a component of this That is vitally important is ensuring that. People understand across the country that these vaccines are safe and they are effective and we're still going to focus on combating the issues of misinformation. And of course, the vaccine hesitancy in a range of communities you have today, as you know, would be the ones running point on approval of vaccines for Children. I can't really predict. When Children will be vaccinated. We don't know when the fda may approve a vaccine, but our role is ensuring [13:56:26] there's enough supply and that there is enough distribution. We've made a great deal of progress on that more work to be done, but I can't make any predictions beyond that. But. A couple things first President Biden when he was vice president, Kind of was the person who ran point on the 2009 recovery Bill. Would you expect that Vice President Harris might take on civil rule he had, you know? Give General lot put her in a very similar position to the one that he had with President Obama. That's true. I mean, the president has said that he wants the vice president to be the first in the room and the last in the room when he has important briefings when they're important policy decisions and discussions that are taking place, And that certainly is how he is operating, or they're operating as a team together in terms of what role she may play in the implementation. I don't have anything to preview for you on that She will certainly be traveling. She's a key. Voice and asset for the [13:57:26] administration, and she'll be communicating about the impact of the of the American rescue plan and how it's going to help with the American people over the course of the next few weeks. Lank Lean said last night that the president's speech to a joint session of Congress will be for a few weeks. He was kind of suggesting there was gonna be this time period. The administration. It's focused on. Promoting the bill that just passed. Can you kind of confirm that and provide any more information on sort of how you're thinking about the rest of March into April? You know, promoting this. They're fever since moving on to the fullback Better Sure, I don't have an exact breakdown of timeline. And I don't think Ron wasn't intending to give one either on Lee to convey, which is, I think what? You're asking that the president, the vice president and all of us in the administration believe it's important to take a moment to or a few moments I should say to communicate directly with the American people about. The [13:58:26] benefits of the package to ensure they understand that help is on the way and a range of forms and to do that, in communities and directly with people who were hoping understand the benefits of this package S O I expect that to mean a couple of trips for the president, the vice president, others, but I don't have kind of an end date for that on certainly par of the part of the focus internally is on ongoing discussions about what is next and what components of the president's build back. Better agenda. What the order is the format the size and there's just those decisions have been finalized quite yet. One other thing that you'd kind of into you might have an answer for yesterday, which is another thing related to Ron. That clearing National Clearinghouse for Vaccine informatio. Way here in the Blue Merc theater heard, And Justify no answer on very excited about the website, which which many people are. You know, I would say, you know. As you know it, the website is being implemented as a vaccine finder, I should say [13:59:27] is being implemented as a pilot program. We've always been open to expanding the pilot program, and we're certainly looking into that. We're also looking into, and others have asked this question. How we can better assist state and local governments who have their own websites where they are utilized by many members of the local community and effective but sometimes they have. Technical issues, So we're looking at addressing it from. Ah, couple of, um. Different directions, but every option remains on the table were also considering setting up call centers. Organizing navigators help to help individuals schedule appointments, which sometimes can be the issue so I don't have a major update, other than to convey that. It's a pilot program. We've always been open to expanding it on. Certainly a range of options remain on the table and sometimes in some states. Their local website is working quite well, and they just need some technical assistance. What. Q>> Jen you've been telling migrants from right there for a month now, probably back to February 10. But now is not the time to come, but ey are coming in [14:00:28] bigger numbers every day. 140025 So, do you have a messaging problem? 140027 PSAKI>> Well, I would say that in the last administration, we had a morality problem, and children were being pulled from the arms of their parents, and kids were being sent back on a treacherous journey, and that's not the approach of this administration. So, certainly we understand that means there will be more kids who are crossing the border. 140047 We made a policy decision that that was the right, humane step to take. But, I think it's also important for people to understand that the vast majority of people who come to our border are turned away, are sent back to their countries. What we're talking about here are unaccompanied children. [14:01:04] and what our focus is on is ensuring that there are safe places for these kids to go that have accent where they have access to educational resource is health and medical attention, legal assistance as need, and that we can expedite the vetting so that they can get to families and sponsors where they can have their case is adjudicated. 140125 Q>> But since the last administration is gone, tomorrow is 50 days of Biden, there are migrants showing up, wearing t-shirts that say, "Biden, please let us in." And candidate Biden is the one who said, "I would end this notion for the first time in history, the people seeking asylum have to be in squalor on the other side of the river." Why doesn't he come out and just say now is not the time? 140145 PSAKI>> Well, he actually did an interview with Univision about a week or week and a half ago where he conveyed a similar message. And we've conveyed that at every opportunity that we have. [14:01:55] I will say we are, as you noted almost 50 days in. We are Diggle digging ourselves out of a broken and dismantled system. Roberta Master Jacobson referenced this in her opening as well when it comes to engage with countries addressing the root causes. We couldn't start doing that until January. 20th There are programs like the relaunching of the Central American Minors Program, which was ended by the prior administration in 2017. And that meant that that that program which would have allowed for people to apply from the region. We had to restart that program, so we're working to fix the mess of the last couple of years. It's going to take some time. But this is clearly a priority for the president. We're looking at a range of options, which include the opening of additional facilities. It includes steps we can take to expedite the processing and includes application and implementation of the CDC guidelines that were just came out that allow for more Children to be house safely in these facilities, so we're looking at every option possible to help address the [14:03:05] challenges. We're facing a life in the White House. It's a problem that when the CDC tells these migrant shelter facilities that they can be a full capacity that they're careful about covid. Many of them do. But when the C D C tells schools that they can open in person at full capacity, many of them don't. Is there a school in particular that you have is an example that didn't do that? Our most schools in this country at full capacity within person learning. Are there a specific school, though that is not following the CDC guidelines of implementing the mitigation steps so they can re open the CDC saying schools you can't be at every school can be at full capacity. With the CDC guys. This CDC guidelines is to be clear because I think this is very important to be very clear and specific on. They gave eight mitigation steps that schools can take to safely reopen. A number of schools have actually recently reopened Schools and Washington D. C [14:04:05] Some have schools in many districts across the country. Each school district needs to make the decision about whether they are able to take those mitigation steps. The president has also been clear. Some of these school district's need additional funding. There's $160 billion in this package that he's going to sign into law later this week. Secretary of Education will be quite focused on working with school district's to help them reopen, but more school district's are reopening. More kids are in classrooms every single day since they are not all back from an administration position or from your perspective. Have the border Patrol unions and the HHS Union's been easier to work with than the teachers unions. I think that's a little bit of mixing different circumstances. I would say that in tight quarters Uhh I mean a classroom, but. Not quite. Not quite. I would say that. Let's let's take a responsible approach to the two issues. Okay, One is schools reopening, [14:05:06] There's been eight mitigation steps that have been announced by the CDC to implement right. Every school district is going to work to implement those on a timeline that is, they can effectively do. Many school districts are reopening right. Many are re opening every single weekend day and week, right, That is a different circumstance than what we're seeing at the border and the HHS overseas defense. These facilities, right they're working with. They're working on ensuring we could have more kids safely. They are working to implement CDC guidelines, but they're different circumstances and certainly we're working with the school district's and we're also working with HHS to open these facilities there to ensure that kids are treated With safety and care in these facilities. Okay, Go ahead. Thanks Dan. Just little bit more on the Clark. You mentioned yesterday that one of the issues that will be discussed it is how the leaders can work together to combat the pandemic. Might. That discussion include a strategy to counter Brexit diplomacy from China and Russia. You know, I think [14:06:10] they'll be a range of topics discussed and I know that is a concern of a number of leaders around the world, including, of course, President Biden on I'm sure we'll have a readout of the quad meeting tomorrow. Once it's completed. More on the announcement that you complete viewers. Can we expect anything in terms of how the spark. He was here in terms of helping others. Again I know they'll discuss a range of issues tomorrow, but I think it's important to just take a quick a little bit of a step back because this is a meeting that covers a range of topics. Of course, I'm sure covid which is a pandemic everyone in the world is dealing with will be a topic of discussion, but they'll be issues like climate that our address economic cooperation. I'm sure they'll have a range of issues to bring up and we will provide a readout when the meeting concludes tomorrow, the military balance I mean, we know that China just amount of huge defense spending 6.8% I believe for this year. Is that also a top item indigent? PSAKI>> I [14:07:13] don't think I have more to preview than what we've already offered. We will, of course, have a readout on the meeting concludes There are a range of topics on the minds of all of these leaders. As I've noted in here before we anticipate the meeting, discussing. ------ ---We'll bring up a number of issues and we'll have a robust readout when the meeting concludes. Go ahead. [14:07:33] Q>> A few questions. Sure. So, in California republicans are seeking to nationalize a recall after governor Gavin Newsom and really make it a referendum on on public policies you know the other day, Bernie Sanders tweeted that it's time for Democrats to unite and rally on his behalf against the Republicans, does the President have any plans to personally or otherwise support us and if this does make it on the ballot and you know becomes an off year campaign, PSAKI>> we're not quite there yet we've spoken out in support of Governor Newsome and against the recall so that remains our position. Q>> Also in California. He at the San Francisco Chronicle are finding that school districts are saying, even with this influx of money coming from the package, there's still lots of reasons they're not sure if they can reopen even unify this fall through building consensus around how to do it. There's been some criticism that the CDC guidance is actually too conservative and prohibitive, including the six feet distance rule that schools either have to ignore or not open. If there are still schools that aren't open by this fall that the administration considered a failure and what more could they possibly do to help those schools. [14:08:45] PSAKI>> We have several months before the fall sub six months, five months, I will stop doing math now. This is our Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, this is his number one priority what he is focused on the President has asked him to lead this effort. And he's holding a school summit, he will be working with school districts including I'm sure in California and San Francisco and others to work to address what they feel the challenges are to reopening, whether it's funding that's needed whether it's consensus building that needs to happen, the President wants schools to be open, five days a week, once kids to be learning in school and we're going to do everything we can to ensure that's happening. Q>> And lastly on the subject of today's briefing, you know. Immigration and Border policy it covers so many different agencies there's Public Security there's HHS as we discussed, there's State Department, Department of Justice, which we'll talk about as much as a huge piece of this. Is there someone in this administration who is coordinating all of these disparate pieces. Ultimately, you know, where does the buck stop who is making sure that all these different agencies are coordinating to the administration, [14:09:55] PSAKI>> Overall, well, ultimately, the President is responsible for the policy on key issues and key challenges for countries facing and immigration is certainly one of them. You're right. There are a number of agencies involved in this effort, but I will say, I would say they're all playing a pivotal role, the Department of Homeland Security. The. We don't have a Health and Human Services Secretary confirmed yet, when he is he will play a pivotal role but a whole team at HHS, as you know. So, this is being coordinated on part from our national security team but ultimately, it's the president who makes decisions about the policy that's why he asked the team to go to the border and my he asked to receive a briefing and that's something as I noted that happened this morning. Go ahead. [14:10:33] Q>> Okay, on the package implementation for your specific lessons that President Biden when he was in charge of this in 2009, that he learned about that effort that will be applied this effort, particularly in terms of efficiency and reducing waste and fraud that kinds of things but in general any specific lessons that he learned, other than it's good to have one person in charge. PSAKI>> Sure, is structured very differently as you remember, and I'm sure many people remember that a big chunk of the recovery out was around shovel ready project losses of course it very different type of bill. I think some of the lessons were already implementing, including having a point person in charge and including ensuring there's a sustained campaign that is not just about the President of the United States or the Vice President of the United States speaking about the benefits but that really engages our partners and allies, [14:11:28] whether it's Governor's or mayor's local community leaders to ensure there is effective implementation and communication about the package. He also wants to lift up and this is something that's been important to him in general but it's very applicable to this package, members of his cabinet so that they can be front facing and play a very public role in engaging with the public and ensuring the understand components and pieces of a package like this. There are pieces in this package that of course are related to the helping veterans there are pieces of this package that really relate to helping rural communities and he wants to ensure that members of his cabinet are are playing key roles there. That's something that, of course, was done a little bit in 2009 but can can definitely be built on and I think we would venture to do that. [14:12:18] Q>> Equal Rights Amendment The house is expected to vote soon I think next week on eliminating the now expired deadline for ratification and of course Virginia last year became the 38th state to ratify but last year the Justice Department issued a memo saying that we can't do that, that if people feel and move it to an area of constitution so starting the ratification process over. My question is whether the administration is going to rescind that memo and some Democrats have asked him to do. PSAKI>> That's an excellent question. I will have to talk to our team about that and get an update on it, which will then try to do for you after everything go ahead. Q>> Thanks a couple questions on behalf of printful for reporters who couldn't be here. One of my own. Jesse Hellman with modern healthcare wanted to know when President signs executives today from Johnson and Johnson and Mark does he practice he planned to press them on increasing costs of prescription drugs, [14:13:16] bring up his own agenda to lower drug prices, and PSAKI>> the primary focus of this meeting is on working together the two companies who have long been competitors, working together to ensure the efficient and effective manufacturing of vaccines. Q>> Tommy Christopher from media had a question on the filibuster said that President Biden expressed some openness filibuster reform during the campaign, you've said more recently, that it's not process to change the rules we wants to know if the john lewis Voting Rights Act represents a red line if Republicans do not support that that does not move forward in the Senate. Is that a red line that would prompt him to consider filibuster reform. [14:13:58] PSAKI>> Well, the President's preference is not to make changes to the filibuster rules, he believes that voting rights and access to voting, ensuring it's easier for the American people is enough of a huge priority it should be for everyone that's why you signed some executive orders, use the power. hesitancy to do that this weekend, and he is hopeful that Democrats and Republicans can work together to get that done. Q>> And then one last question on the overall agenda, you were saying earlier, you know, when you look at built back better you're sort of thinking through kind of what's next, but broadly speaking is infrastructure. The next big legislative priority on Capitol Hill for this administration. [14:1437] There's also pressure for an immigration bill to go through what's next for you guys, what is the next big priority after the bill that you're hoping to sign that's present don't miss out on Friday. PSAKI>> It's a very popular question, understandably, but our focus is on getting American rescue plan implemented. We will have more to say the President will have more to say on his build back better agenda and what the components of that look like, what the size the proposals the order of events will be, but I don't have anything to preview for you. [14:15:08] Q>> Before an immigration bill on Capitol Hill, 141509 PSAKI>> Well, I don't have a legislative order to preview for you either. I will say, given all of the conversations we're having, understandably, about the border and questions about the border, in the President's proposed immigration package, he has funding for -- to address the root causes in the region, as we talked about a little bit earlier, he has a pathway to citizenship, he proposes a pathway to citizenship -- citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and he also proposes an investment in smart security. 141537 So, given all of the concern by many in Congress about immigration and what's happening at the border, it sure seems like a good time to move that initiative forward. Go in the back. [14:15:51] Q>> Thank you, Jen, I understand you don't want to call it a crisis from this podium little funny you say, border patrol agents at the border or especially those within the union, who are calling it a crisis and who are saying that they're overworked and there's just too many encounters day in and day out. PSAKI>> We are saying that we recognize that are incumbent upon us and this administration is continuing to continue to work day and night to expedite the process of ensuring there are the resources and processes in place to move children from the border patrol facilities to the shelters. We are saying that it is incumbent upon our administration to look for additional facilities that can safely house children and incumbent upon us to ensure that we are communicating effectively and efficiently to the region as [14:16:42] Ambassador Jacobson talked about at the top of this briefing and those are all focuses of the President on down. You know, every single day. Q>> The Mexican government today, reports that over 4000 unaccompanied minors were actually deported back to Mexico between January and March. Can you confirm that this was done under the previous administration or any of those unaccompanied minors deported, under the Biden administration. PSAKI>> I know that CBP provides numbers and data on a regular basis and I think there's more data coming soon. From there, so I would certainly send to them for any statistics and data our policies that we don't turn children under 18 away at the border on of course as you know, though, even if, when they are in homes of family members or in sponsored homes that they still can go through processing [14:17:33] and may need to return home, Q>> the stimulus package you find me one last question I know I think this came up yesterday, but I wanted to ask the question, now that the stimulus package is passed on many undocumented immigrants are not benefited in any way by the money that's going out, the president blended the executive action or anything else to do to help that population. PSAKI>> Sorry I missed part of the last sentence. Q>> Now that the stimulus package has yes and the undocumented population. Many of the millions are not benefited in any way, does a president blind any executive actions or anything else to help a population. [14:18:06] PSAKI>> Well, certainly I think the President's priority given he proposed an immigration bill on the first day is to create a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants, of course, in this country. He's also been clear that, ensuring that everybody in this country is vaccinated and receives that so COVID COVID-19 vaccine is a key priority. And of course this is just the beginning of his agenda but I don't have anything more to preview for you. Go ahead Q>> and Vicki judge, given the current premise of vaccination around the world, what would your President consider organizing these climates in person in DC here for you to avoid practice. PSAKI>> I don't think we have any I think at this point the intention is to do it remotely [14:18:45] I believe and I don't think there's an intention to change that, but I'm happy to check on that for you. Q>> Do you know roughly how many states expert for the Chinese president will be one of them. PSAKI>> I don't have any more details on the summit I know it's coming up in about six weeks, five weeks, and I expect as we get closer we'll have more to preview, go into that part Q>> yeah just a follow up on filibusters I've said many times that President Biden's preference is not to change the rules around filibuster but if the next big pieces of his agenda are stymied in the Senate. Are there changes to the filibuster that he can live with such as talking filibuster. [14:19:22] PSAKI>> Well, the President believes that there are a range of issues where there's historic. There's historic precedent of Democrats and Republicans working together, whether it's infrastructure as we've been talking about or modernizing the immigration system. He's obviously had a number of bipartisan meetings in the Oval Office. So that's where his energy and focus will be moving forward, go in the back. Q>> Thank you. So the could just have held trouble than containing a dissident, a woman released from prison weeks ago, is it a sign that the White House message regarding the human rights abuse in the kingdom is not strong enough, PSAKI>> what you were referring to a human rights, somebody, a human rights activist who was released from prison, but Q>> was not able to travel outside the kingdom. PSAKI>> I would have to look into more specific details of that [14:20:15] I know we were pleased with the release, but I'd have to look into more specific details of the travel restrictions, Q>> but do you have any sort of eta for when the next cabinet secretaries will be approved, and when you're going to start nominating ambassadors PSAKI>> go ask our friends in the Senate. We expect that some will move forward with and we are hopeful, I should say that we will get a couple of additional cabinet members, confirmed in the coming days or over the course of the next week, the Presidents looking forward to that. They're certainly looking forward to at some point having a full cabinet meeting, [14:20:46] the President hasn't made any decisions about Ambassador all nominees so I don't expect them to be confirmed anytime soon, given we have to nominate them first. Well, again, it's really up to the Senate on the timeline for that but we are hopeful that they move forward with the remaining members of the Cabinet, given we are almost two months into an administration. Q>> Just to follow up on something that Ambassador Jacobson said, and I think you may have gotten a note about this, that she first time she said that the border is not closed and she then insist when she was speaking in Spanish and then you know later on spoken Spanish again for the border is closed. [14:21:32] I mean, it seems like she, I guess misspoke, the first time consider your overall message but your concern, but now that she is misspoken that that's going to be, you know, picked up and disseminated across the Spanish speaking world is the message from the administration, PSAKI>> well given she also said that the border is closed, we're hopeful that that is what will be picked up and that is clearly and consistently been our message. So, that is certainly our hope Q>> you're having a messaging, difficulty around this issue. hat just means and [14:22:05] PSAKI>> we certainly hope not. We have the power of the media here to make sure you're communicating effectively with the messages and as we knew we all have moments where we where we say something slightly differently than we would like to and we quickly try to correct it to make it easier to communicate with the administration's, you know, goals and policies are. Thanks everyone. [END]
WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WITH JEN PSAKI - CUTS
FS24 WH PRESS BRFG CUTS POOL 4 1230 CBS POOL WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WITH JEN PSAKI [13:06:19] PSAKI>> Hello. So, joining us today is Ambassador Roberta Jacobson, coordinator for the southern border. was the U. S ambassador to Mexico from 2016 to 2018. She previously served as U.S Assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere. Fairs I had the pleasure of working with her at that time, and has focused on Latin America for more than 30 years as a career civil servant. She's going to give some remarks and then happy to take some questions. And as always, I will be the bad cop. Thank you for joining. So Thank you all. JACOBSON>> Good afternoon. Wasn't Biden has made clear from day one that he wants to change our immigration system. Doing so means truly building back better. Because we can't just undo four years of the previous [13:07:22] administration's actions overnight. 130718 Those actions didn't just neglect our immigration system. They intentionally made it worse. When you add a pandemic to that, it's clear it will take significant time to overcome. We must build a better immigration system that reflects our values as Americans, enforces our laws, safeguards public health, and moves away from cycles of irregular migration. 130742 Today, I'm here to talk about what we are doing with partners in Mexico and Central America to ensure that people don't make this dangerous journey and instead have opportunities for economic advancement and safety at home. The President has committed to seeking $4 billion over four years to address the root causes of migration, including corruption, violence, and economic devastation exacerbated by climate change. [13:08:09] As part of that plan, we will address the causes that compel individuals to migrate, including improving governance and providing a foundation for investment and economic opportunity. Strengthening civilian security and the rule of law. Working across the whole of government. We will look at access to international protection and refugee resettlement. And rethinking asylum processing to ensure fair and faster consideration. Only by addressing those root causes. Can we break the cycle of desperation and provide hope for families who clearly would prefer to stay in their countries and provide a better future for their Children? President Biden when he was vice president visited the region many times and is clear eyed about the challenge. Insists now, as he did, then the government's commit to being true partners in creating the conditions for growth and security. I want to emphasize that the funds were asking for from Congress don't go to government leaders. They go to communities to training to climate mitigation to violence prevention to anti gang programs. In other words, they [13:09:23] go to the people who otherwise migrate in search of hope. And they will have to have the participation of the private sector's in those countries. For too long, have evaded taxes, underpaid workers and failed to be part of the solution to creating safe, prosperous and democratic countries. We've already begun. Specific actions to both undo the previous administration's policies and to advance a new vision of immigration. We have ended the so called migrant protection protocols, which sent people back to Mexico to wait sometimes for years for a chance to present their asylum claims. Working with the government of Mexico international organizations and ngos. We have safely admitted over 1400 migrants and closed the most dangerous face of the mpp. Matamoros Migrant camp. Today we're announcing the restarting of the Central American Minors Program for Children to be reunited with he parent who is legally in the United States. This program was ended abruptly by the [13:10:23] previous administration, leaving around 3000 Children already approved for travel stranded. In Phase two will be working to improve the camp program to expand safe and legal avenues for to the United States. 131033 I want to be clear. Neither in this -- neither this announcement nor any of the other measures suggest that anyone, especially children and families with young children should make the dangerous trip to try and enter the U. S in an irregular fashion. The border is not open. [13:10:51] Going forward. We will continue to look for ways to provide legal avenues in the region for people needing protection while we continue to enforce our laws. This is a process. We have a great deal to do. But this administration has made significant progress and we will continue to do so. It reflects who we are as Americans putting our values at the center of our policy. Thank you. Q>> You were doing this refer [13:11:25] to this $4 billion that the administration is seeking. Are you seeking this as part of a larger comprehensive immigration package or as a stand alone Bill? 131128 JACOBSON> Well, I think what you'll see is that $4 billion in a Central American Northern Triangle strategy will be part of our foreign assistance request and will focus on the things we know that work. [13:11:43] Obviously it's not our first rodeo, that vice president the president when he was vice president worked on these issues. We know how to get money to communities that are most likely. To send migrants but also that are suffering the greatest effective to hurricanes this season, etcetera, so it will be part of our overall foreign assistance package. In the meantime, we're focused on getting humanitarian assistance to these countries after hurricane said to an iota, so in that sense, it's part of a larger plan. But obviously there are parts of this that will be on the domestic side as [13:12:25] well to fix the whole extent of our immigration processing. Q>> What is the administration doing right now? To work with these home countries to send a message? People don't come here. Don't send your Children here, right? JACOBSON>> Well I think you know, one of the most important things is to make sure that. We get communications right? And the message right and I'm happy to repeat that, 131247 But I think it's also important that we work with the international organizations that have very credible voices and have very good networks among migrant sending communities to dispel the myths and misinformation that smugglers are using. Right? When we talk about the border not being open, and, you know, the ways in which we're trying to dissuade people from making that dangerous journeys, the smugglers are conveying exactly the opposite people. [13:13:15] So we need to make sure we get that message out. We also need to be looking at things like the camp program. The Central American Minors Program as they talked about. And how we can expand that How we can make that. You know, eligibility greater, 131330 But the next step is to look at solutions in the region, right? What more can we do to process people legally who really do require protection so they don't have to make that journey? [13:13:44] and we're looking at all of those things. Q>> And finally you said that this isn't your first rodeo. Should the administration have been better prepared to handle? This influx of Children before it changed the policy, allowing them to stay in the country. JACOBSON>> I think there's a couple things I think What we're doing right now is making a difference in the home countries beginning to work with governments. You know that couldn't start until January. 20th there. There is one government at a time. You can't start changing processes of government building facilities. All of this is part of the plan as quickly as possible to make sure that our [13:14:28] domestic processes work more smoothly more quickly as I mentioned, but also to work with foreign governments, and you can't do that. Obviously till January 20th when you when you take over, but. Have been multiple engagements with the government of Mexico it very high level with the government of Guatemala with the hunger and government in Salvadoran In the first six weeks of government, So I think we've gotten off to a big start a fast start. In that engagement. Thank you, Gentle man Investor on Honduras. How did the administration downs his need for cooperation from that government with ongoing concerns about corruption there? Particularly federal prosecutors, who would say that the president is working on a plan to flood the United States with cocaine. I think one of the things that I made clear in the opening comments, which I want to reiterate, is that none of the money that we're looking to get from from Congress from the taxpayers of the United States goes to government leaders. So I don't think that [13:15:30] means that presidents are unimportant in these countries, but I do think that it's important to understand that we will be working with civil society. With international organizations and international ngos on the ground. We will work with officials that we can work with, but we also think it's really important. But these countries make commitments really explicit commitments to advancing on anti corruption. And in some places that will be hard to do if you've got officials for whom. There is a cloud and I think we need to work with the organizations that we can in countries. In some places. We will work with religious organizations, ngos with etcetera. It's a challenge in countries that have confronted serious corruption risks. What mechanism is in place where how do you possibly safeguard. That [13:16:32] funding to make sure it stays out of the hands and perhaps crept politicians. Well I think one of the things that we've always done. Always and 31. Years of the state Department has taught me this is we do end use monitoring right? Our embassies and people that we work with are looked at before their recipients of funds. And we do checks and we look at what's being done with the funds, right? We also don't deliver money. In most cases, we delivered training we deliver. New lighting facilities that reduce violence and crime S. Oh, so a lot of what you do, it's not handing over blank checks, and I think that's really important in this. Q>> Thank you very much. You're talking about restarting Cam. These other long term goals for what immigration policy should look like. But right now, New CNN reporting shows that unaccompanied migrant Children are being held in these border patrol facilities. Or on average 107 hours That's up from I believe 77 hours on average last week. So what is the bite [13:17:32] administration doing right now to fix that? JACOBSON>> I think you know my part of this focuses. Much more on what we're doing at the end of this process in Central America and Mexico. 131741 I think all of us at every stage of this process are doing everything we can to make sure that children are well cared for and moved into facilities that are appropriate for them. [13:17:55] But I want to make a point again that it's really important that people not make the dangerous journey in the first place that we provide them with alternatives to making that journey. Because it's not safe. On route on dsa. So you know if I could just emphasize that that it's really important that that message get out because the perception is not the same as the reality in terms of the border, not being open. We want to provide through camp through [13:18:34] other mechanisms, ways for some of these young people to be reunited with family members in the United States. [SPEAKING SPANISH] 131855 Q>> You're telling them not to come -- just to follow up quickly. You're telling them they should not come. Would you describe what's happening on the border as a crisis given how these numbers are spiking so much week by week? 131905 You know, I think that I really -- I'm not trying to be cute here. But I think the fact of the matter is we have to do what we do regardless of what anybody calls the situation. And the fact is, we are all focused on improving the situation, on changing to a more humane and efficient system. And whatever you call it, it wouldn't change what we're doing, because we have urgency from the president on down to fix our system and make sure that we are better at dealing with the hopes and the dreams of these migrants in their home country. 131945 Q>> Do you think it's a coincidence that as soon as Trump and his immigration policy were on the way out and Biden and his stated policy were on the way in, this historic surge at the border started? 131956 JACOBSON>>> Well, first of all, one of the things I think is important is we've seen surges before. Surges tend to respond to hope. And there was a significant hope for a more humane policy after four years of, you know, pent up demand. So, I don't know whether I would call that a coincidence. But I certainly think that the idea that a more humane policy would be in place may have driven people to make that decision. 