-- europe, so that thousands of airlines of what it looks like not to be law enforcers, not to put potential victims at risk for themselves begin to phone ahead so that when the plane land, they are rescued and the trafficker is apprehended. >> the trucking association has been terrific partners. we need everyone. >> mr. chairman, would you mind repeats? >> nancy revard. we at the department of homeland security have a best practices module or training capacity called blue lightning? blue lightning and so that

needs to be replicated everywhere. including our own. delta has undertaken this. far too few of our own airlines, certainly all of the others as well. anything you'd like to say before we conclude? >> congresswoman -- and awareness. we can't investigate and prosecute our way out of this problem and when you're ready to come to utah, come on out. we'll put you to work. >> thank you. >> congressman chaffitz has been out with us a couple of times. >> he does his best. he's at a top secret briefing or he asked me to convey to you he would be here. >> we just want to give you our blue heart. this is the u.n. blue heart for human trafficking.

human trafficking are not for sale. >> thank you. and thank you again for your bravery. in coming forward and telling your story as well. the hearing is adjourned. i'm sorry. hearing adjourned. thank you. if you missed any of today's hearing on sex trafficking, you can watch it in our video library. president obama is is welcoming leaders and dell graciouses from the gulf cop ration counties today to camp david. member countries, bahrain, kuwait, ayman, -- the president

greeting those after a meeting today at camp david. we expect this to be in the form of a photo opportunity and then probably a brief statement about 30 minutes later, we're expect expecting a news conference with the president and we'll have live coverage of that as well here on cspan 3 as we watch at camp david maryland, the gulf cooperation counsel summit. the president and members of the summit, member of the gcc.

i'm going to have an opportunity to answer some questions for the press. i'll make a more extennive statement later but i wanted to say thank you to all of the leaders who are represented here today. and the gcc for its participation, what i think has been an excellent summit. the gcc countries are some of our closest partners and they are in a region that we all know is going through some extraordinary changes. and great challenges but fortunately, because of the depth and breadth of our cooperation and partnerships we've been able to strengthen each other. and to work together.

to counter terrorism, to deal with issues like nuclear proliferation, to address address the problems of conflict that are causing so much misery and hardship for so many people. they were extensive. we discussed not only the iranian nuclear deal and the potential for us to ensure that iran is not obtaining a nuclear weapon and triggers a race in the region, but we also discussed our concerns about iran's destabilizing activities in the region and how to address those in a cooperative fashion even as we hope that we can achieve the kind of peace and good neighborerlyness with iran that i think so many of the countries here seek.

we discussed the conflict in syria, in yemen. we discussed countering violent extremism and specifically, what additional work we need to do with respect to dash. and i was very explicit. as will be reflected in the joint statement we released, that the united states will stand by our gcc partners against external attack and will deepen cooperation we have when it comes to the many challenges that exist in the region. so, i just want to say thank you to all of the participants here today. i think it's been an excellent conversation. there's a lot of work that will be coming out of this. summit. as reflected in the joint statement. because we want to make sure this isn't just a photo

opportunity, but instead, a practical series of steps that make our peoples more secure, i've committed to accepting an invitation from the gcc to have a follow up meeting next year in which we will be able to report on the progress that's been made. i want to thank every one of the companies represented here. for their extraordinary leadership. and their commitment to working with the united states. with that, i'd like to turn it over briefly to the current chair of the gcc. >> president i will speak in arabic. [speaking arabic]

[speaking arabic

thank you very much, mr. president. >> now i realize that i probably should have waited for trans lax, but my p mamtstatements and the

amir was prepared to have that translate as well. rather than all us stand here, we'll get you trypsins. he wasn't just complimenting the excellent lunch and i'll make myself available for a press conference in a few moments. so, thank you very much, everybody. thank you so much.

president obama along with leaders and delegations from the gulf cooperation counsel countries after their meeting at camp david today. with a statement and as you heard, the president will make himself available for reporter's questions in about a half hour. the president's news conference will have it for you live here on cspan 3.

in the meantime other events from today. first up, the briefing the weekly briefing by house speaker john boehner. morning, everyone. i'm going to extend condolences to those who lost loved ones in tuesday's tragic amtrak derailment. our thoughts and prayers are with these families. the injured and all those who have been affected by this horrible accident. our committees are following the

investigation closely and will await the final results. let me also take a moment to recognize national police week. job of a police officer isn't easy. it's very dangerous, as a report from the fbi this week confirmed. there are more than 900,000 sworn law enforcement officers in our country. we're surrounded by some of the finest of these officers right here at the capitol. so, on behalf of the whole house, i want to thank all of our police officers and our families for their service and their daily sacrifices. here in the house, we continue to make the american people's priorities our priorities. tarting with jobs in the economy. we passed real entitlement reform, balanced budget plan and good bills to make a difference for working families. and i'm pleased to hear the decent has found a path forward to deal with trade promotion authority.

more trade means more jobs for the american people. when the senate completes its work on this important legislation, the house will follow suit. republicans are going to do our part. ultimately however success is going to require the democrats putting aside politics and doing what's best for our country. a national security today, the president is going to huddle with the middle east leaders and we're reminded of the growing threats posed by iran and by isis terrorists. in the house, we're addressing these challenges head on. this week, the house addressed reforms to help keep americans safe. today, we'll ensure that congress and the people will have an opportunity to review any potential agreement with iran.

tomorrow, we'll take up a strong defense bill to make sure our troops have what they need to carry out our missions. this shouldn't be a tough vote but incredibly, after helping the paths bill through committee by a vote of 60-2, democrat leaders have pulled their support. so let me be clear. this vote is about whether you support our men and women in uniform. the bill authorizes all the funding the president requested for our national defense. it improves pay and benefits for our troops and their families. it calls for a greater protection of our troops from sexual assault. and includes another common sense measures that members of both parties have supported for years, so, democrats are now saying they support our troops before they oppose them. you'll have to add some but i think it's down right shameful they're even contemplating

turning their backs on americans troops. so, i would urge all democrat especially those on the armed service iss committee who voted for this bill to give our troops the support they desifr as they put their lives on the line to keep america safe. we'll see how the senate what the senate sends us and then we'll make decisions about how we'll consider it in the house. but we will consider them. all those issues in the house. we'll see. >> some kind of measure, would you put something like that on the floor for a vote? >> we've had this discussion about currency between countries

and continents for the 25 years that i've been here. and i think that the congress can legislate what currency valuations are between countyries is is almost laughable. i think the department of treasury under the four presidents i've served with have done a very good job of working with our allies around the world when some of these currencies get in some people's minds, out of line. i think it's a much better approach than trying to legislate what should or shouldn't happen with regard to kournsy valuations. it's doubtful this will happen before the end of next week. >> what kind of off sets are you

giving to the democrats? >> conversation going on between democrats and republicans, house and senate, over how to deal with the highway funding authorizations and for what period of time, but no decisions have been made. i'd prefer we had a permanent five-year or longer program in place. that's probably not going to happen next week. my preference is whatever we can get an agreement on. >> short-term extension of

current -- >> how or -- >> does it what? we've got a strong relationship with our allies when it comes to intelligence matters. if you look down below, our relationships on the intelligence side around the world are as strong as ever. yes. >> amtrak was not well funded enough -- >> are you really going to ask -- that's a stupid question. they started this yesterday and it's all about funding, all about funding.

obviously, it's not about funding. the train was going twice the speed limit. adequate funds were there. no money's been cut from rail safety. and the house passed the bill earlier this spring to reaught raise rise amtrak and a lot of these programs. it's hard for me to imagine that people take the bait on some of the nonsense that gets spewed around here. thanks. president obama met today with leaders and delegations from the gulf cooperation counsel countries, bahrain, kuwait, oman qatar. for the summit in maryland we'll go back to camp david live about 20 minutes from now where the president will be holding a news conference. we'll have that for you live in

