witnessing a miracle. going back to women's hospital when i was born when my dad was there with the doctor he went to the doctor and here's the amazing thing, our other two kids were born at the hospital. it took us hours to fill out the paperwork, and we had good insurance. my parents' insurance didn't cover me so my dad went to the doctor, no contracts, no government programs, no paperwork. my dad went to the doctor and said, i'm going to send you a check every month until i pay this bill in full. and then two men stood there and they shook hands and that was it. [ applause ] that's just how things were done back then. you know it was a simpler time. i asked my dad, how would that work today exactly? how do you pay for a baby on layaway? i mean if you skip a payment can they take the baby back? what do they do, repossess the baby? he said, trust me, you're such a

bad little baby, you were such a bad little baby, we made every payment. we would have sent you back if that was an option, so you're paid for. the reason i tell you all that, i want to share with you two things my dad would tell my brother and me every day. mark twain says the older we get the smarter our parents become. you know, there's a lot of truth in that. i don't know about you but i hate the fact that as i get older i'm turning more and more in to my father. i say things he used to say to us that i hated. he used to tell us if your friends jump off a bridge, would you jump off a bridge? i hated when he said that i say it to my kids. one of the things he would tell my brother and me every day was sons i'm not leaving you a famous last name or an inheritance. but i will make sure you get a great education. he said if you're billing to work hard there's no limit to what you can do in this great country. the second thing he tells us, he'd say boys every day you need to pray and give thanks to god

that you are blessed to be born in the greatest country in the history of the world. the united states of america. [ applause ] now i'll be honest with you, i didn't really appreciate that. as a child, everybody i knew was born in america. so what does it really mean? to give thanks and to be grateful for this great country? well now i think i understand better as i'm trying to teach my own children but i want to describe to you two threats. two threats that threaten the ability of our children to say that same prayer every night as they go to bed, and one day our grandchildren. the first is an external threat. the second is an internal threat. the external threat. we as a nation have got to take seriously the threat of radical islamic terrorism. [ applause ] for some reason we've got a president who doesn't even like to use those words to describe the enemy that we face.

now unfortunately this is not just a threat in syria and iraq it's not even just a threat in paris, or australia anymore. the recent events in garland, texas, show us this threat is in our country. i was thankful that those two terrorists were sent to their afterlife. by the way, maybe there's a lesson in there. maybe texas and louisiana and south carolina, maybe those aren't the best places, you know, we're states i don't know about you but in our states we think of gun control we think that means hitting your target that you're aiming at. [ applause ] back in january i gave a speech in london that the left just got hysterical about, got upset about. i talked about the threat of radical islamic terrorism and i said this. i said islam has got a problem and it's called radicalism.

and muslim leaders have an obligation, they've got a responsibility. we need the president of the united states, we need our leaders to demand and say to muslim leaders to clerics across the world, they must do two things. the first, they must announce these individual terrorists. it's not enough to condemn generic acts of violence. by name they've got to condemn these individuals and make clear these are not martyrs. they're not going to enjoy a reward in the afterlife but rather they are going straight to hell where they belong. [ applause ] and the second thing i said more recently is muslim leaders must also do this. they must say that they tolerate and respect the freedoms of others with religious beliefs different from their own. [ applause ]

i will warn you when you say things like that the left will call you racist. they will call you anti-muslim. it is not racist. it is not anti-muslim. to simply demand to demand that these leaders condemn these terrorists, these thugs these evil, evil individuals. but you know it is mind boggling to me as we face this threat we've got a president, a commander in chief, who likes to spend his time at the national prayer breakfast with just one example. likes to spend his time warning us about the threat of the crusades. i've got a deal for president obama. if he will do his job as commander in chief and hunt down and kill and kill those radical islamic terrorists, and keep us safe i'll make a deal with him, i'll be more than happy to take responsibility, i'll be on the lookout for these medieval christians in case they make a comeback. [ applause ]

the second threat we face to this american dream is an internal threat. it's not an external threat. and this second threat is an assault on our liberties here at home, and perhaps the most important and the most recent is the assault on religious liberty we see taking place across this entire country. [ applause ] i gave a speech back a year ago, over a year ago at the reagan library saying the assault on religious liberty was coming. it's no longer coming, it is here. and you saw this first of all, first of all, you saw this in the obama administration's assault on the green family. remember the hobby lobby case they were trying to threaten them with millions of dollars of fines because they didn't want to violate their own sincerely held religious beliefs. they didn't want to spend their money paying for abortions for their employees.

how many of you were happy the supreme court ruled in favor of 9 green family and not the obama administration? [ applause ] my question, however, is why was that a 5-4 ruling? why wasn't that a 9-0 ruling on the side of religious liberty? but it wasn't just the obama administration. then we saw the assault for example, in indiana, in arkansas, more recently where corporate america corporate america joined up with the radical left to bully those lawmakers, those leaders i've got a warning for corporate america. you're now aligning yourself with a group that opposes profit, that wants to regulate and tax you out of existence. you can't have economic liberty without religious liberty. they're two sides of the same coin. but i've also got a warning for the republican party. we're not the party of big government. we cannot become the party of big business.

[ applause ] but i'll also say this to these corporations that have already told me in louisiana they don't want us to pass our own bill protecting the rights of individuals and businesses who support the traditional view of marriage, don't even waste your breath trying to bully the governor of louisiana. we're going to come down on the side of the first amendment. [ applause ] the third example you may have remembered where phil roberts of duck dynasty thing said some things the left didn't like, all of a sudden they wanted to cancel his tv show on a&e. you may have noticed thats governor, i was one of the first to defense him. you may have thought i did that simply because he's from louisiana. that's not why i did it. you may have thought i did that simply because i knew the robertsons and they're good friends, and they are. that's not why i did it. you may have thought i did it

simply because my boys are big fans of the show. by the way, how nice is it to be able to watch a tv show as a family where you're not worried about the language or the images you see? [ applause ] no, the reason i defended phil's right to speak and the right he has to hold his beliefs, because i am sick and tired of the left. [ applause ] they tell us they're tolerant they tell us they respect differences of opinion, they tell us they've got respect for freedom and freedom of speech and religious liberty. the reality is this they tolerate everybody except those who have the temerity to disagree with them. [ applause ] enough is enough. somewhere we've got to draw the line and the fourth example, you may have seen just in the last several days, last couple of

weeks, secretary clinton in new york said this. she said those of us that are pro-life need to have our religious beliefs changed. what does that even -- are we going to be sent to re-education camps? what does that mean? religious beliefs -- we need to have our beliefs chained? i've got news for secretary clinton, my religious beliefs are not between me and hillary clinton. [ applause ] my religious beliefs are between me and god and i'm not changing them no matter how uncomfortable they make secretary clinton or president obama or anybody else on the left. [ applause ]

there was a time when the left really believed in the first amendment. there was a time when the left really understood that religious liberty is the foundation of our freedom of speech and the freedom of association. but make no mistake about it without religious liberty there are no other freedoms. like freedom of speech and freedom of association and freedom of the press. and make no mistake about it, this isn't just about marriage. though unlike president obama and secretary clinton, my views on marriage are not evolving with the polls. i continue to believe in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. [ applause ] this debate is much, much bigger than that. it is bigger than marriage. this is about the power of the state to try to close or fine christian business owners. this is about the left trying to silence us and telling us we don't have a right to live our lives according to our sincerely held beliefs. when secretary clinton, when

president obama say you've got the freedom of religious expression, to them that just means you get to go to church and say what you want inside church. that's not religious freedom. religious liberty is the ability to live our lives according to our faith 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. [ applause ] we shouldn't have to choose between following our conscience following our scripture and operating our businesses. and i'll tell you this i'll say it slowly, and i'll say it plainly and clearly so even the left in hollywood in the media in the government, can understand what i'm about to say. the united states of america did not create religious liberty. religious liberty created the united states of america. [ applause ] and there's a reason for that.