132027 But perhaps more importantly, it definitely drove smugglers to express disinformation, to spread disinformation about what was now possible. [13:20:40] Q>> We know that the change in administrations brought hope. Then from your perspective is this search good? JACOBSON>> I don't think that's what I just said. I think it's a reflection of how migrants feel at a particular time. I think what we are doing is making sure that we respond to that hope for people who need protection. We respond to that hope in a way that their cases can be adjudicated more quickly. But I don't think anybody would say that coming to the United States in an irregular fashion is a good thing. That's why I've tried repeatedly to dissuade. People from from listening to those smugglers, but we're going to try our best to do everything we can at each end of this in the United States, but especially in Central America and Mexico. To ensure we have safe, orderly and legal migration. President fighting [13:21:42] when he was president, very active on working with the northward triangle countries, and I was just wondering where their lessons that you are here. Other administration officials, many whom are in jobs in this administration. Have learned about how to deal with those countries or how to deal with foreign aid to them that are informing how you're approaching things now, and that's the kind of follow up a little bitn what Peter was asking. Uh, Are you concerned at all of that kind of mixed messaging tt at the same time that you're telling people not to come that the journey is dangerous because you are offering this this talk about more humanitarian process that people. Not, you know, pay attention to the fact that they could apply from home from their home country that they would still come that they're still so hopeful that there really is kind of a conflicting message coming from Washington. Your federal. So on the first question the question of learning things from when the vice president was leading a lot of our efforts in Central America Previously, I think, [13:22:43] yes, that's a resounding yes. Both the president and all of us who worked with him on that for him on that learned a great deal, and I think that it's really important that we put that to use. Now. One of the things he thinks is so important is being really explicit. With leadership in the countries from which migrants are coming about commitments that they need to make because overcing the reasons people migrate. He's not gonna be the United States job alone, right if we realize that it's lack of good governance, economic opportunity and security issues of violence. Then some of those require commitments by the governments on anti corruption and transparency on creating governments that function better to provide services for their country. So He's very clear on being. Sure that we gethose commitments from leaders and holding them to it right. The money is not a tap [13:23:44] that gets turned on all at once. You have to make sure that you're continuing to follow those issues. So I think there's a lot of things we learned. And a lot of things we learned about ensuring that funds get to Communities that are really in need, whether it's post Hurricane or coffee rust, which was ravaging Guatemala and Honduras, or, you know a historic drought. 132401 I think when you look at the issue of mixed messages, it is difficult at times to convey both hope in the future and the danger that is now, and that is what we're trying to do. And I -- I will certainly agree that we are trying to walk and chew gum at the same time. We are trying to convey to everybody in the region that we will have legal processes for people in the future, and we're standing those up as soon as we can. 132437 But, at the same time, you cannot come through irregular means. It's dangerous, and, you know, the majority of people will be sent out of the United States, because that is the truth of it. We want to be honest with people. And so, we are trying to send both messages and smugglers are only trying to send one message. [13:25:04] So we're relying on every means we can to get that. Message out there and that leads me to wanna reiterate as I did before L a from terrorists Tessera. Yes. No Anselmo Mental winning guru Momenta is a propaganda. The tells in the money. Iraq. Drew. Say a word more about what you're talking about You from the private sector. Explain what your enjoy winning there and like, what exactly do you need? And then just to sort of the second question. You kno you're talking about being really explicit with these countries. But what sort of leverage does the United States actually have. To Effect change [13:25:53] in those countries. But what exactly can you do? Yeah. Let me take that second one first only because. Look in the end. I think the implication of your question which is quite right is we can't make the changes. We can encourage them. We can help. Support them with resource is both technical assistance and funding, but we can't make those changes. The changes have to come in the Northern Triangle countries. What I should say is my own experience from traveling to those places. There are myriad people in organizations who are trying to make those changes and part of what we want to do is empower them. Whether that's more effective, um, you know, Economic support, whether it's training for young people, whether it's anti gang programs, whher it's mother's clubs and empowering local communities, all of that gets done through people on the ground, not by the United States. So we want [13:26:53] to be able to empower those actors. I also think that it's really important when you say what leverage do you have? Well I do think that working as partners with these countries means sitting down and talking about what we could do together. 132705 But also if American taxpayers' funds are going to be used, then that is a certain amount of leverage. The President really wants to move forward on this, but he won't unless he feels he has those commitments on an ongoing basis. Is that leverage? You know, funds are -- are sometimes important means of having that conversation. [13:27:28] Your first question was on. Q>> Let me let me discuss it with. You can't follow up. You have to go back to the first one will you? I mean, are you saying exicitly? The U. S could withhold funding. With the Red State Department aide Rusch JACOBSON>> You know, I think I think the really important thing to know is [13:27:53] we're looking forward to getting this, um. Proposal before Congress and having Congress Act on it and what comes after that, You know, I just don't know. You know, the unexamined of branch can always. You know, adjust things like that. I also think it's really important to understand you asked about the private sector. 132808 The private sector in all of these countries, in Central America in particular, is a really important player here. And I think, to be very honest, we have not seen them step up. [13:28:22] One of the mechanisms that was really effective under the Obama Biden administration was for every dollar that the U. S put into an assistance program. We asked for private sector organizations, local chambers of commerce or business organizations. To either match us or exceed us. This gives the private sector skin in the game it make sure that they are part of the solution. If the government's in these countries don't always [13:28:54] have enough resource is to do what they should to improve the economic opportunity for people. There are private sector organizations and members of the private sector, the business community. We need to be part of that solution, and so we just feel that that's really an important element to this. We talked about international organizations, Governments, ngos, I don't want to leave out the business community as a participant ok, last two less three if you have time. Thank you. To follow up a number of question. I mean, I understand what you're saying. You have to empower the civil societies at least part countries, But can you make the link between empowering those civil societies and actually eliminate eliminating the push back there to stop him from coming? To this country, so how much of it is an international age policy versus an anti, You know, um, immigration policy. That's my first question. And then the second one if you could speak more specifically about the requirements that you're. Making to these countries in terms of anti [13:29:55] corruption practices. What are the specific measures of success and how to ensure that there? Yeah, well on the first question, I think this is. Both unturned national aid issue as well as as a policy issue both for us and the countries that we're working with. On the one hand, it is clearly a resource issue. You have to greater than category for hurricanes and then iota within a 15 Day period. You've got reports that suggest that. Literally multiple millions of people in Guatemala and Honduras are food insecure Now that is clearly something you need to be looking at humanitarian assistance and aid to try and remedy. Now in the longer term. When you're looking at increased pace of natural disastersecause of climate change, or you're looking at ways to. Ensure that agricultural policy changes in [13:30:55] countries or that training is given or that students, including girls remain in school. Those are longer term policy questions. That need to be addressed with our partners in the region because they all have an impact on whether migration flows increase or not. And so when the president talks about root causes. Some of this is immediate humanitarian aid, but a lot of it is policy and aid together, making sure that you tackle the root causes of migration. Otherwise, what you see is continued cycles. Right to break that cycle of migration sustainably, you have to work both. On the on the specific commitments for governments. I think that's something that we would want to discuss with the countries involved before we discuss it publicly. Things. The president's executive powers. Do you think the president will consider using his executive powers to reunite families who have been separated under a 00 tolerance? [13:31:57] Well, that certainly. Outside of the family Reunification task force that was created which is exactly to do that. You know that. Are you talking about people who are not in the same country families that were that was separated what the president used anymore. Executive powers. I'm sorry, but you need families who were separated when in the United States are doing zero tolerance and well, that's exactly what the family reunification task force is doing Nothing beyond that. It deals with the whole universe of people separated during that policy, so not that I know of. Okay Last turn back. Questions Congress appropriated almost $1.4 billion with this fiscal year for the border wall that you're not building how much of that is left? Are you guys redirecting it at all? And what along the border right now. Secondly you discussed messaging arguably your predecessors entire theory of their immigration agenda was that they were trying to send [13:32:57] this message. Don't come. America is closed the regular migration. So obviously you're pursuing something policies But what can you actually do differently than they did to try to get that message? If you know it wasn't fixed already with that kind of oppressive messages. On the first question regarding the border while the president has been very clear about ending the national emergency or the emergency of the border that was used to justify the wall, and obviously not proceeding with it. T he exact. Legal requirements and where that those funds might go. I just I just don't know. I'm sorry. Let me let me talk about the message issue. I mean, I think. I think it's really important to understand that Okay? 133344 You can't and shouldn't say in this administration's opinion that the only way to message "do not come in irregular fashion" is to act as cruelly as you possibly can, separate children from their parents, return people to places that, like the camp -- migrant camp in Matamoros, you know for up to two plus years at a time, and that's the only way that you could get your message across. 133411 This administration's belief is that we can get our message across that it is a more humane policy by opening up avenues of legal migration which will encourage people to take those legal options and go through the asylum process if they're seeking that and not take the irregular road. 133436 I think you have to find different ways to message. But if messaging reflects your actions, that is why we are increasing the actions for legal migration so that the message is, you have another option. I'm from back. Q>> Thank [13:35:00] you. Let me ask you a question in Spanish for our audience [SPANISH] [13:35:14] JACOBSON>> [answers in Spanish] [13:36:51] Q>> [SPANISH] JACOBSON>> [answers in Spanish] [13:37:59] PSAKI>> Okay? I can't promise you'll always be that rapid when I promised to bring someone to the briefing room, But we'll try. We'll do our best. Well, we'll do our best couple of other items for all of you at the top. 133813 With today's expected passage of the Rescue Plan, I can announce that the President will sign the bill at the White House on Friday afternoon. We've spent a lot of time, of course, from the podium talking about the mechanics of how a bill becomes a law, and I know there's lots of interest in what comes next. So once it's passed, the bill text will be rechecked, printed, and signed by the appropriate leaders in the House and Senate. 133834 The House coach will then deliver it to the White House for the president's signature. We expect that delivery to happen sometime tomorrow, and then the President will sign it on Friday. [13:38:44] We, of course, are moving full speed ahead on the implementation of the bill because we know the American people need help. I need it as soon as possible. The way we are also working on looking ahead to implementation. I wanted to make sure you all saw [13:39:03] Secretary Yellen speech before the National League of Cities yesterday, promising to get at eight out to state and local governments. Obviously this is a key component of the package and one that will help keep. Cops, firefighters. Local officials in their jobs on we're looking there. They're looking for ways to maximize, of course, the impact of every dollar. That's exactly what the president did when he served as the point person on the implementation of the Recovery Act in 2009, partnering with mayors, governors and other officials to get help to them quickly and in a way that kept waste fraud and abuse to 2/10 of 1, 133935 So he knows directly that the passage and signing of the bill is just the beginning, and he will -- he plans to appoint somebody to run point on implementation. I don't have any personnel announcements today, but that will certainly be part of our path moving forward. Also today, as you know, the President will join the CEOs of Johnson & Johnson and Merck to discuss their historic partnership that will produce more lifesaving vaccines for Americans and the world. 134002 President Biden also announced that he is directing -- he is planning to direct -- he's directing, I should say, Jeff Zients, our covid coordinator, and HHS, and the HHS team to procure an additional 100 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. He's doing this because in a wartime effort, which is what we consider this, we need maximum flexibility. 134023 We want to be oversupplied and over-prepared. There's also a chance that we'll encounter an unexpected challenge on new need in our vaccination efforts, and we're preparing for just that. [13:40:32] The president also discussed the meeting today at the meeting is having today during his remarks and also address, of course, are the passage of the rescue plan during those remarks as well. Last item. I believe here. What's going on here today? On March 18th 19th, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Tony Blinken will meet with Director Gangjee Tour and State [13:41:04] Councilor Wang G. And Anchorage of China. Of course, the meeting will follow the president's convening of the quad at the leader level, as well as his participation in the G seven. Leaders meeting just a few weeks ago, Secretary Blinken on Secretary Austin's trip to Japan and Korea, two of our closest regional allies and national security Advisor Sullivan's multiple engagements with Japanese Korean, Australian, Canadian and European counterparts, including European quad meeting next week. It was important to us that this administration's first meeting with Chinese officials be held American soil and occur after we have met and consulted closely with partners and allies in both Asia and Europe. And as you know, my number of those conversations have happened at the presidential level and, of course at the secretary of state and National Secity Advisor level as well. Meeting is an opportunity to address a wide range of issues, including ones where we have deep disagreements. We intend to discuss her expectations and will be frank and explaining Beijing's actions and behavior behavior Challenge. To the [13:42:06] security, prosperity and our concerns about challenges. They post the security on values of the United States and our allies and partners. We will also talk about areas where we can cooperate of mutual interests on we're coming to these discussions, of course. Clear eyed. The meeting also provides an opportunity to emphasize H the United States will stand up for the rules based international system and a free and open Endo Pacific. As the president has said, We approach our relationship with the Chinese from a position of strength in lockstep with our allies and partners. That Go ahead, Jonathan. Q>> Thanks Judge. You said the president will be signing the bill on Friday and you walk us through what will happen next? The president himself has expressed regret that the 2009 got recovery happened was not sold. Well, let's put it to yourself that acknowledge that others veterans of the demonstration field similarly. Can you explain to us what we're going to see from the president from surrogates? How is this message to deliver to the American people? How do you sell this bill? 134258 PSAKI>> Sure. Well, the president, the vice president, the first lady, the second gentleman, a number of members of our Cabinet will be communicating directly with the American people, engaging directly with the American people, and all sending a clear message: help is on the way. [13:43:15] Over the next few weeks. We're going to swiftly put in place implementation plans. I've touched on a little bit of that. Andre plans to get aid to the people in places that need it the most as quickly as possible. This'll is, of course, a continuation of the work we've done over the last two months to build support for the rescue plan, communicating directly with the American people building support among mayors, governors, labor leaders, the business community and other stakeholders. 134338 We'll be emphasizing a number of components that are in the package and really having a conversation. This is important to the president personally. Having a conversation directly with people about how they could benefit, addressing questions they have, even taking their feedback on implementation and how to make it clear. [13:43:55] and we've talked a little bit about in here. People of questions like. Do I need to do anything to get my check? How do I benefit from the health benefits? What about you know what? What Funding will go to my school? He wants to ensure that people have access to the instant formacion 134410 So, he will be hitting the road. The vice president will be hitting the road. The first lady will be hitting the road. We will have people out communicating directly in communities, but we'll also use a range of tools at our disposal, including engaging in -- communicating through digital means, doing local interviews, and also utilizing a number of members of our Cabinet cabinet who have key roles in the implementation. [13:44:34] I referenced Secretary Yellin, of course in her role. Obviously the Iris has some key roles here, but he will be tapping into the Cabinet to also play a role in communicating and engaging with the public. Following this and one other matter on this, you know President Auntie is addressing the nation's right in prime time. Is this part of it? The idea of what happens next because of the package going to be. Part of that speech. We preview a little bit about what the message the American people is going to be to morning I expect we'll have more toe say tomorrow about the speech, and I want to just give him a [13:45:11] chance to go through the speech again and make sure I'm previewing it in a way that is consistent with where it will land. 134511 But as I've talked about a little bit in here, this is -- tomorrow marks the 50th day of the administration. It also marks one year since the country shut down. And the President believes it is important to take a look back of the journey the American people have been on, the sacrifices that have been made, the lives that have been lost, and also look ahead. And he will be talking more about how he will approach this war against the pandemic moving forward and lay out some more specifics of what the American people can expect. [13:45:43] U N report out today says the U. S Is among the countries lagging behind on climate friendly projects in covid Economic recovery Spending Club What is this administration has started moving forward on the $2 trillion climate change package that was such a big part of that candidate. Fighting's campaign. PSAKI>> It's only day 49. Jonathan We're about to pass a [13:46:11] historic the most Progressive bill in American history. It's be a passing today. Look I would say that the president believes that and he talked about this on the campaign trail is a zoo you mentioned was certainly a promise of his that. We can create the United States and many other countries around the world will will focus on here can create good paying union jobs that are also consistent with our objective of just addreing the climate crisis, and certainly that is central to how he's thinking about his agenda. Moving forward. Those policy discussions Air Sil ongoing but I can assure you that. He intends to Dever on the promises he made on the campaign trail on intends to deliver on the promises he made about creating good paying union jobs that also are consistent with his goal of addressing climate. ISIS. I should say, Go ahead on the 100 million new does since you said that the goal is to be over supply. What's the goal for that over supplies to be held in reserve for kids? Is it to be donated to other countries? Is it. To be held in reserve in [13:47:13] case people need to get shots again next year. What's the plan for that extra dosage Well first, the president's focus every day when he makes up is ensuring every American week. We can ensure that every American has access to a vaccine and that we are vaccinating the people in this country. But here a couple of the factors that we're have have weighed in on our decision to purchase. An additional 100 million doses. 134731 We still don't know which vaccine will be most effective on kids. We still don't know the impact of variants or the need for booster shots. And these doses can be used for booster shots as well as needed. Obviously, that's still being studied by the FDA. But, again, we want to be over prepared, as I noted earlier. 134749 We also need maximum flexibility. So Johnson & Johnson, the vaccine has unique benefits. It's a one shot vaccine. It can be stored in the fridge and not a freezer. It's highly effective, as the others are as well, against hospitalization and death. But we are really looking for maximum flexibility here, as we are still considering a couple of those pieces I mentioned, which is most effective with children, the effectiveness on addressing variants, and, and, of course, boosters as I noted. 134819 Q>> And then on the COVID relief bill, which is being voted on in the House right now, how quickly will school districts be able to access that money, and will they be able to implement it in time to make safety changes for this school year, which in many parts of the country is only the last another three months? 134836 You're absolutely right, and a fair amount of the funding is also -- we expect will be likely used for forward planning, right? So, so schools that need to plan for, we need to hire temporary teachers right now, but we need to ensure we can keep them on the job in a year, in two years. We need to make facility upgrades. 134854 It really depends school to school. In terms of the timeline for implementation, I know that's something that our Department of Education is going to be looking at. [13:49:02] And of course, the implementation team that will be focused on getting these dollars out the door so we will certainly plan to give you an update as we have a [13:49:16] better time line on the on the calendar. Q>> On another front registered journalist, Andrea Support is currently on trial over her coverage of a racial justice protest. Last summer. She's been charged with failure to disperse and interference with official access. The find administration believes that these charges should be dropped and will the president or anyone in the administration urged Polk County, Iowa prosecutors. Drop the charges. PSAKI>> I'm happy to discuss this with our team. I'm not as familiar with the case, but I will look into it. We'll get you back and answer. Q>> Sure Dracula first off has President Biden been briefed yet by his delegation that went to the border over the weekend. And does he now feel the need to go to the border if he has been briefed by the. 134951 PSAKI>> Sure. Well I can confirm for you that the President did receive a briefing earlier today from members of his team that visited the border region this past weekend. I will note, he receives regular briefings on immigration, and the economy, on COVID, on a range of issues that the country and the administration is facing. He heard from the delegation on what they observed during their visit to the border region and the facilities they toured. 135015 But they all -- they spent the majority of their time discussing what steps can be taken to expedite processes to move more quickly, to move the process more quickly to meet the administration's goal of getting these children placed with vetted and confirmed families. Moving them quickly, as related to your question earlier, out of border patrol facilities and into these shelters and then ultimately into these homes. 135037 I don't have anything to preview for you in terms of a trip. Obviously, a delegation going to the border and visiting these facilities is something that can be done with a much smaller footprint than the president of the United States traveling, but I don't have anything to preview in terms of a trip. [13:50:52] Q>> And earlier you said you're going to where the president is going to pick someone to kind of run the implementation of the coronavirus relief package. Does the White House anticipate that there could be delays in implementing that because it is such a big bill? PSAKI>> No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't imply our I was not trying to imply that on Lee that we know that this will not all be implemented in four days [13:51:19] or a week or what have you This will take some time on. 135116 And we want to ensure that there is a person responsible and accountable to the implementation. That's something the president felt worked when he was vice president, and so it was an indication of that. [13:51:25] But there are a number of Cabinet members who also played pivotal roles here. A reference, of course, Secretary Yellen Secretary Cardona will play a pivotal role, of course in the reopening of schools, and so they're already officials within the administration. But this this could be it has been used in the past is that more of a coordinating mechanism and how long do you think that implementation will take? I can't give you really a timeline of that. Obviously there are things they're different components as you well know, right, getting the checks out the door. Our Treasury, a team and our economic team are crunching the numbers on that. We hope to have an update for all of you soon on that. Obviously reopening schools, as Nancy was asking AUT it really is school district of school district in terms of what their needs what their needs will be which schools need funding which district's need funding? There are things like unemployment insurance, which [13:52:20] obviously is applied through different mechanisms. So there are pieces of this that are just going to be implemented over time. Some that could be Dunmore. Rapidly and quickly, but obviously this is our focus and are our priority in the days ahead. Last question on Johnson and Johnson, he is going to announce that they were trying to get another. 100 million doses this afternoon, but the administration told governors yesterday on their weekly called They should only expect to get 400,000 doses of Johnson and Johnson vaccine next week. That is far behind what the Johnson Johnson contract with the federal government. They were supposed to have ready when it was authorized by the fda. So is he going to confront the Johnson and Johnson executives? He's meeting with today about why they are so far behind on production. Well, as you know, Caitlyn, we hey, invoked the Defense Production act in part because he wanted Torno and our team Jeff Science and others have been working closely with Johnson and Johnson and Merck, of course, to expedite the production of vaccines to ensure that they could be. Available on the timeline they've committed to. 135319 I will say that this 100 million that was announced -- that's being announced this afternoon is more for the second half of this year and not for -- it's not -- we're not adding additional doses expected on that same timeline. But I'm certain they will be discussing, of course, the need to ensure that the deadlines are met and that, that we have the vaccines and the doses needed to get them in the arms of the American people. Go ahead, Andrew. Q>> So other vaccine the head of the W T, O and others are calling for greater efforts to be made by advanced economies, big countries in rich countries to get more vaccine into developing countries. You just announced that you wanna be over para here in the U. S. And what is the United States soon and sure that these vaccines get out to other countries and do you favor a waiver of intellectual property? Protections under the wt O to ensure that that moves more quickly, or, you know what's [13:54:24] your perspective and a kind of a third way that would be just increasing license? PSAKI>> First the president is deeply focused on the issue of expanding global vaccinations and manufacturing and delivery, which will be critical to end the pandemic. But as we've also said he is first and foremost focused on ensuring Americans have access to vaccines as soon as possible. Uh in the in this period of time on, we've obviously made a great deal of progress on that front. I don't anything more to preview for you in terms of what that will look like we first need to focus on right now. We're still in a circumstance where there isn't enough supply for the for the number of Americans who want to get the vaccination, so that's really our focus at this point in time, but certainly it's a point of discussion. With his counterparts and with a the counter parts of other members of our national security team. Say anything about the river. I don't have anything more for you to predict that question of vaccinating Children. You mentioned that you're not sure which vaccine will be most effective. Actually has talked [13:55:25] about getting high school students vaccinated fell in elementary school kids in the spring. You have a sense of when every American. Could be death. Maybe I mean, you know, you know, we've talked about having enough on hand for adults to be vaccinated by this summer. By the end of May, actually, Well, we will have enough supply right? But the president is the first to say that we can't do this alone, And that's certainly a component of this That is vitally important is ensuring that. People understand across the country that these vaccines are safe and they are effective and we're still going to focus on combating the issues of misinformation. And of course, the vaccine hesitancy in a range of communities you have today, as you know, would be the ones running point on approval of vaccines for Children. I can't really predict. When Children will be vaccinated. We don't know when the fda may approve a vaccine, but our role is ensuring [13:56:26] there's enough supply and that there is enough distribution. We've made a great deal of progress on that more work to be done, but I can't make any predictions beyond that. But. A couple things first President Biden when he was vice president, Kind of was the person who ran point on the 2009 recovery Bill. Would you expect that Vice President Harris might take on civil rule he had, you know? Give General lot put her in a very similar position to the one that he had with President Obama. That's true. I mean, the president has said that he wants the vice president to be the first in the room and the last in the room when he has important briefings when they're important policy decisions and discussions that are taking place, And that certainly is how he is operating, or they're operating as a team together in terms of what role she may play in the implementation. I don't have anything to preview for you on that She will certainly be traveling. She's a key. Voice and asset for the [13:57:26] administration, and she'll be communicating about the impact of the of the American rescue plan and how it's going to help with the American people over the course of the next few weeks. Lank Lean said last night that the president's speech to a joint session of Congress will be for a few weeks. He was kind of suggesting there was gonna be this time period. The administration. It's focused on. Promoting the bill that just passed. Can you kind of confirm that and provide any more information on sort of how you're thinking about the rest of March into April? You know, promoting this. They're fever since moving on to the fullback Better Sure, I don't have an exact breakdown of timeline. And I don't think Ron wasn't intending to give one either on Lee to convey, which is, I think what? You're asking that the president, the vice president and all of us in the administration believe it's important to take a moment to or a few moments I should say to communicate directly with the American people about. The [13:58:26] benefits of the package to ensure they understand that help is on the way and a range of forms and to do that, in communities and directly with people who were hoping understand the benefits of this package S O I expect that to mean a couple of trips for the president, the vice president, others, but I don't have kind of an end date for that on certainly par of the part of the focus internally is on ongoing discussions about what is next and what components of the president's build back. Better agenda. What the order is the format the size and there's just those decisions have been finalized quite yet. One other thing that you'd kind of into you might have an answer for yesterday, which is another thing related to Ron. That clearing National Clearinghouse for Vaccine informatio. Way here in the Blue Merc theater heard, And Justify no answer on very excited about the website, which which many people are. You know, I would say, you know. As you know it, the website is being implemented as a vaccine finder, I should say [13:59:27] is being implemented as a pilot program. We've always been open to expanding the pilot program, and we're certainly looking into that. We're also looking into, and others have asked this question. How we can better assist state and local governments who have their own websites where they are utilized by many members of the local community and effective but sometimes they have. Technical issues, So we're looking at addressing it from. Ah, couple of, um. Different directions, but every option remains on the table were also considering setting up call centers. Organizing navigators help to help individuals schedule appointments, which sometimes can be the issue so I don't have a major update, other than to convey that. It's a pilot program. We've always been open to expanding it on. Certainly a range of options remain on the table and sometimes in some states. Their local website is working quite well, and they just need some technical assistance. What. Q>> Jen you've been telling migrants from right there for a month now, probably back to February 10. But now is not the time to come, but ey are coming in [14:00:28] bigger numbers every day. 140025 So, do you have a messaging problem? 140027 PSAKI>> Well, I would say that in the last administration, we had a morality problem, and children were being pulled from the arms of their parents, and kids were being sent back on a treacherous journey, and that's not the approach of this administration. So, certainly we understand that means there will be more kids who are crossing the border. 140047 We made a policy decision that that was the right, humane step to take. But, I think it's also important for people to understand that the vast majority of people who come to our border are turned away, are sent back to their countries. What we're talking about here are unaccompanied children. [14:01:04] and what our focus is on is ensuring that there are safe places for these kids to go that have accent where they have access to educational resource is health and medical attention, legal assistance as need, and that we can expedite the vetting so that they can get to families and sponsors where they can have their case is adjudicated. 140125 Q>> But since the last administration is gone, tomorrow is 50 days of Biden, there are migrants showing up, wearing t-shirts that say, "Biden, please let us in." And candidate Biden is the one who said, "I would end this notion for the first time in history, the people seeking asylum have to be in squalor on the other side of the river." Why doesn't he come out and just say now is not the time? 140145 PSAKI>> Well, he actually did an interview with Univision about a week or week and a half ago where he conveyed a similar message. And we've conveyed that at every opportunity that we have. [14:01:55] I will say we are, as you noted almost 50 days in. We are Diggle digging ourselves out of a broken and dismantled system. Roberta Master Jacobson referenced this in her opening as well when it comes to engage with countries addressing the root causes. We couldn't start doing that until January. 