of what the other bulk collections are and greater transparency around the overseas collection which we're only now starting to learn a little bit more about. >> clearly, we could continue talking for a long time. there seems to be still many questions, and you can fill out those cards, again, with a question. we will answer those online after this event. i really would hope that you all continue to talk about this issue and, please, join me in thanking bart gellman, ellen nakashima, ashkan soltani and greg timberg for really letting us walk through -- and also to marty baron who is a huge supporter of what was an enormous, difficult, hard and you saw the nuts and bolts of how difficult this reporting was over the last year and letting barton and ashkan and ellen and

walking us through what their journeys have been like. thank you again. [applause] >> and some news about new york congressman michael grimm from "the washington post." that he has been taken into custody facing federal charges, a 0-count indictment -- 20-count indictment against him connected to a restaurant he opened before entering congress and alleging that the restaurant hid more than a million dollars in tax receipts from local and federal tax officials while also paying workers hundreds of thousands of dollars off the books. now, aides say that house speaker john boehner has not spoken to congressman grimm about the indictment. neither the speaker, nor majority leader, eric cantor of virginia, have commented on his political future. we'll keep you posted with any updates on the story on the c-span networks. and in about 15 minutes, we'll be returning to the anti-defamation league

conference where fbi director james comey will be speaking about ate crimes after the recent -- hate crimes after the recent shootings outside the jewish community buildings in kansas. live coverage right here on c-span2. before we hear from director comey, we're going to take a look at an event that was hosted by the dow jones last week with deputy attorney general james cole on money laundering, corrupt foreign government practices and monitoring the pharmaceutical industry. we'll show as much of this as we can before we go to the fbi director's remarks. >> thanks for being here with us. >> my pleasure. [applause] thank you. >> deputy attorney general cole spent much of his career dealing with the sort of issues that people in this room deal with every day. he spent 13 years at the justice department early in his career. he eventually became the deputy chief of the public integrity section working public corruption cases as a partner of brian cave, he worked in white collar defense, corporate compliance programs.

eventually served as the compliance monitor for aig, and he's been in the number two job at doj since 2012. it's been the center of most of the big policy decisions, enforcement actions and investigations undertaken by the d.. so that makes him a good person to tell us about where the department's going and maybe shed light on how some of the big decisions get made. >> sure. >> i'd like to start by following up on a speech i heard you deliver in november to a gathering of bankers and lawyers at a similar compliance summit like this talking about money laundering. and you said despite years of admonitions by government officials that compliance must be an important part of the culture, we continue to see missed opportunities to prevent and detect crimes. so i'm wondering if you have, you view the financial industry as particularly problematic or if corporations more broadly have some of the same problems? >> i think corporations more broadly have some of the same

problems. we see it, it's not confined to any particular sector. what we do see, though, is it has to do in many respects with size. the larger the corporation, logically, the more difficult the challenge in getting your arms around all of the different compliance issues that any large, particularly multi-national corporation is going to have. but the point i was making in that speech which i think translates into many, many large corporations, we always hear when we are being asked to give leniency to a corporation they say, look, it this was just onef our small divisions, and a couple of people in it creating a problem. you shouldn't tag the entire corporation with it. that may be the case, but if we see a corporation where this one small division had a couple of people doing something wrong and another small division had a couple of people doing wrong and another division had people doing things that were wrong, we start to recognize that there is

a failure of a culture of compliance in the corporation. and this starts to tell us that they don't have the compliance program really being driven down into all of the different facets of the company, and they haven't really thought about where they intersect with regulations, with laws and things like that. so this is something that has to be driven from the top down, and the evidence of it is that you stop seeing it pop up in all the different little divisions and little segments of a company, and you start seeing the companies really get ahead of it before it gets ahead of them. >> you mentioned i guess the impact of those programs. are there other things when you look at compliance program, when you go in to look at a company, are there particular red flags beyond just the behavior that you're seeing in the programs themselves that make you think this is toothless, and are there, you know, examples of some good things you look for as well? >> sure. i mean, i can go in generalities

because i can't talk about specific companies. but several of the hallmarks, and a lot of these are listed in the resource guide that the justice department and the sec put out a year or two ago on fcpa issues. but first of all, how is it funded. is it funded adequately? what's the level of the compliance officer within the structure of the corporation? is it a high level corporate officer, or is it somebody who's at a lower, more functionary level? what is the involvement of senior management in actually not only putting the program forward, but talking about it? how is it resourced? is there enough resources to actually put the kind of personnel that you need to kind of -- the kind of policy development that you need? is there enforcement of it? it's one thing to have a policy that just sits there. it's another thing to let people know within the company that that policy is going to be enforced. and if you violate the policy, there's going to be consequences. these are a lot of the things

that we rook for in order to determine -- that we look for in order to determine whether, in fact, it is a compliance program that's really worth something or whether it's a token effort to be able to have something they can trot out when they get in trouble with the justice department and say, look, see? we have a compliance program. we're going to dig deeper. we're going to say show us how you have enforced it and implement implemented immaterial, and what are the real features you've put behind it. >> so looking back at your time in this job and your time more broadly in the compliance arena, how has -- what changes have you seen that have been helpful, and in what changes do you think still need to be made in the way companies approach these issues? >> i think the companies are starting -- we just had a discussion at our table about this. companies are starting to understand that they have to do compliance programs. i think a number of years ago as a lawyer i would go up to companies and try to sell them on letting us do a compliance program for them, and they were quite resistant. it was costly, and they weren't

sure that they understood the benefits. they said you want me to spend hundreds oftous or millions of dollars, put together this program, and if it's successful, what i'm going to see in the end is nothing. nothing will happen. and i said, yeah, that's pretty much it. and they'd say, no, no, i don't think i want to spend all that money. but then we started having, we started seeing enforcement get the dollar amounts up, get the penalties up, make sure that today really mattered and that the corporations felt them, and ten there started to be -- then there started to be the realization that it's one thing to make your profits, and it's another ting to keep them. and as we start mounting the costs of defending an investigation, paying the penalties that are now getting rather high, paying for the monitors that come in you don't have good programs in place, this starts to make whatever profits you might gain from not having a compliance program in place paltry because you're going to lose that and a lot more. and once that realization has

sunk in, we're seeing a lot more companies actually put in compliance programs. and we think that's a real benefit and a real gain. >> should people here be expecting that to continue, the pressure to continue increasing? i mean, yesterday some of the panels there seemed to be a sense that, you know, someone described it as a one-way ratchet, that the pressure from the justice department was only going to continue increasing. is it going to, does that plateau at some point, or do you feel like you need to continue putting on that pressure to keep companies making those changes? >> i think the pressure's going to keep increasing, there's no question about that. what may change is that our level of satisfaction with what companies are doing in response to that pressure may increase. where we see companies actually putting the compliance programs in, we see that, in fact, there is an impact from those compliance programs coming in, and it's not just that there won't be any crimes committed because there is no such thing