i accepted christ almost 28 years ago as a teenager in a nondenomational church on the campus of lsu. never did i think i'd live to see the day where my own government, my own government would try to take away my religious liberty rights in this great country. i want to close with this observation. i started off telling my parents' story about coming here in pursuit of the american dream over 40 years ago. my concern that president obama is trying to redefine the american dream into a european nightmare of dependence on the government. i'll tell you what our best days are still ahead of us. and the reason i believe that the reason i believe that is our founding fathers got something important and they got it right. they knew the genius of america is not our government in d.c., it's not in our marvelled

buildings or our monuments it is in the freedoms, the freedoms they enshrined, they knew the function of government wasn't to create those rights it was to protect those god-given rights. it's the genius of the entrepreneurs creating something from nothing. the genius of parents, moms and dads who raise their kids in south carolina and louisiana all over this country. but i will tell you this, we can't be beat by an external enemy, we must make sure we're not beat internally. one of the things that worries me is this president does try to give identify us every chance he gets. [ applause ] one of the things we must be on guard against, we must finally stop calling ourselves. we are not african-americans. we are not asian-americans. we are not indian americans. [ applause ] i'm tired of all of hyphenated

americans. when my parents came here over 40 years ago they loved their heritage. but they came here to raise their children as americans. my mom says if i want to raise my children as indians or even indian-americans, i would have stayed in india. she came here to be an american. if we stay united, nobody can beat us. and that's how i'll close with this observation. it is not optional that we win in 2016 not just because we need a republican in the white house. we need a conservative who will make big changes. we must win this election. we can win this election. we will beat hillary clinton and win this election. god bless y'all. god bless south carolina. god bless louisiana. god bless the united states of america.

more now from the south carolina freedom summit with remarks from former ambassador john bolton. >> thank you very much for that warm introduction. thanks to all of you for being here today on such a lovely day afterwards and you're all in here. it's important. it's important for the safety of our country that in 2016 we elect someone who understands that his job is to be president of the united states, and not secretary-general of the united nations. in fact, i really think that this is the most critical decision that primary voters and caucusgoers have to make. and the special role that you

and south carolina have with a few other states, to be able to help focus the republican presidential nomination on the qualities we need and the objectives that we should seek and who our nominee will be. i think without any question, although there are many important issues confronting the country, the economy obamacare, there's a long list of issues, that we have to understand that the principle job of the president of the united states is to protect the country. the current -- that's not the view of the current incumbent. i think he believes national security gets in the way of his real priority which he told us in 2008 was to fundamentally transform the country. that's what he wants to do. national security is a distraction from that which is why he doesn't pay any attention to it.

i think in a nominee that the first thing that we should search for is the instinctive sense that not just at an intellectual level, not just at the level of reading a speech, but emotionally and in their hearts, the candidates know that whatever issues that are out there, their job as president when they wake up in the morning to have as their first thought, what threats does the united states faced today? what am i going to do to prevent them from coming into reality. that's the president's job. we have elected two times in a row an amateur. somebody who wasn't prepared to be president in 2008. [ applause ] and somebody who has proved that on-the-job training doesn't necessarily work. we can't afford to make that

mistake again in 2016. and believe me in the next two years, we will face increased peril around the world because our adversaries can read the calendar just as well as we can. they don't know who will be elected in november of 2016, but they know they've got barack obama until then. so any adversary out there with an agenda to advance against the united states knows that this is the time to do it. so we're going to see more threats, and the prospect after the new president's sworn in, i think, is even more fearsome because we've got a momentum built up around the world that's very adverse to the united states. and we know that the most likely democratic nominee for president, unless she self-destructs before then, is hillary clinton. now, this is a depressing prospect, i admit.

but let's be clear. although her tenure as secretary of state was an abject failure, it's her own ostensible we've indication to be president. and say whatever you will about her, she can talk the talk when it comes to foreign policy. so in a debate it's going to be critical for the republican nominee to beat her soundly on an issue that should be ours. the republican party is the party of national security. period, closed quote. [ applause ] there is no national security wing of the democratic party anymore. if we abandon our basic principles not only will it be bad politics for us it will endanger the nation. with all that's going on the level of threats we face around the world is rising. and even if hillary is not the democratic nominee, her

philosophy and obama's philosophy are embedded in the democratic party. that's what they all think at the presidential level. i can tell you from experience, hillary and bill were a year ahead of me in law school. i like to say i've been burdened with them 20 years longer than the rest of the country. the way a person is at that time of their life, in law school, or grad school, or whatever that's pretty much the way that you're going to turn out to be. she was a radical then and she's a radical today. [ applause ] she doesn't have to work to get to the left of elizabeth warren, she's already to the left of elizabeth warren. you are going to see it more and more as the campaign proceeds. her foreign policy her defense policy, are indistinguishable from barack obama's.

and the failures of his administration are her failures right across the board. starting right now with the utterly inadequate and feckless response to the continuing, indeed growing threat, of international terrorism. it is simply wrong to say as the president continually says that we can handle terrorism as a law enforcement matter. it's not a law enforcement matter. it's a threat on the scale of a war, which is what we understood as a country right after the 9/11 attack. but which the president and the democratic party have done their best to try and make us forget. the fact is that obama's policies have directly contributed to the increased threats which we see in the united states today. it was his decision to withdraw american and other coalition forces from iraq in 2011 that caused the collapse of the effort to make iraq into a country that gave iran the ability to take over effectively

the government in baghdad and that therefore directly contributed to the rice of isis. that is where the responsibility lies. you haven't heard hillary clinton say one word of criticism of the president's policies in that regard. when you hear isis claim credit for the attacks in garland, texas, that particular claim may or may not be true. but as sure as we are sitting here isis is training terrorists to come to this country, to carry out individual acts of terrorism. perhaps mass violence that we can't even predict. and quite possibly with weapons of mass destruction. this threat is real, it's growing. and it's something that the obama administration has completely underestimated during its entire tenure in office. the fact is that the episode at benghazi on september the 11th,

2012 is the obama/clinton foreign policy in opposition. it was a failure -- [ applause ] it was a failure before the attack on the consulate at benghazi, it failed on the day of the attack, and it has failed accidentally since then. of course, hillary doesn't want us to talk about it. of course she doesn't want it investigated by congressman gowdy's committee. of course she doesn't want to testify. because she is culpable. you know, in a year and a half before that attack we had to withdraw all of our personnel from libya, as gadhafi was being overthrown. you know how we evacuated our diplomats? through the united states navy? no. we rented a greek ferryboat. to come and pull our people out. and thank god they got out without incident. don't you think a responsible administration would have said

this is a problem, that we can face this kind of violence again? well, they didn't. they didn't take the steps necessary to protect americans. and it's not just official americans, it's business people, it's tourists, it's missionaries, it's nongovernmental organizations all of whom were in jeopardy. and so by not undertaking any preparation they set up the events of 9/11 in benghazi, where ambassador stevens and three other brave americans were killed. perhaps tortured, at least in some cases. and on that day not only was nothing done, the response of the administration was to go home. the president left the oval office and the situation room to go to the residence. hillary clinton left the state department to go home. not once on that day did she call the secretary of defense to ask what we were doing. she didn't stay in a way that the six secretaries of state that i've worked for would have

stayed there all night if they had had to to protect our people in danger overseas. hillary clinton went home. that act alone disqualifies her from being president of the united states. [ applause ] and in the aftermath of the attack the sum total of the response of the united states of america has been to arrest one, one of the people responsible, and bring him back to the united states for a full due process criminal trial. what lesson does that send to the terrorists all around the world? what lesson does it send to the state sponsors who arm them and equip them and finance them? i'll tell you what it says. it says an american ambassador, who is the personal representative of the president of the united states overseas can be murdered by a group of

terrorists with complete impunity. under barack obama you can kill his personal representative and he does nothing. that is the lesson that it sends. [ applause ] will hillary clinton answer any questions about this? oh, no. especially not after her last outburst when she said, what difference does it make? that disqualifies her from being president, as well. you know people -- people have criticized susan rice for the nonsense she said on the five sunday talk shows after the attack about the mohammed video and so on. and look i think being u.n. ambassador is a wonderful job. has nothing to do with our embassy in libya. that was the role of the secretary of state. where was hillary clinton that weekend? she didn't want to go out and answer the question. so they sent somebody else out.