20th There are programs like the relaunching of the Central American Minors Program, which was ended by the prior administration in 2017. And that meant that that that program which would have allowed for people to apply from the region. We had to restart that program, so we're working to fix the mess of the last couple of years. It's going to take some time. But this is clearly a priority for the president. We're looking at a range of options, which include the opening of additional facilities. It includes steps we can take to expedite the processing and includes application and implementation of the CDC guidelines that were just came out that allow for more Children to be house safely in these facilities, so we're looking at every option possible to help address the [14:03:05] challenges. We're facing a life in the White House. It's a problem that when the CDC tells these migrant shelter facilities that they can be a full capacity that they're careful about covid. Many of them do. But when the C D C tells schools that they can open in person at full capacity, many of them don't. Is there a school in particular that you have is an example that didn't do that? Our most schools in this country at full capacity within person learning. Are there a specific school, though that is not following the CDC guidelines of implementing the mitigation steps so they can re open the CDC saying schools you can't be at every school can be at full capacity. With the CDC guys. This CDC guidelines is to be clear because I think this is very important to be very clear and specific on. They gave eight mitigation steps that schools can take to safely reopen. A number of schools have actually recently reopened Schools and Washington D. C [14:04:05] Some have schools in many districts across the country. Each school district needs to make the decision about whether they are able to take those mitigation steps. The president has also been clear. Some of these school district's need additional funding. There's $160 billion in this package that he's going to sign into law later this week. Secretary of Education will be quite focused on working with school district's to help them reopen, but more school district's are reopening. More kids are in classrooms every single day since they are not all back from an administration position or from your perspective. Have the border Patrol unions and the HHS Union's been easier to work with than the teachers unions. I think that's a little bit of mixing different circumstances. I would say that in tight quarters Uhh I mean a classroom, but. Not quite. Not quite. I would say that. Let's let's take a responsible approach to the two issues. Okay, One is schools reopening, [14:05:06] There's been eight mitigation steps that have been announced by the CDC to implement right. Every school district is going to work to implement those on a timeline that is, they can effectively do. Many school districts are reopening right. Many are re opening every single weekend day and week, right, That is a different circumstance than what we're seeing at the border and the HHS overseas defense. These facilities, right they're working with. They're working on ensuring we could have more kids safely. They are working to implement CDC guidelines, but they're different circumstances and certainly we're working with the school district's and we're also working with HHS to open these facilities there to ensure that kids are treated With safety and care in these facilities. Okay, Go ahead. Thanks Dan. Just little bit more on the Clark. You mentioned yesterday that one of the issues that will be discussed it is how the leaders can work together to combat the pandemic. Might. That discussion include a strategy to counter Brexit diplomacy from China and Russia. You know, I think [14:06:10] they'll be a range of topics discussed and I know that is a concern of a number of leaders around the world, including, of course, President Biden on I'm sure we'll have a readout of the quad meeting tomorrow. Once it's completed. More on the announcement that you complete viewers. Can we expect anything in terms of how the spark. He was here in terms of helping others. Again I know they'll discuss a range of issues tomorrow, but I think it's important to just take a quick a little bit of a step back because this is a meeting that covers a range of topics. Of course, I'm sure covid which is a pandemic everyone in the world is dealing with will be a topic of discussion, but they'll be issues like climate that our address economic cooperation. I'm sure they'll have a range of issues to bring up and we will provide a readout when the meeting concludes tomorrow, the military balance I mean, we know that China just amount of huge defense spending 6.8% I believe for this year. Is that also a top item indigent? PSAKI>> I [14:07:13] don't think I have more to preview than what we've already offered. We will, of course, have a readout on the meeting concludes There are a range of topics on the minds of all of these leaders. As I've noted in here before we anticipate the meeting, discussing. ------ ---We'll bring up a number of issues and we'll have a robust readout when the meeting concludes. Go ahead. [14:07:33] Q>> A few questions. Sure. So, in California republicans are seeking to nationalize a recall after governor Gavin Newsom and really make it a referendum on on public policies you know the other day, Bernie Sanders tweeted that it's time for Democrats to unite and rally on his behalf against the Republicans, does the President have any plans to personally or otherwise support us and if this does make it on the ballot and you know becomes an off year campaign, PSAKI>> we're not quite there yet we've spoken out in support of Governor Newsome and against the recall so that remains our position. Q>> Also in California. He at the San Francisco Chronicle are finding that school districts are saying, even with this influx of money coming from the package, there's still lots of reasons they're not sure if they can reopen even unify this fall through building consensus around how to do it. There's been some criticism that the CDC guidance is actually too conservative and prohibitive, including the six feet distance rule that schools either have to ignore or not open. If there are still schools that aren't open by this fall that the administration considered a failure and what more could they possibly do to help those schools. [14:08:45] PSAKI>> We have several months before the fall sub six months, five months, I will stop doing math now. This is our Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, this is his number one priority what he is focused on the President has asked him to lead this effort. And he's holding a school summit, he will be working with school districts including I'm sure in California and San Francisco and others to work to address what they feel the challenges are to reopening, whether it's funding that's needed whether it's consensus building that needs to happen, the President wants schools to be open, five days a week, once kids to be learning in school and we're going to do everything we can to ensure that's happening. Q>> And lastly on the subject of today's briefing, you know. Immigration and Border policy it covers so many different agencies there's Public Security there's HHS as we discussed, there's State Department, Department of Justice, which we'll talk about as much as a huge piece of this. Is there someone in this administration who is coordinating all of these disparate pieces. Ultimately, you know, where does the buck stop who is making sure that all these different agencies are coordinating to the administration, [14:09:55] PSAKI>> Overall, well, ultimately, the President is responsible for the policy on key issues and key challenges for countries facing and immigration is certainly one of them. You're right. There are a number of agencies involved in this effort, but I will say, I would say they're all playing a pivotal role, the Department of Homeland Security. The. We don't have a Health and Human Services Secretary confirmed yet, when he is he will play a pivotal role but a whole team at HHS, as you know. So, this is being coordinated on part from our national security team but ultimately, it's the president who makes decisions about the policy that's why he asked the team to go to the border and my he asked to receive a briefing and that's something as I noted that happened this morning. Go ahead. [14:10:33] Q>> Okay, on the package implementation for your specific lessons that President Biden when he was in charge of this in 2009, that he learned about that effort that will be applied this effort, particularly in terms of efficiency and reducing waste and fraud that kinds of things but in general any specific lessons that he learned, other than it's good to have one person in charge. PSAKI>> Sure, is structured very differently as you remember, and I'm sure many people remember that a big chunk of the recovery out was around shovel ready project losses of course it very different type of bill. I think some of the lessons were already implementing, including having a point person in charge and including ensuring there's a sustained campaign that is not just about the President of the United States or the Vice President of the United States speaking about the benefits but that really engages our partners and allies, [14:11:28] whether it's Governor's or mayor's local community leaders to ensure there is effective implementation and communication about the package. He also wants to lift up and this is something that's been important to him in general but it's very applicable to this package, members of his cabinet so that they can be front facing and play a very public role in engaging with the public and ensuring the understand components and pieces of a package like this. There are pieces in this package that of course are related to the helping veterans there are pieces of this package that really relate to helping rural communities and he wants to ensure that members of his cabinet are are playing key roles there. That's something that, of course, was done a little bit in 2009 but can can definitely be built on and I think we would venture to do that. [14:12:18] Q>> Equal Rights Amendment The house is expected to vote soon I think next week on eliminating the now expired deadline for ratification and of course Virginia last year became the 38th state to ratify but last year the Justice Department issued a memo saying that we can't do that, that if people feel and move it to an area of constitution so starting the ratification process over. My question is whether the administration is going to rescind that memo and some Democrats have asked him to do. PSAKI>> That's an excellent question. I will have to talk to our team about that and get an update on it, which will then try to do for you after everything go ahead. Q>> Thanks a couple questions on behalf of printful for reporters who couldn't be here. One of my own. Jesse Hellman with modern healthcare wanted to know when President signs executives today from Johnson and Johnson and Mark does he practice he planned to press them on increasing costs of prescription drugs, [14:13:16] bring up his own agenda to lower drug prices, and PSAKI>> the primary focus of this meeting is on working together the two companies who have long been competitors, working together to ensure the efficient and effective manufacturing of vaccines. Q>> Tommy Christopher from media had a question on the filibuster said that President Biden expressed some openness filibuster reform during the campaign, you've said more recently, that it's not process to change the rules we wants to know if the john lewis Voting Rights Act represents a red line if Republicans do not support that that does not move forward in the Senate. Is that a red line that would prompt him to consider filibuster reform. [14:13:58] PSAKI>> Well, the President's preference is not to make changes to the filibuster rules, he believes that voting rights and access to voting, ensuring it's easier for the American people is enough of a huge priority it should be for everyone that's why you signed some executive orders, use the power. hesitancy to do that this weekend, and he is hopeful that Democrats and Republicans can work together to get that done. Q>> And then one last question on the overall agenda, you were saying earlier, you know, when you look at built back better you're sort of thinking through kind of what's next, but broadly speaking is infrastructure. The next big legislative priority on Capitol Hill for this administration. [14:1437] There's also pressure for an immigration bill to go through what's next for you guys, what is the next big priority after the bill that you're hoping to sign that's present don't miss out on Friday. PSAKI>> It's a very popular question, understandably, but our focus is on getting American rescue plan implemented. We will have more to say the President will have more to say on his build back better agenda and what the components of that look like, what the size the proposals the order of events will be, but I don't have anything to preview for you. [14:15:08] Q>> Before an immigration bill on Capitol Hill, 141509 PSAKI>> Well, I don't have a legislative order to preview for you either. I will say, given all of the conversations we're having, understandably, about the border and questions about the border, in the President's proposed immigration package, he has funding for -- to address the root causes in the region, as we talked about a little bit earlier, he has a pathway to citizenship, he proposes a pathway to citizenship -- citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and he also proposes an investment in smart security. 141537 So, given all of the concern by many in Congress about immigration and what's happening at the border, it sure seems like a good time to move that initiative forward. Go in the back. [14:15:51] Q>> Thank you, Jen, I understand you don't want to call it a crisis from this podium little funny you say, border patrol agents at the border or especially those within the union, who are calling it a crisis and who are saying that they're overworked and there's just too many encounters day in and day out. PSAKI>> We are saying that we recognize that are incumbent upon us and this administration is continuing to continue to work day and night to expedite the process of ensuring there are the resources and processes in place to move children from the border patrol facilities to the shelters. We are saying that it is incumbent upon our administration to look for additional facilities that can safely house children and incumbent upon us to ensure that we are communicating effectively and efficiently to the region as [14:16:42] Ambassador Jacobson talked about at the top of this briefing and those are all focuses of the President on down. You know, every single day. Q>> The Mexican government today, reports that over 4000 unaccompanied minors were actually deported back to Mexico between January and March. Can you confirm that this was done under the previous administration or any of those unaccompanied minors deported, under the Biden administration. PSAKI>> I know that CBP provides numbers and data on a regular basis and I think there's more data coming soon. From there, so I would certainly send to them for any statistics and data our policies that we don't turn children under 18 away at the border on of course as you know, though, even if, when they are in homes of family members or in sponsored homes that they still can go through processing [14:17:33] and may need to return home, Q>> the stimulus package you find me one last question I know I think this came up yesterday, but I wanted to ask the question, now that the stimulus package is passed on many undocumented immigrants are not benefited in any way by the money that's going out, the president blended the executive action or anything else to do to help that population. PSAKI>> Sorry I missed part of the last sentence. Q>> Now that the stimulus package has yes and the undocumented population. Many of the millions are not benefited in any way, does a president blind any executive actions or anything else to help a population. [14:18:06] PSAKI>> Well, certainly I think the President's priority given he proposed an immigration bill on the first day is to create a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants, of course, in this country. He's also been clear that, ensuring that everybody in this country is vaccinated and receives that so COVID COVID-19 vaccine is a key priority. And of course this is just the beginning of his agenda but I don't have anything more to preview for you. Go ahead Q>> and Vicki judge, given the current premise of vaccination around the world, what would your President consider organizing these climates in person in DC here for you to avoid practice. PSAKI>> I don't think we have any I think at this point the intention is to do it remotely [14:18:45] I believe and I don't think there's an intention to change that, but I'm happy to check on that for you. Q>> Do you know roughly how many states expert for the Chinese president will be one of them. PSAKI>> I don't have any more details on the summit I know it's coming up in about six weeks, five weeks, and I expect as we get closer we'll have more to preview, go into that part Q>> yeah just a follow up on filibusters I've said many times that President Biden's preference is not to change the rules around filibuster but if the next big pieces of his agenda are stymied in the Senate. Are there changes to the filibuster that he can live with such as talking filibuster. [14:19:22] PSAKI>> Well, the President believes that there are a range of issues where there's historic. There's historic precedent of Democrats and Republicans working together, whether it's infrastructure as we've been talking about or modernizing the immigration system. He's obviously had a number of bipartisan meetings in the Oval Office. So that's where his energy and focus will be moving forward, go in the back. Q>> Thank you. So the could just have held trouble than containing a dissident, a woman released from prison weeks ago, is it a sign that the White House message regarding the human rights abuse in the kingdom is not strong enough, PSAKI>> what you were referring to a human rights, somebody, a human rights activist who was released from prison, but Q>> was not able to travel outside the kingdom. PSAKI>> I would have to look into more specific details of that [14:20:15] I know we were pleased with the release, but I'd have to look into more specific details of the travel restrictions, Q>> but do you have any sort of eta for when the next cabinet secretaries will be approved, and when you're going to start nominating ambassadors PSAKI>> go ask our friends in the Senate. We expect that some will move forward with and we are hopeful, I should say that we will get a couple of additional cabinet members, confirmed in the coming days or over the course of the next week, the Presidents looking forward to that. They're certainly looking forward to at some point having a full cabinet meeting, [14:20:46] the President hasn't made any decisions about Ambassador all nominees so I don't expect them to be confirmed anytime soon, given we have to nominate them first. Well, again, it's really up to the Senate on the timeline for that but we are hopeful that they move forward with the remaining members of the Cabinet, given we are almost two months into an administration. Q>> Just to follow up on something that Ambassador Jacobson said, and I think you may have gotten a note about this, that she first time she said that the border is not closed and she then insist when she was speaking in Spanish and then you know later on spoken Spanish again for the border is closed. [14:21:32] I mean, it seems like she, I guess misspoke, the first time consider your overall message but your concern, but now that she is misspoken that that's going to be, you know, picked up and disseminated across the Spanish speaking world is the message from the administration, PSAKI>> well given she also said that the border is closed, we're hopeful that that is what will be picked up and that is clearly and consistently been our message. So, that is certainly our hope Q>> you're having a messaging, difficulty around this issue. hat just means and [14:22:05] PSAKI>> we certainly hope not. We have the power of the media here to make sure you're communicating effectively with the messages and as we knew we all have moments where we where we say something slightly differently than we would like to and we quickly try to correct it to make it easier to communicate with the administration's, you know, goals and policies are. Thanks everyone. [END]
REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION PART 1 / HD
5521 RUBIO Thank you. I'm glad to be back here today. Each time I return to this gathering, the urgency of the topic at hand has increased since the year before. That's true this year more than ever. The threats facing both our country and Israel have grown dramatically in recent months, in large part because our president has placed his own legacy ahead of our mutual security. But of course, when we gather here a year from now, we'll have a new president-elect. And depending on who it is, we'll have either taken a significant step toward reviving American leadership in the world and advancing Israel's security, or we will have slid even further toward weakness and disengagement. I think one thing that's become obvious over this last year is the devastating cost of a foreign policy that lacks moral clarity. Moral clarity means that we stand by our principles and our commitments. It means we speak up for what's right, and speak out against those who are wrong - even if that opens us to criticism. It means our allies trust us, and our adversaries respect us. It is common sense that American leadership should look like this. Presidents across both parties have led with moral clarity, from Truman to Kennedy to Reagan. until now. Now we have a president who leaves our allies feeling betrayed and our adversaries feeling emboldened. And there is no better example than what is happening in the Middle East. In the entire region, there is only one pro-American free enterprise democratic nation: the Jewish state of Israel. America has strong ties to Israel on a personal, cultural, political, and economic level. It is everything we want the Middle East to look like in the future: free, tolerant, democratic, peace-loving, and desirous of a better future. And today, Israel stands on the front lines of our civilizational struggle against radical, apocalyptic Islam. That term, Apocalyptic Islam, is not an attempt at being provocative; it is rather a description of the true beliefs of the leaders of both Iran and the Islamic State: that they are living in the end times and that mass genocide is their way to honor God. This enemy hates our two nations - both liberal democracies, both products of the Judeo-Christian tradition - for the exact same reasons. And the first requirement of fighting for our common security is standing together. We must not separate the threat to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv from the threat to Paris, or London, or New York, or Miami. I can think of no nation whose security is as closely tied to our own. For anytime there is daylight between America and Israel, it emboldens Israel's enemies to take action - first against the Jewish state, but then against the rest of the free world. Last month, we saw how quickly terror can spread from the Middle East into the heart of Europe. Many in Washington fail to understand this. They wonder why we should trouble ourselves with a small country thousands of miles away. They fail to see its connection to our national security and our moral character. They fail to understand the danger of sending a message to the world that America is an unreliable ally. And so they argue we should distance ourselves from Israel - abandon it to its multitude of eager enemies. I believe that, deep down, those who wish for this know what it would mean. It would mean we leave Israel's citizens to face alone the terror of rockets falling on their homes; the existential threat of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, which President Obama has exacerbated; the death march of the Iranian proxy, Hezbollah, on Israel's northern border; and Iranian-backed jihadists who indiscriminately kill Israelis on the streets of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv - and yes, in Judea and Samaria. Those in Washington who wish America would abandon Israel also understand something else: the threat of physical violence is not the only threat Israel would be left to face alone; there is also a growing political and diplomatic threat. In one international forum after another, Israel is attacked by despotic regimes and even free nations throughout Europe that should know better given their histories. It is singled out for condemnation relentlessly - a bullying to which no other nation is subjected. Normally, the United States stops these attacks and shames the attackers. Normally, the United States speaks with confidence and clarity against the regimes that hijack international bodies to distract the world from their own wrongdoing. Normally. But not under Barack Obama. President Obama - and, I'm afraid, Hillary Clinton - have a different policy. They call it "engagement," but what it should really be called is "abandonment." Instead of standing up to those who single out Israel, the Obama administration takes the path of least resistance. It throws up its hands and says, in essence, "not our problem." Consider this: Just weeks ago, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas (*Mahmad Abbous*) began a speech to a UN body by asking, quote, "For how long will this protracted Israeli occupation of our land last? After 67 years, how long?" As we all know, sixty-seven years ago was 1948, the year of Israel's creation. So the man who is supposed to be Israel's "partner for peace" has just said that all of Israel is illegitimate and that the Jewish state is an "occupation" of someone else's land. Now, this isn't unusual rhetoric from a Palestinian leader - but what matters is that it should have provoked a harsh condemnation from the United States. But our president said nothing. By his silence, our government emboldened those who seek Israel's destruction and made itself a bystander to a poisonous lie. Similarly, over the past three months of Palestinian terror attacks, our administration refused over and over again to do anything more than call on both sides for restraint - as if there were no difference between aggression and self-defense. The Palestinian attacks are being incited by lies knowingly promoted about Jewish threats to the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, and spread through a vicious campaign of anti-Semitism in Palestinian media. Or consider the European Union's recent approval of a new trade rule that requires special labeling of products produced in what the EU considers "Israeli-occupied territories." The goal of this is to encourage Europeans to boycott goods from Israel. The rule applies to no other country - not to Russia, which invaded Georgia and Ukraine, nor China, which occupies Tibet. The EU is singling out only Israel. Let's take a step back and realize what this means. Discriminatory laws that apply only to Jews are now being written into European law for the first time in more than half a century. I believe we need a president who is not afraid to call this out for what it is: anti-Semitism. I will be that president. I will take a very different approach to the United Nations. There will be no more complicity in attacks on Israel. Dictators, rogues, and terror sponsors will be publicly shamed. The United States will leave and defund UN entities that attack Israel or promote anti-Semitism. I will also speak out against anti-Semitism here in America. One important example is the movement that calls itself "BDS" - for boycott, divest, and sanction. This coalition of the radical left thinks it has discovered a clever, politically correct way to advocate Israel's destruction. BDS couches hatred in the language of human rights and social justice. But the movement reeks of hypocrisy. Boycotters do not seek to punish Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, or Russia - all actual human rights violators. Their campaign is aimed only at Israel. They make wild, false accusations in the hopes of inciting so much hatred of the Jewish state, especially on our campuses, that eventually support for Israel will become politically taboo. As president, I will call on university presidents, administrators, religious leaders, and professors to speak out with clarity and force on this issue - the same way they speak out against racism and other forms of bigotry. I will make clear that calling for the destruction of Israel is the same as calling for the death of Jews. I will bring moral clarity to the White House, but I will also back it with strategic and military strength. When I am Commander-in-Chief, I will fortify our alliance with Israel. In doing so, I will send a message to our friends and enemies alike that America is back - that we will never again confuse adversaries for allies or allies for adversaries. Let me be loud and clear about how I will begin: I will immediately shred this president's disastrous deal with Iran. News reports out of Vienna this week indicate that Iran will not even be required to come clean about its past nuclear weapons work. This makes a bad deal worse. And those who are now rushing to do business with Iran need to know that upon taking office, I will re-impose the sanctions that President Obama plans to waive over congressional objection. The days of giving the ayatollah of Iran more respect than the prime minister of Israel will be over. I will hold Iran accountable for the American hostages it has taken, and for its arming and funding of terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. I will impose crippling sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. When I am president, I will speak out against Palestinian terror in no uncertain terms, and will never confuse the victim and the victimizer. This means, as part of rebuilding our alliance with Israel, I will put the peace process in perspective. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have made it the defining feature of the relationship between our two countries. It should not be for the simple reason that Israel currently has no viable partner for peace. In fact, the "partner" that this administration claims is interested in peace rewards Palestinian terrorists up to $3,500 for every month they spend in an Israeli prison, which is more than five times as much as the average Palestinian in the West Bank makes per month. They get tens of thousands more upon their release from prison, and the entire level of payment is tied to the number of Israelis they have killed. Does this sound like a group interested in peace? Some in our own party actually question Israel's commitment to peace. Some in our own party actually call for more sacrifice from the Israeli people. They are dead wrong, and don't understand the enduring bond between Israel and America. Generation after generation of Israelis have struggled and sacrificed to find peace with an enemy seeking only war and death. I know and honor those sacrifices, and reject those who believe that Israel is the impediment to peace. Let me be crystal clear: there is no moral equivalence between Israel and its enemies. I will say it again. There is no moral equivalence between Israel and those who seek to destroy her. Understanding that fundamental truth is essential to being the next Commander in Chief. This is not a real estate deal with two sides arguing over money. It's a struggle to safeguard the future of Israel. As President I will challenge the real impediments to peace in the Middle East, and stand up for Israel. Instead of pressuring Israel to make unreciprocated concessions, I will work with its prime minister on areas of mutual interest. I will finally move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I will help ensure that Jerusalem remains the Jewish state's undivided and eternal capital. I will revive the common-sense understandings reached in the 2004 Bush-Sharon letter and build on them to help ensure Israel's defensible borders, including through its continued control of the Golan Heights. This is only the beginning of what I will do as president in support of Israel, but it is far from the beginning of my efforts on this issue as a public servant. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have worked to strengthen and deepen our alliance. I've passed new sanctions against Hezbollah, passed a budget amendment to move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and fought to require Iran to recognize Israel's right to exist. I've proposed crushing sanctions on Iran for its ongoing support for terrorism and human rights abuses. As Speaker of the Florida House, I pioneered what became a national effort by requiring the Florida pension program to divest from companies linked to Iran's terrorist regime. And earlier this week, I introduced a resolution with Senator Kirk to ensure that states like Florida can continue to divest from Iran. I've also led efforts in the Senate to pressure the Palestinian Authority to end its partnership with Hamas, attempted to defund UN agencies that attack Israel, and supported legislation to force Europe to stop its despicable anti-Semitic boycotting of Israeli products. I have been a staunch supporter of our military assistance to the Jewish state, especially the Iron Dome system that has saved countless lives. These programs have ended up benefitting America by leading to technological innovations now used by the U.S. military. In choosing a president, we need to look at what candidates do, not just what they say. Just a few short years ago, many in my own party were trying to derail the postwar consensus about America's role in the world. They will never call themselves isolationists, but that is exactly what they are. I believe those who speak about their pro-Israel views but carelessly support a gutting of our international affairs budget, including assistance to Israel, or who vote against legislation funding U.S.-Israel defense programs, need to check their priorities. You cannot be pro-Israel while also attempting to eliminate assistance that Israel uses to defend itself. I'd like to leave time to take your questions, so let me just close with this point. One thing that inspires me the most about Israel is that, in the face of so much adversity, no nation wants peace more. No nation has shown greater restraint toward its enemies. And even as the current administration has turned its back on them in recent years, no people have stood by our nation, on issue after issue, more than the people of Israel. I'd encourage all of you to go back and look at the United Nations roll call votes. Time and again, when the interests of America are challenged, Israel is one of the few countries that votes with the United States. Like our own country, the state of Israel is an extraordinary story in the history of the world. I believe our nation's share a moral foundation and a moral destiny. And so let us stand with them as they have stood with us. Let our nations, together, serve as beacons of light in an ever-darkening world. TRUMP 12:01:29 TRUMP: Thank you very much everybody, you just like me because my daughter happens to be Jewish right. She has a great husband Jared and I'll tell you what Ivanka could not be happier and she's very proud. The only bad news I can't get her on Saturday, I call and call I can't speak to my daughter anymore on Saturdays so, but that's ok. It's an honor to be with you and I've devoted so much time over my life to Israel and the other politicians they can talk but believe me they haven't done what I've done, I've received many awards, I was the grand marshall of the Israeli day Parade at a very dangerous time when people said don't do it don't do it, I walked up fifth avenue I'm lookin up for lots of trouble but I said no way that I'm not going to do it and it was a rough time it was 2004 and it was a tremendously successful parade, maybe their most successful parade that they ever had so, I'm in a different position than the other candidates because I'm the one candidate, I don't want any of you rmoney. 12:02:34 I want your support but I don't want your money, I'm self funding my campaign, it's been an amazing experience because I've had very little money invested so far, I thought by this time I'd have about 30 million dollars in ads and I have none, although I took a small radio commercial the other day in Iowa, but we have virtually no money invested in ads or advertising and I think you as business people will feel pretty good about this and respect it and at first I was embarrassed by this you know I think we're going to have to spend money just to spend money but it's not really like a good thing to do because I am in first place by a lot it's not even close, every single poll, every single state, the numbers just came in 3 minutes ago in NH the PPP poll, Trump at 27, the next one is 13, 10, 9, 8, 5 and the rest are off the board they have to drop out pretty soon I guess right. Most important favorability, no I still like the top number most, favorability is now at 50 to 39 which is good and I beat Hillary in the fox poll as you see very easily 46 to 41. 12:03:44 That's ultimately the most important. And you know I've been a tremendous fan and a tremendous contributor, I've given a lot of money recently to (Hudzulla?) 100 thousand dollars emergency response they do a fantastic job and my father fred was always a big supporter so I grew up in that environment, I grew up in Brooklyn, Queens and Israel was always very paramount in our mind in fact I've been sometimes criticized because I receive so many awards from Jewish Groups and they look at my wall it's loaded up, but now the Christians are catching up I have to tell you, my Christians are liking me a lot lately and they've been great. 12:04:33 So Obama is the worst thing that's ever happened to Israel, the worst, the worst [crowd claps]. And when I see great friends of mine who are very very pro Israel very I mean, they love Israel, they love it with Passion and they are having fund raisers for Obama and I say what are you doing it's almost like they answer me they say we don't know, he comes to Ny we don't know, we don't know. I say he's a disaster. 12:05:02 I really believe the Iran deal, look I'm a negotiator like you folks we're negotiators. We don't build gas stations in the middle of as you know Afghanistan for 43 million. Can you imagine this a small gas station, 43 million dollars, and then they used the wrong kind of terminal because they don't sell that type of gas, ok. 43 million bucks for a gas station, how many think they could have done it for less will you raise your hand please. But I look at Obama, I look at that deal what we gave to Iran, 150 billion dollars, they don't need to develop nuclear weapons they can buy em, they can buy em it's true, why do they have to develop em they can buy em. We gave them 150 billion dollars, they go out and in terms of you know surveillance, they have the right to self inspect how about that, on the major, the most dangerous they can self inspect we're gonna let them self inspect and then you have of course the 24 days but the 24 days rule, we're all good with contracts, don't start until such and such happens it could be forever before you go in to inspect. 