as a perfect compliance program. when, again, when i was in private practice, i would tell my clients i can give you a perfect compliance program, just shut your doors, and nothing bad will happen. but we don't expect that. but the question is, what have you done leading up to the event to try and prevent it knowing nothing can prevent them all? and then even more importantly or just as importantly, what did you do once the event happened? did you jump on it right away? did you investigate it right away? did you take remedial measures within your corporation when you saw what the weakness was that was exploited? did you take action against employees who violated the rules that you had? and did you bring the information to the attention of the justice department? these are all the things that we look at to find out whether a company has a compliance program and a corporate remediation program that's going to really earn it a lot of credit as we try to decide what the appropriate resolution of any matter's going to be with a

company. >> these are the sorts of things that you're talking about this focus on the part of the department. are these things that you think are in the department's dna now and will survive into the next attorney general, the next administration, or is this something that can be easily undone given the political change at the top? >> no, i think it's in the dn remarks. i think we have too many policies and procedures that we have in place. we've had so many different memos starting with the holder memo and then the mcnulty memo and then the phillip memo on what the factors are we use in trying to assess how to deal with corporations that come in that are subjects to potential prosecution. we have the fcpa guide that have been written, we have the u.s. attorneys' manual, we have memos going out about how to deal with regulated industries. we're really starting to, i think, put a lot of mechanisms and a lot of integration into our system that it's there to stay. >> uh-huh. turning to the fcpa, it seems like, you know, as fcpa

enforcement has increased, the number of settlements have increased, it started out focused on extractive industries, oil, mining, things that had very direct relationships with government. and now it seems to be broadening into other sectors, retail. is -- do you view that trend as continuing? i mean, do you see companies who are outside of those sort of traditional sectors continuing to come under scrutiny there? >> we don't confine our focus to a sector. we confine -- we actually go after whatever sectors and whatever companies we find are engaged in foreign bribery. what happens is that when you find one in one sector, it may be that there are a number of others in order to compete are doing the exact same thing. so we come upon others in that sector. it's not that we focused on the sector as much as we're just finding them clustered. so there's no real limit as to what the areas of business are that we'll focus on. we focus much more on the fact

of is there some foreign bribery going on, and then we'll just go after that case. >> there any areas out there right now that you think are particularly problematic from a bribery perspective? any industries? >> you know, nothing that i can take off the top of my head, but there's certainly, there's so much international business at this point and so much of it is dependent on licensing and regulatory approvals in so many other countries that i think it's really going to cross so many sector lines that it's hard to really define just which ones are going to be more likely. >> and i'm wondering about how you measure success in that area. you know, we see the fines being paid, we see the fees being paid to some of these people in this room. that's going to keep, that's going to continue. do you, do you see less bribery happening? or, you know, these companies may increase their compliance programs, but what's the net impact there? >> well, that's going to take

some time to really show itself. we certainly see more companies engaging in more robust compliance programs around fcpa, and is we're very heartened to see that. we also don't know what we don't know. we don't know how many compliance programs have stopped an fcpa violation that just doesn't come to our attention because it was stopped. we don't know how the statistics are going to be developed over time where as you look back maybe ten years down the road, you will see, all right, there was a real drop because of the increased compliance that was going on as a result of the efforts we've been putting forward and a result of the efforts that businesses have realized are just in their own economic well being. so this is something that time will tell. but we have seen behavior change, we have seen companies that are being push more serious about compliance -- much more serious about compliance, and we have seen companies that are coming to us very early on when

they have seen the beginnings of a bribery problem and telling us about it and showing us how they stopped it. >> i wanted to ask with fcpa and other areas you've been focused on, money laundering, bank secrecy act, are you seeing more self-reporting than you were a couple years ago when you started in this job? >> we are but still not always enough. we have some companies that come in very early on and show that they jumped on the situation very quickly, they preserved all the documents, they took internal actions, did all the things we wanted them to do. they may even say we're in the midst of an internal investigation, can you give us a little more time. many times we give them those times. i've seen a number of companies that have come in that the activity that's the subject of what they're looking at started in one year, they didn't start their internal investigation for two years after that. documents have been destroyed in that interim period that we've been asking for. statute of limitations on individual employees who were

the most culpable have run during some of those periods by the time we find out about it. those are the kinds of things that will count against the company quite dramatically in our estimation of what the resolution is that's appropriate. >> so just self-reporting isn't enough. >> self-reporting's not enough. you have to actually take action. >> right. what sorts of, i mean, what are the emerging issues when it comes to justice department compliance enforcement that, you know, maybe aren't in the headlines today but that people here should have their eyes on six months, a year, a couple years down the road? >> well, you know, i think none of them are huge surprises. there's money laundering issues that i think are -- this is a very, very global world. business that we see throughout the world is very global. there is any number of different sanctions that are being put out because of various events that take place around the world, and we see a number of situations where banks and other financial

institutions are involved in trying to get around those sanctions. and there's money laundering that goes on with that, there's just sanction stripping information that goes on with that. so that's an area that i think really needs to be paid attention to. and this can happen with doing business on products and goods as well as just the financial aspects of it. so i think that's probably one of the bigger areas. foreign corrupt practices act has been, i think, a real big area for us to look at. we've had an enormous number of cases since this administration took over in 2009. it's been a real growth in that area. hopefully, there'll be that dropoff, but i think there needs to be attention there. and i think in any number of different industries we've seen the residential mortgage-backed securities. that's a big area that we've been looking at. we've seen pharmaceuticals as another big area we've been

looking at. these are the ones that are continually coming into the department, and we're having resolutions with. >> and turning to cyber, something that's been talked a lot about here, in my reporting and talking to people in the department at the law enforcement agencies you start to hear about companies that keep coming back over and over again because they've been hacked over and over again. they're these repeat customers. i wonder if you envision a point at which some of these companies go from being just victims of hacking or cyber crime in the's eyes to being somehow complicit or being liable either criminally, civilly? you might take action then? >> well, i don't know about their liability in that regard because a lot of them i have sympathy for. cyber issues and cyber hacking is probably one of the greatest threats we have right now to the united states on so many different levels from critical infrastructure to the theft of intellectual property to

terrorism and transnational organized crime to child pornography issues. all of this delves deeply into the cyber area. we see a lot of companies that do get hacked, and one of the things that really needs to happen is for companies to take their own measures to protect their systems. this is the thing we keep trying to preach all the time, is that they have to take responsibility for their own systems. i don't know if it gets to a point where we'd consider prosecuting them, but, for example, the securities and exchange commission is renewing its profiting requirements and emphasizing those for companies that are public companies to talk about if they've been hacked, what systems they've changed and what remedial steps they've taken, how much it's cost the company. those are all areas that are very important, i think, to investors and, appropriately, the sec is saying you need to report it. but on a more basic level, if a company is hacked and their

