t, we won a victory to get the frooifive and the eight, to continue them in the context of a nuclear resolution where they believe they didn't belong in the first place. >> my time is almost up so i'm going to interrupt you. apologize for -- >> no that's fine. >> correct me on one thing. you said although the beginning it was on the table from almost the beginning? >> well, the point -- no. >> let me finish. >> their demand was on the table. we said no from the beginning. frankly, we knew this was going to come down to probably be the last issue. >> then you said quite frankly, was slid in at the end. >> at the u.n. by susan rice. when she first wrotes resolution 19-29, the arms resolution came into that at the very last minute. >> i'm sorry i'm cutting you off. the inspection and transparency of those inspections -- is aa

serious question that needs to be objected to. senator menendez? >> i was going to add a small foot note to the issue of countries without diplomatic relations not being part of the inspection team. i want to point out again for decades now all inspectors have training here in the united states. we're very confident in a very, very broad set of confident people. in addition -- i could get you the exact number but right now i think we have a dozen americans in the safegardz efforts at iaea and they play a very critical role. >> i would love it if you would get me that information specifically. >> senator, i'll get you a list of all the mcnichls we have to prevent arms flowing. >> those are critical questions to me and the american public. thank you for service to our country. >> thank you, senator. we're going to take a break when we have the second round start. can you make it through three

more senators? thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for your service to our country. we very much appreciate all your great work. sblgt moniz, one of the assertions which is made is that in 20 -- after 15 years that all bets are off and that iran can then begin to enrich theoretically, up to 90% if they want. which is bomb-grade material. could you deal with that issue? that is, what happens in 15 years? what happens in wh iran announces it would go past 3% 5%, 20% in terms of its enrichment of uranium? what is the law, the regulation

the sense of -- the sense of the world community what they could do at that point to make sure there was not a bomb-making program that was now put in place in iran? >>. >> senator, first of all, whether it's 15 years 20 years or whenever, they will be required to report all their nuclear activity. clearly, if they were to report they were enriching to 90% every alarm bell in the world would go off because there's no reason to do that. >> when the alarm bell went off what then would happen? >> i would imagine there would be, first of all, extraordinarily strong and i would imagine cohesive international pressure, perhaps sanctions and perhaps military response. >> for example, what would russia's response be in 15 years if iran started enriching to 50, 60, 80, 90%? >> everything i saw in the last

month of negotiation is they would be solidly with us in very strong opposition to that. >> secretary kerry, do you agree with that? >> they and china were welcoming and deeply committed to this effort and antiany nuclear women. >> go ahead. >> if they declare this, alarm bells would go off. furthermore f they didn't declare it which would be a more likely deal, frankly, we have through 25 years the containment and surveillance on any manufacturing of centrifuges, the uranium. once again, they would need the entire supply chain covertly, which would be an extraordinarily difficult thing to car off. >> in the early years secretary moniz, if iran decided they wanted to violate the agreement after dismantling their program, how long would it take for them to take their rotors their

components out of moth balls and to reconstitute their program if we were successful in watching this dismantlement in the early years? >> i would say in rough terms, two to three years, probably, to do that. that would depend a lot upon conditions of their machines, et cetera. that's a ballpark. >> secretary kerry? >> senator, i just wanted to add something. you're dealing with this 15-year concept, but the truth is, because of the 25-year tracking of their uranium, it would be impossible for them to have a separate covert track. so the only track by which they might begin to enrich would be through the declared facility and we would know it instantaneously. >> and the world would say, stop? >> exactly. >> so, let me ask you this, secretary kerry. you spoke earlier about 9 the

iranian foreign minister visiting the emirates this weekend. can you talk about that and what your hopes are for the unfolding diplomatic opportunities that may be possible in that region. >> i will, senator mark y but i would preface it by saying to all my colleagues, nothing that we've done in here is predicated on some change or something that's unanticipatable. can one hope that this kind of opportunity, perhaps provides a moment for possibilities in change? yes, absolutely. and in fact president rouhani and vice president both in their public statements embracing this arrangement talked about how it could open a new moment in the

middle east and come together and resolve the differences that have separated them. i know for a fact the foreign minister of iran wants to engage with the gcc countries. that this is not the only country he plans to visit. he wants to sit down with them. the saudis have indicated a willingness to sit down. who knows where that dialogue goes. i can guarantee you the united states will do everything we can to encourage it it and to try to help it find some kind of specific steps that might be able to begin to deal with yemen, houthi, others we face. >> you spoke earlier about the saudis. you have talked to them in the last week. could you expansion upon that a little bit more in terms of what you feel is a possibility going forward. >> generally what i would say, senator, is, of course all the countries in the region are apprehensive because they see iran engaged with the houthi and

yemen. they see them also fighting against isil. they also see them in syria where they made the most out of supporting assad and supporting hezbollah over the years. hezbollah is obviously a threat to the region, not to mention there's been support for hamas lately. these things concern us deeply. and it concerns them. that is precisely why we have come together and are working on what i talked about earlier with senator gardner, about the evolution of the camp david process that begins to fill out a new security arrangement and a new understanding of how together we can push back against these activities. >> thank you. secretary moniz did you want to add anything there could be a breakout against the legal

regime in order for them to be an international response? >> no. i think a breakout would be very, very quickly detected and then it's a question of the response. essentialpecially in the first decade or so, we have -- and beyond the first decade i think we have a very comfortable period of time to do diplomatic and/or other responses. >> thank you, mr. secretary. thank all of you for your work. >> thank you senator. senator paul. >> thank you for your testimony. i continue to support a negotiated solution and think it preferable to war. i think military solution in all likelihood will accelerate the possibility of them having nuclear weapons of ending inspections, et cetera. however, it does have to be a good deal. and i think that's the debate we have. secretary kerry, i guess i would ask, in general, how would you describe iran's history of intins with international agreements?

would you say they're generally trustworthy or generally untrustworthy? >> there's no trust built into this deal at all. it's not based on any concept of trust. >> i agree. i think everybody sort of understands that. the ayatollah's recent comments where he said the americans say they stopped iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, they know it's not true. so, we have the history of untrustworthiness. we have a lot of verbiage coming from the ayatollah already saying, well you know this really isn't any limitation on our ability to make a weapon. really it comes down to a good agreement. will this stop them from having a nuclear weapon? if they comply. the question then becomes compliance. my question, and my -- i guess my problem is that there's a great deal of credence being given to snapback you know, sanctions as this way -- as this lever to get them to comply.