12:06:03 And we don't even get our prisoners back and now they want to start a negotiation to get the prisoners back and they want 19 people for our 3, they don't want to give us our 4 you know they have 4, but they only want to talk 3. Now that should have been negotiated right at the beginning 3 years ago. And maybe better than any audience the people in this room understand what I'm saying, it should have been you walk in- by the way did you ever see a negotiation take so long, and we conceded on every single, we didn't win anything. We didn't win anything, but that should have been with our prisoners day 1, whatever it is years ago, we have to get our prisoners back, you don't want them, we need them. It'll make us look better, both everybody is going to like us more, with the american public, any deal we strike it's going to look good. 12:06:57 And you say that, we have to get our prisoners back day 1, they are going to say no we're not giving, and we're going to say bye bye, bye, call us when you're ready. And then we go out and double up and triple up the sanctions, I guarantee you within 48 hours they're calling begging us to come back to the table and you have your prisoners back it's so easy. Now the president, you saw that, and John Kerry who is probably the worst negotiator I've ever seen, no he's the worst negotiator I've ever seen, he did not read the art of the deal folks I can tell you that he's one of the few, biggest selling of all time, business book of all time. And Obama definitely didn't read it. Obama ayayayai. Ugh. 12:07:46 But they said, this is hard to believe but this is what they said, lot of press back there so I have to say everything exactly correct because if I don't I end up with headlines. They said we didn't want to complicate the negotiations by asking for the prisoners. It's really complicated we want our prisoners back, oh so complicated. They said they didn't want- so now we're going to end up making a new deal probably at some point. I'll tell you this look, I'll just tell you this, if I win before I take office, I guarantee you those prisoners are going to be back, they're going to be back. I guarantee you. Now, our president doesn't want to use the term, we had another event which probably was the one yesterday, probably was related, it always happens, but probably was when I heard about it i figured maybe not. 12:08:41 But it turns out probably was related, radical islamic terrorism and I'll tell you what we have a president that refuses to use the term. he refuses to say it. There's something going on with him that we don't know about. Now as far as Hillary is concerned, she's gotta go with what he wants, she shouldn't be allowed to run, what she did is criminal with the emails [clapping]. Well she shouldn't be allowed to run , she's going to have to follow his line because she's on a thread, you know look in real life, his attorney general, his US attorney general, so his attorney general is going to listen to him in my opinion, I think it's very dishonest what is going on with our government. 12:09:37 General Petraeus was given a life changing sentence, other people have been sent to jail, Petraeus was you know essentially, look I don't want to get into it with the poor guy, what he went- for nothing compared to whatshe did, for nothing. For 5% of what she did. And Obama, she can't go against him cause all he does boom she gets indicted that's the end of it, that's the end of it. So when you see Hillary backing up virtually everything he says and he's got control of her it's just total control , but I'll tell you what she shouldn't be allowed to run, what she did was a criminal act and remember this is a 6 year, you have a 6 year statute of limitations so she's fighting for her life. If she doesn't become president she could have a real problem. Does that make any sense to anybody huh? 12:10:28 Does that make sense to anybody? Because what she did was just wrong ok and you know she's been involved in corruption her whole life I mean whether it's whitewater, her whole life is corruption. She was a horrible, she was a horrible Secretary of State, she did a horrible job other than travel a lot, she travelled a lot nothing ever got done, the whole, the world blew up around her, it blew up. 500 to 600 calls and emails and everything from our Ambassador asking for help and she didn't respond. The truth is she doesn't have the strength or the energy. She responded to her friends, you know the friends were talking about, some of those friends are you know, sorta of an interesting friend going on there. [low murmurs and laughter] 12:11:16 But she responded, ah you get that right. [laughter and applause] Lot of people don't get that, but she responded to a friend but she doesn't respond she doesn't respond to an ambassador that is asking for help, hundreds, hundreds of requests, and she doesn't respond. Now remember this, I go every night I'm someplace, I mean yesterday I was in Manassas Virginia, we had an unbelievable crowd. The other day I was in Florida we had 12 thousand people in Sarasota, at 12 o'clock in the afternoon with the football games going on. 12 thousand people. The convention center helf 5 thousand so we had thousands outside, I made a speech outside I made two speeches I had to do two speeches I said can you get me a larger convention center so I can do one speech my people said no this is the biggest one. We set a record, a big record. We set a record everywhere. In one of the centers we beat the record of Elton John. Sir Elton John, I'm no longer competing with politicians I'm competing with musical talent. 12:12:24 One of the great musicians said you get the largest crowd of any single human being on earth without a guitar. Meaning, who doesn't count on music. So it's true we've had tremendous response we've had incredible response and I think you know if you look at what's going on and I think based on the response based on the polls again, I don't want your money therefore you're probably not going to support me but stupidly you want to give money, Trump doesn't want money, therefore we can't, even though he's better than all these guys, even though he's going to do more for Israel than anybody else, even though Bibi Netanyahu asked me to do a commercial for em and I did and he won't his race so I was very happy about that. 12:13:04 But he asked me to do a commercial and they said I was the only celebrity, I don't know I'm not a celebrity see now I'm a politician I'm so embarrassed by that term. You know my whole life I've been a businessman, I've been a developer, I've been somebody I've employed tens of thousands of people, over my lifetime, I have unbelievable statements and unbelievable company, and many people said oh he'll never file, this you'll get a kick out of. He'll never run because he will never want to file his papers and then he'll never file this and then you have to sign your life away, the first paper we all know about the first paper you sign your life away, he did it. Then they said he'll never sign and he'll never file his financials because who knows maybe he's not as rich as people think. Filed my financials almost 100 pages, the biggest ever filed by the federal elections and everyone said oh my, he's much bigger and much stronger holy mackerel look at these numbers. 12:14:00 And what they don't know I didn't run I probably would have filed anyway because I built a great company and I like to brag about it whenever possible it's true. Some of the greatest assets, doral you know Doral and Turnberry in Scotland and Trump tower and many buildings in Manhattan, it's just many buildings. Bank of America building in San Francisco with a great partner. Many other buildings and things and it's a much bigger and the reason I bring that up is because that's the kind of thinking we need and I don't bring it up as (braggadocio?) because that's the kind of thinking we need in this country to bring us back, we have people who don't know the first thing about the word negotiation, I can take anybody in this office believe me and they are better than Obama and they are better than kerry and they are better than the foolish people- it's so embarrassing when you see what happens sargeant Burgdoff alright, Sergeant Bergdorf, we get a trader, they get 5 of the greatest killers that they've wanted for 9 years. The deal was 5 for one. 12:15:05 And they knew he was a traitor before they made the deal. You know about sergeant Bergdahl, he deserted. 6 people were killed trying to get him back, they were looking for him. A general and a colonel went to see all those people they said no he deserted, he was a traitor, and we still made the deal, so we get a traitor, we can get him back you wanna renegotiate the deals some of us renegotiate deals I'd say about 99.9, is there anybody who doesn't renegotiate deals in this room, this room negotiates - 12:15:34 I want to renego-this ro- perhaps more than any room I've ever spoken to. Maybe more. It's ok , I've been called on that a couple of times too, but the fact is I want to renegotiate that deal, I want to drop him right smack in the middle of where he came from even if we don't get the 5 guys back because that's not gonna happen. You know where they are right now, they are right now all in the battlefield fighting us and trying to kill us and killing anybody that gets near him so they get their 5 guys that they wanted for 9 years they've wanted them and we get a dirty rotten traitor. But that's the way our nego, that's the way our people negotiate. They are stupid people ok. they are stupid people. It's very sad. So I just tell you that I'm going to win, I am, I'm going to win, unless something happens you know, walk across the street, the wrong thing happens but I'll tell you what I have a great secret service. It's nice when you're number one they give you secret service I never saw so many people. 12:16:42 Talented people, great people, but I believe we have just a great feeling about it and my life has been about winning, I've won and my life has been about winning and that's what I want to do for the country and if people say about my company deals and you can do this and that, I have no interest, the other day Ivanka she's doing so great, Dad we can buy this wonderful office building, I said Honey who cares, I don't, I have how can you talk to me about such trivial things ivanka. It's amazing see now I'm dealing in Trillions, I never heard of trillions before you know with this we owe 19 trillion dollars, we just signed a budget that's so bad and the republicans, we know where these democrats are coming from, but these republican politicians they go to washington and they are going to end Obamacare which I'm doing by the way, I'm terminating, it's going to be repealed and replaced with something much better. 12:17:42 They go to washington and they are going to do this and they are going to do budgets like you know I heard the guy before, oh we're going to work in the budget. It's all about that, what happens is they are going to do budgets like we're going to do this and that and I tell you, I tell the story, then they walk into the capitol building which is magnificent and they look up, darling oh my look at those columns look at the ceilings, look at the angels, oh look at these magnificent floors, they've never seen anything like it. We've arrived, this is incredible, and then they become mainstream, we'll vote obamacare, yes I'll vote, they don't want to leave. They lose all of their courage I want to use a nice word because otherwise I'll get reported for foul language. They lose all of their courage and they've lead us down. That won't happen with me. So again, you're not going to support me even though you know I'm the best thing that could ever happen to Israel and I'll be that and I know why you're not going to support me, you're not going to support me because I don't want your money. Isn't it crazy, no it's true. 12:18:52 If I wanted your money I think I'd have a damn good chance and I think I'd get more money than anybody else. Do you know the money I have turned down? This has not been my life turning down money. Guys want to give me millions, I would have made poor Jeb Bush I mean this poor guy with his low energy, it's sad. It's sad. I came up with that term it became so defining it's like having it on his forehead, I am low energy. No no it's sad. He raised 125 million dollars which means he's controlled totally, totally controlled, by the people that gave him the money. That's why you don't want to give me money ok but that's ok you want to control your own politician that's fine, good. Think about that folks. 12:19:32 Don't worry about it, I understand, 5 months ago I was with you, who is better than me? Who is better than me. I gave 350 thousand dollars to the republican governors association and never even got a letter of thank you. It's true, 350,000 I didn't receive one letter, not one letter from one governor. Stupid. The good thing is I don't give- why would I give anymore? You don't get a thank you letter? Politicians, remember this, politicians forget, politicians generally aren't competent, and the one thing they are good at is getting elected and that's what you're going to end up having but I would love your support but I don't want your money and I appreciate it, now let's take some questions ok, good. 12:20:28 Man: So I gotta tell ya you cost me 10 dollars, I had a side bet that somehow you were going to work out into your speech the hotel you were building right next door to this property. TRUMP: I'm glad you reminded me MAN: And you disappointed you cost me 10 dollars. TRUMP: I didn't want to do that, you know what honestly I'm building a tremendous hotel down the road , you know what, he's actually given me it's actually much better, but I have to go there right after this I have to go through- you know you have watch to make sure the contractors aren't stealing and ripping you off and everything else, so to show you how important the country is to me and how important Israel is to me, so important I don't mention my projects, i don't. It's not like very important to me anymore, what's really important to me is the United State's and making it great again. My theme is make America great again, it's taken off like crazy, the hats it's going crazy. 12:21:28 But it happens- you know some of these guys they copy it, but I had it trademarked cause were smart. Couple of them got up, I was making a speech and everybody stood up make america great again but nobody stood up for them and we sent them a little notice don't use that term we're trademarking it can you imagine it I got the approval, but we are we're building a great hotel down the road, I hope you all stay and it's going to be wonderful. Q: Yesterday you gave some interviews you made a speech in Manassas talking about an upcoming trip you were going to make to Israel, you also talked about how you wanted to raise some questions regarding the Israeli Palestinian Issue, you raise some questions about Israel's commitment to peace, and I'd love for you to expand and you said Israel would have to make some tough sacrifices so to this group here, those tough sacrifices does that mean return to the 67 border, dividing jerusalem, what does that mean to you? 12:22:26 I'll tell you exactly. So I was interviewed yesterday by a whole group of reporters from AP and they did a good job very fair story and one of the questions was about Israel and the Palestinians, what's gonna happen. I said I use that as an example of some deals, maybe the hardest deal ever in history to make of any (?). Can we think of any tough, we all have tough deals right we have some good some - is that sam? How are you Sam? Good man, good man, very nice to see you, I know everybody in this audience. But, but I said, people are going to have to make sacrifices one way or the other,I believe because I'm a dealmaker, that I can put both sides together. But I said it'll take 6 months. The end of 6 months and maybe sooner, but with us we have a deal instinct a lot of us and you walk into a room and you can tell almost in 2 seconds whether or not you're going to make a deal. 12:23:22 I will know very quickly whether or not I'll be able to put that deal together. I use that in this interview as an example of perhaps the hardest deal in history to put together. there's probably no tougher deal if I can do that it would make me so happy because there is so much violence, so much death, so much- and this has been going on for so many years, now I said you have to have a commitment to make, I don't know that israel has the commitment to make it and I don't know that the other side has the commitment to make it, with that being said you know I have a good chance of winning because you look at what's going on and so I have a good chance. I don't like to as a deal maker give away a lot of cards by talking about how I feel about this or that, I'd rather save it for that moment when you walk into the room. 12:24:01 I don't want one side or the other saying, look I think people know where I stand ok. But wouldn't it be great if they could make a deal but a lasting deal a real deal not a phony deal that's gonna last a week and then bad things start happening again. I'd love to and I will give it you know Obama as you know he said, it won't happen during (?) meaning he gave up on this before it even started. But I think it would be a great thing for Israel, I think it would be a great thing for both sides if a real deal could be made and I'm going to give it my best, I'm a great deal maker that's what I do I made a lot of money, I'm going to give it my best, it would be great if that deal could be made,ok. Q: President Bush wrote a letter to Prime Minister Sharon basically said US position wasn't going to be the force Israel backed in 67 borders, the Obama administration- 12:24:49 TRUMP: By the way Israel has given a lot and a lot of people don't know that, I think the Public relations for Israel hasn't been so great because Israel has given a lot but hasn't been given a lot of credit for what they've given, I don't know if you agree with that, so. In fact some things have been given which were unthinkable and a lot of turmoil it caused in Israel, there were things given but I'd like to go in with the clean slate and just say let's go everybody is even we love everybody and let's see if we can do something but I do think this and I do think right from the beginning and one of the reasons I'm saying this now even though perhaps it comes back to haunt me later on it has to be said that Israel has given a lot. I don't know whether or not they want to go that final step, you know and that's going to be up to them, but Israel has not been given the credit that they deserve for what they've done. 12:25:44 I will say that, I will say that, so that's it. Q: Can I atleast try and pin you down on Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel? Is that a decision you support TRUMP: You know what I want to do I want to wait til I meet with Bibi, you know I'm leaving for Israel in a very short period of time [boo boooo] . I know what you're saying I just want [BOOOO BOO] you're not going to be un- you're not going to be - who who's the wise guy? Do me a favor just relax you'll like me very much believe me ok. Then you wonder why you get yourself in trouble alright. You're going to like me very much it's going to be fine. 12:26:20 Again you can't go in with that attitude. If you're going to make a deal and you can make a great deal you can't go in with the attitude we're going to shove it down you gotta go in and get it and do it and do it nicely so everyone is happy. Don't worry about it you're going to be very happy ok. Don't worry about it. Q: You've been an outspoken defender of Prime Minister Netanyahu as you said you made a tv commercial for him- TRUMP: I think he's a very good man I think he's been treated very badly, I think that our president has been unbelievably rude to Bibi, I don't know how ,many people like Bibi but I think he's' been unbelievably rude and, we'll talk about deals after the fact which is a shame but I think the Iran deal is the worst single thing perhaps it'll go down, and I've been pretty good at predicting things, I think it's going to go down as the worst single thing that's ever happened to Israel I think it's a catastrophe for Israel and I think the fact that Obama was willing to make that deal for anybody that loves Israel to support this guy or even the democratic party is is impossible to believe, I think it will be one of the great catastrophes. But if I get in I will straighten it out believe it it's going to be straightened out tough and it's going to be straightened out fast. The one bad thing is if I get in the 150 billion is gone that hurts me and that hurts the people in this room, the 150 billion dollars is gone because it will be gone before you get there. 12:27:47 Were talking about a year and more actually, but the elections are very quick, it's coming up it's now less than a year and we have the Iowa starts on Feb 1st and then we go right down the line and it's very exciting we're talking about a couple of months now to start so it's really very for a person like me It's very exciting. 12:28:08 Q: So the other half of my question, obviously you have a great relationship with PM Netanyahu, which of the other Arab leaders do you either know or can you see yourself working with and you think you could have a positive working relationship. 12:28:18 TRUMP: Well I haven't been working too much with the arab leaders to be honest with you. I told you I made commercials for Bibi I don't know if that's going to help me in the negotiation I can tell you. I'm trying to keep it nice and level right, then I get people screaming at me but I'm trying to keep it as level as possible but for the most part don't know, the King of Jordan seems like a nice man, I don't know, we're going to see. A lot of people like him, some people don't. But I think I will probably be able - what my history is- you know I took some heat because I get along with democrats I get along with Liberals I get along with conservatives I get along with republicans I get along with every, that's what I was I'm a business person I get along with everybody we have to get along with everybody and I took some heat and I always explained I said wait a minutes I'm a business person I get along with everybody, I live in Manhattan it's all democrats, it's virtually all they- republicans don't even run people for the most part and if they do they are going to get5% they get a very small percentage of the vote. 12:29:12 Gotta get along with everybody. I think that's going to be a tremendous asset because right now we have gridlock in washington, we have people that, they don't talk. I remember years ago because I've been a very political person always, on the other side but always very political but years ago the republicans and the democrats use to like each other, they get along they'd have dinner together, they'd argue and they'd fight and they'd disagree you know and have different views on things but in the evening they'd go out and have dinner together with their families, you don't see that anymore there is total hatred and there's total gridlock. I'll give you one point which I think is important, corporate inversions right. 12:29:49 So you have companies leaving the United State's and they are leaving because of better taxes and because better a lot of things, a lot of things are better, but they are leaving.; Pfizer how good is pfizer thousands and thousands of jobs are going to be lost, but they are also leaving because we have 2 and a half trillion dollars at least, I think it's much higher, 2 and half trillion dollars that's out of the country that these companies can't get back because of bureaucracy and horrible agreements but because the taxes are too high they are so honorous that nobody in this room would agree to pay that much money to get your money over so they leave it over there and they actually take company and they move the company to the money. 12:30:24 Because that's how much money, the republicans and the democrats totally agree that the money should come back, for 3 years they can't get a deal. There's no leadership, it's gridlock. There's an example of something where everybody agrees, all the people that you see up here all agree, but they can't get it done because they are politicians,they are all talk and no action, so there's something so important, it's not like something where they don't get agree, like there's big disputes and we understand them. This is something everybody agrees on, the money should pour into this country and we should use that money and all things, taxes paid, but they agree and they can't get it done because of gridlock and incompetent leadership. 12:31:07 Q: Hillary Clinton is she a friend of Israel? TRUMP: You know honestly I don't think anybody can say. She says she is but now she says all of a sudden maybe less so than you thought because she's going very very far over to the other side. I mean Bernie Sanders has brought her to positions that she didn't want to be at. You look at some of the things she's saying right now, but I'll tell you what, whether she is or not, she doesn't have the strength or the energy to help Israel, I'm telling you she doesn't. And I said but just take a look, she'll come out and do an event and you don't see her for another 4 days 3 days 5 days, no it's true, think of it, we don't need, some people say it's not nice to say, she doesn't have the strength or the energy, Israel needs more than just our support, they need strength, they need real power behind them Cause you know you look at these countries fall over there, Israel is looking more and more ten- you know Israel has some difficulties, and one thing and I think you'll all admit it, these people are fighting really dirty but they fight a lot better than we used to think right. We used to think of that was easy, 15 years ago, my friends from Israel because I have a lot of friends from Israel, they use to smile and laugh oh don't worry about it, now they are saying, these guys they are dirty fighters and they are not bad they are tough, they are not the JV ok. Obama said they are the JV they are not the JV folks, we need tough we need general George patton. 12:32:40 We need General MAcArthur we don't need the guys we have I see them on television Generals, I don't want my generals on television. Saying well ISIS is very tough, I saw a guy the other day, ISIS is very tough I don't know . I don't need that. Do you think general George Patton they don't like him because he was a foul mouthed vicious horrible brilliant guy so he would never make it, they probably would have had him thrown out years ago. But we need patton, we need a genius like McArthur and we have those people, we have those people I'll find that person. But we're going to knock the crap out of them I'll tell you what we're going to win, we're going to win. We are going to win. Q: Rank and order as you see it, the greatest challenges facing the United States, Russia, China, Radical Islam. 12:33:31 TRUMP: Well I think radical Islam right now is, and I feel that's the greatest and again we have a president that refuses to use the term but Radical Islam is, I'll tell you the one thing I know isn't , is global warming, that's the one thing I know isn't. I mean we have a guy that just the other day said glo- I hear they wanna blow- this was right after Paris, they want to blow our cities up, they want to destroy our civilization. And he's worries about Global warming, which a lot of people think is a hoax, by the way, I won't so many environmental awards, shockingly, no it's true. 12:34:08 And you know what I do want, I want really immaculate air, I want clean crystal water, I want a lot of things ok, I want a lot of things. But global warming, you notice they changed the name, they go global warming they go climate change they go now I hear a lot of extreme weather. How can you mess with extreme weather right. If it's cold it's ok if it's hot it's ok if it's windy everything is extreme. So now they use extreme weather, it is a disgrace what is going on and to have this man embarrass us by standing up and saying that global warming is our biggest threat we got to get him out so fast and thank goodness he only has a year left. Thank you, thank you very much everybody. BEN CARSON CARSON: Thank you. Thank you so much. I'm absolutely delighted to be here. And you know, last year was the first time I had an opportunity to go to Israel, and it was such an incredible experience because, you know, as a student of the bible, to actually be in the place where so many events occurred that were so noteworthy. But you know what really impressed me was the fact that the people, absolutely surrounded by all kinds of horrors, refused to allow their lives to be dictated by terrorism. And I think it's a wonderful example for us here in America. I normally am a spontaneous speaker, but I want to make sure I get all my points in today, so I will actually be using a script. That might be the first time anybody's ever seen me doing that, but I don't want to miss any of the points that I really wanted to make. You know, after serving for two terms as the first president of a new nation born from the ashes of a European colony, George Washington in his farewell address to the nation warned the citizens of the United States that it is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world. Now, Washington, of course, was concerned about the constant changing and realignments of various countries and empires in Europe and what that would mean for the United States. Now, if we fast-forward to 2015, I'd like to call your attention to a passage by Ambassador Oren, Israel's most recent former ambassador to the United States. He recently wrote a book that looks at the relationship between the United States and Israel. And I was taken by the paragraph early in the foreword of this book describing why he entitled the book "Ally." Ambassador Oren wrote the following. "Ally" is a simple, beautiful word. It evokes warmth, indeed fraternity, and its meaning is invariably positive. One may be a partner, but never an ally in crime. Ally's humans (ph) counterpart -- Hebrew counterpart is even simpler and more stirring. Ben bris (ph), literally the son of the covenant, recalls the circumcision bris (ph) and beyond that, to Jewish people's special relationship with God. Fittingly, a special relationship is said to exist between Israel and the United States, and like its biblical precedent, that bris (ph) is both physical and eternal. Any American president or candidate for president formulating policies toward Israel will be well served to look back at what makes the relationship between the United States and Israel so special and eternal. And if we examine history properly, it is easy to see that the special bond between these two nations existed well before either country existed as a country. We should look back to the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948. And even before our founding fathers gathered in Philadelphia and decided to change the course of human history, the first settlers founded towns in this land with names like Bethlehem and Zion. They, in fact, saw the new world as the new promised land and a land of religious freedom. It is interesting to note that the first committee that was established to decide on a coat of arms for the newly formed nation had amongst its five signers -- amongst its members five signers of the Declaration of Independence, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. These members of the committee were asked to deliver their ideals independently for the seal of the new nation. In the amazing coincidence, the three members of the committee all submitted the same image, images of the Jewish exodus from Egypt. For these three founding fathers, no image better represented the ideal of freedom on which the United States was founded. Could you imagine President Obama standing today in the White House press room with an image of Moses and Jewish people in front of him? Throughout our history, American presidents have had a special view of the Jewish people and the state of Israel even well before Israel existed. John Quincy Adams said, I believe in the rebuilding of Judea as an independent nation, and Abraham Lincoln referred to Palestine as the national home of the Jews, said this was a noble dream and one shared by many Americans. Very few countries started out as democracies. Most of them evolved into democracies. Israel, however, was born a democracy and has stayed that way with fundamental tenets of democracy ever since. Now, compare that to its neighbors. Many countries in the Middle East claim to be democracies, but I would put forth that elections won with 99 percent of the vote... (LAUGHTER) ...going to one candidate, or elections won under the shadow of dictatorships, are not democratic. Regrettably, while Israel was born as a democracy, it was also born into a state of war, a state of war that has remained in one form or another ever since May of 1948. Besides having fought the war of independence in 1948, the war of attrition in 1956, the six-day war in 1967, the Yom Kippur war in 1972, the war in Lebanon in 1982 and the two Gaza wars in 2007 and again last year in 2014, Israel has also been under the constant threat of tens of thousands of missiles from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, faced two intifadas and a nonstop threat of Islamic terrorism. Now, what is really sad is that all of this could have been avoided because U.N. Resolution 181, passed in November of 1947, called for the end of the British mandate and a true partition plan for Palestine, a partition plan calls for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state. The plan was accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Arabs, and hence the ever present state of war. Ariel Sharon, in one of his most famous speeches, became the first Israeli prime minister to openly acknowledge and call for the two-state solution. Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu have subsequently joined him in publicly calling for a two-state solution. And while I'm not here today to debate a one-state or two-state solution, it is something I think for the Israeli leadership to decide, but it amazes me that the United Nations, the European Union, the Israeli government and even the Palestinian authority are all pushing for a solution that the Arabs themselves rejected in 1947. Imagine how much blood could have been saved had the Arabs agreed 68 years ago to exactly what they want to try to achieve today. (APPLAUSE) The role of United States today should not be to force peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but rather to help enable an environment in which peace can be forged, and the next president of the United States should start with a focus on supporting Israel in its efforts to find a lasting peace. The key word here is lasting. For two long, as I've followed the efforts by the United States and Europe to get the Israelis and Palestinians to agree to a peace deal, the focus has always been on what the future of the Palestinian state looks like. As president, my focus first and foremost would be to frame the debate as to what the future Israeli state would look like. (APPLAUSE) After all, the goal of a lasting peace is not merely to give the Palestinians a state of their own and right to self-determination, but also to ensure that the state of Israel remains a Jewish state for the Jewish people forever. Before... (APPLAUSE) Before I go into more detail about that, let's just focus for a moment on the issues of the Palestinian state. One of the main problems, as I see it currently, is that Palestinians are a people divided, divided by territory and by ideology. We know that there's a geographic challenge in trying to unite Gaza and the West Bank. These territories are separated by a mere 25 miles, and between lies some major Israeli cities with large populations like Beersheba. Uniting these two territories would literally split the state of Israel in half. But beyond the territorial challenge, a much bigger challenge exists. The challenge is the split between Fatah and Hamas. Fatah and Hamas operate in a constant state of conflict. Fatah rules the West Bank. Hamas rules the Gaza strip. These two groups are constantly arresting each other's political foes in their respective territories. They reportedly torture each other's operatives and are continually vying for the support of the Palestinian people. Part of the problem, of course, is that Fatah is largely a secular political movement, while Hamas is a deeply religious Islamic political movement. And while there have been many times in the past the two groups tried to operate in the government, this has always devolved into minor civil wars between the two. The bottom line is that even if the Israeli government today withdrew to the 1967 borders and gave up Jerusalem, there is no one Palestinian group representative of the Palestinian people that could ratify the agreement. Thus no peace agreement can be reached until the Hamas-Fatah issue is resolved. But assuming for a moment that both the territorial issue between the West Bank and Gaza can be solved, as well as the internal conflict between Fatah and Hamas, then let's ask ourselves what should the next U.S. president do to help preserve a viable Jewish state living within the terms of a lasting peace? Well, first and foremost, Jewish state must be Jewish. That may sound obvious, but if we look at the current international proposals for a two state-solution, as well as listen to the words of the Palestinian leadership, the two states to be created are first a uni-national (ph) Palestinian state with no Jews living in it, and second, effectively a bi-national state, namely Israel, with a majority Jewish population and well over 20 percent Palestinian minority. One doesn't have to work too far into the future to see what the long-term outcome would be. Eventually, the Jewish state would lose its Jewish identity and Palestinian birthrates continue to eclipse that of Jewish populations. This would lead to a uni-national (sic) Palestinian state eventually taking over the bi-national Jewish state as the Palestinian population in Israel continued to grow. In addition to this threat, there's the geographical threat created by basing a two-state solution on the 1967 borders. Now, if this were to occur, the result would be an Israel with sections of the country less than 10 miles wide, and partly bordered on the west by Gaza and the east by the West Bank. The distance from the border between Israel and the West Bank on the east to countries like Iraq and Iran would be measured in the hundreds of miles. This gives Israel an almost zero ability to defend herself practically from any sort of armored attack. Moreover, the 1967 borders would give back the high ground to Syria in the Golan Heights. This has numerous potentially fatal effects for Israel. First, it would allow any enemy to launch from Syria missiles to easily rain down on major Israeli population centers. With ISIS, the Iranians and others currently operating in Syria, one can only think of the sheer havoc that would be created with any one of these groups' positions in the Golan Heights overlooking Israel. Second, it would give Syria the ability to either control or pollute Israel's only fresh water supply, the Sea of Galilee. Looking past these major territorial issues, there also remains the issue of Gaza acting as a conduit for Iranian-backed (ph) weapons. Much outrage has been leveled against Israel for blockading Gaza, but the only blockade that actually exists is the blockage of weapons and missiles that are immediately used to target Israeli citizens. The delivery of food, medicine, building supplies has not been blockaded by Israel. In fact, it is a reality that much of the building supplies allowed into Gaza was used to build the Hamas tunnels of terror to infiltrate Israel and commit acts of terror. And I actually had a chance to go into some of those tunnels when I was there last year, although we were carefully looking for people who might be trying to shoot us when we came out. I raise these issues again to say simply that we look forward to an American president and a policy put forth by that president that backs the wishes and desires of the Israeli people and their government. Second, that policy must ensure that Israel comes out of these negotiations as a Jewish state for generations to come. (APPLAUSE) Franklin Roosevelt, one of our nation's most revered Democratic presidents, said so eloquently, "The American people, ever zealous in the cause of human freedom, have watched with sympathetic interest the efforts of the Jews to renew in Palestine the ties of their ancient homeland and to reestablish Jewish culture in a place where for centuries, it flourished and when it was carried to the far corners of the world." However, let me be clear I do not buy into the oft-heard refrain that in order to solve our problems in the Middle East, we just first solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict. (APPLAUSE) It's a complete red herring to claim that violence across the Middle East is the result of this conflict. I see some heads nodding, of course, and puzzled looks by the press, but... (LAUGHTER) But let me elaborate. Several sources have looked at the levels of violence attributed to the various