she doesn't want to testify before congressman gowdy's committee. maybe one day maybe if it suits her purposes. i'll tell you her unwillingness to answer the questions shows how vulnerable she understands herself to be. as we get closer to november 2016 we are never going to let her forget that. [ applause ] this list of failures is a long list. and i don't have a lot of time so i'm just going to pick a few more highlights here. i think that the treatment by obama and by hillary clinton during her time as secretary of state, their treatment of israel is describable in one word. it is despicable. the way they have treated israel. [ applause ] they have humiliated a democratically elected ally. of the united states. they have treated him with

disrespect. they have undermined the very legitimacy of the state of israel. they have questioned its democratic bona fides. they have pressured it to enter into agreements with terrorist groups, and with groups that can't control their own population. they have pushed it to give up vital strategic terrorist in order to create a palestinian state that almost inevitably will be yet another terrorist state in the middle east. and they have completely disregarded israel's legitimate fears that an iran armed with iraq weapons will be capable of carrying out a second, a nuclear, holocaust. for all of those reasons anybody who believes in the solidarity of the west of which israel is an integral part, has to reject the obama/clinton approach to middle east policy and reject it emphatically. because it undermines our own safety. i have had many arab leaders say

to me when you look at how this administration has treated israel, the question we ask ourselves is if that's the way the united states now treats its friends, how will they treat us when our time of trouble comes? the adverse effect of this kind of policy doesn't make itself simply felt on israel, it undercuts our alliance structures all over the world. and our adversaries know it. hillary clinton will go down in history as the person who gave the russian foreign minister sergey lavrov the famous reset button. and what have the russians done in response? good god they've invaded the ukraine. that's a reset. to be sure. and what's the response been? so weak, so inadequate, that we now face the prospect that vladimir putin will take advantage of these last two years to press the nato alliance in the baltic republics or wells

elsewhere in eastern and central europe. and obama and clinton have only themselves to blame. it was not a critic of the administration, it was barack obama himself who told then-president medvedev you tell vladimir that i'll be more flexible once the election is over. you better believe it. and the russians have taken it to heart. the chinese have taken it to heart. in east asia we see aggressive near-belligerent chinese territorial claims in the east china sea. we see china building a blue water navy literally for the first time in 600 years. there's just a head line in newspapers earlier this week that china and russia are going to conduct joint naval maneuvers in the mediterranean sea. that's a long way from china. but it's showing what their reach is. all across the middle east we see structures that have been in place, state structures since world war i.

dissolving. we've gone from the middle east being a crisis in this country, a crisis in that country, to a region slipping into chaos. libya, we know, is in chaos. nigeria we see boko haram dismembering the state in northern nigeria attacking in cameroon, and niger somalia hasn't had a government in 25 years. the sinai peninsula is out of control of the egyptian military. yemen has collapsed as a country. and has the dubious distinction of hosting all three of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, a branch of isis and the houthi coalition, a surrogate for the ayatollah's of tie iran. iraq and syria have ceased to exist. as states, kurds are out of it in iraq. isis has created a new sunni state out of the western third of iraq. and the eastern two-thirds of syria. it will be a magnet for international terrorism. and we're standing by while it happens.

you know winston churchill faced with the russian revolution once said we should have strangled bog chefism in its cradle. we should have strangled isis in its cradle too, but now they control -- [ applause ] they control territory the size of great britain. and the biggest problem of all, the iranian nuclear weapons program, is proceeding along with no impediments whatever. you know there's a lot of talk now about congressional oversight over the deal that obama is going to sign. eu have to tell you, it's fundamentally irrelevant. if this deal is signed by obama and approved by congress, iran will get nuclear weapons. if it's not signed or it's not approved by congress, iran will get nuclear weapons. these negotiations themselves have given iran a legitimacy, politically and in terms of its uranium enrichment program that are very hard to stop. and it won't end with iran with nuclear weapons. the saudis, the egyptians the

turks and others will get nuclear weapons, and the prospect of a nuclear war in the already volatile middle east will rise dramatically. the failure of the united states to stop the iranian nuclear weapons program now turns the spotlight on israel. i don't know what they will do, but i do know this sometime in the next two years maybe a little bit later we'll see if for the third time in its history israel attacks a nuclear weapons program in the hands of a hostile state. i think the united states position should be very clear if israel does this. we should say immediately this was a legitimate exercise by israel of its inherent right to self-defense, and we will support them every way we can. [ applause ] now let's talk a little bit about what must be done. what a new president must do.

thinking about the transition between jimmy carter whom we can now look back on as a tough-minded president compared to the one we've got in office now. and ronald reagan who we can say with confidence won the cold war. we need a new president who will immediately reassert american political leadership around the world. who will say the principles that reagan espoused the peace through strength, are back and the united states is no longer going to lead from behind or anywhere else, but from the front. [ applause ] this is absolutely critical to restoring whatever minimal order and stability there is and it has to be coupled with something else. we cannot blink. we need a massive increase in the defense department budget that the obama administration has eviscerated over the past six years. there are a lot of competing pressures.

people are worried about expenditures, and the national debt, and they should be. i think there's a relatively easy answer. why don't we just cut domestic expenditures back to where they were in 2008? that was not exactly a time of austerity. and that will pay for the military budget increase. and we need a president who understands that america is a benign and strong force in the world. that american strength does not provoke animosity. that what endangers our country is american weakness. a republican president can fix every mistake barack obama has made. thank you very much. ♪ south carolina republican

congressman jeff duncan and citizens united co-hosted the south carolina freedom summit. several 2016 republican presidential candidates spoke at the day-long event including dr. ben carson who announced earlier this month that he's running. and you can see all of our coverage of the summit at c-span.org. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you. i am so happy to be here with you this afternoon. i love coming to south carolina. because there are a lot of people here with common sense. sometimes we don't find that. in some other locations. but, you know they said it was a pretty rough and tumble place. they said it was a rough and tumble place but i lost two

teeth since i've been here. you know, i -- this one went out last night. this one went out. but i've also had a chance to see two very fine dentists here in south carolina. so it's a very good. many people have asked me about how is my mother doing. and i appreciate the sentiment. you know, right after my announcement on monday i flew down to texas where she is. and my wife and my three sons, and their wives and she was -- she's in terminal stages of alzheimer's and stopped eating and drinking. but so many people have been praying for her. i met one lady who said she had a group of 2200 people who were praying for my mother. and the last three days she's been eating and drinking again. so, you know. [ applause ] i just want to thank you for all

those prayers because they do mean a lot. you know speaking of my mother, you know, she -- she had probably the greatest influence other than jesus christ, on my life. because she refused to be a victim. she had every reason to be a victim. you know born in a very large family in rural tennessee. shifted from home to home. never really feeling like she belonged any place. trying to cobble together any kind of education that she could. gaining only as much as a third grade education getting married at age 13. moving to detroit with my father. and years later discovering that he was a big mist and with her only having limited education and working so hard trying to support myself and my brother. but the interesting thing about her is she absolutely refused to

feel sorry for herself. and that was a good thing. the problem is she never felt sorry for us either. so, you know -- [ applause ] we could never say anything that would evoke any sympathy. and you know she was kind of like that baltimore mom that you saw on television. except that i would have never been out there in the first place. because i would have known what was coming. but you know it does say a lot, though about the concept of the family. i think the family is such an important pillar of strength for this country. and it's been under attack for the last few decades you know. first they start attacking fathers in the role of father so much on television, in so many situations, you don't really need a father. and then the government programs

that give, you know, money to women who have babies out of wedlock, and they take the money away if she gets married. you know, these kinds of things are anti-family. and one of the things that i think we have to do is get the people who actually create programs to understand the kinds of programs that work. kinds of programs that lift people out of poverty, not the kind of program that maintain people in a state of dependency. [ applause ] and you know, some people criticize me, they say you want to get rid of all the safety net programs? no i don't want to get rid of all the safety net programs. but what i do want to do is help us to create an environment where you don't need all the safety net programs. you know we -- this country -- [ applause ]

this country that we live in is an amazing country. think about this. we declared our independence in 1776. and less than 100 years we were the number one economic power in the world. nobody else could do anything like that. and you know, hundreds and even thousands of years before we came on the scene people did things the same way, within 200 years of us coming on the scene men were walking on the moon. america is an exceptional country. there is no other country in the world like it. [ applause ] have we made mistakes? of course we have. have we learned from the mistakes? of course we have. and at this stage of the game we as americans have got to recognize that our strength lies in our unity. and we have to stop listening to

all the purveyors of division who are out there. trying to make us believe that we hate each other and that there's a war on women. there's no war on women. that's ridiculous. and that there -- that, you know, they really are trying to stoke up this racial stuff. you know, and all of our cities, you know. we are going to have to get beyond that. i was asked by a reporter why don't you talk about race very often? i said it's because i'm a neurosurgeon and she thought that was a weird answer. i said you see when i open someone's head i'm operating what makes them who they are. the skin, the nose, the hair doesn't make them who they are. it's the brain that makes them who they are. [ applause ] you know at some point we need to start thinking much deeper at a much deeper level. not just looking superficially. anybody can do that.