secretary lew talked about there being a phased reduction in sanctions. that's not exactly the way i read the agreement, though, because they do have to do some things. i think they're significant things. reducing the amount of enriched uranium, et cetera to a low level and getting rid of centrifuges, et cetera. the problem is is that the wording of the agreement then says the sanctions are simultaneously withdrawn. the vast majority are. there's some compliance. to me it's the initiation of compliance. i'm more worried about the continuing compliance after that. and i think the argument would be that snapback sanctions will be that lever. i guess my preference would be there would be a step -- in the negotiations, was there discussion was there ever our position we shouldn't have

simultaneous release of all sanctions but more stepwise or gradual reduction in sanctions to ensure. >> this was at the heart of the negotiation, which is why we drove such a -- what we consider to be a very hard bargain with respect to what though needed to do. that is -- look, it was always the fundamental equation of this negotiation. you folksed passed sanctions. we passed sanctions. our passage of sanctions was specifically to bring them to the table to negotiate. so if that was the negotiating lever, clearly when they came to the table, they wanted the lever taken away. so the quid pro quo here was always what restraints will we get? what insight to their program? what long-term commitments can we get? they can't get a bomb. how do we fulfill president obama's pledge to close off the four pathways to a bomb?

that's the exchange. they get some relief from sanctions. now, their insistence for two years was obviously this notion and all the way to the end, actually, has to all go away at once. all sanctions the u.n., everybody's sanctions. we resisted that. we didn't do that. that's not what happened. what we did was we wound up securing the one-year breakout time going from two months to one year. securing the safety of reducing their operable centrifuges and reducing the research they could do on the next advanced wave of centrifuges. reducing the stockpile. locking it in at a low level that couldn't produce a bomb. locking in their enrichment level that can't produce a bomb. in exchange for all the things we required them to do, pitt senator, are genuinely extensive. they have to undo their piping.

they have to undo their electrical. they have to move things. there's a huge amount of work -- >> i guess -- >> when that is done, i don't know if it's six months or a year, but when it's done we lift the fundamental component of financial and banking sanctions that were the heart of what brought them to the table. >> but i guess the point is, is that everybody that's for the agreement, yourself included are saying this will prevent them from having a nuclear weapon and the ayatollah saying exactly the opposite. >> no. the ayatollah has actually -- and the intel community i urge you to connect with them. there's no decision whatsoever. what he's doing is protecting his dough necessarytic turf. >> he's saying the opposite. he's saying this is not true. this is not stop us from acquiring a nuclear weapon. that troubles us. zareef was saying the same thing in march. it troubles us -- >> here, let me -- >> i want a negotiated

settlement. i want to believe we can have an agreement but it troubles us that immediately the iranians say the opposite -- >> no, he's not saying the opposite of this. the supreme leader's quote is in this document that iran will never go after a nuclear weapon and the iranians happily put that in. the intel community will tell you, they have made zero decision -- >> light, but you dispute what he said this week. >> i know what he said. >> they stopped americans from acquiring a nuclear weapon. they know it's not true. >> do you know why he's saying that? he doesn't believe the americans stopped them. he believes he stopped them because he issued a fatwa. so he is as a matter of sovereignty and pride, making a true statement. he doesn't believe the americans stopped them. he said he didn't want to get one in the first place. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator kuhns. >> thank you for convening this

important hearing. i would like to thank all three of our witnesses for your testimony here today. i think we all share a basic premise, which is the united states must not allow iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. a nuclear armed iran would threaten our national security our vital ally israel and the stability of the entire middle east. in the next two months i will review the details of this nuclear agreement and consider its ramifications for our nation and for the region. i'll compare it to the alternatives and support it only if i'm convinced it sufficiently freezes every iranian pathway to a nuclear weapon. in my years as an attorney for a corporation, i would often get handed a big complex deal by optimistic business units that believed they'd launched a new marriage, a new partnership, and my job was to review it. not with the wedding bells ringing in my ears but with the likely divorce day in the picture before me. because frankly no one ever pulled those agreements out again unless there was a violation, there was a disappointment, there was a breakdown in the relationship.

and i'll say as i look not at the spin or the politics of this agreement but as i dig into the substance of it, it is an agreement built on distrust. it is a wedding day where the bride is shouting i hate you and your family and the groom is shouting i distrust you and you've always cheated on me. and each is announcing their distrust really at the outset. and i do wonder what the alternative is given the disagreement here seems inevitable. so let me turn to the wedding guests and a question about how that may play out. a key piece of this agreement is the joint commission. a joint commission that has eight representatives, p5+1 and the european union and iran. and they will resolve access disputes. they are a key piece of how we would get access to undisclosed sites. and if iran doesn't sufficiently answer iaea concerns about a suspect facility within a certain number of days there's a consensus vote and so forth, but our confidence about our ability to resolve disputes

under this agreement depends on the reliability of those votes. and i don't mean to impugn the partnership of our vital allies who've gotten us to this point but i am concerned that ceos from many european nations are already winging to tehran and talking about significant economic relationships. should we be nervous about the votes in the future on that joint commission of the eu or our other allies given what will be i suspect significant economic interests that might inspire them to either direct the eu to vote against access or block access for us? how confident can we be of our allies enduring support of our interests in the, i think, likely event of cheating? >> i think we can be very confident. here's the reason why. the access issue goes to the core, absolute core, of this

agreement which is preventing them from getting a weapon. and if we have sufficient information, intelligence, input, shared among us by the way. we share all this information. and by the way israel will be feeding into that. the gulf states will be feeding into that. when we have any indicator that there is a site we need to get into and we're all shared that amongst each other, this goes to the entire agreement. they will prosecute that. and by the way there's a converse, you know, there's another side to that coin about the economic interests. you have a young generation of iranians thirsty for the world. they want jobs a future. iran has a huge stake in making sure there isn't an interruption in that business and that they are living up to this agreement. so if in fact even when you're way beyond the 15 years, if we find there's a reason for us to

have suspicion under the additional protocol and we can't get in the united states alone for the duration of the agreement has the ability to snap back in the u.n. by ourselves. we always have the ability to put our sanctions back in place. and given our position in the world and that's not going to change in the next 10 15 years economically. we're still the most powerful economy in the world. we will have an ability to have an impact on their transactions and ability to do business. so we believe we are very well protected here, senator kuhns because we created a one-nation stability to have snapback. >> if i can follow up on that mr. secretary. the snapback functions, are they the broad sweeping financial sector sanctions we worked on together that brought iran to the table? or are they a paler version of