conflicts in the last half of the 20th century. It is interesting to note that since 1950, two years after the formation of Israel, there have been 67 conflicts throughout the world resulting in 10,000 or more deaths. Number one of the list, at around 40 million, are the killings by the red Chinese from 1949 through 1976. Last on the list is South Yemen's civil, 1986, with 10,000 deaths. Now, where does the Arab-Israeli conflict rank on this list? Forty-ninth, 51,000 deaths. If one were to add the total number of deaths in all 67 conflicts since 1950, you come to roughly 85 million -- in other words, only 0.06 percent of the total number of deaths in all conflicts since 1950 are a result of Palestinian-Israeli conflict. But there's an even more telling statistic. Since Israel's founding in 1948, there have been approximately 11 million Muslims killed in violent conflicts, but only 35,000 of them were the result of Palestinian-Israeli conflict -- 35,000 Muslim deaths of the -- from the Arab-Israeli conflict means that only 0.3 percent of the Muslim deaths from various conflicts have been a result of this conflict. In fact, over 90 percent of the 11 million Muslims killed since 1948 have been killed as a result of Muslim-Muslim violence and conflicts. I raise these statistics here because I deeply believe that problems facing the West currently are the result of turmoil in the Middle East and that has almost nothing, however, to do with the Israeli-Palestinian issue. (APPLAUSE) As president, I would do what I could to -- to try to create the kind of peace that I previously outlined between Israelis and Palestinians. However, America needs to understand and acknowledge that peace in the Middle East is not predicated on peace between Israelis and Palestinians. (APPLAUSE) The Middle East -- the Middle East is certainly one of the most complicated regions in the world. I mean, really complicated. It is clear to me that the Obama administration has zero understanding of this region, and hence... (APPLAUSE) ...due to the policies of our president and his State Department, the situation in the region has really gone from bad to worse. Let me give you a perfect example of how much President Obama misunderstands about this region and our allies and allegiances in the region. As the Arab spring was unfolding President Obama and Secretary Clinton saw this as a movement of democratic uprisings throughout the region. While I don't have the time to discuss how wrong this assumption was, I do want to highlight one of the misguided outcomes that our current administration precipitated. There has always been a power struggle in modern (ph) Egypt between the religious and secular factions. For decades, the United States backed Hosni Mubarak, a dictator, yes, but someone who also regularly waged war against the Islamic fundamentalists in his country. After the Arab spring, President Obama and Secretary Clinton chose to back the government of Mohamed Morsi, a leader of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. In essence, the president decided to back a leader who represented the essence of Islamic fundamentalist. Well, we all know how that worked out. And in the end, thankfully, due to absolutely no part -- efforts for the -- by the president, a more moderate anti-fundamentalist party got elected and took over power in Egypt. Now fast-forward to last year during the Israeli-Gaza war with ammas (ph) -- Hamas. As the war dragged on for almost 50 days, a war started by Hamas and its relentless firing of missiles into Israeli civilian population areas, President Obama and Secretary Kerry searched for an intermediary to negotiate a truce between Israel and Hamas. Now, you and I know full well that the most important party in not only negotiating a truce but in helping to implement a truce is Egypt simply because Egypt shares a border with Gaza and Egypt can help enforce a weapons embargo both on the land, as well as in the seas. Also, trade and freedom of movement between Gaza and Egypt can only be enforced by Egypt themselves. But to whom did President Obama and Secretary Kerry turn to try to negotiate a truce? Turkey and Qatar. Besides the fact that Qatar is host to Hamas on a regular basis and Turkey had prior and during the Gaza war called Israeli policies worse than those of Nazis, it just so happens that Egyptians see Turkey and Qatar as regional rivals and hold them in great disdain. So Obama and Kerry chose to alienate the most important partner for a truce by asking the exact wrong countries to get involved. My point in highlighting this example is again to say clearly what you already know. The world is complicated. The Middle East is even more complicated. And because it is so complicated, the next president of the United States has to adhere to a few key principles when deciding on foreign policy, particularly as it pertains to the Middle East. As president, here are three core principles that would formulate the foundation of my approach to these affairs. Principle number one, national security of the United States and her citizens is the single most (ph) consideration when determining foreign policy. (APPLAUSE) Not running for president of the -- or secretary of the -- secretary general of the United Nations or president of the European Union or any other position, but rather for president of the United States and with (ph) ultimately bear the responsibility for defending our nation and her entrance (ph). Hence all foreign policy decisions must be geared (ph) to the lens (ph) of our national security interest. Many of you know that I am a man of devout faith. That faith teaches compassions, morals and ethics. I believe that if a particular a foreign policy can both maintain our national security interest while also being able to take the moral and compassionate high ground, then we should pursue it. However, when those two things are at odds, national security must trump other considerations. As you may have heard... (APPLAUSE) As you may have heard, I visited Syrian refugees in Jordan over the Thanksgiving weekend. My heart goes out to these people who simply want to live their lives. They want to send their kids to school, go to work, have dinner as family, live without the shadow of war and terror hanging over them. It is the moral and compassion instinct to open our arms and welcome them into our nation. However, we do not have the tools to properly vet every single one of these refugees. And from the standpoint of our national security, no U.S. president should adopt a policy that will likely allow terrorists to legally enter the United States by a refugee settlement program born out of our compassion. (APPLAUSE) I believe the answer is to create safe havens for the refugees in Syria and to ensure their protection until the end of hostilities. (APPLAUSE) And a lot of those safe havens exist already in places like Jordan. We, along with our regional allies, have the military power to keep them safe and we have the resources available to provide shelter, clothing, food and anything else necessary. This is the perfect example of how I would determine U.S. foreign policy in a way that puts our national security first, yet maintains a compassion and morality that we Americans are famous for. Principle two. We are currently facing a clash of civilizations between fundamentalist Islam and Western values. I view Israel as both our canary in the coal mine, meaning that as Israel goes, go goes Western civilization, but also the tip of the spear in this clash. Israel is a democracy in true sense of the word. Where else in the Middle East do women have the same rights as men? Where else in the Middle East does the government ally -- allowed gay pride parades? In Israel, there are Arabs who serve as doctors, lawyers, teachers. There's even an Arab supreme court justice. Arab citizens in Israel have the same rights to medical care, Social Security, the ballot box as any Jew does. Arab members of the Israeli parliament are even allowed to serve without taking an oath of allegiance. I dare say there are probably more women fighter pilots in Israel than there are women with driver's licenses in Saudi Arabia. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) Israel is a true symbol of a pluralistic democracy, and quite frankly, Israel is the only one that exists anywhere in the region. The United States must do everything to support Israel and brace Israel, protect Israel, lift her up as an example to her neighbors as to what freedom really means and what that freedom can bring to a nation. If we, as a country with a bond to Israel that goes back centuries, do not make this a foreign policy priority, then I fear we may be dooming not just Israel but Western civilization itself. Harry Truman, a Democratic president, in opposition to his own secretary of state, made sure the United States was the first nation to recognize the modern state of Israel on May 14th, 1948. It took him all of 11 minutes after David Ben Gurion declared Israel's establishment to say, "I had faith in Israel before it was established. I have faith in it out." I, too, have faith in the state of Israel and have faith that it is one of the everlasting bastions of Western civilization. Principle three -- a strong economy makes for a strong foreign policy. If we look back at the post-war war II (sic era, it seems clear that several presidents, including John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, understood the simple principle. The basic logic is that by reducing the tax burden, one greatly stimulates the economy. And by stimulating the economy, one brings more revenue to the treasury even at a lower tax rate. More money into the treasury means the government has more money to spend on the military. A larger military means the United States can project more power into the places that it needs to at the same time. A strong military is the best deterrent for war and the strongest ensurer of peace. It will be my focus as president of the United States to stimulate the economy by reducing the tax burden on individuals and corporations not just because I believe that it is a fair thing to do, but it is the right thing to do. And I believe that by having the ability to project American strength anywhere in the world any time we need it, we will keep Americans safer at home, our allies stronger abroad and make the world a safer place overall. And I think we need to always keep in mind that America may never have become a place if it had not been for Chaim Solomon (ph). (APPLAUSE) He was a wealthy Jewish merchant, and Washington's army was completely exhausted in terms of funding, and Solomon gave all of his funds in order to save the United States Army. And some say -- and of course, no one knows for sure, but that's the reason that there's a star of David on the back of the one dollar bill. But the fact of the matter is, Judeo-Christian values are the thing that distinguishes us from so many other people in the world. And that's why I rail (ph) so strongly against giving away those values for the sake of political correctness. (APPLAUSE) I mean, I -- I once heard an old Jewish proverb that says even in a room of complete darkness, a single flame can be -- can illuminate the entire room. We are indeed in the middle of a clash of civilizations, a war against the forces of darkness. But in this war against those forces of darkness, there's not one but two flames illuminating the room, the state Israel and the United States of America. Thank you very much. (APPLAUSE) END 12:40:09 Fittingly, a special relationship is said to exist between Israel and the United State's and like it's Biblical precedent that brit is both physical and eternal. Any american president or candidate for president formulating policies toward Israel would be well served to look back at what makes the relationship between the United States and Israel so special and eternal and if we examine History properly it is easier to see that the special bond between these two nation's existed well before either country existed as a country. We should look back to the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948 and even before our founding fathers gathered in Philadelphia and decided to change the course of human history, the first settlers founded towns in this land with names like Bethlehem, and Zion. They infact saw the new world as the new promised land and a land of religious freedom. It is interesting to note that the first committee that was established to decide on a code of arms for the newly formed nation had amongst its five signers, amongst it's members 5 signers of the declaration of independence. 12:41:30 George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, these members of the committee were asked to deliver their ideals independently for the seal of the new nation. In an amazing coincidence the three members of the committee all submitted the same image, images of the jewish exodus from Egypt. For these three founding fathers no image better represented the ideal of freedom of which the United States was founded. Could you imagine president Obama standing today in the white house press room with an image of Moses and Jewish people in front of him. Throughout our history American presidents have had a special view of the jewish people and the state of Israel, even well before Israel existed. John Quincy Adams said I believe in the rebuilding of Judea as an independent nation and Abraham Lincoln referred to Palestine as the national home of the Jews, said this was a noble dream and one shared by many americans. CHRIS CHRISTIE CHRISTIE: Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Thank you. Thank you all very much. Geoff, thank you for the introduction. And to all of you, thank you for the invitation to be here today. I thank you for your patience and endurance. (LAUGHTER) Put up with 14 candidates for president of the United States. But the role that you all will play as we move forward, both through this primary process and through the process of electing a new Republican president next November will be absolutely vital. So thank you for your willingness to be involved. (APPLAUSE) This entire campaign changed a few weeks ago. Since I entered this race I've been talking about the need that the American people have and that the world has for a strong and resolute America. When I initially started to discuss this, it may have seemed somewhat out of step with the issues that were begin discussed at the time, and in the first debate in August in Cleveland. I asserted my position directly in a conversation with Senator Paul. The fact is that America today is weaker and less prepared to protect our citizens than we were seven years ago. And I'd like to blame all of this on Barack Obama... (APPLAUSE) (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) But. But, we have had Republicans who were complicit in this weakening as well. We've had Republicans who have stood on this stage today and said they were for a strong America, yet voted this summer in Congress to weaken America. Voted to take away tools from our intelligence community that permits us to be able to connect the dots and do what President George W. Bush instructed me and the other 93 U.S. attorneys in January of 2002 to do everything we could unto the law to make sure that not another American life was lost to a terrorist act on American soil. For seven years we did that and we used those tools directly and constitutionally. And the American people remained safe. As we stand here today, for the first time since 9/11 I think we're going to have to confront the loss of American life on American soil to terrorist conduct. Now there's many people today who are still trying to speculate about what happened in San Bernardino yesterday. Let me tell you as a former prosecutor. From the time I began to watch the events unfold last night, I am convinced that was a terrorist attack. (APPLAUSE) And the president continues to wring his hands and say we'll see. But those folks, dressed in tactical gear with semiautomatic weapons came there to do something. And let's remember something, everybody. If a Center for the Developmentally Disabled in San Bernardino, California, can be a target for a terrorist attack, then every place in America is a target for a terrorist attack. We need to come to grips with the idea that we are in the midst of the next world war. (APPLAUSE) And you see, unlike the other folks who you'll hear from, who you have heard from today and who you will hear from going forward, these acts of terrorism are not theoretical to me. They're not something that I've been briefed about by some briefers in the basement of the Capitol about something that I just saw on TV. I was named United States attorney by George W. Bush on September 10, 2001. And the next day my wife did what she did most days, which was to leave her home at 6:00 in the morning to get in her car and drive to the train station, take the train to the PATH station, and take the PATH train into the World Trade Center where she went up those large escalators and walked through the lobby of the World Trade Center at 7:30 that morning. That morning I took our children to school. And when I got home I turned on the television set and the first building was on fire. And I immediately called Mary Pat at work. Her office was two blocks from the World Trade Center. So I asked her what was going on. She said well they told us just a commuter plane that flew into the building. We're fine. We're working. Don't worry about it. I'm at my desk. I'm working. While we continued to talk about our day, the second plane hit the second building. And she said to me, they're telling us we have to evacuate to the basement. I'll call you as soon as I can. On that day Mary Pat and I had three children, eight, five and one. And as the next five-and-a-half hours past when I desperately tried to get back in touch with her and could not, there were three things that went through my head. One, what will I do if I've lost my best friend? Two, what am I going to tell our children? And three, am I really ready to be a single parent? Am I ready to raise these children on my own? In the intervening hours the school called and told us that because so many children in our school had parents who worked in Lower Manhattan that they had told the children about the attack. And that we needed to be ready to speak to our kids when we picked them up from school. And when I was 10 minutes away from leaving to pick the children up from school I got the single greatest phone call that I've ever gotten in my life. It was my wife on the other end of the phone from the payphone in Midtown Manhattan, where she had walked with wet T-shirts wrapped around her face and the face of her colleagues to get through the dust and the contaminants that were covering Lower Manhattan. And she told me she was OK. That night she came home and one of our neighbors, who she had helped to get a job in her industry after he had lost his, his wife called us. And she said, did you see Frank? Did you see him anywhere downtown when you were leaving? Because he hasn't come home and I haven't heard from him. Mary Pat had helped him get a job at a place called Euro Brokers, which is on the 44th floor of the second World Trade Center tower. Frank never came home. And the gym in our parish in our hometown is now named in his honor. We sat at his funeral with his widow. Later that night our oldest son's best friend, his mom called. Her husband worked for Cantor Fitzgerald. None of them who were there that day at work came home alive. That young man was eight years old at the time that his father died. And since Facebook has come into the popular being, every year on his father's birthday he puts a picture of his father on his Facebook page with just one simple sentence. It says dad, we'll never forget you. We went to that funeral too. You see, what I'm worried about now is as a nation we're forgetting his father. As a nation we're forgetting Frank. As a nation we have become complacent and soft and unwilling to do the difficult things that need to be done to do the first thing that any president of the United States must do when he takes his hand off that Bible on Jan. 20 of 2017. And that is to protect the lives and security of the American people. And that is exactly what I'll do when I take my hand off that Bible. (APPLAUSE) And unlike others on that first day, on Jan. 21 when the director of the FBI Jim Comey walks into the Oval Office to give me my national security briefing, we won't have to introduce ourselves to each other. When I was the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, Jim Comey was the U.S. attorney in Manhattan. And we worked together jointly on preventing terrorist attacks in America. And then he became my boss as the deputy attorney general of the United States. So when Jim sits there, he won't have to introduce himself. And when he sits there, he won't have to wonder whether I understand all the acronyms he's going to be using in his briefing. When we sit there together, he won't have to wonder whether I know what he means by actionable intelligence. When we're sitting there and he's briefing me he will never wonder whether I have his back to do everything that needs to be done to prevent another attack because I've done it with him before, and I will do it again as president of the United States.. (APPLAUSE) And while this is important, vital, absolutely vital for the future safety and security of the American people, I suggest to you, it's vital for the security and stability of the rest of the world as well because if you don't have a strong, resolute American president who says that terror anywhere is unacceptable, then our allies around the world can't count on us either. When I went to Israel in April of 2012 as governor of New Jersey, it was very soon after the death of Mrs. Netanyahu's father. And we turned out to be the first people that they received at their home for dinner after they had gone through their period of mourning. And when I sat with the prime minister that night he obviously had grave concerns about what was going on in the Middle East and how it was going to protect the people that he'd sworn to protect. When we were leaving after a three-hour dinner that night talking about not only the world, but about our children and their future, he thanked me for coming as he was leaving to go back to work. And as I walked out I looked at him and I said, Mr. Prime Minister, I'll tell you one thing. If I ever do get the chance to become president of the United States, Israel will never have a better friend than me because I understand that America has no better friend than the Middle East or anywhere around the world than Israel. (APPLAUSE) And that partnership has to be renewed. That partnership has to be restored. And it can only be renewed and restored through American strength of purpose. The Israeli government and the Israeli people need to know that when an American president says he's going to do something, he will do it, regardless of where the polls are on any particular day. They need to understand that there is not a moral equivalency with the conflict in the Middle East. (APPLAUSE) And they need to know that if Israel is threatened that there will not be daylight between the United States and Israel, and that the United States will stand up for Israel in the very same way that Israel has stood up for the United States during its time of existence as well. Now, it's only achieved if we are willing to rebuild our military. It's only achieved if we're willing to rebuild our intelligence community. It is only achieved if we are willing to support our law enforcement community. The stability of the world will not be achieved in any other way, everybody. That's the only way it will be achieved. And anyone who tells you any differently is absolutely playing with fire. I don't need to be taught these things. The last 13 years of my life have been about protecting the people of the state of New Jersey. And as United States attorney contributing to the protection of the people of our country in one of the most dangerous times our country's ever seen. Those times are now being repeated. And so let's be clear as we conclude and then I'll take your questions. The ISIS -- ISIS is not the JV, everybody. ISIS is a real, everyday threat to the lives and security of the American people and people who love freedom all around the world. As president of the United States, not only my goal, but my accomplishment will be to make sure that ISIS is destroyed as both an ideology and a force around the world. And we'll unite the world together to do it. (APPLAUSE) And lastly, the American people and the people around the world will know for certain that they have a president of the United States who says what he means and means what he says. And that there will be no ambiguity, no hammering (ph) in the Oval Office. No inability to make decisions. But an absolute willingness and commitment to stand up for what is right and what we believe in. And that means standing by our friends, fighting for them when necessary and remembering that first and foremost the safety and security of our children and our grandchildren is what the American government must do above anything else. And so I look forward to the opportunity to put together the team that will protect America once again, and that will make the American people feel comfortable when they go to bed at night. They have a president who will put their country first and their safety and security above all else. I know that while the issues of the economy and education and technology are issues of concern to all of you, that you understand that if we don't have safety and security first, none of those other issues matter. I just want you to remember the week after September 11 when airlines weren't flying, when sports weren't being played by professionals or by our children, when the stock market was closed and when we all jerked our necks up to the sky every time a plane started to go overhead when those airplanes started to fly again. America cannot work unless America feels safe and secure. And when I'm president of the United States, they will feel safe and secure every night that they go to bed knowing that they have a strong, resolute leader making the decisions that put America's interests first, and the interests of our friends first. Thank you for your time today. I appreciate it very much. (APPLAUSE) Thank you. (APPLAUSE) QUESTION: Governor, welcome. I got to tell you, though. One of the things when we started planning this, I had this date circled on my calendar for a long, long time. Being from Philadelphia I was all prepared to get up here and talk smack to you about my Eagles and your Cowboys. Little did I know they would both stink... CHRISTIE: Yes. Awful. QUESTION: I can't even in good conscience talk smack... CHRISTIE: No, you can't. No, you can't, Matt. QUESTION: I do want to pick up on what you talked about. And share with us because there is a debate and there is this conversation taking place within our party right now about the balance between civil liberties and protecting our own homeland and homeland security. Tell me how you approach that and where you see the balance on those -- you know, in terms of those issues. CHRISTIE: Matt, it's a false debate. It's a false debate. The idea that anything that was going on during the eight years of the Bush administration was either illegal or extra-constitutional is absolutely false. Let's take one example. The program that ended this week, the NSA collection of metadata. You know if you listen to the debate in Congress what they'd have you believe is that we were listening into your phone calls with your wife and reading your e-mails with your children through the NSA metadata program. Let me tell you what they were doing. They were collecting numbers, numbers, millions of numbers. And if one number matched with a phone call to a number of a known terrorist, then it's our job to go to court to show probable cause to get that phone bill. And only until a judge signs off on that do you get the phone bill. Then if you see further evidence on that phone bill that leads you to want to monitor that person ,then you have to go back to court again under the Fourth Amendment and get a warrant to be able to tap those phones. What we've done by taking away that ability is to stop us from being able to connect the dots. You know Senator Paul will come out here next and he'll say he wants more information from terrorists and less from innocent people. Here's my question. How do you know? I have to tell you. In my experience as a prosecutor that terrorists don't wear sandwich boards... (LAUGHTER) ... saying I'm a terrorist and I'm plotting to kill Americans. (LAUGHTER) The way you find out is through the use of that data and the use, under the Constitution, protected by the Fourth Amendment. And that's what was done every day by U.S. attorneys, myself and others across the country. That's how we intervened and caught Hamid Haqqani (ph) who wanted to send -- sell soldier fired missiles to Yemeni terrorists to shoot commercial airliners out of the sky. That's how in New Jersey we stopped the attack on Fort Dix from six radicalized Americans in New Jersey who were obtaining weapons to attack and kill servicemen and women at Fort Dix. And without those tools we would not have been able to do that. And so this is a false debate, Matt. This is a debate for theater. This is a debate to raise money, to cut their little speeches from Capitol Hill, put it on the Internet and then raise money by scaring people into thinking that government's listening to your phone calls or reading your e-mails. We never were. And when we get sober and we reinstitute the NSA program, we won't be doing it then either. And under President Christie, that's exactly what we'll do. (APPLAUSE) QUESTION: You think it'll take a tragedy in order for that to happen? (APPLAUSE) CHRISTIE: The question was do I think that it'd take a tragedy for that to happen. The tragedy's already happened. Paris was an intelligence failure. Do you think these guys got together 15 minutes before the attack at a Taco Bell... (LAUGHTER) ... right and planned that attack? There were multiple folks involved, living in multiple countries with specific planning. And we didn't catch them. We didn't catch them. The French didn't catch them. No one else in Western Europe caught them. And now we have San Bernardino. And what we know right now is this. No one knew that was coming. Now, we don't know what the depth of planning was on that. And we're going to learn more over the next number of days and weeks. But I think the tragedies have already occurred, Matt. And I think it's time for us to wake up. And every candidate who comes on this stage should be honest with you and tell you that we need to do these things because if we don't do them, we are putting you and your families at risk. And that is the greatest failure that an American president can allow to happen on his or her watch. (APPLAUSE) QUESTION: Geoff talked about in his introduction, but I know many, many people in this room have seen the video of your powerful remarks in the recent town hall meeting about losing your friend to alcohol and substance abuse. I used to work for Jack Kemp who talked about compassionate conservatism. Do you think we as a party have become too angry and have lost the compassion? CHRISTIE: No. I just don't think we talk about our compassion enough. We haven't lost it. (APPLAUSE) The compassion's in the heart of every person that I know who works hard for this party. The compassion is there. We need to talk about it. Sometimes we're ashamed to talk about it. I'm not. See, I'm pro-life. But I think as a party we should start talking a heck of a lot more about that period of time after that first nine months. See, it's easy to be pro-life when they're in the womb. They've done nothing to disappoint us yet. (LAUGHTER) When they come out, when they come out it gets a lot more complicated doesn't it? (LAUGHTER) See, I want to be pro-life for the 16-year-old drug addicted teenage girl on the floor of a county lockup. Her life is an individual gift from God. I want to be pro-life for the 42-year-old lawyer who got addicted to painkillers and alcohol and lost his law license, lost his family, lost his job, lost his home. His life is a precious gift from God. See, being pro-life is the most compassionate thing you can be. But we allow ourselves to be put into a box that the Democrats put us in to only talk about the nine months that that life is in the womb. We need to be talking about the entire life. I'm pro-life for the whole life, no matter what mistakes you've made. Because I know these words are true. And I think most of you, if not all of you in this audience believe them too. "There, but for the grace of God go I." And that's what we need to believe in. (APPLAUSE) And that's the compassion that this party stands for. (APPLAUSE) QUESTION: Well, to expand on that, do you think that the rhetoric we're seeing from some corners, whether it's regarding Muslims, whether it's regarding Hispanics, immigrants, whatever, is ultimately caustic to our nation and to our party? CHRISTIE: Yes. People need to be more careful when they're selecting their words. You bet. And sometimes the harshest words are the most entertaining. Sometimes the harshest words are the ones that make us laugh. Sometimes the harshest words are the ones that have us keep the television set on. But when you're a leader, you need to be blunt and direct. But you need to know where the line is. And I think unfortunately there have been some, not only in our party but in the other party as well, who have gone for the entertainment value over being a leader. And I think we all need to be more sensitive to that. That's not political correctness. I've never been accused of that. (LAUGHTER) But... (APPLAUSE) But it does mean -- but it does mean that when I appointed a Muslim American judge to the bench in New Jersey and I had people say to me that by doing that he was going to impose sharia law on the people of New Jersey, a guy who immigrated here as a child, who worked his way through college and law school at night, whose entire life was about achieving the American dream, and who now after five years on the bench is a distinguished and honored member of the bench. You need to stand up and say no to that. We need to judge people on their individual good and bad, not based on what they look like or where they came from. And so I think any time we use language that generalizes too much and is caustic in that way, Matt, we diminish ourselves as a people and as a party. And we need to be smart about that. (APPLAUSE) QUESTION: Obviously when you are sworn in, in 2017, you will be faced with a number of challenges. Which do you see -- in the foreign policy world. Which do you see as the biggest challenge facing our nation? China, Russia or radical Islam? And rank them, please. CHRISTIE: Sure. First is radical Islam. And by the way, I would've used that term whether you used it or not. I don't know why Hillary Clinton won't use it. See, I think by being ambiguous, by using soft language there, we're not being respectful. We're making matters worse. See, radical Islam is not a criticism of Islam. It's a criticism of radicalism. But if you aren't willing to confront that, then you confuse the issue even more. So, Mrs. Clinton's failure to be willing to say that, and the president's failure to say that, makes matters worse, not better, in terms of understanding with peaceful Muslims in this country and around the world. They're unsure of who we're talking about. When we say radical Islam they know exactly who we're talking about. It's the number one threat because it threatens everyone. It threatens everyone. Number two is Russia because this president has allowed Vladimir Putin out of his cage and he needs to be put back in. (APPLAUSE) He in fact unlocked the cage and invited him into Syria. Instead of settling those matters himself with American leadership, he invited Russia in to negotiate a settlement with a butcher in Damascus who has killed nearly a quarter of a million of his own people. And the idea that Russia gives a lick about ISIS is laughable. How many of their people, nearly 240, were murdered in cold blood by ISIS. Have you seen one attack by Russia on ISIS yet? One? No. Who they're bombing are the moderates, the rebels in Syria because they want to prop up Assad and have a client state with Iran in Syria. And so they are a threat. Not because they're strong enough to defeat us, but because every day we're allowing Vladimir Putin to punch above weight. Because we have a weak and feckless president who is unwilling to confront anyone other than Bibi Netanyahu. (APPLAUSE) And third is China because that relationship can go one way or another and it's going to be dependent upon the strength and the clarity of the next American president. That can become a fruitful, respectful relationship where we benefit from an understanding with China that this is not a zero-sum game and that we can all do well in this world economically and otherwise. Or we can continue to be weak and allow China to attack us through cyber warfare and not respond, allow China to steal our intellectual property and not respond, allow China to build artificial islands in the South China Sea and try to dominate those shipping lanes and not respond. If we continue to show weakness, China will take. If we show strength, China will cooperate. And so I have much more hope about our relationship with China than I do about the first two. So that's why I order them in that order. QUESTION: All right. Well, our time is up. Thank you so much, governor. (APPLAUSE) CHRISTIE: Thank you very much. (APPLAUSE) QUESTION: Watch your step. Watch your step. (APPLAUSE) CHRISTIE: Thank you very much. QUESTION: Thank you so much. (APPLAUSE) END 15:00:50 We've had republicans who have stood on this stage today and said they were for a strong America yet voted this summer in Congress to weaken America, voted to take away tools from our intelligence community that permits us to be able to connect the dots and do what President George W. Bush instructed me and the other 93 US attorneys,in January of 2002 to do everything we could under the law to make sure that not another american life was lost to a terrorist act on american soil. For seven years we did that and we used those tools directly and constitutionally and the american people remained safe. 15:01:38 As we stand here today for the first time since 9/11 I think we're going to have to confront the loss of American life on American soil to terrorist conduct. 15:01:53 CHRISTIE: Now there's many people today who are still trying to speculate about what happened in San Bernardino yesterday. Let me tell you as a former prosecutor, from the time I began to watch the events unfold last night I am convinced that was a terrorist attack and the president continues to ring his hands and say we'll see but those folks dressed in tactical gear with semi-automatic weapons came there to do something and let's remember something everybody if a center for mentally disabled in San Bernardino California can be a target for a terrorist attack then every place in America is a target for a terrorist attack, we need to come to grips with the idea that we are in the midst of the next world war. And you see unlike the other folks who you'll hear from, who you have heard from today and you will hear from going forward, these acts of terrorism are not theoretical to me, they are not something I have been briefed about by some briefers in the basement of the capitol, there not something that I just saw on TV , I was named US attorney by president George W. Bush on September 10 2001, and the next day my wife, did what she did most days, which was to leave her home on 6 o'clock in the morning to get in her car drive to the train station, take the train to the Path station and take the Path train into the WTC where she went up those large escalators and walked through the lobby the WTC at 7:30 that morning, that morning I took our children to school and when I got home I turned on the television and the first building was on fire. JEB BUSH 15:57:27 Thank you ambassador for that great introduction thank you all, the RJC plays such a constructive role in electing republicans and they will play a constructive role in electing the next president of the united states. It is an honor for me to be here. Before we start I thought it would be appropriate to make a pause just for a brief moment in reflection and prayer for the family members who lost loved ones in San Bernardino. 