an animal can do that. but we obviously have to be able to analyze things at a much deeper level. you know the religious wars that they're stoking up you know, i believe that we are all entitled to have whatever faith we want to have. our first amendment guarantees us freedom of religion. not freedom from religion. freedom of religion. we need to be able to live anyway that we want to. but, you know, atheists also have a religion. they won't tell you that they have a religion. but they obviously have a religion. they obviously believe in things that they can't prove. so they have faith. i always find it interesting when they say, you're a scientist. how could you possibly believe in god?

i mean, that's so ridiculous. and i remember once i was having an argument in hollywood with a -- with a famous atheist, this is a public debate. and he thought anybody who believed in god was a total idiot. and at the end of the conversation i said look i believe i came from god. you believe you came from a monkey. i tend to agree with you. [ applause ] but the fact of the matter is, what we do need to make sure that we never do in this country is force our beliefs upon someone else. and that needs to go in both

directions. so the left doesn't get to force their beliefs on anybody else. and with the whole gay marriage thing, i get asked that question so much. in the press conference just now, you know, that was the predominant question about gay marriage. why is it so hard for people to understand this? some in my opinion is between one man and one woman. it's relatively simple. by the same token our constitution guarantees the rights of every single citizen. and we protect the rights of every single citizen however, everybody is equal. nobody is more equal than anybody else and nobody gets special rights to change the rules for everybody else. that's what we must guarantee in

our society if we are to remain a free society. because, as soon as we start picking special groups, and saying you get to change everything for everybody else, where does that end? there is no end to that and that's why our constitution was written the way that it was written. and we must remember that, and we must be courageous. it is really going to be up to us. we, the people have got to learn to think for ourselves. we cannot let other people tell us what we're supposed to think. because if we listen to the pundits, and the political gurus, they will always steer you in a certain direction. but that direction is the direction that we've been going in for decades now.

and this is where we've landed. and why would we continue to go in that direction? what we need to do is listen very carefully to what is being said. and ask ourselves, is this something that is going to benefit me and my children and my grandchildren? and my nation? and freedom? and is it something that is going to preserve our constitution. or is this something that is going in a very different direction? but we are the ones who make that decision. no one can take that from us unless we fall down on the job. and i do believe that we have the ability to analyze these things deeply. you know we look, for instance, at the national debt that we are facing. over $18 trillion. that is ridiculous. it's beyond ridiculous. it's so much money if you tried to pay it back at a rate of $10

million a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year it would take you 5,000 years. and we are putting that on the backs of our children and our grandchildren. and it is absurd. and most economists will tell you that it puts a tremendous burden on an economy in terms of expansion once they gdp-to-debt ratio reaches 90%. well we're at 103%. the gdp this year will be smaller than the national debt. it's the first time that's happened since we were in the middle of a war. and there's no end in sight. because we have leaders who think that they've scored a victory if the debt doesn't go up as much one quarter as it did the last quarter. that is the wrong criteria

altogether. we obviously -- [ applause ] we obviously, we need to be we need to be talking about a balanced budget amendment. we need to be talking about term limits you know. not only -- not only for people in congress but we need to be talking about term limits for judges too. because -- [ applause ] -- because when we put our constitution in place, you know the average age of death was 47 and so it really didn't matter if we gave them a lifetime appointment. but now i think it matters quite a bit. and, you know we obviously need to adjust with the times. you know you look at social security when we put that in place, the average age of death

was 63. now we're approaching 80. if we don't adjust things, then obviously we wind up behind the eight ball and we have to think about that. but getting back to the economy, so many of our problems are linked to a poor economy. this has been a very long recovery and we're still in the recovery process. now, some people will tell you, like people in this administration, that things are great. you know the unemployment rate is down to 5.4%. everything is humming. we've got all these wonderful jobs. and, you know, i think one of the reasons that a lot of people are frustrated and are easily manipulated into rioting and doing the things that we saw in baltimore is because they hear all of this stuff about how wonderful things is but then when they open their eyes and look around, they don't see it.

you know, there's been plenty of change but there's very little hope and that's what is killing people. that's what is killing people. [ applause ] and so in concentrating on that economy, the most powerful economic engine in the world has ever known, we possess it. so how do we get it moving again? well, first of all we have the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. that's an easy one. just cut them back down like everybody else's. that's easy. but here's the cool thing. there's $2 trillion of our money sitting overseas that corporations are not bringing back here because they don't want to face that big taxation. what if we just said, we're giving you a tax holiday for six months and let that money come back into our country? that would be a wise move.

[ applause ] and that would be a major stimulus and it wouldn't cost the taxpayers a single dime. and then the other thing we need to do, get rid of the unnecessary regulations. and i stress the word "unnecessary" because as our founders said, if our men were angels, no government would be needed. but men are not angels, nor are women. so obviously we do need some rules and regulations there. but the other thing is we need a reasonable tax structure. you know, our tax code is 80000 pages long. nobody could comply with all of that. it's absolutely absurd. we need to scrap the whole thing and start over again with something that makes sense, something that is proportional and when i mean proportional

you make $10 billion, you pay 1 billion, you make a billion, you pay one. same proportion. you get the same rights. you know you think about that. as some people say, yeah but it's not fair because you know the person who makes only $10, he can't afford to pay any money. he can't afford to pay a dollar. you know, i had an opportunity to experience virtually every economic level in this country from the bottom to the top, and i can tell you that a lot of people on the bottom also have pride. okay? and they don't want -- they don't want somebody patting them on the head and say you can't carry. you're part of the load. they want to be part of the american system also, and they don't want to be freeloaders. and what we need to be

concentrating on is finding ways to provide ladders so they can climb out of the situation and realize the american dream. that's really the key for everybody. [ applause ] lastly, we can't be ashamed of who we are. the bible says without a vision, the people perish. as we begin to give away parts of who we are for the sake of political correctness, we won't have a vision. we won't even know who we are. we won't know what we stand for. you know with the carson scholar's fund, which is a national college program that my wife and i started and for those who think that doctors don't know how to do anything, i should say that you know nine out of ten nonprofits fail. and ours not only didn't fail

but it is active in all 50 states and the district of columbia has won multiple national awards. many of them being awards only given to one organization in the country for outstanding performance. so don't believe them. don't believe them. [ applause ] but, you know our slogan is "think big." each one of those letters means something special, t for talent h for honesty, i for insight and n for nice and the g stands for god. they said you can't put it up because g stands for god. what a bunch of crap. [ applause ] so we had a rather vigorous argument and i suggested that maybe we could resolve it at the

level of the supreme court which seemed bold and reckless but it really wasn't because i knew the next week that i was going to the supreme court to receive the jefferson award so i figured i would ask while i was there and just as sandra day o'connor said there was no violation of the first amendment and people who say silly stuff like that, what do they know about our country? do they realize that our founding document, the declaration of independence talks about rights given to us by our creator, aka, god? do they realize that the pledge of allegiance is one nation under god and every coin in our pocket every bill in our wallet says in god we trust? if it's in our founding documents, in our pledge in our courts, on our money but we're not supposed to talk about it what in the world is that? in medicine we call it

schizophrenia. [ applause ] doesn't that explain a lot of what is going on in our nation today? and we need to make it perfectly clear that it's okay to live by godly principles, of loving your fellow man, of caring about your neighbor, of developing your god-given talents so you become valuable to the people around you of principles that guide your life. and if we do that not only will we remain a pinnacle nation, but we will truly have one nation under god indivisible and liberty and justice for all. thank you all very much. [ applause ]

this sunday night at 8:00 eastern on "first ladies," we'll look into the lives of three first ladies. rachel jackson was called a bigamist and adulter and died of an apparent heart attack before he took office. his niece becomes the white house hostess but is later dismissed as fallout from a scandal. and anjelica van buren is the white house hostess. rachel jackson, emily donaldson and anjelica van buren on c c-span's original series the women who filled the division of the first lauddy and their influence on the first ladies. american history tv on c-span 3.

c-span's new book is now available. first ladies presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic women providing lively stories of these fascinating women, creating an illuminating and inspiring read. it's available as an e-book through online book seller. here's what's happening on c-span 3 tonight. first, a look at the commercial political and security implications of extending a nuclear accord with china that expires at the end of the year. then a discussion about the military training exercises scheduled in a number of southwestern states this summer. about 1200 special operation troops are expected to participate as they prepare for a potential operations overseas according to u.s. military officials. and we hear from two sunni political leaders on the future of iraq.

the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with colorful photos and bio and contact information and twitter handles. a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. it's 13.95 plus shipping and handling through the c-span online store at c-span.org. capitol hill lawmakers held a hearing today to assess the potential risks and rewards of renewing a nuclear power cooperation deal with china. the voice of america writes here that a new agreement would permit china the biggest nuclear power market in the world to buy more u.s. reactors and technology to reprocess plutonium from spent fuel. the current 30-year u.s./china deal expires at the end of this year.