that? >> oh, no, they're the full monty. >> because, you know we've had debate among some of the colleagues on this committee whether or not this agreement prevents -- >> well, we have some discretion. i mean language is in there that says in whole or in part. now, if we find there's some minor something and we want to slap the wrist we can fine in part. >> so in your view we have the ability to ratchet back sanctions in pieces or in whole? >> if needed or in whole. >> let me if i might turn to secretary moniz in the time i have left about centrifuge development. if you would just -- i'll articulate the question and then if you'd have an answer for me. how long did it take iran to master the centrifuge? what's the difference in performance between the ir-1 and ir-8? and how long do you think it will take iran give p the restrictions of this agreement if observed to master the ir-6 and 8 and then what would the

impact be on their ability to enrich after years 10 to 15? >> so, senator kuhns first of all of course they've been working on it for quite some time. they have some challenges still. in terms of the r and d in the more advanced machines of course first of all the program does substantially shift back in time, their program plans. where they are today is the ir-6 that you mentioned is let's say seven or eight times more powerful than the ir-1. and they are already spinning small cascades of that with uranium. the ir-8, which is projected to be maybe 15 times more powerful is at the mechanical testing stage only. that's what got frozen in in the

interim agreement. >> so if i might in closing, mr. chairman, it would be perfectly reasonable to expect that on a ten-year time horizon the ir-6 and 8, which they're already testing cascades of the 6, they've already got mechanical testing of the 8 under way, it would be reasonable to suspect from a decade from now they'd be 15 times better faster at their enrichment? >> no, we don't believe they will have -- with this schedule we don't think they will be anywhere near ready for industrial scale deployment of those machines certainly not in the decade and for some years thereafter. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> senator brasso. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here. secretary kerry you mentioned a "the washington post" story related to israelis who know what they're talking about. i'd like to point out to you that wasn't even in the newspaper. that was a blog post. and it was written by someone who's been described as a left wing political activist.

and if i have to choose between them and the prime minister of israel prime minister netanyahu, i'm going to stand with the prime minister of israel. but if you want to start talking about the newspaper let's look at yesterday's "new york times" a real news story. some experts questioned verification process in iran accord. first paragraph, the obama administration's claim that the iran nuclear accord provides for airtight verification procedures is coming under challenge from nuclear exports with long experience in monitoring tehran's program. several experts including a former high ranking official at the iaea said a provision that gives iran up to 24 days to grant access to inspectors might enable it to escape detection. quote, a 24-day adjudicated timeline reduces detection probabilities exactly where the system is weakest, detecting undeclared facilities and materials. so i would just say to all three

of you, i find it very telling and very disturbing that the president of the united states decided to go to the united nations on monday before coming to the american people. i think the american people have a right to have their voices heard. we expect to hear from them in august as we head home and listen in town hall meetings across the country. i think congress has the right and the responsibility to provide oversight. secretary kerry, our nation's highest military commanders have very clearly warned the president, have warned you, have warned congress that lifting the arms embargo and current restrictions on ballistic missile technologies to iran would be wrong. on july 7th this year, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, martin dempsey testified before the senate armed services committee. he was unequivocal. he said under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking. under no circumstances. that's what he said.

defense secretary ash carter also testified about iran. he said, we want them to continue to be isolated as a military and limited in terms of the kinds of equipment and materials they're able to get. and just seven days later you did the complete opposite of what our military advisers very clearly warned against. you disregarded the views and the advice of our top military commanders, negotiated away these important restrictions on iran getting deadly military technologies. u.s. negotiators i believe capitulated, surrendered, agreed to lift the arms embargo to get this deal. and russia, i must point out, can gain about $7 billion from arms sales to iran. this administration repeatedly ignores the advice of our military leaders when it comes to important national security decisions. the administration ignored general odearno's recommendations to keep u.s. troops in iraq after 2011.

president obama withdrew all of the troops. the administration ignored secretary leon panetta's chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and martin dempseys recommendations to arm vetted syrian rebels. the administration is now coming to congress once again ignoring the advice and recommendations of our military leaders. this time it's about iran. mr. secretary how can you justify ignoring this advice and the judgment of military commanders responsible for securing the safety of the american people? >> well, senator, we didn't. i work with marty dempsey, i have great respect for him. we heard what he said very clearly. and i respect what he said, which is why we have the eight years and why we have the five years. in fact, we held out very, very strongly to keep them. and the fact is senator during those five years and those eight years we have all the options available to us in the world to strengthen or find other means

or deal with those very issues. so they're not gone. they're there. we respected his advice. moreover, we have additional capacities to be able to deal with missiles. we have the lethal military equipment sanctions provision in the foreign assistance act. we have iran's 1996 iran's action act. we have the iran and arms proliferation act. those are unilateral tools, by the way. we have a bunch of multilateral tools, proliferation security initiative with a hundred countries which works to help limit iranian missile-related imports and exports. we have the missile control technology regime, which does a lot to prevent the growth of any missile capacity. so there are many things we will continue to do but it didn't go away. we actually kept it. and we kept it notwithstanding the fact that three out of seven

of the negotiating parties wanted to get rid of it altogether. we can i want. next thing on the u.n. you know we fought for the prerogatives of the congress. but you know, six of the seven countries we were negotiating with are not beholden to the united states congress. if their parliaments pass something and said you got to do this or that and you were being told what to do, you'd be pretty furious. they were negotiating under the united nations. and their attitude was we finish negotiation, we ought to be able to conclude our agreement and put it before the u.n. and we said wait a minute, our congress needs to be able to review this. so we got them to accept a 90-day provision in the agreement for nonimplementation. they're respecting our desire and we're respecting your

desire. for 90 days there's no implementation of this. if they had their way they'd be implementing it now. immediately. but they're not. so i respectfully suggest that we have to have a balancing here of interests and equities. i think we have preserved the prerogative of congress. the same consequences will apply if you refuse to do this deal with the u.n. vote as without it. same consequences. and none of us have sat here and thrown the u.n. vote at you. we're simply saying this is a multilateral agreement that's been negotiated by seven countries. i'd say the same thing if i was here without the u.n. vote. >> you know, it's interesting secretary lew you said a deal our partners believe is a good one. and secretary kerry, you had talked about the p5+1 and you said and they're not dumb. well, i agree with that. they're not dumb. and it makes me though wonder if russia truly is our partner in this. we've pressed the reset button. we saw how that failed.