intellectual property is stolen, this is something that their shareholders should be very interested in. these are the crown jewels of the company. so this is, again, the company's responsibility to do what they can to protect their systems. and it goes anywhere from very basic hygiene dealing with passwords, dealing with encryption, dealing with firewalls, all sorts of things like that to more e will be rate -- elaborate system protections that are out there to be had. also they need to work with us because we from both the preventive side and from a prosecution side are very, very anxious and are constantly reaching out to work with companies to make sure that if they're hacked, we can stop it, we can try to find as best we can who's doing it, and we can try to find ways to cut off the access that's coming into the company. so there's a lot of things that can be done. but people actually have to get down to business to doing it. >> but is there a point where if

the companies don't do those things, they risk coming under scrutiny from you guys? again, it would -- >> again, it would be difficult from a criminal law perspective just to say because you were negligent with your system, you have committed a crime. but it would be for others and for the sec and for private plaintiffs to talk about whether or not the company owes any duty to its shareholders to protect the company's assets, any duty to its shareholders to disclose what it's vulnerable to and what it's doing to brecht those assets -- protect those assets at the same time. >> so, obviously, one of the biggest criticisms of the department has been it's about prosecuting individuals in some of these cases. i was wondering if you could address that and then talk a bit about the decision making behind prosecuting individuals versus a corporation versus using a dpa and what factors you're weighing in those three she their owes.

scenarios. >> we have a very high priority of prosecuting individuals when we can find the evidence to bring a case and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt because it has the greatest e deterrent impact. from these cases. if you take some corporate officer or corporate employee who actually individually committed a crime and you prosecute them and you put them in jail, it really sends a huge message throughout an entire industry and even across industries. and we do that. we've prosecuted a large number of individuals. they may not always get as much attention as we would like them to get, but we are focusing on that in every case. whenever anybody brings me a case to decide on, the first question i always ask is what are we doing about prosecuting individuals? we need to be able to find some that are appropriately liable, have satisfied all of the elements and are culpable. as far as dealing with corporations, we have a whole set of guidelines that we look

at. but much of it is the continuum that i was talking about of what the corporate conduct was when the individual bad acts were discovered. if the corporation had a good compliance program in place, took a lot of remedial steps, did the kinds of internal personnel actions that were required, brought us the evidence right away, worked with us in developing more evidence, worked with us in prosecuting individuals that may be culpable, fixed their problem, they could well under those circumstances get an npa, a nonprosecution agreement. and it may substantially affect the kind of fine that would be charged in a case like that and whether or not a monitor would be needed. you go along the spectrum from that up to deferred prosecution agreements. if it wasn't quite as good in the cooperation and in the remediation. to guilty pleas for companies

that really weren't very cooperative and didn't do the kinds of things that they needed. so you have that array of tools. and a big part of what we try to do is let people know what our thinking was, what the factors were in any given case that made us decide this is an npa, this is a dpa, this is a guilty plea. because we're trying to affect behavior. we're trying to send out the word that there is an incentive to behave in a way that gives us the information, that preserves evidence, that corrects problems, that takes responsibility for the conduct that violated the law. and there are consequences, on the other hand, if you don't do any of those things. and we're trying to put those messages out as loudly and as clearly as we can. >> i think we're just about out of time, but i wanted to find out are there any changes to the criminal code that you'd like to see, any other tools you'd like to have in your tool kit to go after bribery, money laundering, some of these other issues that

we're talking about here? >> you know, a lot of that is up to the wisdom of the united states congress. there's a few different areas where we've been working with them on some technical issues. some of them get very technical concerning the ability to access evidence, the ability to have in some of the cyber areas we've been asking for some more robust penalties to be included when a cyber bill gets passed because some of them are a little dated and treated violations not as seriously as i think we recognize they deserved to win. so that's another area that we'd like to see some changes. our abilities to, again in the cyber area, to more easily seize some of the servers that are used to conduct lots of the cyber intrusions. those we've been able to patch together a few different ways to do it through current authorities. we'd like, i think, a little more direct authority to be able to do that. mostly to prevent rather than anything else.

>> and what about foreign bribery? i mean, i know some other european countries have also passed legislation there. is the fcpa, do you think, still the gold standard for anticorruption laws, or are countries in europe doing things that you'd hike to see the u.s. do? >> myself, i still think the fcpa is the gold standard. i think it has worked really well for us. we haven't run into any areas where we've looked at it and said i wish it had been changed in this way or that way because we found a gap or a hole. right now we think it's working very well, and we're continuing to bring as many cases as we can under it. >> great. thanks for taking this time with us. >> appreciate it. pleasure to spend time with you. [applause] >> and c-span is live today at the anti-defamation league. this is the second speaker we're hearing from of the day. you can hear some of the earlier can conference online, c-span.org. we're awaiting the arrival of fbi director james comey. he's going talk to be talking at

hate crimes here at the conference after the recent shootings outside of a jewish community center and other buildings in kansas. and we are just awaiting things here. running a little bit late. we will bring you his comments as soon as he arrives. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> and we're here at the anti-defamation league conference waiting for fbi director james comey.

he's expected to appear any moment to talk about hate crimes after the shootings in kansas that were outside of jewish community buildings. while we wait for him to take the podium, going to take a look at a recent discussion hosted be by the export-import bank. this is elon musk, he's the founder of tesla and spacex, and he had remarks for the export-import bank recently. >> we're going to turn up the volume, it's been a quiet conference so far, but i figure when we brought elon musk in here, i had a chance to meet with elon when scott and i were out in san jose about a month ago, and this is a man who really knows how to push the envelope and change american manufacturing. i kept staring at this column, i keep learning about someone left the lights on because your normal car, you have to turn the lights off. elon told me if he does that, it

could probably a good month before -- so we had a little controversy what to bring in the room. we were thinking about a rocket, we thought about a number of other things. that was hard to get in, so this was the smallest product we could kind of squeeze into the showroom to get started. so let me ask, when you and i met about a month ago and you had just came back from china, you said something about half your production's going to be exporting. >> right. >> could you talk a little bit about that and how much is going to china, what that looks like? >> sure. i actually just came back from china yesterday. i was there all week until yesterday evening. and the thing that really surprised me was how positive the reception was for tesla. going in there i was, i went in with some trepidation thinking that there'd be concern about an american car company exporting cars to china and that maybe there would be somewhere between

indifference to slightly hostile. .. and it was just really amazing, and at the positive reception. among the public, tesla is viewed super positively. it was like when i held these customer events, it was like a