here's the senate foreign relations committee from today focusing on the commercial political and security implications of extending the new accord. foreign relations committee will come to order. i know we have a vote at 2:45 so we'll try to get through opening comments and your comments and then maybe come back and begin the questioning. today we begin the exercise where statutory responsibility congress requested to review agreements between the united states and foreign relations to nuclear and civil programs. we must examine the political, economic and security aspects of this agreement weighing the risks and benefits. in doing so, we must big deneat the surface of the agreement to expose and thor rowly expose those issues that engage in such an agreement. we also should consider how this

agreement could potentially impact u.s. strategic interests in asia-pacific. the agreement before us represents a continuation of a relationship that originally began in 1985 with the congressional approval of the agreement when the united states and the people's republic of china concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy. it expires on december 30th 2015, with a new agreement, civil nuclear cooperation. without it this civil nuclear cooperation we have will cease. at the time of submission in the 1985 agreement china was engaged in activities that caused significant concerns related to proliferation, lack of safeguards lack of export controls and congress in the agreement lacked key assurances to alleviate those concerns. in passing a joint resolution that expresses its approval of the agreement, congress required several certifications to

address its concerns prior to the issuewants of export licenses pursuant to the agreement. the challenges in the relationship with china and its actions relevant to the required certifications were such that certifications could not and were not made by the administration until 1998 13 years after the agreement originally entered force. some of those concerns still exist. maybe to lesser degrees but they still exist the the agreement before us now continues civil nuclear cooperation for another 30 years. i'm glad the administration chose to hear the concerns ratesed by this committee last year that extended in perpetuity, including a termination of this agreement after 30 years. thank you for that. it is right that agreements of this consequence should be periodically reviewed by congress to ensure that they continue to be in the national interest. notably, and not present in the

current agreement, the u.s. provides advanced consent to enrich u.s. supply of uranium, up to 20% to year 2035 and to reprocess u.s. obligated material. i'm sure i'm not alone in questioning this change of relationship. i hope that the administration can adequately explain why it is in the u.s. interests to allow for this type of activity using u.s. supplied or obligated material. the president's transmission letter to congress states that this agreement is based on mutual commitment to nuclear nonproliferation. but i have some misgivings. the commitment may not be so mutual. it will be encouple bent upon the administration to expediently alay concerns raised by our members. the nonproliferation assessment statement, also known as npas

identifies several greater civil military integration. and both elements have the potential to decrease developmental cost to accelerate military modernization. this strategy requires close skut scrutiny of all end users under the proposed agreement. further, china's provision to pakistan of reactors beyond chas ma one and 2 is inconsistent with chinese commitments made when it joined the nuclear suppliers group in 2004. finally, according to npas china updated its regulations and improved actions in some areas but proliferation involved chinese entities remains of concern. state-owned enterprises and individuals have been sanctioned by the u.s. on several occasions

for transferring proliferation sensitive dual use materials and technologies. congress should also consider china's record as it relates to missile proliferation. to 2011, the threat assessment had said that north korea and entities in russia and china continue to sell technologies and components in the middle east and south asia that are dual use and could support weapons of mass destruction and missile programs. the 2014 state department compliance report said in 2013 chinese entities continue to supply missile programs in countries of concern. the united states notes that china made a public commitment in november 2000 not to assist in any way any country in the development of ballistic missiles that can be used to deliver nuclear weapons. concerns persist about chinese

willingness and ability to detect and prevent illicit transfers. i would like the administration to specifically address why congress should feel confident that china will prevent illicit transfers going forward. concerns aside the u.s. has realized benefits from the current agreement. economic benefits include an $8 billion sale of four nuclear reactors by westinghouse in 2007 still under construction today. we are also gaining valuable insight from lessons learned in the construction of the ap 1,000 reactors that will cause domestic construction to be more efficient and timely and cost less. china has developed a stronger nonproliferation policies and export control regulations. it will be up to congress to determine if the concerns about the agreement are outweighed by the benefits. if so we should approve the

agreement without delay. if not but the concerns can be mitigated, we should work diligently to find grounds upon which we can support the agreement. if the concerns cannot be alleviated, we should disapprove the agreement. all of this is to say we have a difficult task ahead of us but one that i know we can approve seriously and with the best political, economic and security interests with the united states in mind. i thank our witnesses for joining today to begin this examination and look forward to working with them and their colleagues in the weeks ahead. again, thank you for being here. >> mr. chairman, let me thank you for conducting this hearing. it's a very important hearing of the relationship between the united states and china as one of our most difficult foreign policy challenges. this week, we're holding two hearings in our committee. later this week we'll have a hearing on the territorial disputes in the south china and east china seas. i'm looking forward to that hearing. i think it's a very important

subject. today we'll focus on the elements of the u.s./china relation with the recently signed china civilian cooperation agreement. the current agreement, as you pointed out, is set to expire on september 30th of this year. it was signed 30 years ago by president reagan. it's interesting to point out that the implementation of that agreement had to wait for 13 years because of the senate conditions on china's proliferation activities and then because of the aftermath of the tiananmen square massacre. up front, i want to indicate that i'm supportive of a nuclear power. it will reduce our carbon emissions. u.s. nuclear cooperative agreements with other countries provide the united states and a number of important benefits. first and foremost, the 1, 2 3 agreement can help achieve our nonproliferation agreements because we seek the highest

nonproliferation standards in these agreements, including ensuring that nuclear technology is never misused for military purposes. it will be an issue i expect our committee will want to explore. second, it's necessary for maintaining a robust nuclear industry. this represent as major opportunity for u.s. business and one that they've already taken advantage of. the reactors that the united states is building in china already creating high-paying jobs in the united states including in my home state of maryland. finally, these agreements are an opportunity for the united states assist nations in reducing their carbon emissions. as part of the joint announcement by the united states and china on climate china committed to get 20% of its energy from clean sources by 2030. nuclear power is a way china can lower its carbon emissions and,

in turn, foster global action to address climate change. so these are important reasons to move ahead with 1-2-3 agreements and i fully understand that but despite the benefits of this agreement, there are a number of concerns that i hope the witnesses will address during this hearing. while progress has been made in china's nonproliferation has been made, china's nonproliferation remains problematic. chinese companies and individuals continued export dual use goods relevant to nuclear and developed weapons and missile programs in and around north korea. year after year these individuals have been sanctioned related to their efforts to proliferate weapons of mass destruction. i would like to hear whether china's nonproliferation record was addressed during these negotiations. to me this agreement presents us with a golden opportunity to

place pressure on china to holt these dangerous activities. my second set of concerns focuses on chinese plans to export nuclear power plant based upon technology provided them by westinghouse. under a deal signed in 2007, westinghouse agreed to transfer it is reactor technology to china. this allows chinese firms to increase their share with the ultimate goal of he can porting reactors themselves. we know china has an aggressive move into the markets that the united states used to have the leading share. the transfer of the most advanced u.s. technologies may provide china the keys for dominating the world nuclear power industry. that could cost us jobs. i'd be interested in the witnesses' analysis as to what the future holds with the u.s. ability to dominate the international market on reactors. relating to this issue is

china's decision to continue building power reactors in pakistan. pakistan does not have safeguard inspections by the international atomic energy agency and has not been approved as a recipient state by the nuclear suppliers group. china argues its contracts with pakistan were in place before it agreed to abide by the rules of the nuclear supplier group. however, as china makes plans to export nuclear reactors reactors based upon u.s. technology to other countries, one has to wonder about its commitment to nonproliferation standards it has signed up to. i'll ask concerns about safety. safety in the chinese nuclear plants. i know we have worked extensively with china on the regulatory and safety regimes but i am concerned that nothing in this agreement squarely addresses the issue at the next fukashima or chernobil from happening in china. it's an authoritarian country with a history of problems with regulatory structure. although we can never make

nuclear power 100% safe, we should strive to make them resilient as possible to natural vulnerabilities and national security threats. these are all issues that i think need to be addressed so we can weigh the pluses and minuses -- the pluses of an agreement but the risk factors of entering into such an agreement with china and i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. >> senator cardin, thank you for your leadership. last night we had an extensive classified briefing but i know we still want to hear the comments that will be made. why don't we just adjourn, sprint to the votes come back and start. i know we have to finish for our 4:00 briefing on another issue. i think that would be best. if y'all don't object, i'm sorry we started a few minutes late but i think that's best for you. okay? thank you.