15:57:56 Thank you. This sunday is the start of the holiday of light and in a world of deep disturbing darkness starting on sunday there will be a light shining for hope and possibilities and opportunities. First and foremost I wanna wish you all a happy Chanukah we are living in serious dangerous times and I think it requires serious proven leadership to be able to deal with the challenges that we face and infact the opportunities that we face as nation. In recent times it doesn't , unless you're just not watching what's going on we see tragedy after tragedy take place and Paris and Tunisia and Lebanon, a US American student at Yeshiva was murdered in the west bank, Ezra Schwartz. The brutal savagery of Islamic terrorism, exists and this president and his former secretary of state cannot call it for what it is, it is Islamic terrorism that wants to destroy our way of life, wants to attack our freedom, they have declared war on us and we need to declare war on them. 15:59:14 In foreign policy the differences can't be any more stark than the mainstream views of our party and those of the democrats. The Obama-Clinton-Kerry team has gotten it wrong from Day one, first let me say that I don't think a president should speak with grandiosity without backing it up. Should I be President there won't be any red lines unless it's backed up, were not going to call ISIS the JV team unless we are serious about taking them out. No more grandiose reset buttons, and then never following it up and allowing for Putin to run wild while we pull back, our weakness creates voids and those voids are filled now with asymmetric threats of terror and nation states that no longer think the US is willing to expend the capital necessary to be a serious leader. And whether it's Libya, where Hillary CLinton literally said that this was a version of smart power at it's finest, and then we saw the tragedy of Benghazi take place and now we have 3 or 4 different militias including an ISIS related terrorist group that is now trying to destabilize tunisia. 16:00:27 Across the spectrum of the middle east, because we have pulled back , we're now in a far worst place, 3 months ago I went to the reagan library to lay out a plan to destroy ISIS, not to contain it, but to destroy it and that's exactly what we need to do and only american leadership will make that happen. What I said then is what I believe today, that we need a no fly zone and for those that are worried well Russia won't like that, Russia should be more worried about what we do rather than we being worried about what they do. 16:01:02 We should create safe zones, I know people are deeply concerned about the refugee problems that exist with 4 million syrians that are uprooted from their families, a tragedy of untold hardship for so many people,but the simple fact is the way to deal with the refugee problem is to create safe zones there while we build an army and our leadership that will take on ISIS and create a political settlement where Assad goes to wherever, some place outside of Syria where we can create stability. We need more special forces, we need to arm the Kurds, we need to re engage with the Sunni tribal leaders, we need to re engage with the Sunni tribal leaders that were our partners when we built a fragile but secure Iraq the day that Barack Obama was elected and he and his secretary of state abandoned that, that created the void. They both admit now that Al Qaeda in Iraq was wiped out, in it's place now we have a caliphate the size of Indiana.. 30 thousand battle tested terrorist that are organizing each and every day to create hardship for Europe, for the United State's and for the middle east. We can have a plan but it's going to require american leadership, the only way the arab world will join forces if if they believe that the united states is serious in providing the leadership that will happen. 16:02:27 This administration is not serious, when they put restrictions on the war fighters, by having for example 75% of the sorties that are going out from our air bases, 75% go back with the munitions not launched, it's because you have to get approval from a lawyer in the department of defense before you do this, we don't have the intelligence capabilities, we don't have the will and incrementally we are getting into a bigger mess. The next president of the US is going to have to be a commander in chief that asks the military for options not to contain but to destroy ISIS. 16:03:09 Only American leadership can make that happen and frankly only american leadership can improve the chances of dealing with the other force of instability in the region which is an aggressive Iran, now possibly emboldened with Billions and billions of dollars that this agreement, this horrible agreement is going to give them. The radical regime in Tehran has to be confronted as well. I believe we are going to have to end up building the sanctions regime again. We are going to have to do this because they will continue to provide support as the largest supporter of terrorism in the world . The United States when we pull back, creates so much uncertainty that they will come to our shore. We have to be engaged in this in a meaningful way. 16:03:55 ANd our friends need to know that we have their back The simple fact is today our allies no longer believe the US is serious that we will be there that we'll have their back, that the treaty obligations we have are meaningful anymore and the first place to start that relationship is to restore the ruptured relationship with Israel. That has to be the first step. And the best way to do that is on day one, to announce the next president and should I be next president I will do this, that will move the US embassy to Jerusalem, and on day 1 we will create a- extend the memorandum of understanding to provide US security assistance over the long haul for Israel. It is important to make sure that we have the qualitative military edge in the neighborhood to make sure that there is an environment of peace through strength and we can do that. 16:05:00 In short order, on day one we would make it clear that there will be no pressure on the US on Israel as it relates to negotiating with the palestinians until the palestinian authority and other entities inside, inside the political realm inside the palestinian authority recognize the right of israel to exist as a jewish state with secure borders. There has to be a recognition by the next president of the united state's that there's no moral equivalence between acts of terror against innocent people in Israel and Israel's efforts to create an environment of self defense. 16:05:44 On day on one I will work with the next attorney General to stop the BDS movement in the US to use whatever resources exist. A bush administration will forcefully restore america's leadership in the world and other ways as well. Our national security should be the first imperative of a foreign policy for sure but we also have I believe a duty to provide support to people that are repressed, that religious freedom continues to be a value in this country that we need to protect, here and protect overseas. Whether it's the (yazidis?) or the christians in Iraq or Syria or Jews that are being discriminated against in Europe or the United States, the next president of the United State's needs to recognize that religious freedom is one of the first freedoms of this country and whether it's here inside our borders or outside but for us who? 16:06:47 Who but the United States will stand for the discriminated, the oppressed. ANd sadly that discrimination now is taking place across the US college campuses as well. The political correctness of our country needs to be shattered. University should be a place of free expression. These growing cases of anti semitic behavior by a few supported by professors and administrators in some cases by their not taking action has to stop, and the president of the United States has the authority in many ways to convene, has the bully pulpit to make sure that people know that at least one person, the leader of the free world will be on the side of people who only want to act on their religious beliefs. 16:07:41 it is a first freedom that I believe should be protected, my relationship with Israel goes way back, I've been to Israel 5 times and every time I go I'm inspired by the people, by the sense of purpose of the place, by the energy that exists, by the creativity, by the fact there's like, everybody talks about the republican party being kind of a wild and crazy place these days, go see how Israeli politics work. We have 65 candidates running for President, they have 65 separate parties running for the Knesset. 16:08:15 I am inspired by Israel, and from the minute I moved to miami when I had a chance to meet my friends Ron Krongold and Glenda Krongold and took my first trip for Israeli Bonds and then took the other four trips for other reasons, I see Israel as an important ally in so many ways and I've been engaged in the fight long before being a candidate for president. Whether it was the purchase of Israeli bonds through the florida pension fund, or assisting people that brought to my dad's attention the plight of ethiopian jews, an effort that didn't get much publicity but thousands and thousands of people were saved because of George H.W. Bush, my involvement has been consistent it has been clear, and here is my pledge to you as president of the united state's I will restore america's leadership in the world. Were living in perilous times but they are also times of extraordinary opportunity. This is a time where if we fix a big few complex things we will be living in times of abundance but in order to get to that point where we grow our economy at a far faster rate where people are lifted out of poverty, where the middle class gets a pay raise for the first time in 15 years we have to accept the fact that only America can lead the free world, only america can create the conditions in partnership with the rest of our allies to create peace and security. 16:09:43 ANd then we can get on with the business of becoming an economic superpower again and inspiring the rest of the world. I know we can do this but here is the question for you all and the question for all voters, who has the right stuff, who has the experience, that you can look back in the past and know that going forward that they had the ideas and the leadership skills to be able to solve these big complex problems and lead. Who has a heart for people, this is not about the big personalities on the stage as much as a couple of the candidates would like it to be that way, this is about people that are really struggling, people that are really scared about what the future looks like. 16:10:26 This is about the American people, and the next president of the US better have a servant's heart rather than trying to push people down rather than make himself look better, that's what we need. We need servant leadership, a person with a heart, a person with a brain and a person with a backbone. I think you're looking at the next republican nominee and here's what I promise you, should I win this nomination I will take it to Hillary Clinton and I will whoop her. Cause I will campaign, I will campaign with a hopeful optimistic message with my arms wide open, encouraging people to come towards our cause, campaigning in places where republicans haven't been in a long while and challenging the notion that somehow the left has a monopoly on compassion when in fact we've now seen what the last 7 years look like as it relates to policies that are holding people back. It's time to restore american greatness by applying conservative principles in a way that draws people towards our cause and that's my mission and I hope you'll join it, God Bless you all. Thank you very much. 16:12:08 Q: You touched on this in your remarks, I want to get you on the record, your brother wrote a record to prime minister Sharon codifying the us position that one Israel won't be forced to return to the 67 borders, two the palestinians would not have any right of return and 3 Israel's existence as a Jewish State would be non negotiable. Upon taking office, president Obama and Hillary Clinton rejected this letter, as president will you reinstate the terms of this letter and make it official US policy again? 16:12:48 BUSH: Absolutely, absolutely. Look, let me just add,I find it troubling that secretary Kerry, I have not heard President Obama speak on this directly but I find it really troubling that even when we have this extraordinary threat of ISIS and islamic terrorism which should be the first priority of this administration, he continues to hold out hope that he can impose a solution on Israel. It's just it's mindblowing to be honest with you that they are either, they have such a warped view of how this works or this is legacy building. And in fact what we need to do is to create the conditions where there is a willing partner in negotiation. You can force this if the palestinian authority had not had an election in how many years now in a decade, they are not the legitimate elected regime they can't speak for the palestinian people. 16;13:47 They continue to insight their young people by in their schools, there has to be a completely different kind of environment for serious negotiations to take place and we should not impose that on Israel. We've seen recently the US engaging directly and indirectly in regime change, the fall of Saddam, Gaddafi, Mubarak, as president, where would you engage US power for regime change and how do you strike a balance between human rights and stability in a region. 16:14:23 First of all I think has to be in our national security interest, there has to be a clear and compelling interest. It can't be based simply on the brutality of the regime, it has to be based on is this the best interest for our country first and foremost and our allies. And then we need to have a clear strategy. I think the lessons learned over the last twenty years is if you don't have a clear strategy of how to get in and win with compelling force and how to get out you've got problems and so the lessons I think are, Libya being a good example of this, if you're serious about regime change and it's in our national security interest you better have a policy that is not just alright we got rid of Qaddafi, and then just leave, because the net result is Libya now has become a greater threat to the region. 16:15:11 And perhaps ultimately over the long haul a threat to our own country. So there has to be significant strategy for the completion of the mission and then I think we should do this wherever possible in partnership with the neighborhood and with our partners. I don't believe we should, unless there is only this one option we should be unilaterally taking countries over unless there is literally no other way to do it. It works far better when we do this in partnership with our allies. Q: I know this is an area of expertise for you as well, how would your administration deal differently than the Obama administration with the regional challenges as it relates to Latin and central America as well which is a big problem. 16:16:00 Well we wouldn't ignore Latin America, which is a common problem, made worse I think in this administration but across the board to be honest with you. Look we have national security challenges on our border that need to be recognized. You have the northern triangle countries of guatemala el salvador and honduras where a majority of the immigrants that are crossing the border now come from those countries because there is a lack of attention to economic progress, to the criminality that exists, to the drug trafficking. We have to be engaged. The best example of a partnership that worked was the Proyecto Grancolombiano, the Grand Colombian project I think it was called, that when President Uribe was president and my brother in Congress, funded these programs and it was extraordinarily successful. 16:16:48 We didn't unilaterally impose anything, we did this in partnership with a courageous democratically elected leader and it brought stability and economic growth to colombia. Similarly we should have something like that as it relates to the northern triangle countries and we need to be engaged. This sunday there is an election in Venezuela. Venezuela is on the verge of being an ungovernable state that could create national security problems for our country. Hezbollah is active in latin america, and we sit back and we say well, if someone gets elected president then they steal all the democratic institutions in the country that somehow we shouldn't be concerned about that. Well we should be because ultimately this is going to create national security problems for us. Q: So Iran and Hezbollah in Latin America, you think this is a real threat? 16:17:41 BUSH: It is a threat. it's not conjecture, this is an intelligence reports verifying that they're engaged in Venezuela, Argentina, they are engaged in central america for sure and embedded in the Lebanese and Syrian populations that long ago moved to those countries, this is a real challenge for us. Q: There has been some discussion in the past regarding Jim baker as an advisor to you and you've been very clear about that, can you share with the group however about some of the kinds of people you could see as a secretary of state in your administration? 16:18:28 I can't, that's a little ambitious for me, um I'm trying to, I'm going to win New Hampshire first how about that. Q: How about what you're looking for in a secretary of state? BUSH: Someone who has great skill, one of the problems in this administration I think is the white house has way too much power, everything is looked at through a political lense, the national security council has doubled in size in the last twenty five years. I think if you put men and women of real talent and real expertise in the department of defense and the department of state you can create a much better more robust foreign policy. The president has to create the clear direction on this, but you would pick people of talent that wouldn't be subjugated to some little whipper snapper political hack, and if you look at the NSC they are run by people who are actually part of the campaign. That will not happen in a Bush administration. 16:19:21 These would be people that were talented, that had the capability to forge consensus in places where there might be disagreement, there would be an ample chance to be able to think things through, one of the things I've learned in my life now that I'm 62 is I don't have every answer. I know what I don't know, I apologize for everybody on that regard. if you don't have the humility to be able to know that you don't know, you're going to be a horrible president. We got one right now. Q: share with us a little bit about your thoughts on 16:19:59 BUSH: Just as it relates to the (baker?) question, the person I rely on the most as it relates to Us-Israeli policy is my brother. I thought I could get an applause line out of that. I got a damn good brother. Q: Yes you do, we all love him so, we do. Take a step back and think globally if you would for a second. If you were president the last four years, how different would the world be today. 16:20:44 First of all, we wouldn't have had Obamacare which is the greatest job killer, we wouldn't have had a stimulus which was all this pinup progressive liberal demand was just waiting for the chance to have a liberal president with a democrat controlled congress. We would have focused on traditional ways to jumpstart the economy, remember the shovel ready projects? Well they actually do work if there were any around but we spent 800 billion dollars just basically fulfilling the idyllic notion of what the progressive left thinks is the right thing to do rather than a bottom up approach. We would reform the tax code rather than create higher taxes. 16:21:32 We would have never created the regulatory environment which right now stifles capital investment which creates, ultimately is the only way to create high wage jobs. We would have celebrated the success of american entrepreneurialism in the energy sector, this is one of the great success stories of all time> Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, for those worried about the climate by the way, is the reason why we've had a 10 percent reduction in carbon emissions, not anything from the department of energy and their venture capital arm, that didn't work, but a bottom up approach where you unleash entrepreneurialism on any challenge, creates more prosperity, more benefits, more jump starting of the economy than any program from Washington DC. 16:22:14 We would be growing at a far faster rate and medium disposable income would be growin today rather than 2,300 dollars down from the day that barack obama was elected. And we would not have 6 million people stuck in poverty or more than the day that he got elected and people would think that children and grandchildren would have more opportunities than what they believe today, and we would be the leader of the free world, which is not what we are today. And we wouldn't have had sequester to gut the military to now make it harder for the next president of the united states to be an able commander in chief because we don't have the resources that we need to be truly the most effective fighting force possible. Q: Your nickname is Vito Corleone, what would you do about sequester, how would you get the budget and the debt under control while rebuilding the military, without having a line out of Veto like you had in FL. 16:23:15 BUSH: Well you do have a line out of Veto, a version of it, you could have a Paul Ryan has actually suggested a recession version of it which would be an indirect version of a line item veto where you would go back to congress and there could be a 30 day period where they could do an up or down vote of whether they would take a cut or not, but you have to get engaged with the congress. This notion that somehow you don't talk to, you know, Barack Obama has no relationship, no conversation to any republican. The gap is so wide today because every day another day goes by and he's always blaming the republicans, pushing them down and making himself look better. We need to get back to regular order work. 16:23:55 Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean that they are evil, it just means that they are wrong. So why not assume, no don't assume bad motives, the motives are irrelevant, we have to start making our democracy work again and passing a budget that's based on the priorities of a forged consensus has to be the first priority. We haven't passed a budget in how long, 6 years? Not gonna work. Q: Hows your mom and dad? 16:24:37 My dad is 91 and he can't walk anymore he's in a wheelchair but he's stopped watching the CSI series shows, you know all those shows, just kind of not really engaged. He's now watching Fox again, throwing shoes, trying to figure out Donald Trump I think that's his main goal in life, it's hard for a guy like that to understand the Trump Phenomenon but he's doing well and my mother's an angel beleive it or not as much as we giver her grief she's in great (shape?) she's just phenomenal, for those that have to deal with their caregivers these days in the sandwich generation, there's a lot of us my mom is the best caregiver in the world for the love of her life,they've been married almost 71 years. SANTORUM FIORINA FIORINA: One thing I know for sure, I've heard from many, many presidential candidates, and perhaps you haven't made up your mind who to support yet or maybe you have. But one thing I know for sure, in your heart of hearts, you cannot wait to see me debate Hillary Clinton. And that's because you know what will happen. I will win. And it's actually really important to win, and the only way you're going to see that debate is if I am our party's nominee. You know, last night I hosted a live town hall on Periscope, on Twitter, on Facebook, on our website, carlyforpresident.com and we answered questions live for an hour from tens of thousands of voters all across this country. But I must tell you that I considered canceling that event, as news of the -- what seemed now, pretty clearly to be terrorist attacks, trickled in from San Bernardino, California. In the end, though, I decided it was even more important to go ahead with that town hall meeting because these are perilous times, and leadership. The subject of leadership, which is indeed the subject of this election, is more important than ever. One of the things that's crystal clear is that we are missing leadership from the White House. And indeed Hillary Clinton has not exhibited leadership on any of these important issues. We are missing as well a sense of urgency. Hillary Clinton was tweeting about gun control while we learned that radicalized Islamic terrorists have been building pipe bombs. It's clear, one of our priorities must be, as I have said in my blueprint to take back our country last night, one of our priorities must be to defeat ISIS. Not to contain them, not to degrade them, to defeat ISIS and to be back in the leadership business. And, no, Mr. President, they're not contained. They're at our shores. They're in our community centers. And their measure of victory is the body count. I'm angry. Maybe you're angry as well. I'm angry. I am angry because this president and the soon-to-be democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, do not understand this threat and refuse to call it by its name, Radical Islamic Terrorism. While they turn their back on Israel to negotiate an absolutely catastrophic deal with Iran, they send a signal all throughout the world that the friendship with the United States of America doesn't mean very much. I am angry at the moral equivalence that they use to talk about the Palestinian and the Israeli role in the peace process. There is no moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians. You cannot make peace with people who will not acknowledge your existence. I am angry that Hillary Clinton dares to ask what difference does it make when she asks how four Americans died in Benghazi. And then she tells us that we must empathize with our enemy. Mrs. Clinton, when the United States does not answer a purposeful terrorist attack on the United States embassy with a purposeful and focused response, but instead talks about a video that does not respect our values, you are inviting more terrorism and bloodshed around the world. I'm angry that President Obama and Hillary Clinton declared victory in Iraq in 2011, sacrificing all our hard-fought gains for purely political expediency, contrary to the advice of every military expert leaving vast swaths of territory and too much weaponry to be gobbled up by ISIS. And ISIS gains their legitimacy, their power from their territory, which they call their caliphate. We must deny them territory. I'm angry that President Obama says that we unilaterally must accept thousands of Syrian refugees even as his own administration acknowledges that we cannot possibly vet them adequately to determine their ties to terrorism. And mostly, I am outraged, because the murder, the mayhem, the danger that we see unfolding in Paris, Beirut, San Bernardino, are the direct consequence of this administration's policies. You cannot lead from behind. The world is a very dangerous and a very tragic place when the United States of America does not lead. We cannot be the world's policeman, but we must be the world's leader. And so, it is worth contemplating why only this nation can lead. It is because our nation was founded on a unique premise, that each individual life has value, that we judge an individual as an individual, by the content of their character, as Martin Luther King would say, "Not by the group to which they belong." Our nation was founded on the idea that each of us has the right to fulfill our potential, to find and use our God-given gifts. Our founders used the terms life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But what they meant our right to fulfill our potential. And our founders said this right comes from God and cannot be taken away by man or government. Ladies and gentlemen, I am running for the Presidency of the United States because I think we have settled for too long for a government that has grown so big, so powerful, so costly, so complicated, so inept and so corrupt. And by a professional political class that talks a good game election after election after election, but actually doesn't really change anything. I believe we have come to a pivotal point. I believe we have come to a pivotal point, where it is time, citizens, to take our country back. And remember that ours was intended to be a citizen government. Our constitution was written as much to curb the abuse of power as it was to protect individual rights. We are not a perfect nation, and we have had to work hard to make sure that rights apply to everyone. But we are nevertheless, despite our imperfections, an exceptional nation. And it is nevertheless true that in this exceptional nation, more things have been more possible for more people from more places than anywhere else on the face of the earth. And we are an exceptional nation because this is the only nation that possesses military superiority and yet has never used that military superiority to conquer territory or to subjugate people, but instead has used our power to liberate people and to lift people up. This, Mr. President, is why we are an exceptional nation. And when you are exceptional, you must lead and so we must. Aristotle once said that courage is the most important virtue, because without courage none of the other virtues can be practiced. And so, we must have the courage to lead. I must say that when I have traveled to Israel, there are two things that have struck me always about that beautiful country and its people, courage and optimism. And that is an incredibly important combination, the combination of courage and optimism. Yes, the Israelis are always and also entrepreneurial and innovative. But that combination of courage and optimism is what is required to change the world and to lead. We must have the strongest economy and the strongest military on the face of the planet and everyone has to know it. As president, I am determined to take our government back, to hold it accountable, to restore possibilities to every American regardless of their circumstances, and I have the courage and the experience to lead, once again, in the world. As commander in chief, I will not only invest in our military, I will honor our military and I will listen to our military and to their advice. And in order to have the strongest military on the face of the planet, not only do we have to rebuild so much of our military capability but we also must care for those who have served. Finally, after years of talk, from both parties, after decades, we must reform the VA from top to bottom. It is a stain on our nation's honor when we cannot care for those who have served. But this is not the leadership we have now and this is not the leadership that we will have from Mrs. Clinton because as the Paris terrorist attacks are fresh still in our minds. President Clinton -- President Obama, there's a freudian slip. President Obama and she hopes President Clinton say that climate change is our most pressing national security crisis. No, Mrs. Clinton, climate change is not our most pressing national security crisis. ISIS is, followed closely by Iran. I can remember traveling to Israel several years ago and sitting with BB Netanyahu in his office. I remember him talking, as he does, in very eloquent and very specific terms about the danger of radical Islamic extremism and about the danger of Iran as well. And then I remember, because I have held the highest clearances available to a civilian, I remember walking down the hall and speaking with the head of Mosad about both of these two risks as well. ISIS is at war with us and all we represent, and so we must wage this war and we must win. This does not mean that we repeat all of the nation building and the (inaudible) the mistakes of Afghanistan and Iraq, but it does mean as I've said, that we must deny ISIS territory. We cannot permit them to rape, to subjugate, to terrorize, to crucify, to behead and to sell into slavery their enemies and we cannot permit them to use their territories to train and prepare for jihad around the world. And so we must gather our allies and lead, France, Britain, Germany, Belgium, all are threatened as is every nation in Europe. Jordan, Kuwait, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Bahrainians, the Emirates and the Kurds and all are fighting ISIS to some extend on the ground as we speak and all have asked for support, weapons, material and intelligence sharing from us mostly this administration has said no, I will say yes. Russia and Iran, of course, represent real national security threats over the medium term China over the long term. And we have to confront both our near-term, our medium-term, and our long-term adversaries, and we must stand with our allies now. Because when we fail to stand with our allies, they lose courage, and our adversaries move forward. And so on day one of my administration I will make two phone calls. The first will be to my good friend BB Netanyahu. To reassure him that we will stand with the state of Israel always, unless you think I say this only because I am here at the RJC, I have been saying this publicly month after month after month because, you see, I know, I know, that even our allies who do not always agree with Israel watch how we are treating this exceptional nation and our exceptional ally Israel, watch how we treat Israel and conclude that if we are treating Israel in the way we have been for the last several years, then their friendship does not mean much either. The second phone call that I will make will be the supreme leader of Iran. Unlike many of the other leaders in the Middle East, I have never met him and frankly he probably will not take my phone call but he will get my message. The message will be very clear. New deal. New deal with a new president. Until and unless you open every military and every nuclear facility to real, anytime, anywhere inspections by our people, not yours. We the United States of America will make it as difficult as possible for you to move money. We must stop the money flow. And the United States of America can do that without permission or collaboration. We must stop the money flow because the money, the hundreds of billions of dollars of money that is flowing into Iran now as a result of this terrible deal is being used to fuel and fund military capability, nuclear capability, and terrorist groups around the Middle East and around the world. With these two phone calls, as important as each one of these two phone calls is, they also send a loud and clear signal to every ally we have in this world and every adversaries as well, the United States of America is back in the leadership business. Israel indeed is the canary in the coal mine. They are also a nation of extraordinary courage and optimism, entrepreneurialism, innovation, a island of democracy and diversity in a very rough neighborhood. I understand the world and who is in it. And that matters, because having been in the world and in it for decades is very different than reading something in a briefing book. I have operated around the world for decades in business, in charity, in policy. I have held the highest security clearances available to a civilian. I have chaired the advisory board at the CIA, advised the NSA, two Secretaries of Defense, a Secretary of State and a Secretary of Homeland Security. I have met more world leaders than anyone running today with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton, only I didn't do photo-ops. I did meetings on business and policy and charity. And it makes a difference having been in these regions of the world, I'll pause and tell you a very brief story, but I remember being in an automobile in Jordan. One of the more moderate countries in the Middle East as you well know and for some reason I asked the driver if I could see a map. He handed me a map and in the space on the map where Israel should be was nothing but white. And I asked him, what is this white space? And he said, oh, that doesn't exist. You see when people like the supreme leader of Iran say their mission is to wipe Israel off the face of the map, I know it is not political rhetoric, it is powerful ideology because I have been there and I have seen it. We need a president who will see and speak and act on the truth. She must understand how truly exceptional our nation is. She must have the courage to call evil by its name. I will have the courage to lead. We must nominate and elect a president who proudly will wear the mantle of leadership that a weary world is eager for us to wear. I know what such leadership requires. I have been tested. I will recognize dangers with eyes wide open, but I will also embrace with arms open wide the marvelous opportunities of this century. With your prayers, with your support, with your votes, I will lead the resurgence of this great nation here at home and around the world. Ours was intended to be a citizen government. Our nation is exceptional and is intended to lead. My fellow citizens, it is time -- it is time -- to take our country back. Thank you so very much, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so much. Thank you. (UNKNOWN): So, we'll take some questions if you don't mind. FIORINA: Yes, sir, I'd love to. (UNKNOWN): Excellent. As a business executive you've obviously negotiated many deals. FIORINA: Yes, I have negotiated many deals. Maybe even more than Mr. Trump, who knows? (UNKNOWN): So, in light of that, do you believe it's possible to negotiate a peace between Israel and the Palestinians and what role would you see your administration having in that effort? FIORINA: Well, frankly, I think that answer depends very much on the Palestinians. You cannot negotiate a deal with people who do not recognize your right to exist. So, unless and until -- unless and until, the leaders of the Palestinian people, grow so war weary that they are prepared to accept Israel's right to exist, then, no, sadly, I do not believe peace is possible. However, I also believe that if a leader in the Oval Office makes that condition clear, over and over and over, instead of the moral equivalence that we have seen too often from this administration, but frankly sometimes from the previous Clinton administration as well, I think if that demand is clear and unequivocal, then perhaps we can bring the Palestinians to the table with that condition in mind. (UNKNOWN): Putting on your technology hat for a second, how would you deter and prevent cyber attacks and industrial espionage from countries such as China, Russia, and Iran? And do you consider these efforts -- these attacks acts of war? FIORINA: So, the short is answer, yes, in many cases they are act of war and in some cases they are what I would call commercial espionage but nevertheless they are a problem and sadly we are losing the war in cyber space. Not because we lack the capability, but frankly because of government ineptitude. That's a pretty strong word, but let me give you an example of what we mean as, someone who has held the highest clearances available to a civilian, I know, as many do, that we have known about the threat from the Chinese to hack into our most sensitive databases and systems for over a decade. In fact, the office of personnel management was warned very explicitly and very specifically about security holes in their systems and databases, and yet they did nothing about them. We can lead in cyber space, but we are not today. So I would do several things very specifically. Number one, I would stand up a centralized cyber command in the Federal Government and hold it accountable. Number two, I would pass a law that is required to pass to permit the kind of collaboration and coordination between the private sector and the public sector which is not going on today which is vital in order to be able to detect and repel all of these cyber attacks. Number three, we are having a debate in the Republican Party right now about whether we should go back to the Patriot Act or stick with what we now currently have. It is the wrong debate. It is coming frankly from politicians who do not understand technology. Technology has moved on light years since the Patriot Act was passed. Light years, there are technologies available today that the Patriot Act did not even envision. We have encryption technologies today that served the American people very well, for example, and protecting their own commercial transactions. And so now what we need to do is bring together the best minds in the private sector and the best minds in the public sector and say, how is it that we now with these new and marvelous technologies that American companies are inventing. How do we make sure that we protect our own citizen privacies and still give our law enforcement, our intelligence and our military personnel, the tools that they need to fight terrorism. And finally, the fourth thing that I would do in addition to those three I just mentioned is retaliate because when the Chinese hacked into our systems and databases, we must fight back. (UNKNOWN): How vulnerable, by the way is our main infrastructure, some of -- our main infrastructure to cyber attack? FIORINA: Very. Very. And we have the capability to solve this problem. But most of that capability exists in the private sector. And it is why we must bring the private sector into a real collaboration with the public sector. By the way, you might be asking yourselves why isn't that bill that is required to allow some collaboration, coordination between private networks and public networks, why hasn't that bill been passed? I'll tell you why, because politicians lost the courage to have the conversation with the American people about why it was necessary in the wake of Edward Snowden. Edward Snowden has scared everybody. Yes, Edward Snowden is without a doubt, a traitor and should be tried for treason. But it is also clear -- it is also clear that so many of our politicians either don't have the courage or the understanding to talk with the American people about how we ought to be winning this fight. We are the most sophisticated technological nation on the planet. We're losing because of ineptitude and a lack of leadership. It is why, it is yet another reason why we must take our government back. (UNKNOWN): Right. Last question and I'll tee one up for you to hit out of the park. The democrats repeatedly trying to make the claim that the GOP has a war on women, how do you respond to them? FIORINA: Well, you'll have to debate -- wait for that debate between me and Hillary Clinton to hear that. But, you see, actually, this is why -- this is why -- we need a fearless fighter to face Hillary Clinton who will force her to fight on ground that we can win on. Look, Hillary Clinton does not want to run on her track record as secretary of state. Why? Because she got every single foreign policy challenge wrong, every single one. I've met Vladimir Putin. Anyone who spent anytime with Putin knows you do not change his behavior with a gimmicky red reset button. No, you might change his behavior by rebuilding the sixth fleet under his nose or rebuilding the missile defense program under his nose or conducting regular military exercises. She called Bashar al-Assad a positive reformer. She declared victory in Iraq. She advocated for the removal of Muammar Gaddafi and then left Libya as a failed state where we now know ISIS has new territory. So, she cannot run on her track record as secretary of state. But what does she want to run on? What is the platform that Hillary Clinton wants to run on? She is going to be the first woman president. Ladies and gentlemen, I will never ask for your support because I am a woman, although I am proud to be one. But I will tell you what, I will tell you what, I will force Hillary Clinton to fight on ground where she will have to talk about the reality that every single one of her policies are bad for women as well as men. She will have to fight on the ground of her track record as secretary of state, and ladies and gentlemen, if she faces me, we will win. (UNKNOWN): And I think that is a perfect conclusion to our day. FIORINA: Happy Hanukkah, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so much for having me, and happy 30th anniversary. Thank you so much. Happy Hanukkah. END 17:00:55 I must tell you that I considered cancelling that event as news of the well, seem now pretty clearly to be terrorist attacks trickled in from San Bernardino CA. In the end though, I decided it was more important to go ahead with that town hall meeting because these are (?) times. 