20 here on sh cspan 3. until then, nancy pelosi who also held a briefing. >> morning, everyone. what a sad day. after yesterday, our thoughts and prayers are with everyone affected by the train derailment in philadelphia, especially those families who lost their loved ones and now, we're still waiting to see for the unaccounted for. victims victims as well as those who were seriously injured. we look wardforward to an investigation on how this happened and how it must be avoided in the future and we must constant reminder that we must strengthen the confidence and safety in infrastructure. and in order to have safety in infrastructure, you have to have strong infrastructure.

one aspect of that is the highway trust fund. we have five legislative days left until the highway and transit trust fund expires. 660,000 good paying jobs are at risk. 6,000 critical construction projects endangered across the country country. this issue has not in the past been a partisan issue. we've also been able to work together over time, over years, over various bills to come together on our transportation infrastructure. legislation, let's hope we can do that now. it is unfortunate that yesterday in the appropriations committee, just with the transportation hud appropriations bill, that bill is 11.4 below the president's

budget and in fact, below fy 15. 2015. an amendment to find -- by the president's request was voted down. that was the allotment that would have funded the control at the president's budget level. $825 million. that was voted down. and passenger derailment investment and improvement act. in 2008, we passed this bill. it was overstar in the house. lautenberg in the senate. passenger rail investment improvement act.

that is what they were asking for the funding. so that we can help try to meet that deadline. one thing i just want to say is that there are some in the congress who are saying oh we've got to push that date five years farther into the future. we have to resist that. at that time, we had an accident in california, which resulted in many deaths. a train to two trains colliding so this bill called for the train control which could have presented that. it is in california, but we needed to be every place. so that's just some of the decisions we're makeing currently that now, we are wiser about the need and the urgency and hopefully, we can be bipartisan in how we come together to not

only do a highway bill, but also to do highway and infrastructure bill that we talk about. things beyond highway, but mass transit. the state of pennsylvania and another act today, was injured. freight, but i had the comforts, 25 mayors came by and mayors from pennsylvania were saying that they have highest number of bridges of any state in the country that are security is threatened because of you know, no maintenance is the most expensive. when it comes to maintaining safety of our infrastructure.

instead of dealing with these issues our republican colleagues are continuing their radical effort to dismantle a woman's right to choose access to comprehensive health care. the congress so far, we have voted to place unprecedented re restrictions on how women can spend their own money when they purchase insurance. and voted to enable employees to enable d.c. employers to fire employees with reproductive health decisions. the employee or his, or her spouse or their dependent. another issue before us now is is national defense authorization act. we take an out to protect and defend our constitution, american people.

that's our first responsibleility and we all we all assistant on national defense. we support lift inging the sequester and fully funding the president's defense budget. the bill for the house is both bad budgeting and harmful to military planning perpetuating uncertainty and instability in the defense budget, damaging the military's ability to plan and prepare for the future. said it's clearly a road to nowhere, managerially unsound and dispiriting to our force. end of quote. republicans are trying to use more funding as a virtual slush fund for one part of the budget while letting the ax fall on everything else. leading priorities essential to the strength of our country.

the veterans budget grievously underfunded. the authorization bill is not only disingenuous it is dangerous. republicans should acknowledge it is impossible to use our nation with the caps present in the budget. we should come together with all of us, democrats and republicans in a physically responsible way to protect our national security and dwroegrow our committee. it reflects a narrow way of look ing at our security, one that ignores the contributions by the state department treasury homeland security department veterans and disregards enduring long-term connection between our nation's security and many other factors like rnd to keep our technological edge and the general economic strengths of

our country. any questions? yes. does not deflect a whole lot of interest on this bill. when are your thoughts on manipulation and reenforcement and what can you do to try to get this to the president? >> what can i do to get it to the president's desk? i think it will probably go to the president. we'll see what happens in the senate today. i have no idea if it will pass. people, mr. schumer seems optimistic about having the votes on urn currency manipulation. all i can say is there is concern. among members of the house. about currency manipulation.

there has been for a very long time. and so now, it is the current, concern is now manifested in the opportunity that will present itself in these trade negotiations. the administration has been pretty clear that they don't want my understanding is that they don't want this in the bill. we keep saying what other substitution suggestions do you have because there is the belief that currency manipulation has been responsible for a loss of many jobs in our country. it is a government subsidy that some countries have used and that's unfair in terms of trade so it's, there's a high level of interest, but i don't usually predict what's going to be happening in the senate. we'll know i think at 12:00 are they bringing it up at noon?

we'll have more to say after that. yes, ma'am. >> on a house side of it, obviously, tpa will come to the house after it passes the senate, but are you willing, able to say if you think it will pass the house at this point? a number of of democrats in your caucus are opposed to it. do you think there's a chance of passing and do you have any news about where you stand on that? >> the let's see what comes out of the senate. they'll be taking up the currency, the customs bill, currency will be part and a goal. special preferences legislation 12. then they start the debate on the other two trade promotion act and the trade adjustment act. we'll see what comes through the process there. one major -- going back and forth on the tpp, trans pacific

bill, but partnership bill, but one concern people have about the trade promotion act is of course, we would love to have seen sandy levins substitute passed because it empowered congress had more transparency, more consultation with congress and the rest. that was not made an order by the house republicans, but one overriding concern that members have on a tpa is that this is not a tpa for the trans pacific trade promotion act. a fast track just for the specific bill, the tpp bill or the european bill that will be coming up. this is a really effectively a six is-year get out of jail free or something to that effect, carte blanche, fast track three years.

with a privileged resolution. that means any and all bills that might come down the track and i think that's a real reason for concern and i wish that part of it could be changed. because what we're saying is you're asking for fast track, let's see what you're asking for fast track for. and for weeks and weeks and weeks as i think you know, we've been reviewing the tpp to the extent that it is finished. some parts aren't, they tell us, but we've been drilling down on currency manipulation dispute resolution, food sanitation environmental concerns workers rights, a list goes on and on. substantively.

so, people are saying i'll give you fast track if i think i might vote, depending on what it's foor but this fast track is for things unknown and i would hope that there could be some length of agreement not related to the length of agreement we see on the horizon, but anything that might come along. so, what i had the majority, when i was the speaker, used to always write that every vote was a test of my leadership. so, now, this will be a test of the speaker's leadership as to whether he can produce the votes for a bill. that the republicans support. i think we only are time for one or two more questions. yes, sir. about your desire to have time

frame and what did they say? >> we have a number of concerns that members have and listed some of them and what i'm going to do today is really to see what responses we have received back on some of the concerns that have been mentioned. whether that was part of what the levin substitute put forth. they are obviously supporting the bill as it is going to the floor in the senate. that might be a response. yes. >> declined to participate what do you think that says about our current relationships -- allies. >> i don't think saudi arabia declined to participate. the head of state did, but they are sending representation for

whatever reason, the king will not be coming, but they will have high level participation in the meeting. i think that this is a new idea to bring everyone here. i commend the president for his leadership in doing it and it is, it's innovative and some people are not attuned yet to the innovation. but i think this president deserves a great deal of credit on foreign policy. of course one of the issues on the agenda i believe, i haven't been told, but from what i read in the daily metropolitian journals at our disposal here is that iran agreement would be an issue of discussion there and this president deserves a great deal of credit. the very idea that some of it probably started under president bush and has continued. the reaching out for an agreement with iran. but this president under his

leadership to have the p5 russia china united states, the uk and france plus 1 germany in agreement for a long period of time over sanctions, over the -- terms of the negotiation, is almost mir rack louse. this is a very big deal. i won't go into the years that i have been been trying to get china, russia, even france to stop transferring dual technologies, but any event, i see this as a very major accomplishment and obviously the goal is that iran will not have a nuclear weapon and we have to exhaust ever diplomatic remedy to make sure that happens. so, i think the president brings a high, a strong hand to the table and a camp. is it at camp david?