secretary of state for security and nonproliferation. he leads the bureau at the head of the u.s. effort to prevent the spread of nuclear chemical and biological weapons, their

related materials and delivery systems. we appreciate your many appearances with us here and on the phone and other places. the second witness is lieutenant frank klotz, u.s. air force retired. he currently serves as undersecretary of energy for nuclear security and administrator of the national nuclear security administration. in this capacity, he's responsible for the imaginement and operation of nnsa as well as matters across the department of energy and nnsa enterprise in support of president obama's nuclear security agenda. prior to his service as the department of energy, general klotz served nearly 38 years in uniform in a variety of positions relevant to today's discussion. i want to theang you both for being here and sharing your thoughts and remind you that your full statements will be entered into the record without objection. so be as brief as you wish and we look forward to answering --

you answering our question and, again, appreciate you being here. >> chairman corker ranking member cardin members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to continue today in open session the briefings and consultations we have had with members and staff since these negotiations began continuing through the initialling right up to the signature and submission of this agreement to the senate. this agreement advances the primary goal we have in every 1-2-3 agreement, which is strengthening the long-standing nonproliferation policy of successive administrations. it also has important commercial and diplomatic benefits that i'll talk to only briefly since you have my prepared statement. the u.s. relationship with china is one of the most important and complex relationships in the

world. this administration's approach to china combines building high-quality cooperation on a range of bilateral, regional and global issues and constructively managing our differences. peaceful nuclear cooperation is a key example of that type of cooperation. and this agreement is in the best interest of the united states. this agreement is not a favor that we give to china or that china gives to us. it is in the mutual interests of both countries. like all 1-2-3 agreements, it is a framework within which decisions on export of technology and materials are made. the agreement contains all the u.s. nonproliferation agreement guarantees acquired by the atomic energy act, safeguards peaceful use assurances, physical protection assurances u.s. consent rights on storage retransfer enrichment and reprocessing of u.s.-obligated

material. it contains enhanced features beyond those contained in the current u.s./china 1-2-3 agreement. china's nonproliferation agreement has improved markedly since the 1985 1-2-3 agreements. it can do better and we expect it to do better in the nonproliferation field. implementing this agreement will better position the united states to continue to influence the chinese government in a positive direction on nonproliferation objectives. the current agreement has allowed and this agreement will continue to facilitate deepened cooperation on threat reduction export control, border security, nuclear safety and nuclear security norms. this agreement also has economic benefits. china has the fastest growing nuclear energy program in the world. it constitutes one-third of the

global market in civilian nuclear energy. american nuclear suppliers are there now and they are keen to play an even larger role in the chinese market. these opportunities could support tens of thousands of high-paying american jobs and the u.s. nuclear industry strongly supports this agreement. as senator cardin noted the agreement can also help both of us to deploy nonfossil-based energy sources to address global climate change. last year, president obama and president xi announced our post 2020 targets. china believe's the large-scale development of civilian nuclear power is key to meeting these targets and their commitments reinforce opportunities for u.s. suppliers in the chinese market. on the other hand, if civil nuclear cooperation with china lapses, our influence on chinese

practices in nonproliferation and other fields will be placed in serious jeopardy. we will lose insight into china's civil program. the vacuum of cooperation with cheen na would be filled by other nuclear suppliers who do not have the same approach as the united states to nonproliferation and technology transfer concerns. and china would view such a lapse as evidence that the u.s. is less willing to engage china at a high level on important commercial, energy and security-related issues. in sum, we believe that the strategic nonproliferation, economic and environmental benefits of this agreement prove that continuing nuclear cooperation with china is in our best interests. we have no illusions about the challenges of working with china in nuclear energy or in any other field. but we must remain engaged.

we must constructively manage our difference and work collaboratively to advance the numerous objectives we have in common. the passage of this agreement is the best way to continue to influence and to benefit from the world's largest nuclear market. thank you, mr. chairman. >> general? >> chairman corker, ranking member cardin and distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the department of energy on the proposed u.s./china agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation. i'm very pleased to join my colleague from the state department, tom countryman. i, too, have provided a written statement so i will be brief in summarizing what is in that. first, let me note that secretary of energy moniz and i fully share the thoughts expressed by tom countryman this morning and share the view that the proposed agreement provides a comprehensive agreement for

nuclear cooperation with china while fully protecting and advancing u.s. interests and policy objectives with respect to nuclear nonproliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. thus, the department of energy supports entry into force this agreement following the requisite congressional review period. this agreement is fully consistent with the law and incorporates all of the terms required by section 1-2-3 of the atomic energy act. moreover, it reflects important advances over the current agreement, several of which we discussed during classified agreements during both members and staff of this committee. specifically, the successor agreement enhances the provisions under which we would allow china to enrich and reprocess u.s.-obligated nuclear material by requiring that such enrichment and reprocessing take place only at facilities in china. that fall under their

international atomic agency safeguards agreement. it also provides for enhanced controls on the export of nuclear technology to china. and it commits both sides, both the united states and china to deliver export control training to all u.s. and chinese entities under the 1-2-3 agreement. taken together, these elements, not included in the 1985 agreement, provide an unprecedented level of insight into commercial transactions. since the preceding agreement was signed 30 years ago, we've witnessed china make significant strides in its nuclear program. china now has over 20 nuclear power plants in operation over 20 under construction and dozens more plant. in fact, over one-third of nuclear power plants currently under construction in the world are in china. china increasingly seeks services technology and

equipment from u.s. and other foreign commercial companies for its civil nuclear program. we believe it is in the best interests of the united states to support u.s. industries' ability to compete in this fast-growing and expanding market. americans companies have numerous joint ventures with china as well as significant assets on the ground there. they are also supplying china with equipment and components as well as a broad range of services, including engineering construction and training. the successor 1-2-3 agreement will facilitate continual cooperation with china subject, of course, to u.s. government review of specific requests to transfer nuclear technology information, material, equipment and components. on the other hand if the agreement lapses or is not renewed, u.s. industry would essentially be cut off from this market. constituting a potentially serious commercial threat to the overall health and well-being of

our civil nuclear industry. u.s. industry would also be precluded from taking advantage of future opportunities in the world's fastest growing civil nuclear energy market. in addition to these economic benefits the successor 1-2-3 agreement will serve as an umbrella for continuing other forms of u.s./china bilateral cooperation in promoting the important u.s. policy objectives with respect to enhancing nuclear safety and nuclear security around the world. an objective which directly supports u.s. national interest as well as those of our allies and partners. u.s./china cooperation such as under the 1998 peaceful uses of nuclear technology agreement has been absolutely invaluable in this regard. and, in fact, just last week, senior u.s. officials met with their chinese counterparts under the auspices of the joint

coordinating committee. they discussed many issues that the ranking member expressed a concern about including not only nuclear technology but security safeguards environmental concerns, waste management, emergency management and the security of radiological services. they have reported to me that they have unique and unprecedented access to a number of construction, scientific and academic sites in china. this level of interaction and access is only possible because of the value china places on having a 1-2-3 agreement with the united states and the desire to cooperate with the most advanced, safest and most reliable nuclear program in the world. without entry into force of this successor agreement, we will lose a critical mechanism for china's nonproliferation behavior potential economic advantages and the insight into china's nuclear programs including research and development. again, mr. chairman, thank you

for the opportunity to appear before you today. i look forward to answering any questions that you or other members of the committee may have. >> i want to thank you both and i appreciate what you do for our country and i know yesterday evening y'all had mentioned y'all were going to make the public comments as to why this was good for our nation and certainly you didn't disappoint. but let me ask you a question. according to npas and i know we've talked about this in other settings and i quote china's strategy for strengthening its military involves the acquisition of foreign technology as well as a greater civil military integration and both elements have the potential to decrease development costs and accelerate military modern nye sdplags. i made that in my opening comments. so there's no question going in that what we're doing here the cheen niece, regardless of what they say, are going to be using this to accelerate their military development. is that correct?