we sue putin's belligerence around the world. i believe russia and tehran teamed up against the united states during these negotiations. >> actually, the iranians were furious at the russians on any number of accounts. the russians they felt were not cooperative with them and didn't help them. you're exactly wrong. >> well, that's -- time will judge us on all of that. but just coming back from ukraine and seeing what's happening as well as from astonia, and i can see the be belligerence and aggression of russia. thank you. mr. chairman, my time has expired. >> it's my understanding you guys want to keep rolling for a while and not take a break. is that correct? >> i didn't know that. i don't know. >> that's what julia mentioned to us. but if you want to -- why don't we take a five-minute break. y'all are -- five minute break

taken. >> i have to be over at the house is my problem. they don't have to be there, i have to be at the house. you have to be at the house also. supposed to be at the house in 20 minutes. >> you want to keep going then? >> well, i'm happy to try to get whatever we can in those 15 20 minutes if you'll allow me to hobble over there for a minute and then come back. i'd appreciate it. >> hobble away. thank you. >> you guys go ahead. >> we'll take a break. accidentally transferred to several labs across the u.s. now we'll take you back live to the hearing room. senate foreign relations committee secretary kerry coming

back into the room. >> -- each of us i think will be very brief to try to finish up before you go over to the house. i want to make just a couple points and move to senator card in in. on the pmd issue, it's my belief whether that is resolved in an a-plus fashion or d-minus fashion, the sanctions relief will continue. and i will say that salahi today stated by december 15th at the end of the year the issue of pmd should be decided. the iaea will submit its report

it will only submit it joint comprehensive plan of action will continue independently as a result of this report. that's exactly the way that i read the agreement. i don't see any debate there. secondly again i believe that the secretary continues to create a false narrative about where we are. i would just like to remind him of the letter from secretary geithner to senator levin on december 1st 2011, when senator menendez had an amendment to the ndaa regarding the cbi sanctions. and here's what he said. however it's currently conceived this amendment threatens severe sanctions against any commercial bank or central bank if they engage in certain transactions with the cbi. this could affect negatively affect many of our closest allies and largest trading partners. and highlighted rather than motivating these countries to join us in increasing pressure

on iran they are more likely to resent our actions and resist following our lead. a consequence in that would serve the iranians more than it harms. and obviously that wasn't the case. obviously through u.s. leadership it actually calls them to come to the table. again, i think that you unfairly characterized where we are in that i do believe with your leadership and others if congress were to decide this was not something worth alleviating the con gregsly mandated sanctions a different outcome could occur. but with that senator carden. >> i want to follow up on that point with secretary lew. because i'm in agreement that we have in congress been the strongest on sanction-type of legislation whether it relates to the nuclear activityies of iran or whether it relates to terrorism or the missile program.

and whether it's the obama administration or the bush administration or any previous administration, they'd prefer to act on their own rather than having congress provide the framework. in reality it's worked to america's advantage. and what's given us a strong position to go internationally to get sanctions imposed. so it's worked. bottom line the system has worked for u.s. leadership. so secretary lew, i am concerned. and i started with this question, i'm going to come back to it. paragraph 26 says we will refrain from re-introducing or reimposing the sanctions that have been terminated. you've gone through some of the things we can do for nonnuclear related activities, but if it's an institution say the central bank of iran that is getting relief fund under this jcpoa, and we have clear evidence that they've been involved in sanctionable activities that are nonnuclear related can we sanction them under this

agreement? >> absolutely. >> senator carden i've tried to be clear. if there are nonnuclear sanctions being imposed, we have retained all of our -- >> including an institution -- >> including institutions that are delisted. it can't put pretext -- >> i understand. if we have clear evidence that iran has used its crude oil sales in a way that has furthered nonnuclear sanctionable type of activities can we go back to the crude oil issue if we have clear evidence that that would further provide relief in regards to a nonnuclear activity? >> i think in principle we have not taken any of the means that we have of applying economic pressure off the table for nonnuclear purposes. >> so it could be sectorial to the types of relief they receive under this agreement? >> it would have to be justified based on a nonnuclear basis.

>> okay. that's very helpful. so we are going to be free to have some interesting discussions as we move forward. second point and this is secretary kerry, quickly. i'm very happy to hear you say about our strong commitment in the region. these security issues are changing. they're changing for israel. they're changing for our allies. no question with isis and north africa, in syria, in addition to iran. if you'll just quickly, how we are committed to making sure that israel is secure in that region with a true and trusted partnership with the united states to meet any challenge that they may confront as a result of the changing circumstances? >> thank you, senator. first of all i begin by saying that i'm proud i had 100% voting record for 29 years here on the subject of israel. and i have worked as hard as

anybody here. i think you know over the last years to try to meet theeds needs with respect to peace and stability demands for israel. we are completely -- i mean i think it's fair to say that even with this disagreement we are constantly in touch and working with the intel community with their folks. and we continue to dialogue about the threats of israel. we understand those threats. they are real. they're existential. and there's no debate in this administration whatsoever about our willingness to commit anything and everything necessary to be able to provide for the security of israel. now, we believe that security of israel will also be enhanced by not only this agreement but by bringing the gulf states together in a way that can deal with some of the problems of the region and particularly dash,

assad, syria and so forth. that's very much on our agenda at this point in time. >> thank you. i'll yield back my time. >> i do want to say there's a significant disagreement among our allies and iran over the issue that was answered relative to reapplying nuclear sanctions in other areas. i'd love for you to develop a letter. i'm sure iran wouldn't sign it but one where great britain, france and germany and the eu agree with the statement you just made. because i just met with them and my impression, maybe i don't understand things correctly was they are in strong disagreement with the statement that you just made. senator johnson. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think it's abundantly clear from this hearing is that this is obviously complex. this agreement is subject to different interpretations. which kind of leads me to believe, and i'm not blaming you or the administration, i blame iran, i just believe this is going to end like our sanctions and the program against north korea. i think in the end iran will

have nuclear weapon with ballistic missile technology. so that's why i want to quick go back to secretary moniz. i was surprised, i'd say disappointed, that you weren't aware of the recommendations from the 2008 emp commission report. by the way -- again, i guess i caught you by surprise. you weren't expecting that for this hearing. just so you know that was commissioned by the 2001 national defense authorization act. they reported in 2004 and 2008. and this is something certainly i'd heard about before i ever came here and this is "star wars" stuff and couldn't possibly happen. but again you've acknowledged knowing dr. richard garwin correct? a brilliant man. >> yes. >> worked with enrico referred to as one of the true geniuses he'd ever known. >> dick is a national resource. >> he testified. and my ranking member during the hearing said he looked into this and somebody said it was it's a

growing threat when you have north korea, potentially a state like iran if this thing turns out like north korea, we have multiple threats of this. particularly in light of the fact we know iran has been testing a potential emp attack using a scud missile off of a ship. which would be one of our threats particularly on the southern border where we have no defense or particularly a satellite orbiting. so i want to make sure you're fully aware of that because the 2008 emp commission pretty well tasked dhs and department of energy as the two lead departments to enact their 15 recommendations. again, they're pretty basic recommendations. evaluate and implement quick fixes, assure availability of equipment, replacement equipment. again, what dr. garwin report -- and this is what i thought was actually pretty encouraging, is if we would just protect 700