i can't keep up with everybody's locations, but at the table and camp david in terms of bringing countries together to act severally in terms of having leverage. i wish him well. it's a discussion. it's not a lecture. so, it will have a conversation among them and exchange views and i think that is a very good thing for them to do. >> another question. no fair. is there an excuse if you have such a huge you helped get -- >> i think that obviously these

needs are big and some of the others, i don't know. you didn't have to ask others because i just don't know what but the republicans have been very much against amtrak. for a very long time. i remember when secretary thompson came to be head of hh secretary of hhs at former governor of wisconsin, remember when he came? well, he really loved amtrak and i think that was where his heart was and was hoping he could play a leadership role there. that's kind of what he told us. and but they put him at hhs, which he loved as well, but he was sort of an exception among the republicans in terms of strong supporter of amtrak. in the history of the country, if you read about henry clay when he was speaker, the issue of infrastructure was controversial in our country then. more than you may want to hear

about this morning because we have to go, but you know, when jefferson was president, he had an initiative for building infrastructure of our country. part of it was the lewis and clark expedition to explore the cumberland road, eerie canal, all of that and it's very excited excited 100 years later, they established the national parks service as a preservation of our infrastructure and the rest. another manifestation of infrastructure. but even going back over 200 years, it was dispute because the southerners didn't want to support infrastructure if it looked like most of those projects were going to be in the north. even though i'm not saying strictly northeast at that point, but in the north, so there's been a a debate historically in our country on subject, but that was sort of ancient. you saw president eisenhower at

a time of tough economic times had the interstate highway. system put forth. it was a defense mechanism to unify america. this was about our economy, our safety. it's about quality of life. clean air. it's so important for us to do and one manifestation which does all of those things is mass transit is amtrak. one manifestation is amtrak. people to and from work. saving time. quality of life. cleaninging the air. and the rest. and for some reason it has just been opposed by some, not all in the republican party. we have the speaker coming in in ten minutes, so i have to give up this room. call me if you have a question

and i'll see you next week. we're here next week. this is big deal. and i'm hoping that we can work together with the speaker as we have done recently on past issues to restore the bipartisan ship and the broader question of transportation and infrastructure. we have to meet the needs economy of our country, the safety of our people. thank you all very much.

president obama met today with representatives of gulf cooperation counsel countries at camp david. and we'll be taking you back to camp david maryland for a live news conference with the president. it should get underway anytime now. the ap reporting on the summit president obama is pledging unity with gulf allies and dealing with concerns about iran. he says the u.s. will broaden its cooperation with these nations on what he says are many challenges in the region. obama and leaders from six gulf nations met today during a rare summit at camp david. the presidential retreat in maryland. obama's separate negotiations to curb iran's nuclear program have strained relations with u.s. partners in the gulf. gulf states fear that lifting economic sanctions will em bolden iran to behave more aggressively in the region. obama said the group agreed to a

follow up meeting next year. that from the associated press reporting on today's meeting an the statement from a short time ago. again, the president will have a news conference at camp david. we'll have it live here on cspan 3 in a few moments. while we wait, earlier today, cspan talked with paul ryan in wisconsin about the future of trade promotion authority legislation. the senate voted to move forward with that bill earlier. here's what congressman ryan had to say. >> chairman paul ryan. >> as the trade bill has moved through the u.s. senate expected to be in the house after memorial day congressman, why do you think these measures are good for american workers? >> well, i think getting a level playing field for american workers so we can make and xwroe more things in america and send them overseas is is very important for jobs.

you know, the reason basically is 95% of the world's consumers don't live in our country. they live in other countries, so it's important we open up markets because one in five jobs in america is tied to trade and most of these jobs pay more on average, so it's really a function of getting more growth, more job creation, better wages. we already give many of these countries decent access to our markets, but they don't give the same kind to their markets and so that's why you need trade agreements to open up those markets and get those countries to play by our rules so we can have free and fair trade so we can have more jobs so it's really all about that. the last point i would make is the global economy is is here and it's always changing. the question is isdo we lead and guide that change or --do others write the rule book is this it's really a way of do our allies

write the rules or does china and for you know, i for one don't want to see china writing the rules of the global economy because i don't think that's in our interest. i think it's important for america to be at the front seat leading this so we can have more american jobs and higher wages. gl an op-ed for the "washington post," you said china is rigging the rules in its favor. how so? >> because it takes our land and locks it into property rights. it subsidized government corporations from china to unfairly compete against american workers. china does not play by the ordinary rules and what we get with trade agreements is getting other countries around china to play by our rules so set the standards. the goal is not to lower american standards. it's to get other countries to trade by other standards and you can't do that if you don't get trade agreements. >> the aflcio is claiming these

bills allow you and others to go after the des of deregulation. they say it's going to give tax breaks and hurt the average worker. trade based jobs pay almost 18% more on average. one in five jobs in america is tied to trade and by the way if we're not getting trade agreements, that means other countries are going around the world getting better agreements for their countries and freezing america out. we can't just make and sell to ourselves. we have to make things and sell overseas and without trade agreement, what companies inevitably have to do is is manufacture in foreign markets in order to sell in those. by getting a trade agreement to lower the barrier, we can make things here in america and send them overseas because those barriers have been lifted, so that's the key. this is why it's bipartisan. why you have president obama pushing for trade along with republicans in congress because we know in the final analysis when you strip out all the uncertainties and all the

misperception, it's really in america's interest to do this and with trade promotion authority, we are saying we need to have high standards. we need to have transparency and we want to make sure that the american people can read a trade agreement 60 days before a president can even sign an agreement and then send it in for congress. we think we're getting it right for trans parn issy, by making sure people's voices are heard to get good quality trade agreements and if you're not getting trade agreements, that means other countries are and america will lose. >> we learned from senator rand paul that the texts of these agreements are not available. it's 800 pages long. he's saying it should be made available. why isn't it? >> it's not finalized. these agreements are still being negotiated, so there isn't an agreement to look at and release. what trade promotion authority does under the bill we've

written is is that when these agreements are done, then the whole entire agreement should be made public for at least 60 days before any president can sign an agreement and then send it to congress for congress for congress's consideration. and so we don't have a trade agreement yet. we don't have a trade trans-pacific partnership. you need tpa, trade promotion authority in order to get a trade agreement. what we're saying with tpa is we want more tranlt parency, have them read negotiations and members of congress if he wants to under tpa can participate in the negotiations. he can attend the negotiations if he wants to. but once they're concluded, then you can make it public. we don't have a trade agreement to make public because we have not yet completed tpa. >> and congressman as you well know there are many who don't support it in large part because

they don't trust this president. will you and speaker boehner get the votes you need to get this through the house? >> i think we will get this through the house and i think it's going to be a bipartisan bill. to my friends who are suspicious and i share many of those concerns trade promotion authority binds congress. it puts congress in charge of the congress because there's nothing that stops the president from going out and negotiating an agreement and just sending it to congress. what we're saying is we're putting out the guidelines for what the agreements need to include. 150 guidelines that congress is negotiating on the admin strarks making sure that the tax is made available to the public before we even vote on it. those are the kinds of things we're insisting upon in trade promotion authority so i would very much argue that by passing trade promotion authority you have congress asserting its prerogative, asserting its control of the process at the front end instead of just sitting back waiting for the president to negotiate something

in ee caret and send it to congress. >> finally, congressman, what's the biggest? >> i think ways and means simply because its jurisdiction is so much wider. not only is it in charge of trade laws tax laws, tax laws and health care laws and oversees our entitlement programs. >> congressman paul ryan joining us on chile. congressman, thanks for being with us. >> my pleasure. thanks for having me steve. we're live at camp david milliliter, where we expect to hear from president obama in just a few moments after he met today with leaders and delegations from the gulf cooperation council for the gcc summit. the associated"associated press" saying president obama reassured anxious persian gulf nations that the u.s. is helping to protect their security. now the president live on c-span3.