>> what i would say, sir, is that there's no doubt based on the historical record that china will make every attempt to benefit from technology transfer, whether in the economic or commercial or military field. our job, which only begins with this 1-2-3 agreement but as actually carried out through the licensing procedure is to frustrate that effort. we have every intention of doing so and believe we have the means to do so. >> so now that we've established that, that, in fact, this is going to happen i just -- i wanted to -- you mentioned that our involvement with them would you know, help cause proliferation not to occur. i'd just like to ask a question. i mean, are they organically interested as a nation -- forget the fact that in doing business with us we champion

nonproliferation and other kinds of issues. but organically do you believe that china cares about nonproliferation and nuclear safety? >> the short answer is yes. i do believe that china takes far more seriously than it did 30 years ago or even ten years ago its obligations under the nonproliferation treaty as a member of the nuclear suppliers group and in other fields as well. they take it seriously. i can't say that they yet have the level of political commitment that will enable them to spend the resources you need to effectively control the export from the second biggest economy in the world, a very high-tech economy, and one that they do not have a long track record in controlling exports as effectively as the u.s. and other nations.

i do believe they try and i do believe they need a higher level of political commitment to meet the standards to which they aspire. >> in the past when we've had these types of agreements, we've -- of course, we have the gold standard agreement that we like to stick to. we typically don't give it advanced consent for enrichment and reprocessing. certainly the first agreement we had with them in '85 that wasn't implemented until '98 didn't do that. can you explain to us and to the american people why n. this particular case, we decided to give advanced consent? >> china is a nuclear weapon state under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. it already possesses and developed on its own numerous enrichment and reprocessing facilities. there's not a logical reason nor would there be a practical effect to prevent china from enrichment and reprocessing.

>> and then under the nuclear supplier group guidelines is china upholding those? i know we've had some issues relative to the nuclear plant in pakistan. could you talk with us a little bit about that and whether they are actually honoring the nsg guidelines? >> when china became a member of the nuclear suppliers group, there was a consensus to grandfather construction of plants in pakistan which china had initiated. however, there was not agreement that that was an open-ended clause. the problem is that china has since announced other power plants that it intends to build in pakistan and this is not consistent with the rules of the nuclear suppliers group which it joined. we raised this issue both as a bilateral issue and within the

context of the nuclear suppliers group. >> so just -- so they are not honoring the nsg guidelines. we have issues there. we know for a fact that they will take -- even though these agreements state that you cannot take this civil nuclear agreement and use it to move along more swiftly, whether through military development, we know they are going to do that. so if you could, just if you'd step back, i know this is a way for a former u.s.-based country -- company and others. i know through the supply chain to enhance their business and obviously create some u.s. jobs. but could you step back and just talk about why this is in our national interest? >> yes, sir. as i said at the beginning jobs are important. my responsibility is to ensure

that we promote the highest standards of nonproliferation policy in the world. that's what successive administrations have done with strong congressional support for decades. we would not have concluded this agreement if i were not satisfied that this was the best way to improve china's record on nonproliferation, to maintain our capability to have influence on that record. that's a very short answer. frank may want to add to this. >> if i could mr. chairman. the fact that we have an agreement like this and hopefully we'll have a successor agreement, also it allows us to engage in dialogue and discussion with the chinese on a variety of different -- in a variety of different venues and different fronts for instance,

we have discussions, as i mentioned earlier in the punt joint coordinating committee, a whole host of safety and security and emergency response issues, we have the opportunity to discuss issues associated with nuclear smuggling detection. we've been involved in the business of educating and training their people on export controls. we've helped them in the development of a center of excellence that will do training in the area of safeguards and security. so it's along these various avenues which we engage them not just the insight that we gain through commercial interactions with them that help move them along on issues associated with nonproliferation and with safety and security and safeguards. >> well, look i know that, you know, the initial input, as we were walking through this from staff, as y'all were dealing with them as you were moving through, was leaning on the positive side. i do want to say that i

understand our desire to continue to be involved with other countries with our supreme nuclear technology. i do think there are important reasons for us to do so. i do hope as we move through this process again we'll realize we're dealing with a country that plans to zap all of our technology and move totally to adigenous methods of doing this as quickly as possible and they are going to use this to develop their military. i know this is the third time i'm going to say it but to develop their military more quickly and that they are not honoring the existing nuclear supply group guidelines. so i understand you know, again, it's economically driven. i know we have a lot of companies that involve themselves with you towards these agreements. i do hope, as we move through this, we'll take into account

all of the liabilities and the benefits that come with it. and again, i thank you very much for your service to our country. with that, our distinguished member senator menendez. >> thank you mr. chairman. secretary countryman, let me ask you, in the last few years, china's nonproliferation policies remain, in my view, problematic. chinese companies and individuals continue to export dual use goods relevant to nuclear and chemical weapons and ballistic missile programs to iran and north korea. numerous chinese individuals and companies have been sanctioned for those activities. were these issues addressed during our negotiations to renew the 1-2-3 agreement? >> i've addressed these issues constantly in the 3 1/2 years i've been on this job. not in the context of the 1-2-3 negotiations but in the context

of a number of regular dialogue. >> i appreciate that. but within the context of the 1-2-3 agreement, they were not addressed? >> no. >> so isn't that an opportunity to press with china to halt these activities? >> as i said, we press for stronger chinese performance at all times, not just when we're in the middle of a negotiation. did this negotiation offer additional leverage? if this were a giveaway program, perhaps. but it's not. it's one that provides mutual benefit to both countries and provides a foundation within which we can cooperate on difficult issues. >> but clearly it is something that china wants as much as we do, or do we want it more than china wants? >> i don't know. maybe we should ask frank if he wants to comment. do we want it more than china wants it? i think both of us recognize that the failure to renew this agreement would have repercussions throughout the

bilateral relationship. i think both countries are fully aware of that. >> let me ask you a different question. if there was certification conditions on licenses for the export of new reactors beyond the four that have already been licensed, to the effect that the government of china is fully and completely cooperating with u.s. request to halt and prosecute the actions by chinese companies to export technology and equipment to iran and north korea, would the administration be able to make such certifications? >> it's the first time i've heard of the idea. i'd have to look at the exact details. i believe the chinese government is making an effort. i don't believe the effort is yet sufficient. >> well, you said before in your answer to my previous question that you have raised these questions -- these issues a series of times outside of the 1-2-3. so it would seem to me that you would be deeply engaged in the

knowledge as to whether or not the administration could go ahead and certify that the u.s. requests to halt and prosecute the actions by chinese companies to export technology and equipment for ballistic missiles to iran and north korea would be able to be made. so from the knowledge that you have, from all of the time that you've raised this with the chinese, do you believe that we've included such a provision that the certification by the administration could be made to that effect? >> again i'd have to look at the exact language. what i could say now is we could certify that there's an improving trend, that the chinese have been responsive to us on a number of cases that we've raised but i cannot certify 100% satisfaction, no. >> so we have your words, an improving trend but we don't have what we needed. why wouldn't such a

certification requirement be useful for the administration's efforts to persuade china to halt these activities? >> it would not be useful if it were absolute. neither china nor a number of other countries with whom we work intensively on such issues are 100% efficient and eefficient in their law enforcement standards and if the standard were absolute, i'm not sure which country would be able to meet it. >> well you know i understand maybe some countries where there is a strong private sector that developed its own technology and pro live proliferates in that respect but china is a pretty command and control country. it's not like you raise your hand and say i want to go a different way. so it seems to me that this is a real concern. let me ask you this.

curtis wright corporation produces the pumps that cool the reactors which propel u.s. naval submarines. they also produce a scaled-up version of this pump for the ap 1,000 reactors westinghouse is selling to china. could china reverse engineer the pumps they are receiving from westinghouse for their own nuclear submarine program? is chinese military seeking to divert these civilian nuclear technologies to it is naval reactor program? do you have any information on that? >> i do. and we discussed it in some detail in last night's briefing sir. >> uh-huh. so you can only respond to that in a classified setting? >> i think that would be wiser, yes, sir. >> it would be wiser or necessary? >> necessary. >> wiser is one thing and necessary is another. >> i would take it to be not only necessary but wiser to have someone more expert than me on the topic. >> all right. well, okay we'll have to go through that. one last question, then.