transformers to the tune of about $100,000 per transformer, that's only $70 million. but again it's been seven years, seven years since that recommendation and the secretary department of energy didn't really know anything about it. i'm just asking you -- >> can i clarify though, senator? >> go ahead. >> i know something about emp. i don't know that specific report. and including the effects and as i said -- and also by the way i will dick garwin also does a lot of work with our osdp, i will talk with dr. holden the president's adviser maybe this is an administration wide thing we can do and consult with you on that but i want to emphasize in april we did our energy infrastructure report. and the issues of transformers and emp and other threats were there. and furthermore we have made a recommendation about going forward in a public-private

partnership to potentially establish a transformer reserve in addition. so i would love to discuss this. i just don't know that particular report. i know the issues. >> we'll probably call you in for a hearing in front of my committee homeland security. these remgcommendations issued in 2008, it's seven years later. of the 15 remgcommendations we've done virtually nothing. this is a real threat. america needs to understand certainly the secretary of department of energy needs to be aware of these recommendations and working toward their implementation. and there's a relatively quick fix quite honestly add is an amendment to authorize spending $70 million -- it's imperfect, but it goes a long way toward protecting some of those transformers. i hope you'll be supportive of that. >> senator menendez. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. secretary lew, i basically understood your answers to my previous question.

that you have no intention of seeking reauthorization of the iran sanctions act, an act that in october 3rd of 2013 entitled -- in a hearing entitled reversing iran's nuclear program heralded as critical. negotiation on iran's nuclear program, another hearing, they both said the same thing and talked about the important congressional sanctions. so seems to me that if you want a deterrent, iran has to know consequences. maybe it will never be called into play. that's fine. that's good. hopefully they won't be called into play. but they need to know what the consequences are. and so as far as i'm concerned i think we should be moving to reauthorize the sanctions that congress passed. and that expire next year. and let the iranians know that if they violate those are one of the things they're going to have to go back to. so i'm going to move to reauthorize them because i think

it needs to be part of the deter deterrant. do you believe iran will be and should be a regional power? >> do i believe that they should be in the future or something? >> will be and should be a regional power? >> well, i think to some degree there's an element of power in what they're doing now. i don't know about the will be. do i want them to be? not in the way that they behaved today. no. >> i'm glad to hear that because, you know, the president in the column with tom friedman said that the truth of the matter is that iran will be and should be a regional power. but that's a pretty bold statement about a country that is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world as defined by our government. it would have to be a dramatically different iran to have any aspirations. >> and the president knows that.

>> let me ask you one final thing. you're an excellent, excellent lawyer. and when you can get to argue something both ways, if you can achieve that that's great. so i've heard you argue we will have everything on the table that we have today. we will have the sanctions. we will have a military option. then i've also heard you say sanctions is not going to get iran to stop its nuclear program in terms of -- and a military option will only deter them for three years. so isn't really what you're saying that at the end of the day we hope that iran will change its course over the next ten to 15 years? that if they violate we'll get notice from three months that we had to 12 months, a year. but at the end of the day neither sanctions nor military option is going to if i listen

to you your arguments, no military option is going to ultimately deter iran if they decide to do so. so doesn't that in essence say to us that we are reconciled at the end of the day if they want to? to accept iran as a nuclear weapon? >> absolutely, positively not. not in the closest of imagination. i'll tell you why. they're not going to be sanctioned into submission. we've seen that. they have what is called their resistance economy. there are limits to what our friends and allies are able and willing to do. you know the challenge we've had in just bringing people along on ukraine. bringing people along particularly the russians and chinese over a length of time is going to be very very difficult. they're sort of a half-life if you will to keep the sanctions pressure in place.

in addition to that on the military option we all know as it's described to us by the military it's a two or three-year deal. now, that option that is real. it's a last resort option. if you can't make diplomacy work, if you can't succeed in putting together a protocol they have to follow which by which they live, guarantees they won't have a weapon that's sort of your last resort. but it shouldn't be the first resort. it shouldn't be the place you force yourself to go to. given the structure of this agreement we have a much better option. because whatever it is, 15 years, 20 years whatever the moment is that the alarm bells go off on a civil nuclear program which has 24/7 access, which has inspectors which we will know has suddenly moved from 5% to 10% to 20% enrichment, all the alarm bells go off. we'll have the ability to bring those nations back together.

the question is do you have the sort of readiness and willingness of those countries to come together because you've honored the process and worked through a process? or are you start pushing them away -- sanctions obviously brought them to the table. >> or come together for a military option, which at the end of the day will deter but not end it? i just don't understand the proposition. sounds like your proposition will be there whether it is today or whether there's a violation in the future. >> no, senator because i believe this deal in fact achieves what we need to achieve now. we wouldn't have come to you. we wouldn't have signed this. i assure you, germany, france, britain, would not have signed this agreement all of us together on the same day if we didn't have a sense of confidence that this is doing the things we need to do shutting off the iranian path shutting off the plutonium path, shutting off the covert path and so forth. and we believe it does that.

that's why we're here. we believe it does that. now, the proof will be in the implementation. we all know that. but we have a sufficient cushion here of those years because of the very dramatic steps iran has agreed to take and to implement. we have a very real cushion during which time we have a chance of building up confidence. i'm not going to sit here and tell you that's absolutely going to work 100%. i believe it will. but if they don't comply i do have confidence we're going to knownoncompliance, and then we have the options available to us that we have today. >> mr. chairman i know secretary kerry said he had to leave at 2:30. >> we do i'm afraid. >> we have a couple more witnesses. so if that's a hard time i think -- >> it is a hard time. i actually have to be at the house right now. >> okay. listen, obviously this is a serious matter that the three of

you spent a tremendous amount of time over the last two years. we appreciate your patience with us today in testifying the way you have. we appreciate your service to our country. julia, who i know is having a heart attack as staffer we thank you and hope you have a good meeting with the house of representatives. thank you. >> thank you very much.

