hangings of political opponents. >> exactly. >> do you agree that the best hope really for world security and iran is they had a regime change with peaceful elections. senator leiberman? >> i certainly do. that is the ultimate answer. and we haven't tried or done very much to bring that about. and during the cold war, making arms agreements with the soviets, we were supporting eastern europe. we were supporting the ref use nicks in russia so there is a precedent for that. >> does this deal -- the open and this deal -- the hope and this deal, based on the premise that we will trust the iranians to comply? >> well, as i've said here already, congressman i don't think there is any basis in iranian behavior in the last three decades to trust them and

you can resite the litany in which they are justified that unfortunate conclusion. the one way to have confidence in the agreement is if the verification inspections provisions of it were air tight anywhere, any time but they are not. they create a whole negotiating process, as we said, 14 days, 21 days, appeal to a board. it is an invitation to the iranians to on advice kate and if they are caught with something wrong to get the time to get it out of the view of the international inspectors. >> in the area of in spectors whatever you are inspecting giving notice to whoever you are going to inspect always allows them to hide or fix the problem before you get there. it seems to me with 24 days, would you be able to hind the grand canyon or something. i find that as a problem.

big picture -- is it still the policy of iran today to destroy the united states? >> well, until we hear otherwise, i think we have to say it is. >> and israel as well. >> and israel. and now you notice that last friday's demonstration for the first time if my memory visibly and audibly brought saudi arabia into the pantheon of those that the iranian government wants to destroy. >> and then let's talk about saudi arabia. iran wants to be the big player in the middle east. does this deal that i have here does that encourage saudi arabia turkey, and egypt to develop nuclear weapon capability? to deter iran? >> well it sure does in my opinion. and as others have said, general

hayden, it does something else. it raises real alarm in the minds and hearts of our traditional allies in the sunni muslim world and in israel about whether the u.s. has changed its traditional alliance relationship with those countries and now is either tilting toward iran or at least pulling back to a kind of neutrality. and if this agreement is allowed to go into effect i think one of the great imperatives for the u.s. is to not -- do whatever it can -- it will be hard, to reassure the muslim -- the air abe countries or the sunni muslim countries and israel that we are with them. >> and may i have unanimous consent for one more question. general, i see bm's. when iran gets icbm's what would the purpose and intent and where

would they go to from iraq? >> well, by definition, the eyes and the secretary said means intercontinental. and those kinds of weapons have no military or political utility, with just a high explosive war head on it. it doesn't have to be nuclear, but it has to be a weapon of mass destruction. >> where could they go? >> well if they are intercontinental, they could reach north america? >> they could even reach texas. thank you, i yield back. >> reaching texas now we're talking crazy. thank you all for being here. what a stimulating and challenging conversation. and i think we members of congress face a very challenging vote sometime probably in september. and senator lieberman welcome back to your home.

i must say senator lieberman i'm troubled by the thpgs you've said here today. you agreed with congressman mccall and he said why engage with iran at all. do you think it was a mistake to engage with iran at all? >> thanks, congressman for welcoming me back. i'm probably too reflective ty ofusive toward anybody from homeland security. it is a buy as point. but i think i said, i didn't oppose the negotiations. i did not oppose the negotiations. i thought it was encouraging that the negotiations were occurring. much preferable to have a peaceful resolution to this conflict. but what i'm saying this morning is i think the result on first look that just came out a few hours ago is that this deal is not a good one for the u.s. or our allies and it is a very good one for iran.

>> yes. i heard you say that. in fact i heard you council us we should vote no. it seems awfully early to do that and apparently you've made up your mind. >> well i have. >> well i haven't. >> and i want to share which was agreed to at louzanne in april, this is a temporary freeze if they keep their word and then they have the way clear to become a nuclear power. >> i understand. and i think some of the questions you've raised are legit but we have to weigh the alternative. we can't pretend there is a perfect alternative if we would only choose it. and i think that is some of the problem, some of the discussion we have around here. but you also said we could just go back to the p5+1 and say we couldn't sell it let's start over again and reengage the iranians. senator lieberman i don't know anybody who believes that that

has any high probability of success. that the very likely is about to happen. if we disavow this, p5+1 falls apart and iran races, not walks to, to accelerate the nuclear development program and they are not about to come back to the table. you could concede that is just as likely as the scenario you laid out? >> well i don't know. i actually agree with investigator burns said here that if the agreement is rejected, that iran will not rush to build a nuclear weapon. they'll retool th do it because they'll worry that either the u.s. or israel, if there is clear intelligence showing they've broken out to a nuclear weapons capacity that the u.s. or israel will detect them militarily and they don't want that. >> and i take your point.