-- just crazy. by far the most positive reception of anyplace i've been. so we handed over the first cars -- the first tesla vehicles in china this week, to very excited customers, and, yeah, we expect probably -- we'll end up exporting half or maybe a little more than half of the cars we manufacture in california, to -- overseas, and of that number probably half will good to china alone. >> host: so many companies, mine included, look at exporting after you have saturated the u.s. market. you're clearly not doing that. that's your early on going to be exporting half of your production. >> guest: i think it makes sense to not sort of saturate one market before moving to another.

it's certainly true we started deliveries in the u.s. well inned a lance of china, almost two years in advance. so, be started off with -- mid-2012 in the u.s., and then a little over a year later, started deliveries in europe, and then eight months after that started deliveries in china, and later this year we'll be starting right-hand drive for the uk, japan, australia, and probably south africa. since i'm originally from south africa. a lot of comments why the hell the car is not there. we're getting there. >> host: some people compare the tesla to a -- somewhat like an iphone on wheels. is that the right analogy? >> guest: i have two of them rooking here.

get wheels on your our phone and you're go to do. pretty much the same thing. so, there is certainly some analogies in that direction that make sense. something that affects myself feather to it as a computer on wheels. it's more than an electric car. it's actually -- i think a car that is really designed to take advantage of 21st century technology. a 17-inch touch screen display. always connected to the internet via cell modem or wi-fi. you can ask for any song, anytime, just by literally asking for it. i you hold down the voice button and say, play "ring of fire" by johnny cash, it will play it. the most obscure thing, the car plays it on demand. it just works. you don't have to do anything.

you can address the car's parameters, like the ride height of the vehicle. you can adjust from the center screen. and soon we'll be releasing real time traffic. so cars collaborate as a network fleet to optimize the route to a destination. that's exciting. the car, even after you bought the car, it keeps getting better because of added functionality we download at no charge. >> host: what makes this -- what makes the u.s. a really good platform to manufacture these and export these from the u.s.? >> guest: well, i mean, certainly has been accused of that being foolish, but i think the -- i'm someone who believes in manufacturing. i like manufacturing. i like making things.

and i think for some reason that's got out of fashion. i'm not sure why. i think if you think of manufacturing not as some boring process of making -- >> i comment you and really appreciate it. a quick word of that. our order of battle for this afternoon, as we shift our focus, we're going to have -- we're delighted and honored to have the fbi director join us. when the fbi director is done with his remarks we'll take some questions. so you will see there will be cards handed out but you can also e-mail your question to summit@adl.org, and we'll handle the questioning. when the director departs we'll go right into the pundit session, if you will, and right after the pundit session is when we're all going to depart for our various embassies. that's the order of battle between now and dinnertime.

welcome back to the national leadership submit of the antidefamation league. one of the nation's premiere civil and human relations agencies. we're very proud of our 100 year record of fighting antisemitism, bigotry, and hate, and building bridges of understanding between all people. our participants are from across the country. here for two days of programs and discussion on topics of interest to our agency, the jewish community, and to all of america. and now it's my honor to call up to the stage, barry lusher, our national director -- i beg your pardon. our national chair, abraham fox is our national director. [applause] >> don't worry. >> there's an opening.

>> i'm pleased to be able to introduce to you james b. comb -- comey, the director of the fbi. i want to make a comment. we talked last night about our programming and what we do across the country, and nationally in internationally. we come together to have our voices heard together, and wear a jewish organization and have been since inception, and fighting antisemitism is first and foremost. but securing justice and fair treatment is an integral part and has been for 100 years. we know that we have nonjews who stand with us across the country, who are members of our glass program, who sit on our board, and standing together we make a difference. as abe said to you last new

england, it's when good people stand together, they make a difference. the fact that adl is hosting tonight an all-star civil rights panel, and this afternoon we have the director of the fbi, says a whole lot about our role in society. adl works more closely with law enforcement than any other private organization, and the law enforcement agency with which we have worked the longest and the most extensively is the fbi. in fighting terrorism, extremism, and hate crimes. in introducing to you the fbi director, i'm pleased to tell you that mr. comey comes to us after a long career as a legal adviser, law enforcement officer, u.s. attorney, new york and virginia.

he prosecuted the high-profile case that followed the 1996 terrorist attack on the u.s. military in the tower in saudi arabia. a precurse sore what we have seen follow. in the aftermath of 9/11, he was the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york, and in 2003 he was appointed deputy attorney general under john ashcroft. since 2000 the fbi required every new agent to participate in law enforcement in society, leas. a training program on core values created by adl and u.s. holocaust memorial museum. in his stallings speech he re-affirmed the bureaus commitment to this unique program which will train more than 1,000 new agents this year. we are enormously proud of our

partnership with them and look forward to continuing our shared mission of protecting our nation and its values in the years to come can. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming the fbi director, james b. comey. [applause] >> good afternoon, everybody. it is an honor to be here. two weeks ago, a mad man, with a warped view of what america should look like, shot and killed three innocent people who were just doing what normal folks do on a sunday afternoon. he targeted people who were

strangers to him for no other reason than that he believed they were jewish. minimum corporation ran lost both her father and her son that day. a loss most of us would have difficulty fathoming. at a church vigil hours after the shooting she talk about the randomness of what happened. how her father offered to take his grandson to his singing tryout and competition that afternoon because the rest of the family was juggling other activities. in her words, quote, we were in life, we were having life, and i want you all to know that we're going to have more life. i want you all to have more life. theless of these three people, the loss to their family, their friends, and their communities, underscores the reality we face. we confront individuals here at home and abroad who seek to

steal life. they seek to inflict great harm and no one is immune. no religion, no race no ethnicity no way of life. and so we must do everything in our power, as government, as law enforcement, as a society, to stop them. we must do everything in our power to educate people about diversity. to educate people about the strength that comes from difference. and we must do everything in our power to bring those who act on such hatred to justice. i know you are well versed in the threats of the day, but i thought i would offer you just a brief summary how we at the fbi see the fret from terrorism around the world. as you know, national security is and remains the fbi's top priority. the world isn't likely to change in a way that makes it possible to change that. overseas the terrorist threat we see is complex and changing.