pressure enormous pressures on families and budgets. my mission for my first day as president to the last will be to raise the income of hard-working americans, so they can, once again afford a middle-class life. we need to -- [applause] >> we need to tend wage stagnation that's holding back our families and holding back our country. this is a defining economic challenge. it gets to the core of who we are to the nation. if you work hard and do your

part, you should be able to get ahead and stay ahead. and when you get ahead, our country gets ahead too. last week at the new school i layed out a broad economic agenda that works for everyone. it's an agenda for fair growth, long-term growth and in the days ahead i will continue to outline plans in all these areas for setting ambitious goals. today i want to focus in particular on long-term growth. consider this fact, a survey of corporate executive have, if it

meant missing a target in the next quarterly earning's report. more than 60% said the pressure to provide short-term return had increased over the previous five years. we also know that publicly held companies facing presh from shareholders are less likely to invest than their counter parts. large public companies now return eight or nine out of every 10 dz they own either in form of dwid eendz. last year a total record of $900 billion. that doesn't leave much money to build a new factory or a a research lab or to train workers

or give them a raise. in fact, according to to wall street journal between 2003 and 2013 while typical companies doubled the share of cash flow they spent on they actual cut on equipment. a culture of short-term speculation, one other concern business leader calls a quarterly capitalism. they are responding from real pressures from shareholders and the margaret to turn in good quarterly numbers. investors are looking for good reliable return but it is clear that the system is out of

balance. the deck is stacked in too many ways and powerful pressures and inken activist -- it is neither legally required nor economically sound. it is bad for wages and our economy and fixing it will be good for everyone. an increasing number of business leaders, investors and academics are mobilizing to change the culture and to better align incentives for long-term growth. if the sake of our economy and country, we need to stand with them. google and space x are investing to what does little in bottom

line. venture capitalist are nurturing the next disruptive are putting the memory of crisis behind them and putting making new investments in technologies of the future including advanced batteries. companies that prosper by investing and improving training are becoming industry models. thanks to pressure from workers the trend has even extended to mcdonald's and walmart. you may have heard that i am fan of chipotle, it's not because of

their burrito bowl. it announced that it will pay paid sick days to part time employees. [applause] >> thighs are all smart long-term investments that will and do pay off for companies workers and our associate. they point to an important question for the future of our economy, how do we define shareholder value in the 21st century. is it maximizing in the returns or delivering long-term growth? of course, we want to do both. today more often in the expense of the ladder. real value is lasting value.

we all know that in our own lives. i learned it watching my father sled over the printing table in the small printing shop in chicago. it wasn't good enough to be secure for today, what mattered was tomorrow and what's true in life is also true in business. real value comes from long-term growth not short-term profits. it comes from building companies, not stripping them. from creating good jobs, not eliminating them. from seeing workers as assets and not costs to be cut. america needs to be free so they can do what they do best,

invest, build tomorrow's prosperity. it's time to start measuring value in terms of years for the next decade, not just the next quarter. that is one the ways we can raise income, help families get ahead and deliver real value for shareholders. they -- there are smart to be made by public sectors for long-term growth. reforms that many forward-thinking business leaders themselves have been calling for. i mentioned five areas of focus today, but this list should be the beginning of the discussion, not the end. first i'm proposing a reform of taxes on capital gains. to promote and reward farsighted

investments. the current definition of a long-term holding period just one year is inadequate. that may count as long-term for my baby granddaughter but not for the american economy. it's no way to run a tax system. so as president i would move to a six-year sliding scale that provides real incentives for long-term investments. families earning more than $465,000 a year any gains from selling stock in the first two years would be taxed just like ordinary income until it returns to current rate. this means that from the moment investors buy into a company they would be more focused on strategic than in the profits and so will some executives that

will be paid with stocks and stock options whether it's conducted over days, hours or even milliseconds. we should offer the chance to eliminate capital gain taxes all together including start-ups. this should go hand and hand with expanded new market tax credit which also encourages investment in poor or remote communities and helps prevent downward spirals like plant closings and layoffs. i want to see more investors unlike the potential of a struggling business try to go

get on its feet or the community that lost the factory where generations of families worked but now is eager to build a new future. that's long-term growth at its best. of course, i understand that these things to the tax code alone will not ship investors focus. i believe this reform is an important first step toward removing incentives that push us to quarterly capt -- capitalism. last week i called for closing and implementing the buffet rule. in the months ahead i'll address other loopholes that rig our tax

road for those at the top. the second area where action is needed is to address the influence of assertive shareholders determined to extract maximum profit in the minimum amount of time even at the expense of future growth. now so-called shareholders it's good thing they put pressure. but that's very different from these hit and run whose goal is an immediate payout from pursuing strategies that would at long-term value to the economy. even iconic businesses like apple have felt this pressure.

so we need a new generation of committed long-term investors to provide a counter weight to the hit and run. some institutional investors are begin to go push back. we need more funds. 70% of the share in the largest one thousand u.s. companies. they have unmatched influence and therefore unmatched obligation to guide companies toward strategics focused on long-term value. there are things government should do as well. as president i would order a few review of regulations, some of which haven't been reexamined in decades let alone modernize to reflect changing realities in

our economy. we also have to take a hard look at stock buybacks. they need more information about these transactions. capital markets work best when information is promptly and widely available to all. other advanced economies like united kingdom and hong kong, but here in the united states you can go an entire quarter without disclosing. lets change that. reforming executive compensation. we cannot address without making sure that incentives or ceos are more focused on long-term growth and strength of the companies and less on short-term fluctuation and share price.

now i am all for rewarding ceos well and their employees also share in reward. but there is something wrong when senor executives get rich while employees struggle. there's something wrong when they allow pay packages that aren't based on credible assessments of executive performance or a company's long-term interest. 30 years ago top ceos made 50 times what a typical worker did. today 300 times more. it just doesn't make sense. they managed to get by with reasonable compensation. it would be good for our economy and company to compensating all

employees when productivity in increases. many stock have a pay packages, have created an incentive for executives to seek big payouts that would come from share price. we ended up encouraging some same short-term thinking. in addition while legislation passed in 2010 called for new regulations regarding disclosure of executive compensation have yet to be put in place to publish the ratio of ceo and paycheck of employees.

workers have a right to know whether executive pay at their company has gotten out of balance and so does the public. we need to take several steps here defend and finally get the promise rules on the books. reform the performance tax deductions for top executives, expand disclosure requirements on the say-on-pay rule. now, a crucial fourth area for reform is how we empower workers and make sure they are seen at the engine that they are. well paid and trained employees work for efficiently and stay on the job longer and provide better customer service. those rewards can be harder to

measure than in in the payroll. job training has fallen by more than one-third in the past two decades even as the premium has increased in a competitive global economy. even when training program's do exist, too few are focused on providing sectoral skills. a long-term decision making at many companies, and it's no surprise that we've seen corporate investment and human capital decline as well. i think we need to start try to go reverse all of these trends. as president, i will fight to defend worker rights, in this campaign i proposed a

1,500-dollar apprenticeship tax credit as well as a plan to encourage more companies to create profit programs. i also called raising minimum wage and implementing new rules on over time. the national minimum wage is a floor and it needs to be raised, but lets also remember that the cost of living in manhattan is different than little rock or many other places, new york, los ángeles are to go higher. lets also face up to the fact that washington may well be the worst offender of all when it comes to term thinking. that is the fifth area of reform that is desperately needed.