>> good evening. before i get to what we discussed here today with our gulf partners, i want to again express my deepest condolences for those who died in tuesday's terrible train derailment outside of philadelphia. i want to express my gratitude for the first responders who raced to save lives and for the many passengers who despite their own injuries made heroic efforts to get fellow passengers to safety. for a lot of people on that train, it was a routine journey. a commute, a business trip, for the amtrak employees who were badly hurt it was their office their place of doing business, and that somehow makes it all the more tragic. until we know for certain what caused the tragedy, i just want to reiterate what i just said that we're a growing country with a growing economy, we need to invest in the infrastructure that keeps us that werek and not

just when something bad happens but when a bridge collapses. all the time. i offer my prayers for those who dwreev, a speedy recovery for the many who were injured as they work to recover, and we will koomt obviously at every level of government to make sure that we get answers in terms of precisely what happened. now, to the work that brought us to camp david, for the past 70 years the united states has maintained a core national security interest and the stability of the middle east and the gulf. there's a foreign tenet upheld by american servicemembers raend affirmed by every u.s. president including me. since i took office we've intensified our security cooperation with our gulf cooperation council partners. saudi arabia the united arab

emirates cue waits ha man, qatar, and bahrain. at a time of extraordinary challenges across the middle east including consequences that caused untold human sufferings. our parters cooperate extensively conquering groups like isis and isil. opposing war against the syrian people supporting the legitimate government of yemen and imposing sanctions across the middle east. i invited our gcc partners here today to deepen our koopg and to work together to resolve conflicts across the region. i want to thank each of the leaders and delegations who attended. we approached our discussions in mutual respect. we agree thad the security relationship between the united states and gcc partners will remain cornerstone of regional stability and our relations is a

two-way street. we all have responsibilities and here at camp david we decided to expand our department in several concrete ways. first i'm reaffirming our agreement to the security of gulf partners. as we declared in our joint statement, they're prepared to work jointly with gcc member states to deter and confront an external front of any internal integrity that is inconsistent with the u.n. charter. in the event of such aggression or the threat of such aggression aggression, the united states stands ready to work with our gcc partners to urgently determine what actions may be appropriate using the means at our collective disposal including collective use of military force at the defense of our gcc partners. let me underscore the united states keeps our commitments. second and to back up our words with deeds we will increase our already expensive security cooperation. we'll expand our military exercises and assistance to meet the full range of threats.

in particular terrorism. this means more training and cooperation between our special operations forces. sharing more information and stronger border security to prevent the flow of foreign fighters, and increased enforcement to prevent terrorist financing. we'll step up our earths to counter violent extremism including online and more broadly we'll include maritime security and work to harden our partner's critical infrastructure. third we'll help our gulf partners improve their own capacity to defend themselves. united states will streamline and expedite. we'll work together to integrate a gcc defense capability against ballistic missiles including an early warning system, and we will work toward the development of rapid response capabilities to undertake missions such as counterterrorism and peacekeeping. fourth, we pledge to work

together to try to resolve armed conflicts in the region and we've articulated core principles to guard our efforts. respect for state sovereignty recognition that they can only be resolved politically and acknowledgement of the inclusive governance and the need to respect minorities and human rights. therefore with respect to syria we commit to strengthening the modern opposition to oppose all violent extremist groups and to intensify our efforts to achieve it toward an incluesive government without bashar assad that serves all syrians. we will continue to support the iraqi government and in reforms to ensure that the rights and opportunities of all iraqis are fully respected. we welcomed the humanitarian truce in yemen so urgently needed aid can reach civilians and we call on all parties to return to talks.

we will step up our collective efforts to help form a national unity government in libya and counter the growing terrorist presence there and we reiterate the urgent need for a two-state solution between israelis and palestinians. fifth, we spent considerable time discussing iran. i updated our gulf partners on the negotiations toward a comprehensive deal to prevent iran from obtain agnew clear weapon and i'm pleased that here at camp david we agree that a comprehensive varyerifyiable solution is in the security interests of the international security including our gcc partners. of course, whether we reach a nuclear deal or not with iran, we're still going to face a range of threats across the region including its destabilizing activities as well as the threats from terrorist groups. so we're going to work together to address these threats and

much enhance the security cooperation i outlined will allows to do precisely that. but i want to be very clear. the purpose of security cooperation is not to perpetuate any long-term confrontation with iran or even to marginalize iran. none of our nations have an interest in an open-ended conflict with iran. we welcome an iran that plays a responsible role in the region. one that takes concrete practical steps to build trust and resolve its differences with its neighbors by peaceful means and abides by international rules and norms. as i said before any tensions in the region and resolving its devastating conflicts will require a broader dialogue, one that includes iran and-i gcc neighbors. and so a key purpose of bolstering the capacity of the gcc partners is so they can deal with iran politically diplomatic will i from a position of confidence and strength. and, finally while the summit

was focused on security cooperation, developments in the middle east since the beginning of the arab spring are a reminder that true and lasting security including governance that serves all citizens and respects universal human rights. so in the middle east as we do around the world. the united states will continue to spike out on behalf of the governance representative institutions. strong civil societies and human rights and we will work to expand the educational and economic opportunities that allow people especially young people, to fulfill their potential. so, again, i want to thank all of our gcc partners for making this summit a success. i believe that the camp david commitments that i've described today can mark the beginning of a new era of cooperation between our countries, a closer stronger partnership that advances our mutual security for decades to come. so with that i'm going to take some questions and i'm going to start with julie pace. i promised her in the oval

office i'd call on her. >> thank you very much. you mentioned support on the gcc. did you get any specific commitments from the gulf leaders for the framework that you reached a few months ago and at least a commitment to not publicly oppose a deal if you're able to reach that, and on the gulf's main concern, iran's destabilizing activity how can you really assure them that iran would not continue that activity if they had an influx of money from sanctions relief when they're already accused of doing so now with a weaker economy? >> we didn't have a document that we presented them to sign on the bottom line will you approve of this nuclear framework deal because the deal is not completed. and in the same way that i wouldn't ask the united states senate or the american people to

sign off on something before they've actually seen the details of it and given that i'm not going to sign off on any deal until i've seen the details of it i wouldn't expect them to either. way did hear from our gcc partners was their agreement that if we can get a comprehensive verifiable deal that cuts off the pathways to a nuclear weapon, that that would be in their interests and in the interest of the region as well as the world community. and so the question's then going to be is iran prepared to do what's required for the international community to feel confidence that, in fact it's not a developing nuclear weapon and have we set up the kinds of inspections regimes that allow such confidence to be maintained not just next year or five years from now but out into the future. so what we did was we had

secretary kerry secretary ernie mow niece who obviously was involved in the negotiations as well to walk through why it was that we are department that if the framework agreement that we've arrived at were to be solidified that, in fact, we could verify that they did not have a nuclear weapon and that was important to them, and i think gave them additional confidence. there was a concern -- a concern that i share that even if we deal effectively with the nuclear issue, that we will still have a problem with some of iran's destabilizing activities, and a number of them did express concern that with additional resources through the reduction in sanctions that was it possible that iran would siphon off a lot of these row sources into more destabilizing activity. secretary jack lew was there to

explain that first of all there would be no sanctions relief until we could confirm this iran had actually carried out its obligations under any nuclear deal. secondly we gave them our best analysis of the enormous needs that iran has internally and the commitment that iran has made to its people in terms of shoring up its economy and proving economic growth. and as i pointed out, most of the destabilizing activity that iran engages in is low tech low cost activity. and so part of my emphasis to them was that if we are focusing more effectively on the things we need to do to shore up defenses and improve intelligence improve the capacity for maritime monitoring of what's taking place in the