and that is one thing we can consider. but surely there is a chance that is not what is going to happen. and when we're thinking about voting, we have to weigh those risks. >> absolutely. >> and at least the agreement in front of me limits the risk. it is a completely unlimited risk, you may be right, they won't do that. but what if you are wrong. what if they will -- there is a hardline element as you point out in element that would be licking its chops to see this agreement fall apart. >> to tell you, i think all of the elements in iran want this agreement because it is so good for them economically. and it strengthens their position in the middle east. doesn't do anything to stop them from supporting and in fact helps them support the proxies where they are -- >> senator lieberman. >> and i will agree with you, i can't predict what will happen. i can't predict with certainty more than anybody can what will happen if congress rejects the

agreement. i can just say that from what i've seen this morning and based on what i saw come out of loez an in april this has more risk for the u.s. and more reward for iran than i hoped it would have. >> one final point and i would note for the record there were hardline elements protesting these negotiations in iran. i do not agree with you that there is unanimity of opinion in iran this is a great deal for iran. i think the evidence suggests otherwise. but you also in your statement earlier said this will strengthen the hard-line in iran freeing up resources they can use for bad things. would you concede that again there is an alternative scenario in that is not what happens, it reinforces the rowe hahny element and others that engagement with the west actually produces good economic things for us and we should do more of it. isn't it at least worthy of conceding that also could be true. >> it is possible, it is.

but i think the much more likely is that the billions of additional dollars that the iranian government and economy will be used by the rergc, which i said earlier the ayatollah and the rgc are the powers in iran and they are the ultimate beneficiaries of the additional money, not the moderates. i wish the moderates were. but i don't believe they will be. >> can i comment on one thing congressman. >> yes, certainly. >> on the issue of what happens if congress rejects this deal. i went to college in 1980s and majors in something called arms control and for a while i have and i have gone back to all of the arms control. it happened all of the time. salt one, salt two were renegotiated because of congressional objections. so senator leiberman's idea that the united states has to go back

and renegotiate is how it happened with big bad soviet union. and let me play out the string that has been put here and the united states disapproved and over rides the president veto and the entire national community blames the united states and becomes centralist and iran begins to rush toward a bomb. surely the international community may not allow that. they ma think the united states was unwise, unjudicial for a deal, but toward a weapons threshold, they would join the united states in imposing some sort of measure to prevent that if i would imagine. >> my time is up. >> yes. matt salmon of arizona. >> thank you. senator lieberman during your time as a senator, you were afforded the opportunity to vote on a few treaties i suspect.

why do you think that the administration pursued this as more of a political agreement than a treaty? what was the rational for that? i've heard several times today that this is probably the most important decision congress has weighed in on some have said in the last 30, 40 years and some have said in the last 50 years. with that important of a decision, why would it be pursued as a political agreement rather than a treaty? >> so -- oh you mean literally? >> yeah. >> well i don't think the administration if they were here would say it is a political agreement but they would say it is a diplomat negotiation and not a treaty. i will tell you, myself, and this is a closed issue that what is on the line as a result of this agreement between the p5+1 and iran is much more consequential than any treaty i

was asked to vote for or against in my 24 years in the senate. and of course if it was considered a treaty, then it would require two-thirds to pass, not the other way around. but that is the -- the president under the constitution and established court decisions has the clear right to make the decision he did. this is not a treaty. but it is an international agreement and it has to meet different standards in congress. >> and i think that many of the cynics believe that the reason is because the president could have never succeeded in crossing that two-thirds threshold in the senate and given the fact, as you said you voted on treaties that had far less consequence than this document. general hayden, you stated that the inspections have become a political not a technical issue. and so one of my questions is that whether you believe the

obama administration and its p5+1 partners would make -- ultimately make the political decision to call out any violations of the agreement, i mean whether they are technical in nature or small or large in nature, do you think that the administration, who is kind of staking its whole reputation on this agreement would have the political will to call out any infractions and make them public knowing that the political ramifications could be quite stark? >> you bring up a great point, congressman. it seems maybe even a little counter intuitive because we are all concerned about iran cheating. but once it goes into effect the burden of proof -- well let me go back into my previous life and walk into the oval office and say, well you know, mr. president, that treaty that was

so important to both you and to the country, i think these guys are violating it. the time i would need and the body of evidence that would be required to turn that into political action is a dynamic we used to call in the business, a dynamic of the unpleasant fact, that takes always more evidence and more time to generate action. but beyond that though, congressman, that is just inside of the american bubble. look at it from the p5+1 and how much other folks have a real vested interest in not admitting that violations have taken place. and so i am really concerned about the managed access regime since it is at the political and not the technical level. >> and the snapback, so to speak, whether it is a snapback of our or international sanctions, has immense financial implications to many of the countries involved and so the