[applause] >> to another. that just creates more uncertainty for businesses, for investors and our country. you know, i've been asking a lot of business leaders with whom i have talked, what are a couple of things that you would love to see happen, they always say we need more predictability, we have no idea what's going to come out of washington. we can deal with whatever does, when we don't know, when it does come when the government shutdowns, that interferes with our business and particularly with global business, which is kind of an obvious thing to say but i hope people in washington will pay attention. and lets stop pouring sub --

[applause] >> start investing in the future to create millions of more new jobs in the new economy we should be making smart investments and infrastructure, education, clean energy that will help businesses grow and create the next generation of high-paying jobs. we know the investment that would be made in these areas have very high return, there's no excuse not to make them and to make them now. for example we should improve and make permanent the research tax credit. every few years congress has another squabble. isn't it time to start kicking the can down the road and

actually got down to doing the people's business? as important as specific reform aye outlined here are the fight against poorly capitalism is not in washington alone. the public sector has to rise to this challenge. we're already seeing a movement, investors, employees are starting to step up. they earn good returns doing that. we need to build on this momentum. it's time to return to an old-faced idea that companies responsibility to their their shareholders employees customers, community and ultimately our country and our planet. the strength of -- [applause]

>> the strength of american cap -- capitalism has depended on ability generation after generation. we can't lose site of that. i'm pleased that since 2010, 31 states have enacted benefit corporation which allow companies to pursue both profit and social purpose. senator warner suggest that had we recognize a new corporate form and reward companies that invest in their workers. that proposal has real merit and we should explore further. we know that strong sustainable growth can only happen when communities are thying -- when

he decided he was going to be paying his workers as i recall $5 a day and a lot of his pierce rose up, how can you do this you're going to throw off the labor market, i need people to buy them. our economy is not running like it should because we're not putting enough money in the paycheck of enough americans so that they in turn can be fueling this consumption economy which not only holds up the american economy but holds up the global economy. it's in everyone's interest including corporate america to contribute to a vibrant middle class. as president, i won't try to impose a one-size fits all solution, i will impose to bring

all relevant parties together and move solid long-term growth and investment. just imagine how different our history would have been if short-termism had dominated earlier eras the way it does today, what it had per saud to maximize cash flow and close before the laser was invented there? a young job would never have visited. what if they had shutdown the defense advance research project agency before it developed the

early internet? today we face a choice between the future and past. republicans running for president seem totally unconcerned about the problem of quarterly capitalism, their policies would make it worst. most would eliminate capital gains with no incentives. of course, they further strip worker rights and weeken bargaining power. mirrors the worst tend eveningies of hit and run shareholders demanding payouts for the wealthy. they ignore long-term challenges like climate change, poverty and inequality. just look at the current mess in

congress with the highway bill. we can't afford to return to the same out of touch, out of date policy that had wrecked the economy before. that's the only way we will renew the basic bargain of america, you know it if you work hard you should be able to get ahead and stay ahead, and when you do, america gets ahead too. that's the only way we're going to build an american economy for tomorrow not yesterday. i invite you to join me in this discussion, i am looking for new creative disruptive ideas that will save capitalism for the 21 century because it is the great engine of economy opportunity and potential that has ever been

invented. it's one of the great accomplishments of the american political and economy history. it created the opportunities that so many generations of americans took advantage of and that led to the middle class the extraordinary economy accomplishments of our country. and as we've had to do it needs to be put back into balance. it needs to reck nice -- recognize that we are all in this together. the better we all do, the more there will be for everybody to share in, to invest in to profit from. so i ask you and particular here at stern the students and

faculty and others who are studying business, help us think through the best ways to change the culture to move it back to where it used to be, which was much more focused on long-term investing with the results of the extraordinary prosperity that we enjoyed for decades. we have new challenges from technology and globalization and other big problems on the horizon like climate change, financial. that is what we are best at doing, we are problem solvers. it is always about tomorrow. love that song, don't stop thinking about tomorrow. [applause] >> >> help my think about it and lets make it happen. thank you all very much.

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪

>> announced he's running for president last week becoming the 16th republican candidate. some of the topics were national security the economy and u.s. energy policy. this road to the white house event is just over an hour. [applause] >> ok. there you go. see. you know doug was the speaker of the house but you know who the real speaker of the house is,

come on. they are great great people. i could tell you a lot of stories but let me get kind of to it so you can ask questions as well. we get in the car, i wish some of you would get in the car with us. it's so much fun. he's smarter than i am. how about one more round of applause. [applause] >> so i -- i don't think that you've heard this before speaker, let me tell you a little story i grew up in a little town outside of pittsburgh. my father carried mail in his back. my mother's mother spoke very limited english. my mother -- she was very

opinionated and, you know not like me, i'm shy. just a terrific woman. she was not educated. that's not what they did. it's one little thing i think about sometime, what my mother could have been. there weren't any republicans that lived in that town. they were reagan democrats. they were the ones that did all the work. they -- i really -- there was one guy that lived on our street that wore a white shirt. i never saw a white shirt. love america, all that stuff. i left that little town of high school and went to ohio state. i was there for about a month and i got very concerned about some things so i decided that i

needed to have a president of the university. my uncle said you start at the stop johnny. i kept calling and finally they did. he was a very impressive guy. he was tall and a beautiful office rug desk. he says to me what's on your mind and i tell him. i've been here about 30 days. maybe the job for me. [laughs] >> what exactly do you do? so he told me about his fund raising because that's what presidents do. he said tomorrow i'm going to fly the washington and have a meeting with president nixon.

sir, there's a number of things that i would love to talk to him about also. could i go with you? and he said, no. i said, well, if i go back to my dorm room and write a letter, would you give it to the president. he said, i guess i could do that. i went back to my dorm room and sketched out a letter to the president and signed it. if you like to discus this let me know, i'll come see you. a couple of weeks later i went down to my mailbox, i open it up, i call home. my mother answers the home and i said mom, the president of the united states will like to have a meeting honey pick up the phone, there's something wrong with johnny, ok.

true story. [laughs] >> so i go home and this meeting is going to be in december. i'm home for first-quarter break. they get my a ticket, drive me to the airport get out of the car, she says, johnny, when you get down there, they're not going to let you in but don't worry about it. i flew down. i go through the gait. i'm sitting right outside the oval office. you're going to get five minutes alone with the president of the united states. what do you think? do you think that's pretty good? i have a new jacket, new shirt, new pants i didn't come for five lousy minutes. they opened up the door and there's the oval office, right.