gulf, if we are working in concert to address you know the terrorist activity and countering terrorist messages that are coming not just from state sponsors like iran but more broadly from organizations like isil then we're going to be able to fortify ourselves and deal with many of these challenges much more effectively, and we can do so from a position of strength and confidence, so it's not to deny the concerns that were there about what happens when sanctions are reduced, but it was to emphasize that what matters more is the things that we can do now to ensure that some of this destabilizing activity is no longer taking place. and, of course, when you look at

a place like yemen the issue there is the state itself was crumb ling and that, you know, if we can do a better job in places like syria, yemen, libya in building up functioning political structures, then it's less likely that anybody, including iran can exploit some of the divisions that exist there. michael viqueira. >> thank you mr. president. on syria one of the reasons we're here is many of the nations in the region were upset that more than two years ago when a sad deployed chemical weapon, there was no military response as you appeared to promise, no retaliation on the part of the u.s.'s part. now there's a possibility that assad once again used chemical weapons. what did you tell these leaders here who were disappointed last time and will you use a military response if it's confirmed that he used chemical weapons once again to deploy them and if i could ask a domestic question as

well, sir, and this one is about the environment and the drilling that's recently been approved in the arctic. this nation is now an exporter for the first time of fossil fuels partly due to fracking, something environmentalists have objected to. something that you have regarded as an all of the above energy strategy but the oil company shell has had a very mixing record drilling in that region. many environmentalists look at this and say sit really worth a risk to drill in such a delicate ecosystem. thank you. >> first of all, michael i don't know why you're here but why i'm here is not because of what happened in syria a couple of years ago. the reason i'm here is because of the extraordinary challenges throughout the region. not just syria but iraq and libya and obviously the developments of isil and our interest in making sure that we don't have a nuclear weapon in iran. with respect to syria my

commitment was to make sure that syria was not using chemical weapons and mobilizing the international community to assure that that would not happen. and, in fact we positioned ourselves to be willing to take military action. the reason we did not is because assad gave up his chemical weapons. that's not speculation on our part. that, in fact, has been confirmed by the organization internationally that is charged with eliminating chemical weapons. and i don't think that there are a lot of folks in the region who are disappointed that assad is no longer in possession of one of the biggest stockpiles of chemical weapons of any country on earth. those have been eliminated. it is true that we've seen reports about the use of

chlorine n-bombs that have the effect of chemical weapons. chlorine itself historically has not been listed as a chemical weapon, but when it is used in this fashion can be considered a prohibited use of that particular chemical. and so we're working with the international community to investigate that. and, in fact, if we have the kinds of confirmation that we need, we will once again work with the international community and the organization charged with monitoring compliance by the syrian government and we will reach out to patrons of assad like russia to put a stop to it. with respect to the situation in the arctic i think it's fair to say that i know a little something about the risks of offshore drilling given what

happened in the gulf very early in my presidency. and so nobody's more mindful of the risks involved and the dangers. that's why despite the fact that shell had put in an application several years ago, we delayed it for a very lengthy period of time until they could provide us with the kinds of assurances that we have not seen before taking into account the extraordinary challenges if, in fact, there was a leak that far north and in that kind of an environmental, which would be much more difficult to deal with than in the gulf. based on those very high standards, shell had to go back to the drawing board, revamp its approach, and the experts at this point have concluded that they have met those standards. but keep in mind that my

approach when it comes to fracking drilling, u.s. energy production of oil or natural gas has remained consistent throughout. i believe that we're going to have to transition off of fossil fuels as a planet in order to prevent climate change. i am working internationally to reduce our carbon emissions and to replace over time fossil fuels with clean energies. obviously we start at home with all the work that we've done to, for example double the use of clean energy but i think that it is important also to recognize that that is going to be a transition process in the meantime. we're going to continue to be using fossil fuels and when it can be done safely and appropriately, u.s. production of oil and natural gas is important. i would rather us with all the safeguards and standards that we have be producing our oil and

gas rather than importing it which is bad for our people but is also potentially purchased from places that have much lower environmental standards than we do. tolu. >> thank you, mr. president. boy uld like to ask you about train. >> yeah. >> your senate moved forward on the trade legislation and also moved forward with a proposal to punish countries like china for what they do in terms of manipulating their currency. could you potentially seeing yourself accepting senator schumer's language on currency or would you have to veto that and secondly could you also talk about your relationship with senator warren? do you regret the fact that things have become so personal with the back-and-forth on

trade? >> that was the second question wasn't it? so thirdly you're saying. >> yeah. >> okay. >> really quickly, you mention add two-state solution with israel. i was wondering if you could give your reaction with what the pope is moving forward with in terms of recognizing the palestinian state. do you think it's a good idea, do you think it's a mistake, door you think it might help or hinder the two-state solution you mentioned earlier. >> first of all i want to congratulate the senate on moving forward on providing me the authority to not only strike a smart progressive growth promoting trade deal with some of the countries in the asian pacific region and potentially europe as well, but also to give me the tools to enforce those agreements which haven't always happened in the past. so i want to thank all the senators who voted to provide

this authority or at least to begin the debate on moving that process forward. those who didn't vote for it i want to keep on trying to make the case and provide them the information they need to feel confident that despite the fact that there have been very genuine problems with some trade deals in the past, the approach that we're taking here, i think, is the right one not just for big u.s. businesses but also for small u.s. businesses and medium sized u.s. businesses and most importantly ultimately american workers. i would not be promoting any agreement that i didn't think, you know, at the end of the day was going to be creating jobs in the united states and be giving us more of an opportunity to create ladders of success, higher incomes and higher wages

for the american people because that's my primary focus. it has been since i came into office. you know, the issue with respect to myself and elizabeth has never been personal. i mean i think it's fun for, you know the press to see if we can poke around at it when you see two close allies who have a disagreement on a policy issue but there are a whole bunch of -- some of my best friends in the senate as well as in the house, some of my earliest supporters who disagree with me on this, and i understand because like me they came up through the ranks watching plants close, jobs being shipped overseas. like me, they have concerns about whether labor agreements

or environmental agreements with other countries are properly enforced. like me, they have concerns about whether in fact trade ends up being fair and not just free. and like me they have a deep concern about some of the global trends that we've seen and trends that we've seen in our own countries in terms of increased inequality and what appears to be the effects of automation and globalization in allowing folks aet the very top to do really, really well but creating stagnation in terms of incomes and wages for middle class families and folks working to get their way into the middle class. so these are folks whose values are completely aligned with mine. i notice that there was sort of

a progressive statement of principles about what it means to be a progressive by some of these friends of mine, and i noted that it was basically my agenda except for trade. it was the one area where there was a significant difference and this just comes down to a policy difference and analysis in terms of what we think is best for our people, our constituents. it is my firm believe that despite the problems of previous trade deals that we are better off writing high standard rules with strong enforcement provisions on things like child labor or deforestation or degradation or trafficking or intellectual property. we're better off writing those rules for what is the largest fastest growing market in the world, and if we don't china

will and other countries will and our businesses will be disadvantaged and our workers will ultimately suffer. and in terms of some of the fears of outsourcing of jobs, its is my belief based on the analysis that at this point if there was a company in the united states that was looking for low cost labor, they have no problem outsourcing it under the current regime. and so what we do have the opportunity to do is to attract back companies to manufacture here in the united states. and we're seeing some of that happen. that's why i went out to nike. i understand that nike has been manufacturing shoes with low cost labor in many of these areas in the asia-pacific region, and that hurt the american footwear industry in terms of jobs here in the united states, but that happened over the course of the last 30 years, and now for nike to acknowledge because of new technologies they're bringing 10,000 jobs

back here because we've gone up the value chain we're manufacturing in different ways that's an opportunity, but we still have to sell over there to take full advantage of the opportunities. which is why my argument with my progressive friends is what we really need to be focusing on to meet the same objectives the shared objectives is the kinds of other issues that we all agree on strong minimum wage, strong job training programs infrastruck trur programs that put people back to work, stronger laws to protect collective bargaining and capable bargaining. strong enforcement of rules around things like overtime pay, making sure that we have paid sick leave making sure that we have an honest conversation about, you know our budgets, and that we're not slashing investments in the future simply to make sure that we're preserving loopholes for

corporations that don't provide an economic benefit. those are the things that are going to help us address the very problems that they're concerned about. blocking a trade deal will not particularly since they're the first ones to acknowledge that the existing trade rules are a bad deal for u.s. workers. if they're not working for us now, how does hanging onto what's going on now help american workers? it doesn't make sense. i'm all for enforcement and the provisions that were signed. i have expressed concerns about how the currency language that is in the bill is drafted. but i have talked to senator schumer schumer, you know, sharon brown and others about how we can work on language that does not end up having a blow-back effect on our ability to maintain our own monetary policy.