what measures have been built into the agreement to prevent china from exporting nuclear technology to countries that are proliferation risks because china says it will abide by the nuclear suppliers' group rules for exports but its already violating this with its continuing work on pakistani reactors. >> the agreement prohibits the transfer of u.s.-provided technology to another country without u.s. consent. >> but it is already violating these rules through its continuing work on pakistani reactors. >> there's, i think a difference between violating nsg rules and, of course, the chinese would say their action is a matter of interpretation rather than violation. there's a difference between violating that and a 1-2-3

agreement particularly when this agreement, unlike the agreement it replaces, has a specific clause that calls for temporary suspension or permanent suspension in case of violation. >> well, you know in your testimony, your written testimony, you talk about advancing our global nuclear nonproliferation objectives and, mr. chairman i'm beginning to wonder what exactly those are and can they be mitigated as we wish them to be instead of having a clear objective. of course i'm concerned about what we are doing with iran but i'm concerned here that we seem to be able to look the other way when we want to. so i'm trying to figure out what our nuclear nonproliferation objectives are and how much of a standard we are truly setting in the world. i was always an admirer that u.s. policy was about actually stopping nuclear proliferation,

not managing it. and increasingly, when i see testimony like this, i get the sense that we are moving away from stopping it preventing it to managing it and that's a whole new world. thank you, mr. chairman. >> you bring an interesting point when we know they are going to violate the civil military piece. are they going to violate this other piece? but senator johnson? >> mr. chairman secretary countryman, i think to the chairman's question, you did say that china was committed to nonproliferation. is that correct? >> that's the short answer. >> and it kind of sounds like not a real accurate one. >> that's how all short answers are, yes, sir. >> you said that they are not controlling their exports of nuclear technology. is that because they are unable or unwilling? >> well first, i would have to disagree that china's purely a command and control economy. it has a vibrant private sector.

it is something of the wild west in terms of being free from government regulation and government control. and, in particular, the high-tech sector does aggressively seek other markets and, in addition, there's a number of chinese businessmen who seek the opportunity to be brokers between north korea or iran and producers in china and elsewhere and there are such brokers in other countries besides china. it's our assessment that the chinese government does not have the bureaucratic enforcement capability and does not yet have all of the legislation it ought to have in order to adequately control dual use exports. >> so your answer is that they are unable to control the export? >> my answer is that they have not yet committed the resources that would be necessary for an economy of that size and

sophistication. >> how difficult would it be for them and how many resources would it take? >> sorry. i don't have a short answer to that one. >> you seem to indicate in your testimony that if we don't move forward, if we don't provide the technology they'll just get it someplace else and we'll lose whatever influence we have. what are the alternative supplies? >> senator, there are number of different countries in this market space. countries that immediately come to mind are russia, france, south korea france, japan all of which are looking for opportunities to pick up on the growing interest in using nuclear energy to solve energy demands in a number of countries but also, as has been pointed out, to move to cleaner types of energy to deal with, concerns

about global climate change. so it is -- we are one of the most sophisticated, one of the most effective in terms of civil nuclear power industry but there are other competitors out there. >> how advance is our technology compared to those other competitors? are we a cut above? >> i would say a cut above but they are very and the french and russia are succeeding in making sales of not only full reactors but also of important components and services associated with civil nuclear industry around the world. >> are we a cut above significantly and is that cut above significance, is it significant from the standpoint of military conversion? >> well in terms of military conversion, one of the things that we look very very carefully at under the existing

1-2-3 agreement and one of the things that will be strengthened under the 1-2-3 agreement is to look very carefully at carefully at the information the technology the materials, the components of which we as a government will review before we give approval for that to be transferred to china. one of the other things that comes up in this new successor agreement is the fact that both sides will sit down annually and review the inventory of shared u.s. and chinese technologies and determine whether or not that ought to be renewed. so we go into this with eyes wide open understanding the potential risk but also balancing against the potential benefits of being in this market. >> having been in the private sector for 30 years reviewing evaluating whether we should

start an operation in china i witnessed repeatedly chinese companies reverse engineer and take over the manufacturing themselves. i would assume that would be a risk. how quickly do you think china could become self sufficient? >> i don't have a good answer on that, senator. >> my concern obviously -- >> there are a lot of variables involved in the process in terms of moving forward. our assumption is that even if they eventually start to manufacture more and more capable indigenously, there will still be a role for u.s. industry and the industry of other countries to participate in producing particular components that are necessary and providing particular after sales services both domestically in china and in countries too much china might

export reactor technology. >> changing the direction a little bit secretary countryman, can you just tell me a little about what china's attitude is toward advancement of north korea and their nuclear capabilities? >> very briefly china says and i think it is borne out by their actions that they do not support north korea as a nuclear weapon state, and that they wish to see the entire korean peninsula denuclearized. >> how much help has china given north korea in the past years? >> i don't know about long ago history, recent years no indication that china is assisting the north korean nuclear weapons program. >> okay. i have no further questions. >> senator markey, who is no stranger to this issue. >> thank you mr. chairman very much. thank you for having this hearing.

back in 1985, i was chairman of the energy subcommittee in charge of the nuclear regulatory commission and the nuclear regulatory commission department of energy so that i played a role in the construction of that 1985 123 agreement. what i worked for was imposition of two conditions before implementation. the first was the preparation of the report examining chinese proliferation risk and presidential certification that china was following specific nonproliferation policies and practices. during the floor consideration, i argued it carried high risk and that conditions were in fact not as strong as they could have been, but at least it is at minimum mitigation standards for nonproliferation concerns. the reagan administration's efforts to comply with the

agreement's conditions revealed chinese proliferation risk the agreement was shelved until 1997 when the clinton administration certified china was not proliferating nuclear weapons or technology and moved forward to implement the agreement. again, i disagree they brought this proliferation to pakistan and iran at that time, together with a bipartisan group of members of congress, i attempted to prevent that agreement going forward. here we are today as we were in 1985 and '89 '96, '97, '98, i have deep concerns if they're complying with the current 123 agreement and other nonproliferation commitments. concerns have been raised that china may be diverting u.s. nuclear power technology to its nuclear naval program. would such transfer violate peaceful use provisions of the

1985 nuclear cooperation agreement? >> yes, both the current agreement and successor agreement would be a violation. >> during the 1990s china supplied iran with uranium and the intelligence community and state department expressed continuing concern that chinese government and private entities proliferated technologies concerning and related to nuclear weapons to countries of concern. a glaring example of private sector proliferation is lee fong way, known as carl lee, who has been designated, sanctioned and indicted by the united states as a prolive ray tore of nuclear weapons technology. china has given repeated assurances that they're investigating but reportedly have not taken enforcement action in this case. my question is can you confirm the united states government, including the state department

no longer believe that entities in china are selling dual use technologies or technologies that could assist with nuclear weapons development or delivery systems to north korea or other countries? >> no. >> you cannot. second, in light of the carl lee case do you believe china enforces nonproliferation requirements on public and private chinese actors to the same standard as the u.s. does? >> no. >> in may of 2014 five members of the chinese military were indicted on charges of hacking into u.s. company systems and stealing trade secrets. these steps occurred in 2010, 2011, and included information related to the westinghouse ap 1,000 nuclear reactor during the eye dent cal time frame this was taking place, nuclear regulatory commission authorized

dozens of chinese nationals to have access to five u.s. nuclear power plants for two months unescorted access to five u.s. nuclear power plants. i am told by the nuclear regulatory commission that this matter remains under investigation by the department of justice. can you tell me whether any of the chinese nationals who were placed at u.s. nuclear reactors unescorted assisted or attempted to assist the efforts of the members of the chinese military who were indicted? >> i am unable to answer a question on the connection between the two. i do know that in terms of chinese visitors who were allowed access to operating nuclear power plants in the same way that american experts are allowed access to chinese nuclear power plants, the nrc i believe has corresponded with you several times on this and noted that it is essentially not a matter of nrc approval of

such. >> do you know if the investigation has been closed? >> i do not know that. >> so can you give the committee a report on that the status of that investigation and when they intend on closing the investigation? because i think it is directly relevant to the treaty we are now considering. >> i will endeavor to get more information, yes, sir. >> i think it is very, very important. in 2013 dod report to congress states, quote, china is using its computer network exploitation capability to support intelligence collection against the united states diplomatic, economic and defense industrial base sectors that support u.s. national defense programs. i would like you to tell me whether chinese government entities attempted to hack into either department of energy or department of state. >> as discussed last night we will give you information on

that soon. >> general? >> i agree. we will provide you the information we have. >> i think it is very important so that we understand especially whether or not they tried to access nuclear weapons information from the department of energy or other sensitive military information and that would be both energy and state but also defense and other related agencies. so my concern here, mr. chairman is that it is quite clear there are entities within china who continue to sell materials that could have dual use application into this international nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles marketplace in the same way aq

kahne was doing it out of pakistan, the gentleman i referred to and others inside china are continuing to do the same thing today. i think it is preposterous to conclude that the chinese government isn't capable of shutting this down. i think it exists at the sufficient rans of the chinese government. i think it is critical safeguards be put in place to make sure that there are conditions that are attached to this agreement that ensure that there is not a continued recurrence of dangerous activity that will come back to haunt our country and the world because of china's unwillingness to actually police the export of these dangerous technologies into the hands of those who we know will endanger the world if they gain