17:01:33 Indeed, Hillary Clinton has not exhibited leadership on any of these important issues. We are missing as well a sense of urgency. Hillary Clinton was tweeting about gun control while we learned that radicalized Islamic terrorist had been building pipe bombs. It's clear, one of our priorities as I said in my blueprint to take back our country last night, to defeat ISIS, not to contain them. Not to degrade them, to defeat ISIS and to be back in the leadership business. 17:02:24 I'm angry, maybe you're angry as well. I'm angry. I am angry because this president and the soon to be democratic nominee do not understand this threat and refuse to call it by its name: radical Islamic terrorism. While they turn their back on Israel to negotiate an absolutely catastrophic deal with Iran, they send a signal all throughout the world that the friendship with the US of America doesn't mean very much. I am angry at the moral equivalence that they use to talk about the Palestinian and Israeli role in the peace process, there is no moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians. You can't make peace with people who will not acknowledge your existence. 17:03:29 I am angry that Hillary Clinton dares to ask what difference does it make when she asks how four Americans died in Benghazi and then she tells us, then she tells us that we must empathize with our enemy. Mrs. Clinton, when the US does not answer a purposeful terrorist attack on the US embassy with a purposeful and focused response but instead talks about a video that not does respect our values, you are inviting more terrorism and bloodshed around the world. 17:05:00 Mostly, I am outraged because the murder, the mayhem, the danger that we see unfolding in Paris, Beirut, San Bernardino are the direct consequence of this administration's policies, you can not lead from behind. The world is a very dangerous and tragic place when the United States of America does not lead, we can't be the world's policeman but we must be the world's leader so it must be worth contemplating why only this nation can lead. 17:09:40 This is not the leadership we need we have now and this is not the leadership we will have from Mrs. Clinton because as the Paris terrorist attacks are fresh still in our minds, President Clinton- President obama there's a freudian slip- President Obama and she hopes, President Clinton will say that climate change is our most pressing national security crisis. No, Mrs. Clinton. Climate change is not our most pressing national security crisis. ISIS, following closely by Iran. JOHN KASICH KASICH: Thank you. Well, I'd like to just tell you a little bit about my motivations and I'm going to try to be as short as I can so I can take your questions. But I suppose I could trace my relationships with the members of the Jewish community, just not members of the Jewish community, they're my friends, back to something that my -- my mother once told me. My mother was a pretty smart woman. Her mother could barely speak English. She was married to a man whose father was a coal miner. So, they -- they -- they'd understood their -- their share of struggles. My mother told me one time, she said, "Johnny," when I was a very young man, she said, "Johnny, if you want to look for a really good friend, get somebody who is Jewish." (LAUGHTER) And you know why she said that? She said no matter what happens to you, your friend, your Jewish friend will stick by your side and fight right with you and stand by you. I never forgot that from my mother, and my mother is right. So, deep inside of my soul has been a sense of the Jewish community and the Jewish people. You know, when I think about what the Jewish family represents, and what the culture represents, it could be the most important set of values in cultures in America. You know, and I'll tell you why, because I've observed throughout my adult lifetime that as a Jew, you're supposed to live a life greater than yourself. The life is not just about you. It's about the people around you. It's about the community. Don't you think that's what our country needs, a sense and not just our country but in the west, that life is not just about ourselves, that life is about something bigger than ourselves. (APPLAUSE) And this is a message that needs be communicated to give people meaning. My great friend Brad Caston (ph) talked about my trip to Israel with Gordon Zacks one of the great Jewish leaders. I agreed to go with Gordon to Israel while soon after I was elected, I was about the age of 30 years old, and Gordon (oh) went on and on and on, on the airplane about how great it was going when we got to Jerusalem, and I'm like, "Gordon, I've agreed to go on this trip with you, but I mean, can we knock it off already on the -- on the travel conversation we're having." And then we landed and we got in the car, and we drove to Jerusalem. Have you ever seen a more magnificent city in the world? And I can't wait for the day for me to take my young 15-year-old daughters to Jerusalem because it is a shining city, and it represents so much of human history and what a great trip I had. And on that trip, after we moved through large parts of Israel, we were at the King David Hotel. And I'd gone up to my room and I came down and there was a woman sitting at the table with Gordon. I said, "What -- who are you?" She said, "Well, my name is Avital Sharansky." I said, "Well, who are you?" She said, "Well, I'm on my way to Washington to meet with President Reagan to plead for the release of my husband, Anatoly, who's been locked in, a Soviet prison because he dared to be a refusenik." I looked at her and I said, "You're going to go to Washington? Why don't we have a rally right on the step of the capital and send a double message to the president and to the Soviets about your husband," and we did. (APPLAUSE) And we did. But I had never met Anatoly Sharansky in person until I read one of the most remarkable books I've ever read in my lifetime called, "Fear of Evil." Sharansky, I'd never met, but I wanted so much to meet him, and one time Gordon Zacks gave me the opportunity to talk to him in a phone conversation, and I expressed by admiration as -- as because as we all know the Soviets told Sharansky, "Repent, after all take back what you said, after all Galileo did it," and in his book "Fear no Evil." Sharansky writes that if they use Galileo against me they will not use Sharansky against another prisoner of conscience, and I wanted to meet this man. Gordon Zacks died. There was a funeral service. There were three speakers scheduled. Richard Allen, the former national security adviser to President Reagan. John Kasich, the governor of Ohio and Anatoly Sharansky. I called one of my friends and said, "I can't make this talk. How can I stand on a podium with a guy like Sharansky and Richard Allen. What do I do?" He said, be short. (APPLAUSE) Well, God must have mercy. Sharansky was delayed. But I got to meet him and shake his hand and gave him a hug at the burial site of Gordon Zacks. That's what life is all about and meaning and purpose. Well, folks, I think I know that you know this, but when we think about 9/11, when we think about Chattanooga and Fort-Hood, when we think about Charlie Hebdo, when we think about the slaughter at the Jewish delicatessen, and then we look at Paris. There can be no doubt that this is an effort to destroy our very way of life, to destroy civilization, to destroy respect for women, to destroy the sense of education and progress and science and civilization and to destroy the concept that we should live a life greater than ourselves. The president went to Paris and said, "We were going fight terrorism by taking on climate change." (LAUGHTER) If I were president, I would be at that meeting and I would be talking to all of our allies in NATO, and I would be seeking out our friends or people who have the same purposes in the middle east because I remember when the ambassador from Egypt to the United States stood in the Rose Garden and announced a coalition of people to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. That was a serious matter. But it pales into comparison to what we face today. The president of the United States needs to lead and he needs to lead a coalition to stop the delay, to stop the politics, put people in the air and on the ground, and for once and for all go and destroy ISIS where they exist. (APPLAUSE) You know, you come to an event like this and you expected that, you know, kind of political talk. This is not politics folks. I've got those young daughters, and I know what is at stake here, and since last February, I have been arguing for an effort to destroy these people. So, I'm going to -- you mark my words, someday we will have boots on the ground. Someday we will have a coalition, but the longer we wait, the longer we wait, the higher price we will pay. And this is a fight, this is a fight about our existence. This is existential. Now, at the same time I know that the president has said or his administration has said we need to lead from behind and you know what happens when we lead from behind? Well, we have a situation where we didn't support the rebels in Syria. We see the Russians building S-400 air defense system that frankly limits the flexibility, the ability and strategic needs not just of the United States but Turkey and Israel, just an article today about the impact on Israel with the S-400 because there was a void. We've not created no-fly zones. We've not created sanctuaries. We have not armed the Kurds to the degree we should, so we could work with them to more effective work against ISIS. The only group in the Middle East that's working that way and the void means that it's filled by forces that are not in our interest and our interests are only in the interest of opportunity, the free world, equality, not repression, not dictatorship. You know, America and the West was founded on principles, of respect for life. The belief that we can change the world as Mr. Caston (ph) referred to that sits on that Holocaust Memorial. These are serious matters. Over in the Ukraine, the people there just ask for support from the United States to defend themselves. We're absent. The Russian bear -- bears down on the Baltics on the Finns, on the Swedes. Very serious matters. We look at China and their ability to hack and to launch cyber attacks against us, and we can't seem to deal with that. We have to lead because when America leads people follow and that doesn't mean it's easy. That means you need to sit and listen and negotiate and work and ultimately convince people of the need to take collective action to continue to support the ideals of the West and that's not inconsistent with the moderate Arabs because you know they know in Jordan and they know in Saudi and they know in -- in the Gulf (ph) States, and they know in Egypt, it's just a matter of time until this evil tries to take and is effective in taking them down. We can unite. We can get this done, and we have to rebuild our military, and we can rebuild our military. But I have to also tell you, we need to reform that building over there, that Pentagon so that we're not spending money on overhead or duplication or waste in depriving our men and women in the military of the resources they need. But aside from all of that, doesn't it trouble you that America cannot seem to be able to solve problems? We can't seem to get our spending in line. We can't seem to balance a budget. We can't seem to clean up a tax code. We can't seem to deal with this regulatory morass that is shutting down the efforts of small business people to create jobs and strengthen our families. You know, the world looks at us, and they wonder what's happened to America? Now, this is a Republican gathering, but our friends in the Democratic Party are not our enemies. We can disagree with them on a number of issues. But we don't need to hate them. I served in Congress when it was possible for Republicans and Democrats to disagree 80 or 90 percent of the time but then we came together at times because we put America first. Well, I was there when we balanced the budget. I spent 10 years of my life to get that done because I didn't think we should put a burden on our children. And I knew that by -- by putting ourselves on a path to cutting taxes and balancing budgets, we would have jobs and we all know jobs are the most important thing for all of us because that's what strengthens our families and gives our children opportunity. Well, ladies and gentlemen, we need to fix it. We need to come together. I became governor of Ohio. Oh, it was a mess. Down 350,000 jobs and credit going down the drain, and today we're up almost 400,000. We are running surpluses. We have cut taxes. And as a result of our growth, today we leave no one in the shadows, the mentally ill, the drug addicted, and the working poor all have a place in our society. I don't tell you that record to brag. I tell you that record because we need to be in a position to have somebody who's actually demonstrated their ability to achieve significant things. I am -- Brad Caston (ph) mentioned that I flew in here for the Netanyahu speech and it is the first time that I had sat on the House floor since I left congress in 2000. When I left somebody said, "Why did it take you so long to come back here for a session." I said, "Well, when you graduate from high school you shouldn't drive around in the parking lot." (LAUGHTER) And, you know why I came in? Netanyahu, Israel. Could you imagine that a prime minister of one of the greatest allies we have comes into town to make a talk and the president decides not to meet with him. Any prime minister that comes to America, if I happen to be president of the United States, will have a significant great meeting with me if I'm president and we will hold them up. (APPLAUSE) You know, sometimes we are a little tougher on our family, right, than we are on people we don't know, and sometimes we're a little tougher on our friends than we are on our enemies. That's got to stop. (APPLAUSE) That's got to stop. You know, I guess I could -- I got just about nine minutes left. I guess I could launch and do a lot of good rhetoric, but I want you to understand something from me. You tell me where we have a better ally that has more guts, more courage, more strength, more values than the State of Israel? And you know, the State of Israel is also great because it's underpinned by you. They asked me before I came in here, what about the Republican Jewish Coalition? What is that all about? Can you say something good? You know, what it is? You're educated. You're smart. You're passionate. You're strong. And you believe in things. You believe in things that really matter here in the 21st Century. And I want you to know something, so do I. And I will stand with you as long as I am a public official and when I am not I will continue to stand with you anyway I can because standing with you means standing for the future, it means standing for humanity, it means all the right things about how we exist in the world on the globe and assuring future generations peace and prosperity and faith. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) QUESTION: So, thank you, governor. We have about eight minutes. In all the questions that came in for you, they really came -- there were two main questions. I'm going to leave the more wonky questions to the end because I think if you could probably take all eight minutes with -- with that. So, let me -- let me go to one of the main questions was on people's mind, it has to go back to -- to one of the previous debates and there was an exchange about Iran and you had questioned some of the -- of your opponents, some of the other candidates who say that they're going rip up the Iran deal on day one, and there was some back and forth on that. Can you share with -- with our folks where you... KASICH: Yes. QUESTION: ... you have to... KASICH: Yes, well look, first of all, it's ridiculous deal because what happened was they were in search of an agreement regardless of what the agreement was. But I don't know why I would be trying to be able to telecast, you know, at that time about 18 months ahead of what I might do in regard to that agreement. You know, here's the other thing that I think is really, really important. I believe that we can act stronger when we can be a collective group. I want the Brits and the French and the Germans and the Belgians and the Spanish, I want them to be part of who we are because in a group collectively, we are stronger than when we go alone. Now, I'm prepared to go alone. If the Iranians violate this agreement, which it looks like maybe perhaps they already have, or that they probably will, then we withdraw and we slap on sanctions. But let me ask you a question, if America slaps on sanctions, is it as effective as when we slap on sanctions and everyone in the West does? I believe that it means more, and I -- but I -- I do it unilaterally, but I think collectively, we are much stronger, and I believe at this point the president of the United States ought to be talking to our folks also about if that deal is violated, we're going to move and we're going to move quickly, no ifs, ands or buts. Now, the other thing I would tell you is, if I had information or intelligence that they were building a nuclear weapon, we wouldn't be in favor in any way, shape or form of them having that kind of a weapon. Now, I guess if you're inexperienced, you say, "I'm going to go and blow the place up." But when you're an executive and commander in chief, your words are clear. Somebody said, "Well, if you put a no-fly zone in Syria and they fly in, what would you do?" I said, "Well, if they flew in the first time, I might let them fly out. If they flew in the second time, they wouldn't be flying out." But I don't have to go and use that kind of fiery rhetoric. Executives have to be calm, tough, firm and decisive. If you noticed, the leaders of this world who are most effective, that's how they operate. And by the way, when you're an executive, you know, I used to be a congressman 18 years. I've been governor now. The difference between an executive and a legislative, not that big a difference, only the difference between day and night. (LAUGHTER) And as an executive in a big state -- by the way, last time I checked, no Republican had ever been elected president, they didn't win Ohio. As an executive in a big state over the course of the years that I've been in, I've dealt with one crisis after another, and each time you deal with one, you learn, and you get better, and you get stronger, and you call on people that are around you. That's what's so important about being an executive, because as president of the United States, every day, every single day, it's another thing that flies at you. You don't learn on the job. You got to have dealt with these things to be the most effective you can be. QUESTION: OK. And then finally, the more wonky question. Going back to your past -- your past 10 year as chairman of Budget Committee, folks want to know how it is that you're going to cut the debt, deal with entitlements and at the same time rebuild our... (CROSSTALK) KASICH: I can do that really, really short. QUESTION: OK. KASICH: Here's what you do, first of all, you have an economic plan. I've done this now twice, in Ohio and in Washington. The formula is simple. You reduce taxes to a point where it's going to provide economic growth. When people say they're going to have a 10 percent flat tax, I mean, we got one candidate running. His tax plan would increase the debt by $11 trillion or $12 trillion. OK. You just can't do that. You can't grow your way out of everything. You reduce those taxes 28 percent top rate, 15 percent capital gains, I've cut capital gains in Congress. We -- we have reduced income taxes, and killed taxes on small business in Ohio. You reduce taxes. Corporate taxes down to 25 percent, do not double tax, bring the money home from Europe, so people invest in America and that -- they are not investing in Europe, and give them the ability to write off the investment in plant (ph) and equipment and as those investments have shrunk, that is why our economy is not growing. Businesses have not invested in plants and equipment, and it has to happen. So, you get the corporate rate down, you get the personal rates down -- which is achievable because they are not way out of the ordinary and then what do you is you restrain spending. You take your Medicaid program from 5 to 3. My Medicaid program went from 10 to 2.5 with no one being cut off the rolls and without the loss of a benefit. You get your Medicare from a growth rate of about 7 to 5, with a whole series of things we were able to do in Medicaid, they still provide services but at a lower price, you freeze all non-defense (ph) discretionary, you shift these programs out of Washington like education, like Medicaid, like transportation, like job training, and at the same time, you boost your spending and defense, and then you freeze regulations for a year and you begin to reap (ph) -- to put rhyme and reason in the way we regulate. That would contribute to us about a 3.9 percent economic growth. We would have a balanced budget. We're officially saying in eight years -- some people say you can do it in four. Give me a break. OK, we could do it, maybe in seven, maybe in six if we get the economic growth we anticipate, but I don't make false and phony promises to people. I want you to know we will have a plan in the first 100 days to rebuild the military, a plan in the first 100 days to fix the taxes, to balance the budget, to control spending at a reasonable way that I believe people can sign onto, and maybe in the -- maybe at the same time, we also could work to secure our borders, create a guest worker program, and people who broke the law to get here, if they haven't broken the law since then, we can put them on a path to legalization by forcing them to pay a penalty, and that could settle this issue once and for all, and we control that border. Now, all those things, I believe, can be presented in the first 100 days. Now, you have three months, four months, Garry (ph) to -- for a leader to put an agenda on the table that can unite both wings of the party and perhaps even bring in some of my friends in the Democratic Party to put -- to lift America. We can't keep fumbling and fighting and being unable to solve our problems, and by the way, maybe some of you be skeptical about this, but if there's one single thing we need, we need a constitutional amendment to require a federally-balanced budget so politicians will do their job in Washington, OK? (APPLAUSE) So, I guess we're out of time. Thank you all very much and we'll see you, again. QUESTION: Governor, thank you. KASICH: My pleasure (ph). Thanks so much. (APPLAUSE) END LINDSEY GRAHAM GRAHAM: Hello. Thank you. I am from the federal government here to help you. So the RJC is 30 years old, right? You never looked better. You don't look a day over 20. Don't you feel like you're more relevant than ever? (APPLAUSE) GRAHAM: Don't you feel like that what you have been trying to tell people are coming true? So I want to thank you all for helping me all these many years. I am from South Carolina as you might be able to tell. And the last election for Senate, I had six primary opponents. From mildly disturbed to completely insane, and as the insane guy was worried the most about. He rallied to my side. The pro-Israel community on both sides of the aisle invested in Lindsey Graham's campaign with the ferocity that made me feel like family. (APPLAUSE) GRAHAM: We are family. If elected President, I may have the first all Jewish cabinet in America. Ken, thank you for introducing me, thank you for being my friend for so long, this journey we started together with Lindsey Graham was well over 20 years ago. I had a guy show up at my office when I was running for Congress, the first Republican to win the third congressional district since 1877 in South Carolina. Strom Thurmond knew the guy, I didn't. He said he was a nice fellow. We change Senators every 50 years in South Carolina whether we need to or not. There's a guy that showed up in my office, he said I am from AIPAC. I said, great, what's AIPAC? I am here to help you. And they did. The bottom line is that the pro-Israel community, AIPAC, RJC, and others have been very, very helpful to making sure those of us in Congress who understands the commonality between Israel and the United States are elected. Shared values, shared enemies, I am the first of my family to go to college, anybody in that boat, neither one of my parents finished high school. My dad owned a liquor store, a bar and a pool room. This is why I would be a good President for you. I grew up in the back of a bar until I was in high school. We lived in one room. My mom, my dad and my sister who was 13 years -- 9 years younger than I am, life was pretty good. If you own your own business you go to work every day, whether you feel like it or not. Does that sound familiar? You can't get sick. I ran the pool room as a kid. This is why I would be good regarding the Iranians. I know a liar when I see one. So the bottom line is that is my world view, from the back of a liquor store, living in a small town in South Carolina, being raised by wonderful parents who cared a lot but not well educated. But they gave me the one thing that is essential, unconditional love. They loved me and they loved my sister unconditionally, and they didn't leave us a lot of money but they left us the one thing that every kid should get from their parents, love, encouragement, and respect. So when I am 21, I am at the University of South Carolina where we just got beat by the Citadel a couple of weeks ago, long, struggling gamecocks. I am a sophomore in college and my mom gets diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease, 15 months later she passes. We get wiped out financially, because we're underinsured, 15 months later, my dad dies, I am 22. My sister is 13. We move in with an aunt and uncle who worked in the textile plants in South Carolina and never made over $25,000 in their lives. If it wasn't for social security survivor benefits, coming to my sister as a minor from my parent's contribution, we wouldn't have made it. I don't need a lecture from a Democrat about social security. If it weren't for college loans, my sister would not have gone to school. I don't need a lecture about how hard it is to send your kids to college. I paid the medical bills until I got out of the air force. I don't need a lecture about what happens if you get sick and you lose everything because you're underinsured. The Republican Party has the best chance to win the White House in a very long time. Do you agree with that? (APPLAUSE) GRAHAM: Now, I heard Senator Cruz mention a couple of things. I am going to take issue with. Why we lose. How many of you believe that we're losing elections because we're not hard ass enough on immigration? I don't agree with you. I believe we're losing the Hispanic vote because they think we don't like them. (APPLAUSE) GRAHAM: I believe that it's not about turning out evangelical Christians. It's about repairing the damage done by incredibly hateful rhetoric, driving a wall between us and the fastest growing demographic in America who should be Republicans. I believe Donald Trump is destroying the Republican Party's chance. (APPLAUSE) GRAHAM: To win an election that we can't afford to lose. Let me tell you about life in America as it really is, 25 years ago, a young man and young woman came over from Mexico to seek a better life. We have two borders. One with Mexico and one with Canada, I have yet to meet an illegal Canadian and I am looking for them all over the place in New Hampshire. I can't find them. There may be one out there. Isn't it kind of odd we're not run over by illegal Canadians? Rule of law country, sound economy. Not a bad place to live. The Canadians come to Myrtle Beach in March and they go swimming and we're glad to have them. Too damn cold for us to swim in March so we have Canadian week. They leave on Sunday. The people come here illegally usually come from poor and corrupt countries, and some of them are bad, but most of them good. So 25 years ago, a couple came here with one child, they have two since. They're U.S. citizens under our law. That's just the way the law is. You want to revisit that, count me in, but we're not going to retroactively change it. The bottom line is those two children have no place to call home other than America. This is where they have been raised. They have gone to school. One joined the Marine Corps. The highest percentage of minorities in the Marine Corps is Hispanics. He's done a tour of duty in Afghanistan, maybe in Iraq. He hears, where's mom? She's walking back to Mexico. That's self-deportation. Mitt Romney's one of the finest men I have ever met. He's a wonderful man. (APPLAUSE) GRAHAM: When he embraced self-deportation, he made a mistake, because he exposed our party to a concept that most Americans don't buy and very few buy it off. In 2016, we have to go further. Now it's not self-deportation, its forced deportation. We're literally going to round them up. Does that sound familiar to you, every one of them, and including their American citizen children? That's the leader of the Republican Party. You think you're going to win an election with that kind of garbage? Undercut everything you have worked for. So if you think it's about turning out more people, and staying on this path then you're setting this party up for oblivion. It's not about turning out more people, it's about getting more people involved in our cause. It's about looking to Hispanic-American in the eye and saying, we get it. You're pro-life, you're entrepreneurial, and you're very hard working, very patriotic. Be part of our cause. Is the Marine Corps legal American citizen going to vote for a party that wants to deport his mother? I don't think so. And if you do, boy, I am your worst choice. You really want to win this election? Do you really want to win this election? Well, start taking everything that we say seriously and push back when we make absolutely no sense. (APPLAUSE) GRAHAM: I wanted to come here and talk about foreign policy. My 36th trip to Iraq to tell you how bad things are, and I will get there in a minute. But after Mr. Cruz, I am going to talk to you about winning an election. How many of you believe we have got a problem with young women as Republicans? What do you think that problem is, any idea, what? It's a variety of problems, how about abortion. Any of you think that that does create a problem for the Republican Party? (APPLAUSE) GRAHAM: I think you can be pro-life as you want to be, as long as you're sincere, and as long as you have a reasonable approach to the pro-life issue. I am pro-life. We're not going to lose this election because you're pro-life. Hispanics as a group are pro-life. African-Americans are more supportive of traditional marriage than any demographic in the country. It's not because of social issues that we will lose. Its positions we take regarding social issues that can disconnect us from America at large. How many of you believe that there should be an exception for a woman who has been a victim of a rape and has become pregnant? (APPLAUSE) GRAHAM: I don't believe -- you can be pro-life and win an election, but if you're going to tell a woman who's been raped she has to carry the child of the rapist, you're losing most Americans. And you asked a question to Ted Cruz, how do you get a pro-choice person to vote for you? Let me tell you what I will do. I am pro-life, you're pro-choice, ISIL is neither. The tax code is a monstrosity for all of us. But if you don't understand the following, then we're making a big mistake. And here's the following. If the nominee of the Republican Party will not allow for an exception for rape and incest, they will not win. Ted Cruz doesn't have an exception for rape or incest. He says the debate is going to be about the little sisters of the poor. He's going to take the fight to the Democrats about their wanting to impose social policy on charitable organizations. It will be about rape. And if you don't think that, then you just don't understand what they will do. It will be about the nominee of the Republican Party. Telling a woman who's been raped, you've got to carry the child of the rapist. Good luck with that. Not the speech that you thought you were going to hear, right? Not the speech I thought I was going to give. But he didn't answer the question. He did not answer the question. I am going to answer the question. We will lose if that's the position of the nominee of the Republican Party. We will lose young women in droves. And if we continue this garbage about illegal immigration and everything is amnesty, we're going to go from 27 percent to single digits. And if you want to ask Hispanics why they've gone from 44 percent of support to the Republican Party to 27 percent, they'll tell you we don't think you like us. And give them what I have heard I would be in their camp too, so a little bit about me. I come from the reddest of red states. I was called Lindsey Gomez, Lindsey Gramnesty. I was working with the Democrats to find a comprehensive solution to a broken immigration system. I have come to conclude that securing the border requires controlling who gets a job is essential, but you're not going to deport 11 million illegal immigrants. You can't do it. You shouldn't do it. The people who we want to deport are crooks. As to the rest, you can stay on our terms. Speak our language. I don't speak it well, but look how far I have come. Pay a fine because you did break the law. Don't cut in front of those who have been doing it right. Wait ten years before you can even think about applying for a green card. That will sell. My goal is not to have a third wave. I have taken a beating over this issue. Let me tell you why I can beat Hillary Clinton. Her definition of flat broke and mine are a bit different. (APPLAUSE) GRAHAM: If you think after being in the White House eight years you're flat broke, maybe you've lost your way of what flat broke looks like. Maybe that's why they stole the china. If you want to change Barack Obama's foreign policy, why would you pick his Secretary of State? You want to be Commander in Chief, where the hell were you when people in Benghazi needed your help? How could you have an ambassador in Libya and not talk to him for a whole year? And how could you not know that 600 requests for security came to the headquarters and none of them were honored? How could you not tell your daughter, oh, this was a protest, and then tell the world oh we're going to get that guy that made that video? Put me in the room with her. Give me a chance. I will win. Then I will govern this country in a way that it should be governed. I will bring us together. I will work with Democrats to fix a