i don't even remember what your other question was. oh. well, rather than speak for others, aisle just reiterate what i've said previously. i continue to believe that a two-state solution is absolutely vital for not only peace between israelis and palestinians but for the long-term security of israel as a democratic and jewish state and i know that a government has been formed that contains some folks who don't necessarily believe in that premise but that continues to be my premise. and since we're up here at camp david, i think it's important to remind ourselves of the degree to which a very hard peace deal that required incredible vision

and courage and tough choices resulted in what's now been a lasting peace between countries that used to be sworn enemies. and israel's better off for it. i think the same would be true if we get a peace deal between israelis and palestinians. that prospect seems distant now, but i think it's always important for us to keep in mind what's right and what's possible. okayst okay. last question. scott horsley. >> thank you, mr. president. you mentioned the need for a world-class infrastructure. we're coming up on a deadline for the highway trust fund. with gas prices where they are, why isn't this a good time to consider a hike in the federal gas tax that would help with car

gone goals and since you mentioned overtime rules, i know it's been 14 months since you asked the lay lore department to put those together. you went over to o & b last week. how soon might we see those? >> soon. and with respect to transportation, you're absolutely right that now's the time for us to get something done. i'm practical, and in order for us to get a transportation bill done, gievet to get cooperation from a republican-controlled congress and so i'm in discussion with majority and minority leaders in both chambers as well as the relevant committee chair persons. we want to hear their ideas. we want to find out what's possible. i think that's going to be something that we need to explore, but this is not app area where either side should be

looking for political points. this did not used to be a partisan issue. building roads building bridges, building airports, sewer lines dams, this is how we grow. investing in people, investing in infrastructure, doing it better and faster and bigger than anybody else did. we should be doing the same thing now. the first republican president, a proud native of my home state named mr. lincoln even in the midst of civil war looks at the country through our railways and our canals and we shouldn't be thinking smaller today. we need to be thinking bigger in this global economy.

our hope is we have a chance to have a serious discussion and look at all sources. what's absolutely true is the highway trust fund has consistently gotten smaller and smaller and smaller and adequate for the needs. what's also true is patchwork approaches of three months don't make any sense. we need some sort of long-term solution. nobody fore saw that we could get a docs fix done. who knows. maybe we might see some intelligent bipartisan outbreaks over the next few months because i think everybody realizes this spornlt. thank you very much, everybody. >> thank you.

here are some of our featured programs on the c-span network starts at saturday and morning. 10:00 a.m. mg we're at the internet and television expo for what can be expected. people can expect comcast ceo brian roberts technology columnist kara swisher and fcc chairman tom wheeler and sunday morning at 10:30 president obama is at georgetown university discussing ideas on how to i alleviate poverty in the united states. on c-span2 saturday morning beginning at 10:00 eastern on book tv we're live from city hall in guyaithersburg book festival. former obama adviser david ak el rod and sunday evening at 9:00 on afterword, caroline frederickson on the impact of

labor and employment laws and working limits and their families and on c-span3 saturday afternoon on oral histories remembering the liberation of nazi concentration camps and her life in jewish get toes after the nazi invasion and the 1942 death march she barely survive and sunday at 6:30 john mauer on the roipgss winston churchill developed during his political career. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. gop presidential hopeful senator marco rubio says the stakes are simply too high for this nation to elect hillary clinton as the negligent president. his comments came as he outlined his foreign policy doctrine at the council of foreign relations in new york city. this is about an hour. >> thank you.

first of all it's an honor to be back at the council and see the members here. senator rubio has had an extraordinary political career as you all know and i'll make that brief after serving in florida state legislature and speaker. he was at that time closely identified with governor bush and has been a great friend of governor bush, and now they are competitors. i take note of the fact that the senator has been in a number of instances reaching out to share his views on a variety of issues especially foreign policy, not just in the united states but in europe and other places. so it's -- i'm honored to be here to introduce you to him and to have him introduce the views that he holds because many people believe that this election in 2016 will be to a large part about foreign policy. always elections are about economics and how people feel about their well being and whether the country is on the right track or not, but foreign

policy seems to be more and more relevant in this election. so with that, senator marco rubio. >> thank you. it is an honor to be back at the council on foreign relations and i appreciate very much the opportunity to address you here today. so i wanted to begin my remarks by quoting from the closing of another set of remarks from a speech that i believe echos across history due to its proximity due to tragedy but stands more importantly more powerfully as a testament to the bipartisan tradition of strong american leadership. on the morn of november 22nd of 1963 president john f. kennedy suffolk at a ft. worth chamber of commerce event and he spoke on the need for a strong andive america. here ee here's what he said. he said, quo i am didn't as i

look to the future that our chances for security, our chances for peace are better than they have been in the past and the reason is because we are stronger. and with that strength is a determination to not only maintain the peace but also the vital interest of the united states. to that great cause, texas and the united states are committed, end quote. those were the final words of the final speech that president kennedy ever delivered, but the commitment to american strength he spoke lived on long after him. across decades, across parties. eventually bringing about the conclusion of the cold war and the emergence of america as the world's sole super power. president kennedy like most presidents before and since understood what i believe our current president does not. that american strength is a means of preventing war not promoting it and that weakness on the other hand is the friend

of danger and the enemy of peace. since the end of the cold war the threats facing america have changed, but the need for american strength has not. it's only grown more pressing as the world has grown more interconnected. in recent deck de cades technology has demolished. barriers, the travel into trade is transforming our national economy andinto a global one. the prosperity of our people now depends on the ability to interact freely and safely in the international marketplace. turmoil across the world can impact american families almost as much as turmoil across town. it can cause the cost of leveriving to rise or entire industries to shed jobs an crumble. and so today as never before foreign policy is domestic policy. sadly i believe president obama often disagrees with that simple

truth. he entered office believing america was too hard on our adversaries, too engaged too many places, that if we only took a step back and did more nation building at home, seating leadership to other countries, america would be better liked and the world would be better off and so he wasted no time, stripping parts from the engine of american strepgts. he enacted hundreds of billions of dollars in defense cuts that left our army on track to be at preworld war two levels o your neighbor at preworld war i levels and our air force with the smallest and oldest combat force in the history. he demonstrated a disregard for our moral purpose that at times was criticized with disdain. he criticized america with audacity to dictate our terms to other nations frchl his reset with russia to his open hand to

iran to his unreciprocated opening to cuba. he has embraced regimes that systematically opposed every principle our nation has long championed. the deterioration of our ideological strength has led to a world far more dangerous than when president obama entered office and just t last two years we've seen an emboldened russia invade invade. commit withdrew tall atrocities and aim tempt to establish a caliphate. we've seen one of the most devastating catastrophe fridays in decades as thousands of syrians have been slaughtered. sweerch the largest migration of refugees since world war ii bringing instability to an entire region and putting whole generations at risk of radicalization. we've seen china rapidly expand its military capabilities and take aggressive action in the