likelihood that they would speak out of a violation -- i'm worried that those violations will just be swept under the rug and that we'll never even see the light of day. as described i cannot and i will not support this deal. iran has proven time and time again it can't be trusted to meet international obligations and agreements. i believe this administration is naive to suggest that the hundreds of billions of dollars iran will gain access through this agreement will not be used to continue the proliferation of terrorism across the globe. on the contrary, the terrorism efforts will only get better funded. and despite the president's rather bold statement this agreement will ensure that the islamic republic of iran will not develop a nuclear weapon, in reality it puts them on a path toward legitimately developing and possessing a nuclear bomb in just ten years and i'm wondering -- this administration has had a pen chant hor doing

things that only have a effect or a shelf life during his administration, with no thought of consequences to the here after to our children or grandchildren. i think that is -- this is a frightening deal and didn't address the americans that remain hostages in iran. in fact, i'm really disgusted that they weren't even really front and center in any of the negotiations they were sideline comments at best. for all of the reasons stated above, i cannot support this deal at all. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you congressman sal mob. we now proceed to congressman brian higgins of new york. >> thank you mr. chairman and i too want to thank the panel. you have been very professional and you have a body of knowledge individually and collectively that is invaluable to our deliberations on this issue. a lot has been talked about. the nuclear infrastructure, the

centrifuges and the proliferation of them over the last ten years and this deal cuts them by two-thirds which i think is very significant. and also the material used -- the nuclear material, you have under this agreement, as i understand it, less than 4% of enrichment of that material which is a far distance from bomb-grade material. and then you have the inspections process, which i think is important. but i don't think enough has been focused on the iranian people and the politics of iran which i think are very significant here. the military history an david crist wrote a book the twilight war and since 1979 revolution there have been seven attempts by either side to improve relations and they have all failed. in history, this nuclear deal or anticipated nuclear deal that he was writing at the time, was

uncharted territory. and i think when you look at what is going on in iran today in the last five years, the currency has last half its value, there has been 50% inflation, meaning whatever you had in the bank prior to this has worth half and whatever you are buying cost twice as much. rowhani won an election as a reformist within that context. it is not the american projection of what we would view as a reformist, but he was pretty vocal about how bad the iranian economy was, not only during the election but after he won. the difference in large part, from '79 to currently, iranian officials are turning on each other and i think that reflects that in this nation of some 80 million people, you have got probably 65 million people who are very, very young and want normalization with the rest of the world. and then you have the

hardliners, made up of the revolutionary guard and kurds forces, seoul manny and it has been said here what a destructive forces relative to stability in the region with his work -- on being on the ground in iraq directing the shia militia and saving assad in the final hour and the support of hezbollah. but because of the zeerting economic situation in iran the kurds forces benefit. why? because they control the smuggling which is made necessary by the horrific situation economically in iran. i'm just here to say that i think this ten-year period is very, very important. because really nobody knows with certainty what will happen. but what in fact could happen is a normalization with the rest of the world, the promotion of a

more diversified legitimate economy in iran could in fact undermine the current regime and produce the kind of changes that the vast majority -- the vast majority of young iranians want. and just wanted your thoughts on that. >> i think some of your -- some of your diagnosis is correct in terms of the notion of population estranged from the regime. and the question is the effect of this particular agreement on the regime. i think whatever the life span of the strauk republic may be and i do think there is a termination date has been extended by an agreement that is over its program and leads to infusion of economic resources. can you make a case and frankly quite a good one that the longevity of the kim's dynastic in north korea has something to do with the proliferation of

nuclear weapons and gaining that in tribute from the international community. >> they love their isolation. they don't want anything to do with the rest of the world. >> the iran yawn regime is at the level of institutional arrangements. >> but again, i think what is going on here is there is a dichotomy within the politics of iran and there is a significant and growing population that wants normalized relations with the rest of the world and wants to see that economy unleash the potential of the iranab people. >> i think you can say the same thing about north korea. i don't think they want to live in this harmonious kingdom. >> you would say you can't compare north korea and iran. they are not monolithic. there is a strong movement. the young people are on the ascendency. they are on a trading culture. they are entrepreneurial and

they want to connect with the rest of the world and so i agree very much with your comments. >> congressman, i think it is quite plausible. i don't think it is likely, but it is plausible. clearly the ayatollah has decided this agreement will not facilitate regime change otherwise he would not have signed it. >> i agree. plausible -- optimistic scenario wish it were so. i think not likely because i think this agreement strengthens the current government of iran which is the ayatollah and the republican guard. but the hope here but we've never really, as america supported it is that clearly whatever the numbers are, there is a very significant number of the iranian people who would like to be freed of this fanatical regime. unfortunately this regime will not let go of power. and in the event of an uprising is more likely to respond the