we see more groups and individuals involved in terrorism, a wider array of targets, greater cooperation among terrorists, and continued evolution in their tactics and especially their communication. al qaeda central is not the dominant force it once was but remains intent on causing death and destruction. al qaeda affiliates present the top threat we see. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, al qaeda in islam, and isil, the group that calls itself the islamic state of iraq and others, we have american citizens traveling overseas especially to syria, radicalizing, training, and making new associations there, and then returning home, travel that is very, very worrisome to house, and they're traveling from all over america, to all parts of the world. and as the boston bombings illustrate, we face a continuing

threat from home-grown extremists. some call these people lone wolves. i think that gives them too much dignity. it's a term i resist. i think of them as lone rats. these individuals are self-radicalizing; [applause] >> these individuals are self-radicalizing. they're not externally directed. they are inspired and trained by information available to them on the internet, and they don't share typical profile. their experiences and motives are often very different but they share one thing, which is a willingness to act alone, which makes them difficult for us to identify and to stop. and as i have told my colleagues in law enforcement all around the country, this is not a new york thing or a washington thing or a chicago thing. wherever there are disturbed people, who can abscess the internet, it is their thing. we also face domestic terrorism. from individuals and groups who

are motivated by political, racial, religious, or social ideology. ideology fueled by bigotry and hatred, as we saw in overland park, kansas. we in the fbi have a strong working knowledge of these groups. we have spent years understanding them. we know their general membership. here again our challenge is often the lone offenders who stand at the periphery of groups we may know, people who are peripheral in a way that we haven't opened an investigation on them and tracked them carefully. most of the time these domestic extremists are careful to keep their actions within the bounds of our great constitution. and for the fbi, protecting those civil liberties, protecting the great constitution and its promise and guarantee of freedom of speech, is at the core of who we are. no matter how hateful that speech might be. we only get involved when words

cross the line into illegal activity, and you help us police that line. you know all too well that in a heartbeat, hateful speech can become violent, even deadly. hate becomes hate crime. we often speak of domestic terrorism and hate crimes in the same breath and there is a fine line between the two. and certainly there is overlap in many cases. for that reason we have to look at each incident through both lenses, to make sure that we are bringing the best resources to every investigation. hate crimes are different from other crimes. they strike at the heart of one's identity. they strike at our sense of self, our sense of belonging. the end result is loss. loss of trust, loss of dignity, and in the worst cases, loss of life. hate crimes impact not just individuals but entire communities. when a family is attacked because of the color of their

skin it's not just the family that feels violated, but every resident of that neighborhood. when a teenager is murdered because he is gay, the entire community feels a sense of helplessness and despair. and when innocent people are shot at random because of their religious beliefs, real or perceived, our nation is left at a loss. stories like this are heartbreaking. each one leaves us with a pain in our chest. hate crime has decreased in neighborhoods around the country. and that's good news. but the national numbers remain sobering. and numbers are just one part of the calculus. from the fbi's perspective -- and i know yours -- one hate crime is one too many. at the same time we, all of news law enforcement, hear to do a better job of tracking and reporting hate crimes, to fully understand what is happening in our communities. and how to stop it.

there are jurisdictions that still fail -- [applause] -- there are jurisdictions in this country that still fail to report hate crime statistics. other jurisdictions claim there were no hate crimes in their community. a fact that would be very welcome if it were true. we must continue to impress upon our state and local colleagues in every jurisdiction the need to track and report hate crimes. it is not something we can ignore or sweep under the rug. we must also work together to educate folks at the community level, in schools, in work places, and, yes, especially in law enforcement. to help prevent hate crimes. the fbi works with the adl to host civil rights and hate-crime training for our state and local counterparts through a number of programs. we have made law enforcement and society mandatory, as you have heard, for all new agents, and we'll continue that. we have also made it mandatory

for all national academy participants -- these are law enforcement officials from around the country and around the world who come and train for ten weeks a quantico. 47,000 law enforcement officers have gone through the training -- [applause] -- together with the adl we created he hate crimes training manual, fantastic resource for all law enforcement partners in this country, and you ask the adl have even greater reach. you have trained more than 12,000 law. personnel last year alone, and i want to thank you for that. this past january -- [applause] -- this past january, your north texas, oklahoma office, worked with my dallas division to sponsor a one-day seminar for 150 state, local, and federal law enforcement officers from 40 different agencies. of course, we're educating ourselves, too. at the fbi, since 2010, we have

participated in more than 100 training sessions sponsored by the adl, on extremism, terrorism, and hate crimes. all around the country. and your own michael lieberman, your director of civil rights planning center, is going to speak at the fbi civil rights conference in boston on may 13, and then we're pressing him into service again in june in san francisco. and we are grateful for his voice and words. [applause] >> prevention means working closely with community groups and their leaders. it means listening to their concerns. it means letting them know what we can do to help. and it means building relationships of trust so they know they can both call on us and count on us. every one of the fbi's 56 field offices has a strong community outreach program. we are reaching out to communities where there may be feelings of suspicion or

mistrust. as the sagos the time to patch the roof is while the sun sunshines-not when the hurricane hits. and we cannot prevent the hate crime -- where we can not -- cannot prevent the hate crime we will find those responsible and bring them to justice and help victims that suffered the payment. the fbi's office of victim assistance brings a wide range of services, including emergency housing, food assistance, cleaning of personal effects, and crime scenes, and help applying for victims compensation or special services for kids or assistance in finding counseling. our victim specialists have met with congregations and neighbors to help cope with the aftermath of hate crimes. they happen synagogues and temples and churches to find places to worship inch times of crisis they have provided

much-needed help and information to all affected groups. in the wake of the sikh temple shootings in wisconsin, for example, we assisted with death notifications, funeral arrangements and did so in keeping with seek traditions. the die very challenge we face illustrate the need for true collaboration. the partnership between thefish and the adl has only grown stronger over the years. there's no doubt we have different functions but we share common values and common goals which is why this partnership is so successful, because we both work to protect the lives and liberties of our fellow citizens. we are are building communities that stan united against crime and terrorism, and we're both committed to doing it in the right way and preserving freedom and not freedom in some esoteric academic sense but freedom to walk down the street without being harmed. freedom to ride the subway without being in danger. freedom to be who and what you

are without judgment or derision. these are the freedom wes carryish together regardless of race, creed, orientation, or ethnicity. but freedom takes work. it takes vigilance. and it takes patience. when you're trying to change a world, when you can imagine a world without hate as you do, patience is more than a virtue. it's a necessity. last year, the adl marked its centennial. for any organization to mark 100 years of service is incredible. but to do so with your railroad of success is all the more impressive. your advocacy for such a wide range of issues and constituents i amazing. from antisemitism, to voting rights and immigration issues, from gender and lgbt equality, to antimuslim prejudice, from separation of church and state to cyberbullying, you have pushed and prodded for the

passage of comprehensive hate crime legislation, and took more than 30 years, but as i said, patience is a necessity in your line of work. your leadership in tracking and exposing domestic and international terrorism threats is invaluable. your experience in hate crime prevention and investigations is essential and makes us better. your research has helped fbi agents and analysts as they conduct assessments and prepare intelligence reports, and the traying you voluntarily provide in classrooms, in conferences and at the community level, is eye-opening and insightful. if this sounds a little bit like a love letter to the adl, it is because i intend it so. since 1913 you have advocated for fairness and equality. for inclusion and acceptance. you have never been indifferent. you have never been complacent. and word "silence" does not