south and east china seas, and we've seen north korea expand its nuclear arsenal and continue its blew tall rights violations. we've seen cyber attacks against our allies and against our people. we've seen peaceful protesters met with violence from their government. and most threatening of all, we have seen iran expand its influence throughout the middle east and threaten to annihilate israel as it moves closer to a nuclear weapons capability. the president's proposed deal with iran will likely lead to a cascade of nuclear proliferation in the middle east and it could force israel to take bold action to defend itself, making war with iran even more likely. president obama's desperation to sign a deal, any deal has caused them to elevate politics over policy legacy over leadership

and adversaries over allies. the likely impacts of this deal along with a broader unraveling of global order underscore a truth we must never again forget. america plays a part on the world stage for which there is no understudy. when we fail to lead with strength and principle there is no other country friend or foe who is willing or able to take our place, and the result is chaos. i believe the onus of maintaining american strength lies where the buck stops. it is up to our next president to right the wrongs done by our current one. it is up to our next president to properly fund and modernize our military. it is up to our next president to restore our people's faith in the promise and the power of the american ideal. we simply cannot afford to elect as our next president one of the leading agents of this

administration's foreign policy, a leader from yesterday whose tenure as secretary of state was ineffective at best and dangerously negligent at worst. the stakes of tomorrow are too high to look to the failed leadership of yesterday. while america did not intend to become the world's indispensable power, that is exactly what our economic and political freedoms have made us. the free nations of the world still look to america to champion our shared ideals. vulnerable nations still depend on us to deter aggression from their larger neighbors. and oppressed people still turn their eyes toward our shores, wondering if we hear their cries, wondering if we notice their afflictions. we cannot bring peace and stability on our own, but the world cannot do it without us. and the question before us is not should we lead but rather

how should we lead in this new century. what principles should govern the exercise of our power in this new era. the 21st century years the president to answer that question with clarity and consistentcy consistency, one that will exercise american influence in the world and will adhere to that doctrine with a principle devotion that is marked with the bipartisan leadership from truman to kennedy to reagan and today i intend to offer such a doctrine and in the coming years i intend to be such a president. my foreign policy consists of three pillars. the first is american strength. this is an idea that stems from a simple truth, that the world is at its safest when america is add its strongest. when american has the mightiest army and navy and air force and marine corps and coast guard and

intelligence community in the world, the result is more peace not at more conflict. to assure our strength never falters, we must always plan ahead. it takes fore thought to design and capabilities to build that we may need as a moment's notice. so to reextort american strength my first priority would be to adequately fund the military, this would be at a time of peace and stability though the world is neither peaceful or stable. to begin, we need to undo the damage caused by the sequester which is why i've endorsed the national defense panel's recommendation that we return as soon as possible to secretary gates' fiscal year 2012 budget baseline. adequately funding the mill tai will allow us not only to grow our forces but also to modernize them, which in turn will allow us to remain on the cutting age in every arena before us, land, sea, and air and also cyberspace

and outer space, the battle os testify 21st century. we can assure we never send our troops into a fair fight but always rather equip them with the upper hand. and when they come home, we should be as firmly committed to their well being as they have been to ours. a strong military also mean as strong intelligence community, equipped with all the tool it needs to defend the homeland from extremism, both home grown and foreign trained and key to this will be extending section 215 of the patriot act. we cannot let politics cloud the importance of this issue. we must never find ourselves looking back after a terrorist attack and saying we could have done more to save american lives. some will argue that with all the fiscal challenges our nation faces, we sim will i cannot afford to invest in our military but the truth is we cannot afford not to invest in it.

we must remember that the defense budget is not the primary driber of our debt and every time we try to cut a dollar from it it seems to cost us several more to make up for it. this is because the successes of all of our initiatives depend on the safety of the american people and the stability of the global economy, which bring mess to my second pillar which is the protection of the american economy in a globalized world. when america was founded, it took more than 10 weeks to travel to europe. in the 19th century, the steam engine cut that down to around 12 days. in the 20th century, the airplane cut it to around six hours. and now in the 21st century you can access global markets in a single second with the tap of your smartphone. millions of the best jobs in this new century will depend on international trade. it is more important than ever that congress give the president trade promotion authority so that he can finalize the tran

pacific partnership and trance tlks trade and investment partnership. these agreements will create millions of jobs and smnlt u.s. strategic partnerships in asia, south america, and in europe. those such as secretary clinton who preach a message of international engagement and smart power, yet are not willing to stand up to special interests and support free trade are either hypocritical or they fail to grasp trades role as a tool of state craft that can bolster our relationship with partners and in the process create millions of better paying american jobs. as president i will use american power to oppose any violations of international waters, airspace cyberspace, or outer space. this includes the economic disruptions caused when one country invades another as well as the chaos caused by disruptions and choke points

such as the south china sea or the strait of har muse. russia, china iran or any nation that attempts to block global commerce will get response from my administration. gone will be the debating where a ship is flagged or whether it's our place to krit siechl territorial expansionism in this century business must have the freedom to operate around the world with confidence. the third pillar of this dodge doc turin is moral clarity regarding america's core values. we must recognize that our nation is a global leader not simply because it has superior arms but also because it mass superior aims. america's the first power in history motivated by a desire to expand freedom rather than simply expand its own territory. in recent years the ideals that have long formed the backbone of american foreign policy

passionate human rights, the strong democratic principals and the protection of southern earn allies they have been replaced aet best caution and at worse an outride willingness to trade those values for the expead yhency negotiations with repressive regimes. this is not just morally wrong. it is contrary to our interests because wherever freedom and human rights spread, partners for our nation are born. but whenever foreign policy comes unhinged for its moral purpose, it weakens global stability and forms cracks in our national resolve. in this century we must restore america's willingness to think big, to state boldly what we stand for and why it is right just as ronald reagan never flinched in his criticism of the soviet union's critical and economic repressions we must never shy away from demanding that china allow true freecome

for its 1.3 billion people. nor should we hesitate in calling the source of atrocities in the middle east by its real name. radical islam. as presidentially support the spread of economic and political freedom. by reinforcing our alliances resisting efforts by large powers to subjugate the smaller numbers and effect foreign assistance programs and advance the rights of the vulnerable including religious and minority who are so often persecuted so that the afflicted people of this world will know the truth. the american people hear their cries, see their suffering, and most of all desire their freedom. these are the three pillars of my doctrine. american strength, the protection of our global economy, and a proud advocacy of

america's core values. this approach will restore american leadership badly in need of it. it will re-establish a foreign policy based on strategy and principle rather than one based on politics and polls, one that is overseen by the white house but not micro managed by it and that will restore america's status as a nation that shapes global events, not one that is shaped by them. i want to allow plenty of time for discussion and how this vision would work in practice, so let me close with one final thought. the president of the united states is often called upon to make difficult decisions in the defense of our nation and these decisions come with a cost far greater than mine. my greatest honor in the u.s. senate has been too work with membership and women in uniform our intelligence professionals, diplomats, and our veterans. i have seen the tremendous sacrifices that they and they're

families make, but i eastern also seen the tremendous impact that those sacrifices have had on the world. i've talked to filipino typhoon survivors who knew, who knew that an american carrier over the horizon meant food and water and survival. i've talked to japanese and south koreans who knew an enduring u.s. presence allowed their nations to prosper. i've spoken to europeans convince thad america's role as a security guarantor had prevented conflict on what had been a blood-soaked continent for centuries. i've talked to american business leaders who knew their ability to access millions of international customers and create thousands of domestic jobs has hinged on american strength. most personally i have seen american freedom and security play out in the lives of my parents, my children and

myself. but increasingly in recent years i've also met people frustrated by the direction of american leadership. cuban dissidence, devastated by the president's concessions to the castro regime for nothing in return. north koreans disappointed by america's reluctance to speak out against modern-day gu lans. arab and israelis. syrians crushed that america did not help prevent their country from descending into chaos. afghans worried that americans will leave them like we left iraq. europeans anxious about russia's bellicose rhetoric and actions. and many of our own people concerned about their safety in a truly increasingly chaotic world. of all the important duties of the presidency and there are

many protecting people and their interests wherever those interests lie is the highest honor, the greatest burden and the most profound privilege. the first duty of the president as written in the constitution is not taxer and chief or regulator and chief. it is commander in chief. every presidential candidate must be prepared to execute this duty, and anyone who advocates from averting our eyes to the dangers of the world must be prepared to explain against six years of counterevidence how retrenchment and retreat will lead to a safer world because they will not. only american leadership will bring safety and enduring peace. america led valiantly in the last century from truman to kennedy to reagan, and because of our leadership, that century became known as the american century. following the end of world war

ii, pope pious the xiith noted god has placed the destiny of an afflicted mankind. i believe america still has that genius. i believe mankind remains afflicted, and i believe its destiny still largely remains in our hands, and i believe that this generation of americans will continue to advance the cause of peace and freedom in our time. and when we do not only will america remain safe and strong, but the 21st century will also be an american century. so thank you for this opportunity. >> thank you, senator. let me begin by this question.