broken immigration system. I will work with Democrats to get us out of debt before we become Greece. I am running as a Republican and I am proud of it, but I am here to tell you the next President needs to be a better American than a better -- than a Republican or a Democrat. (APPLAUSE) GRAHAM: How are you going to bring us together if your whole career has been about dividing us? I have got one general rule of thumb. If a law is named after the President whose still in office, you're probably not going to repeal it. So this idea of shutting the government down to get Obama to repeal Obamacare never made a whole lot of sense to me. I am tired of that crap. I want to put an agenda forward that actually makes sense to the average American. I embrace working with the other side because the next President has to. I embrace what Ronald Reagan did with Tip O'Neill. Start drinking together. And find a way to save social security. Here's what I would do. I'd ask everybody in this room to give up some of their benefits because most of you can afford to do it. I would ask younger people in this room to work a little longer because you have to. I would do revenue because the Republicans have to give some too. I wouldn't raise rates, but I would eliminate deductions and pay down the debt and get the Democrats in a room to have a discussion, 80 million baby boomers are going to retire in the next 25 years and we better have plan to deal with it. If we don't we lose our way of life. We can't defend ourselves because all of the money goes to Medicare, social security and interest on the debt. That's a ticking time bomb. Have you heard of Simpson-Bowles? I am ready to do something like that. I am ready to challenge you and I am ready to challenge the Republican Party. Are the Democrats ready to be challenged? I hope so, because if get to be President they're going to be challenged. I am at one percent. The election is still a long way away. Help me stay in this race. (APPLAUSE) GRAHAM: You want to talk a little bit about foreign policy? Do you think I even need to talk to you about my support for Israel? No, I am the first guy to go to the RJC event and never mention Israel in 15 minutes. You know why, because I don't have to, because you know where I am at. Don't you really want me to be President of the United States? (APPLAUSE) GRAHAM: In your heart of hearts, don't you want me to be by Bibi's side? Don't you want me across the table from the Ayatollah? Don't you want me to be Commander in Chief because I have walked in their shoes? How many of you believe that I would go on offense on day one? (APPLAUSE) GRAHAM: How many of you believe that if I told the Iranians I am going to tear this deal up, they would believe it? (APPLAUSE) GRAHAM: And if somebody running for President on our side says I wouldn't tear the deal up, then you don't understand the deal. Because if it's fully implemented it's a death sentence for Israel. They don't even have to cheat. Who in their right mind would give the Ayatollah $100 billion to do whatever he wants to without changing his behavior, John Kerry? Never let someone negotiate with the Iranians who have never bought a car. (APPLAUSE) GRAHAM: I would tear the deal up because it's unworkable. And I would do the following. I'd call the Congress and say give me one piece of legislation as leverage. If you do business with Iran, you're not going to use American banks. The phone would ring. Then I'd get you a better deal. I will tell the Ayatollah if you want a nuclear power plant, you can have it, but you won't have enriched uranium because we don't trust you. We're not going to let a religious Nazi enrich uranium if I am President. You're not going to get a penny of money and another weapon until you stop becoming the largest state sponsor of terrorism. If you try to break out I will stop you. If you want a war, you'll lose it. My goal is to take off the table the nightmare of all nightmares, a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of a radical Islamist who would use it. That's the number one threat to mankind. It's the way the second holocaust becomes reality. If you don't stop this deal and replace it with something else, every Arab in the region is going to want their own nuke. And our friends in Israel are in an untenable position. I understand why this is a bad deal. But I have the credibility in the region to get you a better deal. I have been there 40 times in the last 10 years. I know everybody worth knowing. I am intent on stopping this deal. And stopping this regime before it's too late. Ted Cruz says he'd keep Assad in power. I sure as hell will not. I am not going to give Damascus to the Iranians, Baghdad to the Iranians. There's a corridor between Damascus, deep in the heart of Lebanon where Hezbollah can transport weapons that will be used against our friends in Israel. As long as Assad's around, Hezbollah has a partner. Do you agree with that? If I am President, Assad's going standing up or lying down, but he is going. ISIL will be destroyed. I am the one guy that can go to every Arab leader in Turkey and say we're going to use your armies and pull the caliphate and we're not leaving until the job is done. They will follow me. They trust me. Then we'll turn to Assad, Russia, and Iran and say the following. We're going to let Syrians pick the next leader of Syria. Not the Ayatollah, not Putin. And if Russia and Iran wants to fight the entire Arab world, Turkey and western powers they're welcome to do so. If you want to fight for the butcher of Damascus, be my guest, Putin. You have 18 planes and six of them can't fly. He's got a pair of twos and we have a full house and he's kicking our ass, because we have somebody that doesn't know how to play cards. If I am President of the United States, ISIL will be destroyed. Iran will be defamed, and the U.N. will be put on notice that if you can't continue to come after our friends in Israel you won't get a dime of money from the American taxpayers. (APPLAUSE) GRAHAM: There are three threats to the state of Israel and the United States, two in common, one unique to Israel. Iran with a nuclear weapon is the nightmare of all nightmares for the world, but particularly to the one and only Jewish state. ISIL and other forms of radical Islam are about to take our friends down in the Middle East, they would attack our homeland if they could. I am going to stop them and they represent an existential threat to our friends in Israel. ISIL in the Golan Heights is not a good deal. The third is the marginalization of the Jewish state by United Nations. To the United Nations, if you take the French Security Council resolution, I will defend the U.N. if I am the President of the United States. To the International Criminal Court, if you bring one idea of member before the court as a war criminal, I will shut you down. To the Palestinians, pick and choose who you want to be. If you want to be Hamas' friend, you're not my friend. All I can tell you, folks that we better not lose this election. I have given you a way forward. Almost anybody can beat Hillary Clinton, as long as they're right on two good issues, immigration and having a sensible position on social issues. If we don't have these two positions right, we're going to get creamed. We've got a demographic problem with Hispanics that can be repaired because they have been left behind more than anybody else in the economy. Young women will look to us for a better way because their children are at risk under Obama's policies, and Hillary Clinton's more of the same. We can win this election. You know how you win this election? You don't lose it. Thank you very much. END GEORGE PATAKI PATAKI: Thank you. Thank you, Ambassador Mack. Earle has been a great friend forever, a great leader of the RJC, and a man with enormous courage. He co-chaired my finance campaign when I ran for governor against Mario Cuomo when I thought no one -- when no one thought I had a chance to win. So Earle, thank you for that introduction, and to all of you here at the RJC, thank you for what you do. You are a critical wing and element of the Republican Party. Let me very blunt, without you, we don't win elections. Without you, America isn't going to become the great country it can be in the 21st Century again when we win the presidency in 2016. (APPLAUSE) I want to start this morning by commenting a little on the San Bernardino tragedy yesterday. We don't know the circumstances yet for sure, whether or not it involved terrorism or not. We do know it was a horrible, horrible planned assault. But let me tell you what else we do know. We do know that the Boston marathon bombing was carried out by radical jihadists here in America. We do know that the Fort Hood massacre of our soldiers was carried out by a radical jihadist here in America. We do know that the Garland, Texas attacks that almost took place and would have massacred dozens of innocent Americans had they not been stopped by a Texas police officer was a radical jihadist radicalized here in America. We know that the Chattanooga murder of the marine recruiters was carried but by a radical jihadist here in America. The Obama administration response to those -- the murder of those marine recruiters was for them to take off their uniforms. My reaction would be, don't take off your uniforms, put on your guns, you're a marine, this is America, we're not going to live in fear in the United States of America. But there's a broader point here. Every one of those attacks, terrorist attacks on American soil here since Barack Obama was president, have been carried out by people that have been radicalized to engage in a warped view of jihad. We do not have to tolerate that type of speech or actions here in America. You know I'm... (APPLAUSE) ... a great believer in our constitution, particularly the First Amendment. What is happening is some of our universities are crazy. But there is a rule of law in this country. The First Amendment does not allow you to shout fire in a crowded theater. You cannot call on Americans to engage in violent jihad against their fellow Americans and claim it's protected by the First Amendment. It is not. It is shouting fire in a crowded theater. We have got to shut down every effort of Islamist to radicalize people here in America, whether it's happening on a mosque, on the Internet, through social media or in community hall meetings, no radicalization. It is not protected speech. It is a crime, and we must stop it before there are more attacks here on American soil. (APPLAUSE) Now, let me just say as I'm sure you were scrolling through the program for today, you saw the different candidates and I heard and saw Lindsey Graham and Senator Rubio and you'd come to Pataki. And you go, "Pataki? Well, maybe I can take a bathroom break or maybe I can go out in the hall and try to finish that deal I'm working on. Why is he in this race? You know, yeah, he was governor of New York. He seems like a nice guy, but he's been out of office for eight years. We have a million candidates. Why is he there?" Well, let me tell you seriously why I am here. There are two things I know about 2016. We have to win the race. It is that simple. We cannot nominate somebody and think the job is over because we love our nominee. We have got to nominate someone who will actually beat Hillary Clinton and be the next president of the United States. (APPLAUSE) And you know, I don't think there's a person in this room who doesn't understand Mitt Romney would have been a far better president than Barack Obama. No question about it. (APPLAUSE) But he didn't win. He didn't win. So we have to win the next race. And the second thing is we have to elect someone who isn't just going talk about all the things they are going to do but actually go out there and get it done. Do the job. You know, our -- two of our leading candidates today never held public office. And part of the reason is Republicans, Americans, are fed up with politicians. "Oh, I'm going do this. Oh, I'm going to do that." But nothing seems to change. And it's -- I'm sure it's hard to change things in Washington, but we need to elect someone who isn't just going to talk about what they are going do when they have a chance to lead this country. They have got to be able to actually change government in a dramatic and important way. So, why am I running? Well, I got elected in New York three times, in a state with 3 million more Democrats. You know, if that doesn't matter, maybe I shouldn't be in the race. I got re-elected twice with the largest margins for any Republican ever in the history of New York State. If that doesn't matter, maybe I shouldn't be in the race. I got a plurality of the Dominican and Puerto Rican vote in New York State and the Latino vote is critical for the next race. If that doesn't matter, perhaps I shouldn't be in the race. And by the way, I ran as an unabashed conservative. I didn't just run on the Republican line. I ran on the Republican and conservative party line. And I'm the only person in the history of New York State elected governor running as a conservative. So, if those things don't matter, if we nominate somebody we love but can't win the race then maybe I shouldn't be in the race. But I am in the race because if I get the nomination let me tell you one thing, I will beat Hillary Clinton in November of 2016. (APPLAUSE) And the second point is getting things done. Now, I didn't just hold office for 12 years. I changed and put in place the most sweeping conservative agenda of any state in America. When I took office, we were the most dangerous state in America. When I left we were the fourth safest. If that doesn't matter, maybe I shouldn't be in the race. When I took office, we were dead last in taxes, had the lowest credit rating and $5 billion in debt. Would it matter, $5 billion? When I left, we had the highest credit rating in the state's history, billions in surplus, and by the way, I cut taxes by $143 billion, more than the other 49 states combined. If -- well, if that doesn't matter, maybe I shouldn't stay in this race, but I think it does matter. And most importantly, our party has always been about replacing dependency with opportunity. Their party, big government, great policies to support and help the poor, so many policies to help the poor they end up creating more of them. And when I took office in New York, 1 in 11 of every man, woman and child in the state of New York were on welfare. When I left office, we had over 1 million fewer people on welfare and the lowest unemployment rate in the history of New York State. If that doesn't matter... (APPLAUSE) ... if that doesn't matter, maybe I shouldn't be in the race, but I think it does matter. We need to nominate someone who can win and when they win change the direction of Washington. Why it is so critical we win this race? Well, you know, the Democratic Party is no long ear liberal party. It is a leftist party. It is a party that believes that Washington has the wisdom and certainly the power to dictate how we live our lives, to dictate everything from how we get healthcare, to how our kids are educated, to how we run our business, to how we live our lives. It's not about what the tax rate is going to be in 2016. It's the nature of America. Are we going to be in America where a grouch elites in Washington dictate how we live our lives or are we be Americans who choose our own destiny and tell the politicians what we want them to do as opposed to them telling us what we have to do. That's what this election is about. The character of America and we have got win. And let me tell you a few of the things I would do. I would shrink the size of the federal government by 15 percent. You know, people are going to say, "How can you do it?" When I left in New York, the government had 15 -- more than 15 percent fewer workers than when I took office. We're going to get rid of Obamacare and get rid of those people in the health department. We're going to get rid of common core and get rid of people working on that in the education department. We're going to scale back the EPA and its ridiculous regulations that are strangling our economy and energy in America. And by the way, I'm going to take every IRS employee involved in the illegal, unconstitutional, barbaric targeting of Republicans and conservative groups and not just fire them but do my best to put them in jail, which is where they belong. So we're gonna... (APPLAUSE) So we're gonna reduce the size of the government by at least 15 percent. I'm going to throw out a corrupt tax joke (ph). You know, it is so absurd. Our taxes are so high that American companies constantly are looking to move overseas not because they like it better but because they can't afford to compete with our tax structure. A great New York company found almost 200 years ago, Pfizer, a big drug company just last week announced a merger with a much smaller company, not because they wanted to be taken over but because they are going to move their headquarters to Ireland. Instead of make 39 percent, they will pay 12.5 percent taxes. That is absurd. This administration, the Democrats' view (ph) is we have got to keep those companies here. They're not going to build a fence to keep out illegal immigrants, but they want to build a virtual wall to force American companies to stay here. It's kind of like the policies that worked so well in East Germany where they actually had a wall to keep Germans from leaving. We didn't need a wall to keep American companies from leaving. All we need to do is dramatically lower the tax rate, make us competitive here in America, and we will create jobs and opportunities in this country again. And by the way, I want to see us make things in America again. And one of the proposals I have in my tax proposal is to cut the rate on manufacturing from today the highest in the world to 12 percent, the lowest in the world. Democrats talk about income inequality and then drive all the good jobs offshore. Manufacturing are great jobs. We have entrepreneurs. We have capitalists. We have a great work ethic and workforce. We can out compete anybody in the world if we get our government policies right. Let's make things in America again. Let's have manufacturing and factories here. I worked in college, Christmas and summer vacation in a factory. These are the jobs of the 21st century that can make our middle class strong again. Just get Washington out of the way and we are going to build things again here in America. (APPLAUSE) So, let's revitalize Washington, shrink its power, give power back to the people and the individuals and states, and I guarantee you that instead of the anemic growth we've seen for the last seven years, the American economy will take off like a rocket, 2.1 percent average under Obama over 7 percent growth during Ronald Reagan's term. We can do that again here in America. But as passionate as I am about our domestic policy, like you, I share your overriding concern about foreign policy. I know the most important thing government does is provide for the security and safety of its people. It's that simple. If you can't do that, everything else fails. And I've seen our government not succeed in providing for the security and safety of our people. To do that, we have to do in my view three things. First, we have to rebuild our military. It is absurd... (APPLAUSE) Thank you. It is absurd that in these times when you see an overly aggressive China in the South China Sea, when you see Russia looking to reconstitute the Russian empire, when you say Iran -- see Iran getting billions of economic relief and looking to continue its support for state-sponsored terror, when you see radical Islam doing its horrible acts across Africa and the Middle East, it's not a time to reduce the size of the American military to pre-World War II levels. It's the time to reinvest in the American military, to build it, to strengthen it, invest in personnel, in training, in technology. (APPLAUSE) And by the way, one of the technologies I would put back on the table and start right away is an anti-missile defense system, the Star Wars system that Ronald Reagan fought for with radical Islam out there. We have got to be able to protect ourselves. Second thing I would do is stand with our allies. That's something you think would be self evident to the president of the United States. And yet it hasn't been that way with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State or Barack Obama as president. I would sit down with polls and say, "Remember those missiles you wanted to defend from you a potentially resurgent Russia that Hillary and Obama pulled out?" Well, we're going to put them back in so you can defend yourselves and defend Europe. (APPLAUSE) Look at a country like Egypt where this administration, Hillary and Obama, embraced the Muslim Brotherhood that immediately starts taking aggressive action against Israel. And then when El-Sisi leads a counter revolution that crates a stable pro-western Egypt, they are ignored and cutoff by this administration. That is wrong. He is fighting ISIS in the Sinai. We should embrace him, support his military efforts and his efforts to reform Islam. (APPLAUSE) Stand with our allies and by the way I'll get to Israel, which I think if not the certainly one of the strongest allies this country has ever had. The third thing is we have to destroy radical Islam. It is that simple. (APPLAUSE) You heard -- you heard Earle Mack talk about the fact that I was governor on September 11th. Well, I'll tell you I learned a lesson that day that I thought all Americans had learned and no one would ever forget. Think back, Al-Qaeda was isolated. They were in Afghanistan. They didn't have territory they controlled. They didn't have mass media or social media capability. They didn't have hundred of millions of dollars. They didn't have sophisticated weapons. All they had was box cutters. They didn't have thousands of westerners with passports. And yet, they were able to carry out the most barbaric and horrible attacks on American soil ever. Now, look at ISIS today. They control territory, hundreds of millions of dollars, sophisticated weapons, social media capability that we see in action all the time, tragically. We cannot think that because ISIS is in the Middle East that they are not actively trying to attack us here. They will. We have got to destroy them over there before they have the chance to attack us here. (APPLAUSE) Now, let me tell you specifically what I would do. First of all, no 10-year war, no nation building, no trillion dollars trying to create a democracy where none has ever existed, but we know where their training camps, recruiting centers, planning hubs, social media sites are. We should work first with the troops on the ground, the Kurdish Peshmerga, and supply them with the sophisticated weapons, financing and training that they have not gotten from this administration... (APPLAUSE) ... and they have not gotten that from this administration because this ridiculous policy of this administration is everything has to go through Baghdad, which is largely controlled by Iran, and they don't want the Kurds to have a strong independent fighting force, but we do and we have got to arm, supply, support and help them take the fight to ISIS. (APPLAUSE) The same thing with the Yazidis, almost a million Christians who were barbarically massacred when ISIS attacked them, they are fighting that. They are part of the reason that Sinjar is being taken back from ISIS, but they don't have the training, the support, the weapons, the finance, and the help from the Americans. If I'm president, they will get that. And most importantly though, the Sunni -- the Anbar Sunni sheiks, we defeated Al-Qaeda back when President Bush was president because Sunni sheiks realized that Al-Qaeda was so radical that even though they share the Sunni faith they don't share the philosophy or the radicalism and they fought with us to destroy Al-Qaeda. They are now seeing that same experience with ISIS, but Baghdad doesn't want an independent, strong Sunni Anbar-based force whether they are fighting ISIS or not because they are not controlled by Baghdad. Well, let me say this. As president, I don't care if Baghdad doesn't want the Sunnis on the ground to be able to fight ISIS and help us destroy their training camps. We will supply, support, train, finance and help them have safe areas where they can mount their attacks on the ground against ISIS. (APPLAUSE) And by the way, if that isn't enough, we should send in American troops. Send in American special operation force, destroy their training centers, destroy their planning hubs, destroy their social media capability centers and then get out. Not so that we can stay there for 10 years, but so that we can send a clear and convincing message to the world that when we say we're going to destroy and degrade ISIS over time, over time isn't in the next century, over time is in the next year and ISIS will be destroyed and degraded. (APPLAUSE) Now I don't want to sound like a militarist here, but I know how important this is and I also know what it's like to have loved ones in harm's way. I have two sons. My older son when he graduated from Yale went into the marines and became a lieutenant. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Thank you. Became a lieutenant and served for a year in Anbar. My younger son got out of Cornell and went into the 10th Mountain Division and he just got back from Afghanistan in September. (APPLAUSE) He got back from Afghanistan in September where he served as a lieutenant. You know, my wife and I know what it's like when you're lying in bed and the phone rings at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning and all a sudden you get this feeling in your stomach, "Oh, my God I hope it's not the call," when your loved one is in harm's way. I do not want one American family to have to go through that, to have to worry about their loved one being overseas in harm's way unless it's absolutely necessary. But it is necessary to destroy ISIS, to destroy their ability to attack us here over there because if we don't do that they are going to attack us again here in America. It is that simple. So we have to destroy radical Islam and we have to take the fight to them overseas using as limited American troops on the ground as possible but if necessary using them along with our allies. But there's one other thing that I know is important to you and it's important to me, and that's when I said we have to stand with our allies. We have no better ally than the state of Israel. And I have known that... (APPLAUSE) I have known that some time and I just want to tell you one story that I actually showed to my kids. Think back to the first Gulf War in 1989 when President George H.W. Bush put together an extraordinary coalition to take out Saddam Hussein's conquering of Kuwait. We had many Arab nations in that coalition and it was a very important war for the Americans and the West to win. And when that fight started, what did Saddam do? He sent SCUD missiles. Yes, he sent them into Kuwait. Yes, he sent them into Saudi Arabia, but he sent them into Israel, a noncombatant, not part of the coalition. He launched SCUD missiles on Tel Aviv, on Jaffa, on Israeli civilians simply because he was trying to provoke them into joining the fray because he knew that would destroy the coalition that President Bush put together. I remember that night, that first night, seeing pictures from Tel Aviv of old men and young children wearing gas masks in their homes, in their basements. I don't know if any of you remember that because people didn't know if Saddam Hussein's rockets and scuds that he was firing into Israel had chemical weapons or not. And I looked at it and actually I went upstairs and I woke up my two oldest kids. And I said, "Look at this." This is less than 45 years after the end of the holocaust. These are old men and young children wearing gas masks to protect themselves. And you know why? Simply because they are Jews and because Saddam Hussein thinks that by attacking Jews he can undermine the American coalition. Never forget this moment, anti-Semitism is a toxic, toxic feeling and whenever you see it raise its ugly head. You must stomp it down wherever that happens. (APPLAUSE) So what -- thank you. So what happened? Israel didn't go into Iraq to defend its civilians and there's not one person here who doesn't know that the IDF could have taken occupant those SCUD missiles and prevented those attacks on its civilians. But the Israeli leadership said, "This is a horrible thing on see our civilians going through this, but we are America's friend. We are America's ally. We will let our civilians suffer this attack because that is the strongest way we can support America and its effort." Have you ever heard of an ally more committed to helping you succeed than Israel was during that time of war? (APPLAUSE) And since that time I've had the opportunity over and over again to go to Israel. First time, I opened a trade mission in New York -- from New York in Israel -- and I couldn't believe there hadn't been one but there hasn't (ph) -- but I opened and people say, "Well, go Tel Aviv. That's the commercial capital." We opened trade mission in Jerusalem, the capital of the Israeli state. (APPLAUSE) And we did it -- we did it for a simple reason, it is the capital of Israel. It has got to be recognized by the United States as the capital of Israel. It is absurd that our closest ally is the one country whose capital we refuse to put our embassy in. We will recognize it, move the embassy. Jerusalem is the eternal undivided capital of Israel and the Jewish people and it has got to stay that way. (APPLAUSE) But there's so much more we have to do. I heard Senator Rubio's comments about the PLO. And I remember speaking in Las Vegas back in the spring. I said then, two other things. When you have an entity like the PLO that is paying bonuses for -- to the families of mass murdering suicide terrorists, they should not get one nickel of taxpayer funding from the United States, zero money to the PLO so long as it supports those terrorist activities. And second of all, not only does the PLO give funding to terrorists, they are chartered and they do not even recognize today Israel's right to exist as a state. You cannot have a partner for peace when one of them denies your existence. No more wasting time. (APPLAUSE) No more wasting time with the secretary of state tramping around trying to get Israel to make concessions to an organization that doesn't even acknowledge Israel's right to exist. No more negotiations. PLO, you change your charter, you acknowledge Israel's right to exist, and then we can sit down and have a talk. (APPLAUSE) Finally, just one last thing, I'm running out of time. Iranian deal has to be killed. I think the Iranians have already violated it by testing long-range missiles and by sending Soleimani to Russia in violation of sanctions to buy missiles and weapons. There will be no Iranian deal or nuclear weapons. But one last thing, anti-Semitism in addition to radical Islam is something as a Roman Catholic has troubled me enormously. And we see it today not just with radical Islamists and jihad. We see it in communities and on college campuses in America in the absurd movement called BDS, Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel. Think about it for a minute. The left, these people advancing this absurd cause, they think it's OK to trade with Iran where women have essentially no rights. It's fine to trade with Russia where homosexuality is a crime and they put you in jail. It's fine to trade with Cuba where if you say something a little disagreeable to the powers you go jail for life. But you can't trade with Israel that has a democracy, freedom of speech, freedom to choose its leaders, freedom of press, freedom of religion. "Oh, no. They are the ones we have to boycott, divest and sanction." That is absurd. BDS is not a human rights movement. It's an anti-Semitic movement and it must be stopped... (APPLAUSE) ... whenever it raises its ugly head. So, thank you. So, I've run -- thank you. So I've run out of time. But I just want to say one more thing. Thank you for all that you have done and continue to do for our party and our country. Thank you for standing strong through these last seven years when the world seems to have gotten to be a more and more dangerous place. This is still America. This is still the greatest, innovative, freest country in the world. With the right leadership in 2016, we're going to see an end to Alzheimer's, a cure to cancer. We're going travel in cars that drive us. We're going to be going in trains faster than planes. Your grandchildren are going to be living to 110 years old. This is still America. All we need to do is get Washington right and the next century will be right. You are fighting that fight. You are worth this. Thank you. (Speaking in foreign language). Be strong. Be strong. Give your strength to others. We must win this race in 2016! Thank you very much. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) END TED CRUZ CRUZ: Well, thank you very much, Edward, for the very, very kind introduction. And it has been so great spending time with Ed and Melissa and their wonderful, wonderful family. It's so great to be with so many dear friends here this morning. I'd like to begin by just remembering those who were murdered in San Bernardino yesterday. And I would ask if we could observe a moment of silence in their honor. At this point, the details of what happened in San Bernardino are still unclear. But our prayers are with the families of those who were murdered, of those who were shot. And all of us are deeply concerned that this is yet another manifestation of terrorism, radical Islamic terrorism here at home. Coming on the wake of the terror attack in Paris, this horrific murder underscores that we are at a time of war. Whether or not the current administration realizes it or is willing to acknowledge it, our enemies are at war with us. And I believe this nation needs a wartime president to defend it. (APPLAUSE) In recent weeks, President Obama traveled abroad to explain that he doesn't believe in American leadership, that he doesn't believe in America winning, quote, "I don't have time for that." You know, I've got to say, FDR and JFK and Ronald Reagan were spinning in their graves to hear an American president say he doesn't believe in American leadership or America winning. I'll tell you when it comes to radical Islamic terrorism, I think our strategy, to borrow a page from Ronald Reagan in the Cold War, should be very simple. We win, they lose. (APPLAUSE) And there are three things the next president should do to keep this nation safe. The first is speak the truth. (APPLAUSE) The truth has power. And at this point, the politically correct doublespeak that comes from the Obama administration has gone beyond the point of ridiculous. When the president stands up and says the Islamic state isn't Islamic... (LAUGHTER) ... that's just nutty. (APPLAUSE) We need a president who will call the enemy by its name, radical Islamic terrorism and we will defeat it. (APPLAUSE) You know, there's a power to speaking the truth. Back when Israel was facing daily rocket fire with Hamas, I joined with New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand in introducing a resolution condemning Hamas' use of human shields as a war crime. (APPLAUSE) That resolution passed both houses of Congress unanimously as we came together to speak the truth. Likewise, following the terrorist attack that occurred in Fort Hood over five years ago, the Obama administration refused to speak the truth, refused to acknowledge that Nadal Hasan who had communicated with Anwar al Awlaki, a known radical cleric, who had asked about the permission of waging jihad against his fellow servicemen. Who in walking through Fort Hood, murdering 14 innocent souls yelled out, "Allahu Akbar" as he committed that act of terrorism. The Obama administration inexplicably characterized that instead as workplace violence. One of the things I'm most proud about in my tenure in the Senate is that introduced the legislation to mandate that the Purple Heart be awarded to those soldiers who were murdered. The Obama, Pentagon fought tooth and nail against that legislation, yet I'm proud to say on the Senate armed services committee I was able to earn the support of Republicans and Democrats. We passed it into law in December, and in April. I was at the ceremony where those Purple Hearts were awarded. To each of the family members I simply shook their hands, looked them in the eyes and said, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry it took five years to acknowledge the sacrifice of your loved one." You know, when it comes to speaking the truth, this administration does precisely the opposite. We have a president right now who at times operates as an apologist for radical Islamic terrorists. I don't use that word lightly. The word apologist has a very specific meaning, it's someone that gives a rationalization, a justification for the conduct. I was at the last National Prayer Breakfast. You'll recall the day before, ISIS had lit a Jordanian pilot on fire. The king of Jordan, who was supposed to attend the prayer breakfast, had to fly back to Jordan. And president Obama gave a speech in which he said, yes, ISIS commits terrorist attacks. But so do Christians and so do Jews. And he then invoked the Crusades and the Inquisition. Now, the last I checked, those ended about 900 years ago. And I don't think it's asking too much for the president of the United States to stay in the current millennium. (APPLAUSE) And the argument, this is just like the Crusades and the Inquisition is exactly the argument that ISIS and the terrorists use. And it is not beneficial, nor is it beneficial when the Secretary of State, John Kerry... (LAUGHTER) ... you know him well... (LAUGHTER) ... suggests some months ago that Israel could become an apartheid state. (BOOING) Or when the Secretary of State John Kerry also says that the terrorist attack against Charlie Hebdo was understandable. The United States of America should not be trying to rationalize radical Islamic terrorists. I tell you, when John Kerry was nominated, only three senators voted against his confirmation. Never have I have been prouder to have been in that gang of three. (APPLAUSE) And when Kerry called Israel an apartheid state, I went to the Senate floor and called for Kerry's resignation and when he... (APPLAUSE) And I would note that we need more senators, both Republicans and Democrats, that likewise call for accountability when the secretary of state uses language that undermines the safety and security of our allies. (APPLAUSE) And that's the second thing we need to do is we need to stand by our allies. (APPLAUSE) You know, all of us knew early in the Obama administration -- there were warning signs when in the opening weeks, the president sent back to the United Kingdom the bust of Winston Churchill. That was just a foreshadowing of things to come, and after seven years, we have not seen an administration more antagonistic and hostile to the nation of Israel in the entire history of this country. If I'd have suggested to you six years ago that the elected prime minister of Israel would come to America, would address a joint session of Congress and he would be boycotted by the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States and every member of the cabinet, our friends in the media would have dismissed that as crazy conspiracy talk. That would never happen. I'll tell you, on the eve of that speech, I organized a panel discussion with Elie Weisel to discuss the threat of the Iranian nuclear deal. Elie Weisel wanted that to be a bipartisan discussion. So, I invited one Democrat after another Democrat after another Democrat after another Democrat. We invited roughly a dozen Democrats and not a single Democrat was willing to stand on a stage with Elie Weisel and discuss the Iranian nuclear deal. I will tell you, it was truly humbling powerful to be on that stage with a man who has seen the face of evil and can speak truth with a moral gravity that when Elie Weis