appear in your language. upon excepting the nobel peace prize he spoke of the danger of silent: quote i will never be silent wherever and whenever human beings endure suffer and humiliation. we must always take sides. neutrality helps the opresser, never the victim. silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. close quote. you have never remained silent. no matter how difficult the issue, and we aspire to be the same. we in the fbi must never remain silent no matter how difficult the matter nor how difficult the case, no matter how lounge it -- how long it takes to seek justice, and we must all, always be on the side of the good. that is why, as you heard, i'm going to continue to require all of my new agents to tour the holocaust human. as i told them to they can see and feel and hear in a

gut-wrenching and nauseating way the consequences of abuse of power on a massive scale. we must never -- [applause] -- just as we must never forget the atrocities of the holocaust, we must never forget the responsibilities we hold as a law enforcement and national security organization. but i'm also going to have my new agents visit the martin luther king when they're here in washington to visit the holocaust museum. i intend that to serve as a different kind of reminder, one more personal to the bureau, of thed in for fidelity to the rule of law and the dangers in becoming untetheres to oversight and accountable. for we know we will be judged not only on whether we succeed in defeating crime and terrorism. we will be judged and should be judged on whether we do that wail safeguarding the liberties

for which we are fighting. [applause] >> some have suggested there's an inherent conflict between preserving national security on the one hand and preserving privacy and civil liberties on the other. i disagree. in fact i think the whole notion of balance and tradeoffs suggests the wrong framework. it makes it seem like a zero sum game. i believe that at our best, we're looking for security that enhances liberty. when a city posts police officers in a park so that old folks and kids and parents can play there and use it, security asen hanesed liberty. they have both grope. the good people of the fbi are sworn to protect both national security and civil liberties. it is not a question of conflict. it is not a tradeoff in our view. we must care deeply about both in everything we do.

i had the opportunity to host the fbi's holocaust remembrance ceremony two weeks ago in the auditorium at headquarters. and it was an extraordinary experience. one of the stories i have heard about that day, a conversation in the wake of that painful and wonderful day, stuck with me. one of our special agents was talking to his wife about the event afterwards, and his ten-year-old son asked him what the holocaust was. and this father did his best to explain what happened. but how do you describe to a child an arossi to great -- arossi so great at it almost beyond ability to convey meaning. the son looked at the dad with a confused look and finally said, but why? why would they do that? and that is the question. it is always the question. why. why would someone seek to harm another person because of where they come from or what they

believe or what they look like or the color of their skin. we may never know why. the great theologian suggested years ago that prejudice and bigotry are not simply mistakes that can be corrected through education or enlightenment. hatred is not an error that can be disspelled by an appeal to rational thought. i believe that some i i i woulds -- some weis cannot be known but we in the fbi must dedicate ourselves to protecting those who would be victims of such prejudice and hate. we know why the members of the adl work so hard every day to advocate for those who suffer, and we know why we must continue to stand together, to stop those who would act against us, those who would steal life, to paraphrase the words of dr. martin luther king, when evil people plot, good people must plan. when evil people burn and bomb,

good people must build and bind. when evil people shout ugly words of hatred, good people must commit themselves to the glories of love. so together we must plan. we must build and bind. and we must commit ourselves to the glories of love through education, a commitment to diversity and inclusion, the pursuit of justice, and faithful adherence to the rule of law. we must remember that for every attack on someone bus of who what they are there must be a thousand stories of individuals who beened together to build anew to create rather than destroy. a thousand stories of strength and solidarity, of hope and unity, kindness and kinship. that is why we do the work we do. that is why we continue to push forward. that is why we must never be indifferent or complacent. that is why we must never remain silent.

so, thank you for what you do. thank you for making us better. we're honored to stand beside you. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> mr. director, i can't imagine a better way for us to start this afternoon to motivate and inspire this group, to continue to do what we do, to be supportive and be involved with the fbi. thank you. [applause] the director has agreed to answer a couple of questions. we have a little time. people are collecting cards so

please feel free to pass them up. i have a couple here. >> free shot at the fbi. >> last friday's "washington post" had a story about federal judges balking at requests from police for cell phone and online data pertaining to investigations. how will the increased concerns about surveillance impact the bureau? >> great question. i saw the article. it was about two or three magistrate judges of the 600 in the country requiring additional showingings for certain lawful gathering of information, so naturally because it was two or three out of 600 it warranted a major placement in the paper. my view is, people should be suspicious of government power. i am. this country was founded by people who were very suspicious of government power and know how

weak people are, and so they divided the power among three branches. so people should ask questions about government power. i hope people will take the tame to listen to the answers, too. because i love to be held accountable. i believe the angels is in the details in the way we do our work so it's boring but i ask people to explain the involvement of the courts, the statutes under which i'm working, the ways in which we only can listen to people's conversations or gather their e-mails with court orders. the challenge for us is, some of the revelations of last year created a wind storm where all matters that involve government surveillance kind of get caught up in the wind storm, and i understand that. i would just urge folks to take the time to demand the details. people are always saying isn't it terrible the government wants to break encringes on the internet or to be able to find it if people who want to remain anonymous, who they are on the

internet. yes. i'll tell you why. with a lawful court order and authority, i need to be able to find people who have kidnapped children, committing terrible crimes, involved in major terrorist activity or organized crime. i need to be able to find those people, and you don't want to live in a world where i can't. but you want me to have oversight and balance those three branches of government to make sure that what i do is firmly rooted in law. and so what i a -- [applause] -- care got government power. be skeptical of government power. ask hard questions, and then find the space in the wound storm that is american life to listen to the answer and then let's have a conversation. [applause] >> mr. director, you referenced hate crimes reporting and that several jurisdictions report none or zero. how do we overcome the idea that reporting hate crimes by cities

and municipalities is a scar or can be perceived as a scar on their reputation? >> the answer is one community at a time. which is why this audience is so important. i'm in every city in the country. we have an fbi field offices all over the place. so are you. so it requires conversation and education why this matters, why it's in the interests of a community to find these things, report these things so that there can be a response. nobody likes to report crime because it means crime happened. no one wants that. but to be effective at reducing crime we have to be transparent about our challenges. so, to me, there's a certain amount of talking from the national level that is important, but really conversations in communities is what makes a difference. >> in an indirect way related. there's been a fair amount of press attention describing the new justice department racial

profiling guidance. it updates 2003 guidance. can you tell us what will the revised racial profiling guidelines entail and how does the fbi work to improve trust between law enforcement and communities? >> i think that the questioner is referring to something that leaked so i don't think i can talk about what guidelineses might be coming. i guess what i can talk about is what i hope you know about the fbi and that is, the culture of this great organization is just constantly focused and based on the rule of law. sometimes people in organizations achieve that -- chafe we have so many rules and regulations. it reminds me when i was a kid in yonkers, new york, my mom and dad would have me in bed at 8:00 and it would still be light out and i'd hear the other kids playing. i'd say how come i can't play?