in previous conversations with me, you have said that one problem today is that we're trying to fix 21st century problems with 20th century ideas. yet all of the men that you cited were of the 20th century. >> first, there are timeless trues. the sun still rises in the east and american power still matters in the world. the challenges are different. for example, today we face multiple challenges. it's not just a confrontation with another powerful nation state, the soviet union which we faced throughout the, after the end of the second world war and the cold war. we face china with its own ambitions in the asia pacific. putin wants to be the leader of a great country, and he tries to achieveeevieve it military, and we face rogue states north korea iran a nation governed by a radical shia cleric, and nonstate actors with increasing capacity, isis

al qaeda et cetera. the need for american leadership is still true. the challenges are different, and it requires a different approach. >> should we be the world's policemen? >> i don't think that's the role i would advocate. the title is not world's policemen, but i do think the world, these problems require a global response. but a global response requires someone to convene the world to take action. only america is capable of doing it. in the absence of american leadership, our nato and european allies cannot come up with a strategy to confront the aggression in russia or the allies in the asia pacific region. american leadership is critical to confront these challenges. >> talk about leadership in two different ways. this weekend, a meeting with the president and arab leader whose have come here to talk about the middle east and the problems in the middle east. there is a report from the bbc today and other news organizations that a drone missile strike on a mosque just killed the number two leader of isis. the number one leader has

already been disabled by a drone strike. two examples that seem to suggest american leadership. >> well, a couple points. first, i certainly think that it's good we've got leaders of the gcc meeting at camp david with the president. it's an action that should have happened a while ago and i regret the king affsaudi arabia is not one of them because i think it's an important part. >> that may be several reasons beyond he's why he's not here. >> i would expand that to egypt and jordan. they have a shared interest because they're concerned about two primary challenges. one is the rise of extremist, primarily sunni extremist and the sunni countries want to confront sunni extremist and the other is the rise of iran's ambitions to dominate the region. that's a perfect example of a group of nations that could come together to confront both of these challenges, but it will require america to bring them together. so that meeting and that effort, i hope should have happened a

while back but i suspect while i'm not privy to the notes of the meetling, that much will be dedicated to conversations of bringing the countries to some point of ease with the negotiations the president is taking with iran. >> about the effort to reduce the impact of isis, do you give the president bad marks? because i mentioned the drone strikes, i mentioned the air strikes that took place in cu tikrit that work part of the efforts to run isis out of tikrit. >> i believe we could have prevented much of what happened with isis had we become engaged in the syrian conflict earlier. the vast majority were syrians rebelling against the leadership of the time. i said we should identify people we could work with on the ground in syria and empower them. i argued in the absence of doing so, we would leave a vacuum. the vacuum would be fildled by

foreign fighters. that's what played out. that's the conditions that allows isis and a group on the rebound within syria to come back. once isis began to emerge i did not consider them a jv team. i repeatedly warned they were a much more potent threat than the president was arguing for and i argued for an earlier engagement, their hubs they use for logistical operations and their transit points they needed to project power moving forward. it's good we're conducting air strikes. the truth is we probably need more. i really think it's critical thal a sunni force confront them on the ground. i see they're starting to train some, but i think it's important to go to our allies in the region the jordanians, the egyptians, the countries willing to put officers on the ground to help stabilize the country. >> no doubt they're willing to put forces on the ground? >> they have expressed that. >> at the same -- >> they need our help. >> the saudis asked the

egyptians and others to help in yemen, and they refused to send their own ground troops. >> there's two areas of concern. number one i think they're more willing to be more helpful, particularly in confronting them on the ground. the problem is they need american logistical support, air spoers and special operation embedded. >> should we do that in yemen? offer air spoers in yemen? >> it's telling they did it without notifying the united states well in advance. >> they did give them advice. >> well, we have given them some increasing advice. it's still not to the level it should have been. ultimately, that's a much more complex situation because it involved iran and al qaeda notes and others now in the country. the answer is in terms of confronting the regional spread of iran yemen has become the latest flashpoint. a place where a joint pan-arab sunni force that would sand up to both extremist and iran's ambitions could confront the

challenges with u.s. logistical and air spoersupport. >> and advisory support on the ground. >> i think ultimately, you could embed special operations forced to help improve their capabilities. they have expressed the willingness. they understand it's their fight. they're not just fighting for territory. they're fighting for the very idea of what it means to be a sunni muslim. they're confronted by a serious challenge. i outlined this very effectively in an interview in the wall street journal where he said it's important to understand the threat they pose to our muslim faith and they need to be confronted and defeated because the extremism doesn't just threaten the world. it threatens islam. >> when you look at the strategy against terrorism, and we move to islam your significant difference is what? >> a couple points. early on in his tenure. >> on syria? >> before that he viewed american engagement abroad as a friction. in essence the idea we had

problems because there was a grievance against the united states because of something we had done. in fact, much of these conflicts are idealogically based. iran's problem with america is not a grievance, certainly not just a grievance. it's idealogical. their belief they want to be the dominant power in the region and they want to support the revolution to other territories. the president, when during the green revolution in 2009 refused to take a side early on, said he wouldn't interfere in the sovereignty of the country. >> what should he have done? >> i think he should have expressed, it's important our foreign policy be equally tied to our values. the president should have firmly stood on the side of the iranians that desired true democracy in their country and real political change. he did not do that in the early stages of the conflict. beyond that, i ihave serious problems with the reset with russia. vladimir putin, who even when he was not in power, pulled a lot of strings on where the country

was headed. >> you said the u.s. is holding back against isis because it doesn't want to upset iran. >> absolutely. >> holding back? >> absolutely. >> against isis. it doesn't want to upset iran? >> absolutely. iran is on the ground in iraq. heavily. >> advisers. >> not just advisers. there are fighters, iranian fighters embedded side by side with the shia militias. they're largely agents of the iranian government. iran doesn't want a presence of iraq of any kind. they have tolerated air strikes because they can't stop them and to the extent they're killing people, they're not happy with u.s. engagement they have said so publicly and trafficked in outrageous rumors which i believe some of them believe, that the u.s. is helping isis and that we actually helped invent isis. they don't want us there and don't want any american presence there. i believe these shia militias on the ground pose an extraordinary

threat to americans in the diplomatic facilities in iraq right now, embedded side by side with regular iraqi forces. they have full access to all of the iraqi government buildings, et cetera. and i believe that if the united states had taken a more aggressive position, that there -- >> against isis? >> against isis and its stronger presence in iraq that it would have destabilized the talks with iran, and may have triggers them to respond in time with attacks from their agents to the shia militias. >> what is your principle argument against an iranian deal that seems to be on the table now? >> my primary objection to it is allowed iran to retain the capability to produce enriched yareanium. assuming they want it there's a way to do it. the way many other countries around the world do by importing the material. the fact they can retain a