president of the united states. i walk in, we shake hands and take a few pictures, i spend 20 minutes alone with the president of the united states as a 18-year-old first quarter freshman. the bad news is i spent 18 years in congress. [laughs] >> but it's -- it really has been folks it's been a story of my life and i can't -- i'm grateful to the lord that i've had opportunities and blessings. i'm just trying today the -- to do the best i can. i relied on ladies like this and

like this, no acts to grind normal folks the weekend before the election they said i was a nice young man but i was going to get slaughtered. i was a republican, the house was democrat and i know it's more important to pursue policy than politics, so i was 26 i spent four years. on election night my mother and father were there johnny, what are you doing now and then irán for congress four years later and irán with reagan, ok. i was involved in the convention in 1976, i was a big reagan guy. when i say that i knew reagan and worked with him at the convention. how could you not be inspired by

ronald reagan. i had a chance to be with him. irán with the regan agenda. nobody wanted to appear with him. it was great i got to spend more time with him. i was the only republican in combat in america. goi -- i go to washington now. my first on the committee i was one of the people that found hammers that cost thousands of dollars. i took the hammers and screwdrivers that the retiring colonel gave me and my chairman was a guy who had his leg blown off in world war ii a democrat.

so i go down there and i said, sir, i've got this stuff hammer screwdriver and he just looks at it. your momma doesn't have anymore like you, does she? this was a whole bunch of change for him to see this. improved it. many miles to go now, but -- so i was on defense for 18 years and it was incredible. i served with some of the greatest minds. i got to sit across the table from john howard. incredible people. so i learned a lot in those eight years. i wrote my first budget in 1989. the vote on my budget was 435 no

and 30 yes. what would you think about that? [laughs] >> yeah, so i went back, my staff was depressed. they wrote the budget with me. are you kidding me? we have 29 other people that think we ought to run the country. this is fantastic. year after year john came as we had gathered momentum. i want to tell you one thing. in 94 we elected a class of republicans who didn't give a whip they didn't care about politics, it was remarkable. and then after ten long years in 1997 i was one of the chief architects we paid down

publicly-held debt. i left washington. i was a television star on fox news. i traveled all over the country and learned about business, which is so critical in terms of what motivates ceos. ten years i was out. i felt a calling. if we're really not here to serve others, i don't know why we're here. we can work some golf from time to time. irán for -- i ran for governor, and four and a half years later we went to 8 billion in the

whole. we're up 350,000 jobs, our credit is rock solid and if you have mental illness druk -- drug addicted, member of the minority community you're in our family. you are in our family. no one gets left behind. and then i was rewarded, and after my first year in office i had 28% approval rating. you had to work everyday and be that bad. the second highest in history. creating job and opportunity

people feel included. one job creation is our highest moral. it's our highest moral goal. getting people growth is what it's all about. terrible growth. we have to get the economy going and we need to balance our budget. we need to get on the track today it. i've done it before, we'll do it again. secondly as people feel that things are getting better every american has to be invited in. no one can feel as though they are out they don't matter, they don't count. i'm a behavior that this country is great. that's what i've tried today all of my lifetime. yesterday was an interesting day. that's why i made a decision to announce that i was running for

president of the united states. it took a little bit away from it, that was ok. his son was very happy. i picked his birthday to do that. that's any story, let me take some questions. speaker, you get to pick the folks? how was that? [applause] >> ok. [laughs] >> i'm not sure i like being called the pumpkin. it's a pleasure to have you here today.

.. it's been happening over time. there are too many bureaucrats that are running things inside the pentagon, almost a million. we know that these people doing all this stuff, things don't get done in the government. if you were bloated whether

you're a business or a government, it just doesn't work. it's one of the reasons why privatize economic development in ohio because doing to the government, we just couldn't move at the speed of business at all. the same is true inside the pentagon. it needs an entire makeover. and then we need to make sure that we are buying the weapons systems when you. we need to rebuild our navy strengthen our army, to be able to battle the problem of cybersecurity. in order to do this some of what we have to do should involve the private sector. let me tell you a story. after 9/11 i got a phone call to go and meet with the former secretaries of defense at the pentagon with secretary rumsfeld. i have no idea why he invited me but i went to the meeting. as i sat there i began to learn that we were actually not doing well on the technology front. so i suggested in this meeting

that we bring some of the best minds from silicon valley because it was working out there. i knew these people, to hope was to deal with this technology problem. so by the way i brought these two guys once name is larry page and the other one is sergei. when i met them for dinner out in california after the meeting at the pentagon they came to me in a volkswagen with and line skates tight to the rough. let me tell you these guys are. you may have heard of their company. it's called google. we took some of the best and the brightest people inside of the pentagon come and rumsfeld from time to time would convene a meeting and thank these people for the work that they were doing to solve some of the technology problems. we need to do more of that. we need to be less paranoid and use more common sense what comes to solving these big problems because bureaucrats, god bless them, you can trip over one

another and not get the job done. secondly, when it comes to people like isis, it's either going to pay me now or pay me a heck of a lot played. i've been saying for months that we should have the coalition of people that will go to begin to destroy the organization called isis, okay? i think we need to do it. [applause] so people say people say well you know the polls are not good for putting boots on the ground, okay? winter leaders have to be doing this? because you know when leaders to do this, they don't have any followers. i mean, this is something that has to be dealt with. let's just do it okay? we can rally to support other public. we need good intelligence. we need human intelligence. we degraded our intelligence. snowden ought to be locked up for a thousand years for what he did, i mean just a terrible

thing. [applause] even in my state i get intelligence briefings. we don't want to lose her civil liberties. i give credit to rand paul forcing that we should have a balance between security and liberty. we can't let the security. we can't have the information but we don't want the government having all this stuff come in my opinion. i don't want them looking into everything i do. i think we can strike a good balance and then we have to be prepared. but want to tell you i know that this stuff is unnerving to people, scary in a way. but look, we've been through a civil war, racial violence depression, world wars, 9/11 can't we just feel good a little bit? okay can't we start to enjoy being americans again? i think we can. you're never going to stop everything but we can stop a lot of it come and we do every single day.

so when it comes to those recruiting stations, they are just one piece of this whole thing but rebuild our defense of our allies respect us. we have given what we see. no more red lines. no more i'm going to have a red light at them walk away from the. all we do still people we are week. one other thing i want to say to you. i was telling john this on the way up here. there is no religion that i am familiar with not on the face of the earth, in the history of mankind that says that for you to go to paradise, yugoslavia and kill somebody that you've never even met. and i tell you something. i think we got to lead the world in making it clear that is that's a just complete apostasy. and it is unacceptable to humankind, and that's a part of the message in my opinion that we need to have said loudly across thi