and they'd say because you chose the wrong parents mitchell mother would say if all the other kids were lining up to jump off the bridge, would you jump off the bridge? i'm proud of the way in which we govern ourselves and our insistence that things be done in the right way for the right reasons. i'm confident whatever guidelines come out will be consistent with how we conduct ourselves because the assistance of communes in this country is critical to the work de, especially on the your counterterrorism front. so if we're seen as a foreign entity operating in ways not consistent with the values of the community, we can't do our job. so it's important to have the trust of the community, and we talk about the authorities we have and the way we use them. i'm quite proud of the way we conduct ourselves and i think you'll see that continue. >> here's a good one. it's been more than 12 years

since september 11th and seems clare that even after the boston marathon bombing last year, the american public no longer views the threat of terror with the same sense of urgencied did then. what are the implications of this for the bureaus efforts to prevent and respond to terror attacks? >> that's a great one. it's natural and good that people heal from an event as horrific as september 11th, and as recedes in team that sense in the lives of ordinary folks that terrorism is not on the front of their windshield, and that's as it should be. i think it's very, very important, though, that we not lose sight of the challenges we face. so that we lose sight of the importance of tool wes have and use. it's important to discuss and debate government authority. what i don't want to do is have decisions made about government authorities without having a deep understanding why i need

them and the cal helpings i face -- challenges i face. it's important that state and local law. remember the importance of this. i talked about travelers to syria, about the home-grown violent extremists. those folks are from everywhere, and so the people who are likely to see them first are going to be deputy sheriffs and police officers on patrol, and so i need those people focused on the problem, on the threat, and on the challenge. one thing i've been talking about around the country is september 11th we've been fortunate in that a lot of that luck has been made, not have an attack of that magnitude. but especially we in law enforcement cannot take our eye off of the risk because it's a risk, as i said, that is nose a new york thing or washington or chicago or l.a. it's an everywhere challenge. >> here's the last one. since september 11th, the bureau has successfully thwarted

a number of terror attacks through sting operations, including one involving -- who was arrested in route to bomb the u.s. capitol in 2012. how do you respond to those who criticize the tactics as entrapment? >> reasonable questions. we frequently encounter people, especially in online communities, who are asking for help to build a bomb. looking for ways to kill innocent people and so folks who ask questions about that, i said, if you were me, what would you do with that? i can't and shouldn't walk away from it. so instead what we do is we try and introduce an undercover, almost invery my at first online, and see whether this person is a serious person, that we ought to do what the resources do. i don't have unlimited resources and if it's just someone fooling around we want to know that so we can focus on the things that matter. so we engage them to see are

these serious people and then we don't walk away. they didn't find us. to supply the explosives to them. i don't know who they might find. so those cases are very, very important to us and i don't think if people drill into it they would want me to walk away. entrapment is a serious issue. defense attorneys should press on it and the fbi should explain the facts behind each case, and the great thing about the american court system is those will be robustly debated, and if you look at our track record in these cases, i'm proud of it and the way we have handled ourselves. [applause] >> members of adl, please stand to thank director comey. [applause] [applause]

>> you can watch any of the fbi director's remarks online. you can find them at c-span.org, and coming up at 2:00 eastern, the senate will be gaveling in. before they do, hears some of the antidef nation league conferences on the israelis palestinian conflict. >> thank you, when it came time for prime minister benjamin netanyahu to choose a new ambassador to the united states, he chose someone who had a deep understanding of both israel and the united states. someone who has dedicated his life to serving the state of israel and promoting strong u.s.-israeli relations. ambassador was born and raised in miami beach, florida, a city

where his late father and his brother both served as mayor. in 2004, ambassador co-can authored the best-selling book "the case for democracy, be power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror." which has been translated interest ten languages. serving as israel's ambassador of economic affairs in the united states, he became senior adviser to prime minister netanyahu, and in his capacity he was labeled as his brain by tablet magazine. ambassador assumed his post in washington, dc in december 2013 and resides here with his wife and their five children. ambassador, it is our honor to have you here today. [applause] >> thank you.

i have to say that's the strangest texas accent i've ever heard. it's a pleasure to be here today. this room is very wide and very narrow. so it's like the opposite of israel. so i suppose the podium should be facing this way. i understand you're going to be giving an award to bill burns. i don't know if bill -- is he here yet? i don't want to compliment a person in his presence because that's not something we do in israel. let me just say that bill burns proves that you can be a first-rate diplomat and a first class mench and it's great he is receiving the award. i want to thank you for giving me the tub to spoke to you today, particularly today, as many of you know, today is holocaust remembrance day in

israel. and on this day the jewish state remembers the most horrific period in the history of the jewish people. it's a day when we reflect on the past and we recommit ourselves to making sure that the phrase "never again" is not merely an empty cliche. it's also a time to recognize the condition of the jewish people is fundamentally different than it was 75 years ago on the eve of the holocaust. our condition is not different because there is no longer hatred towards the jewish people. you see that hatred every day. you see it in the mentales of the iranian regime to wipe israel off the map in the terrorism and genocide y'all ensitement of hezbollah and ham mass for the destruction of israel. and at the mosque in kansas city. and the hatred there is despite

the hopes of the founder of modern zionism. her shell hopes and believes the establishment of a jewish state would make the hatred toward the jew wish people fade away and his vision turned him pretty much into a modern day photograph get. but on this point -- prophet. but at this point hate threat of the jew wish people would end with the about of the jewish state, he was mistaken. in fact history has turned what he thought on its head. 100 years ago people thought that by establishing a jewish state you would end hatred toward the jewish people. out in there are those that believe if you dismantle the jewish state you'll stop hatred toward the jew wish people, and in the 1920s and 1930s and throughout the first half of the 20th century, what the anti-semites said in europe was, jews good, to palestine.

and now, with the anti-semites say is jews, get out of palestine. so that didn't change. that's hatred did not change with the about of the state of israel. but the birth of the state of israel enabled the jewish people to fight hatred, and in that sense israel fundmentalry transformed the conditions of the jewish people. now, it transformed it by providing the jewish people with two things they did not have on the eve of the holocaust. first, and most important, is the capacity to defend ourselves. the capacity to defend ourselves. you know, this is the rein why israel exists today. it is often said that the u.n. created the state of israel. that is false. ben goran declared israel's independence, and the army, the new-found army of the jewish state, defended israel against attack.

all the declarations of the united nations would not have happened the jewish people one iota if the israels lost the war. what has protected the jewish state has been the capable of the -- capability of the jewish people to defend. thes and that has enabled to us build the remarkable country we have today, after 66 years. where a global high-tech power, a pioneer, in medicine, in science, a leader in the world, and agriculture in water, and those of you who have been to israel know that we're a place teeming with innovation and culture and creativity. and i tell people when guy to israel, i say, just -- better buckle in and get ready for the ride because israel is the most intense place on the planet. israelis good to manhattan to unwinds. [laughter]

>> israel is an exciting place. and we built that because we have the capable to defendant ourselves and that's why we have been able to navigate israel through very choppy seas in the last few years. at a time when the middle east is seeing bloodshed and violence everywhere. israel has remained an island of civility and calm and that's a credit to the robustness of israel's military strength and also to the prudent leadership of the prime minister of israel, benjamin netanyahu. but along with this capacity for self-defense we also have something else that we did not have 75 years ago on the eve of the holocaust. we have a voice. the jewish people have a voice, and you hear that voice sometimes when a prime minister of israel speaks at the united nations or when an israeli ambassador, like me and my counterparts throughout the world, have the privilege of

speaking in the world's capitols, but in speaking up for israel and nor right to the jewish people we're not alone. and here's where i come to you to this organization, the adl. as you heard my -- i was born and raised in miami beach, florida. my mother was born in israel, i was born in miami beach. and i can't tell you, somehow all those adl newsletters were strewn all across the house. everywhere i would turn i would see the latest bull continue and the latest newsletter, and i read them and you taught me something very important early on. you taught me that in defending the right of the jews, you were defending the rights of everybody else, and in defending the rights of everybody else you were defending the rights of the jewish people. so, year after year, decade after decade, under the remarkable leadership of abe foxman and many others -- we're not letting you go -- this swan

song we're hoping the prime minister gave me instructions to make sure your swan song lasts for a few decades, not a few months. under your leadership, and leadership of many people in this room, you have raised your voice loudly to defend the rights of the jews and to defend the rights of everybody who is facing discrimination and persecution. so i'm here today, first and foremost to say thank you. and i couldn't think of a better day to express that thanks than on holocaust memorial day. thank you for giving meaning to the words "never again" by making clear that you will never be silent again. now, i want to talk bravely before i get your questions-about two challenges that israel is facing. first, the need to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons and, secondly, israel's unyielding pursuit of peace. on iran's nuclear program, which

is by far the single most important issue facing israel. i know sometimes all these issues are thrown at you. you watch the news cycle and one day something is happening in syria and then it's egypt and now a pass between hamas and the palestinian authority. in israel we have our iver focused on the ball. the single greatest challenge israel faces is iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. so let me state very clearly what israel's policy is. our policy is simple. let iran have only a peaceful nuclear program and nothing more. that is israel's policy. the truth is, we all know that iran does not need a peaceful nuclear program. iran is a wash in oil and gas. and if iran's regime would stop brutally preeing its own people, -- repressing its own people, help stopping assad slaughter tens of thousands of

people, stop perpetrating terrorist hack tacks, stop leading chants, "death to america." stop calling as it does for the anilation of israel. stop arming terrorists that fire rockets to our cities. if return stopped being a rowing terrorist regime, then they could take advantage of all their wonderful natural resources to their heart's delight. still, if diplomacy demands that iran be allowed to have a peaceful nuclear program, then so be it. so be it. but there are 17 countries around the world that have peaceful nuclear energy, they don't enrich uranium on their soil. they don't stockpile enriched uranium. they don't have underground enrichment bunkers they don't have heavy water facilities. iran needs none of these things. none of them. yet it insists on having them,

because iran is not interested in peaceful nuclear energy. iran wants nuclear weapons. and the p-5 plus one, the leading powers in the enternational community, must not let iran keep its nuclear weapons infrastructure. its capability to produce nuclear weapons. the only deal that should be acceptable to the international community is one which fully dismantles iran's nuclear weapons capability. and one more thing that has to be dismantled. a lot of people are not talking about it. and that is iran's long-range ballistic missile program. the missiles iran has can already reach well beyond israel. iran is developing icbms, and intercontinental ballistic missiles and the only purpose of an icbm is to carry a nuclear warhead. only in cartoons do you put tnt on an icbm.

in the real world, icbms carry nuclear payloads. so, if iran wants what is says it wants, a peaceful nuclear program, then it has no need for icbms, no need for icbms at all. and if iran insists on keeping its icbms, well, then the jig is up. you see, iran's icbms are not a smoking gun. they are the smoking missile. they tell you everything you want to know and need to know. ladies and gentlemen, israel is very concerned about the current discussions with iran, because all signs, all signs point to the p-5 plus one accepting a deal that would leave iran with a nuclear weapons-making capability, essentially intact. and not even address iran

ballistic missile program. this deal being considered would leave iran with thousands of centrifuges, a heavy water facility and advanced missile program. such a deal would effectively leave iran as a threshold nuclear power. at best a few months away from having the fissile material necessary to build a nuclear weapon, and such a deal would be a much worse situation than we have today. because while iran is now two or three months away from having the fissile material, they are under tremendous pressure because of the sanctions, after a deal, they would be only marginally further away from getting that fissile material, but the pressures on them would be drastically reduced. the interim deal you remember last year, was supposed to have had iran take a tiny step back

in exchange for what was hoped would be a small reduction of the sanctions. and israel appreciates the fact the obama administration is doing everything it can to make sure the sanctions regular anytime does not unravel. they're working very hard to prevent this from happening and we appreciate it. but an agreement where the the 5 plus one itself would willingly unravel the regime against return, in return for iran parking a short distance away from having the fissile material necessary for nuclear weapon would be a terrible mistake. it would leave iran as a threshhole nuclear power and leave the world on the threshold of an abyss. it might prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon today but would virtually ensure that iran has a nuclear weapon

tomorrow. that must not be allowed to happen. iran's nuclear weapons capable and long-range missile capability must be fully dismantled. that is israel's position. and it will not change. the prime minister yesterday spoke. he was has clear as he can be. i encourage you all to read exactly what he said. this nuclear weapons capability must be fully dismantled. now, let me address in a couple of minutes israel's impasse with the palestinians. and explain israel's position regarding the recent pact that president abbas signed with hamas. hamas is an unreformed terror organization. unreformed terror organization. it is openly calling for

israel's destruction. it's committed to israel's destruction. it has fired thousands of rockets at israel's cities. it has sent scores of suicide bombers to our pizza shops, our restaurants, our buses, hamas denies the holocaust and its charter calls for the murder of jews worldwide. i don't know if you notify this. it calls for the murder of jews worldwide. three years ago hamas condemned the united states for killing bin osama bin laden and two weeks ago some of you may have read this, hamas praised the murder of an israeli who was gunned noun his car while driving with his pregnant wife and family -- >> going to leave these remarks now. you can watch this at c-span.org. take you live to the floor of the u.s. senate, starting out with general speeches, turning to nominees, executive and judicial nominees at 5:00 eastern, we expect senator

rand paul to give a speech today about stopping aid to the palestinian government until it recognizes israel's right to exist. vote scheduled for 53:00. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. lord of history strong to save, remind us that you are not an indifferent spectator to the progress and pathology in our world. help us, dear god, to view our world as you see it, becoming