way they are -- their proxy assad did in syria which is to turn the weapons on the people. >> okay. thank you very much. we now proceed to congressman darrell issa of california. >> thank you mr. chairman. senator lieberman, does that mean you are pessimistic about peace in our time when it comes to iran? >> yeah. i must say, if my wife were here she would say i'm an optimist by nature and i am. but i am pessimistic about peace in our time with iran because i don't see any fundamental change in their radical ideology and their aggressive support of terrorism. >> ambassador burns, i normally agree with a great deal of what you come up with from scratch yourself based on your experience but in this case i'm going to ask you questions more related to the deal. the distinguished senator, once he left office, by definition extremely distinguished, would

not be considered to be a dove, so let's view this as doves. if this is the chamberlain-esque appeasement that is going to work let's review the next ten years, under the agreement with the sunset clause, during the next ten years incrementally, iran will clearly have more money, more access to weapons, more freedom of movement than they would if we did nothing at all under the current sanctions, isn't that true? >> congressman there are tradeoffs here. >> no, i don't want tradeoffs i just want answers. isn't it true under the agreement there will be a gradual easing that will give access -- over ten years the access to more money the ability to buy weapons and the ability to continue developing at least the non-weapon portion of their nuclear ambition correct. >> and my answer is their

nuclear program will be frozen for ten years. they'll be set back significantly. >> okay. i appreciate your talking points. i know you were brought here with talking points. answer my question. i'm trying to be very proactive here and positive. clearly this agreement does let them have access to money and will let them have access to large amounts of conventional weapons that they already have a lot of and providing them to hamas and hezbollah and these are all of the gives in this give-and-take. so the real question is if they are going to have a phase-out in ten years from now and by the way they do clearly get to work and to use nuclear materials for purposes nonweapons related so they'll continue to know more about nuclear during the next ten years, even if they don't cheat on the program. that is in the base of this. the question i have to you is very simple.

ten to 15 years from now, under this agreement assuming that the sunnyside scenario that they simply break out in peace and love for their neighbors and democracy, assuming that happens we'll be safer and assuming it doesn't happen, isn't it true that iran will be more able to build a nuclear weapon and to wage war if they choose to ten years from now from where they are today, ten years from now they can do that with more money and no sanctions under the current agreement. and that is a yes or no please? >> i was asked to testify here and to give you my best perspective. >> no -- >> i tried to convey a sense of how difficult and complex it is and i wasn't -- and with talking points. i came of my own volition. >> i appreciate that. >> my opinion is we can top them from becoming a nuclear weapons power ten years from now if the

president at that time is tough-minded enough to do that. >> and that brings up the history of appeasement of the soviets. jimmy carter forgave them their debt and gave them a wheat that they put the hammer and sickle on and told people it was russian wheat and not u.s. wheat and then reagan took a different tact and every president has that ability. but general hayden, let me go through some factual ones. ten years ago, you were in the administration, correct? >> right. >> ten years ago, is it true, without disclosing any classified information, that iran was behind weapon enhancements in iraq that led to americans dying on the fields in iraq ten years ago in. >> i actually told national security advisor hadley it was a policy approved at the highest level of government to facilitate the killing of american and other coalition soldiers. >> 20 years ago, without disclosing classified information, to your

understanding is it true that iran played a critical part to the u.s. airmen killed in saudi arabia? >> that is my understanding. >> 30 years ago -- 32 years ago is it true that iran, through its precursor to hezbollah, took an active hand of the killings of the marines in the bearics in beirut or had participation in support of? >> i think that is true, mr. chairman. but i don't have the personal knowledge to give that answer with confidence. >> and i chose those questions and i'll summarize mr. chairman. because 30 years ago, iran clearly was promoting bad activities on the streets of bay rut, including kidnapping and so on, this is when we there a five-year-old government. 10 years ago morn americaned died for sure in no small part to iranians' hand and so when we look at ten years before they get an outright go and when they

have the ability and materials to suit their ambition and my only question to all of you and general hayden, if there is only time for one, it would be you, if they were doing this 30 years ago, including kidnapping on the streets of lebanon and ten years ago americans were dying on the battlefield of iraq why do we believe that ten years from now anything will really be different based on your history in intelligence general? >> and to bring it more up to date mr. chairman three years ago they were prepared to skploet an ied in a restaurant to kill the saudi boyfriendambassador. let me put it another way. i have hope, but i don't know that we can base it on that. >> hope is not a strategy. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you congressman issa. we proceed to congress woman grace ming of new york. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you to the esteems

panelists for being here today. i'll state at the out site i'll reserve final judgment on the deal until i'm able to read it threw completely i'm deeply concerned and disappointed by what it appears to be in the terms. for the last couple of months i advocated we provided the 30,000 bunker buster bombs to israel and the planes to deliver them. and now we have a deal that neglects iran providing arms an support to terrorists and furthermore we have a deal to our surprise that will allow for the lifting of the arms embargo against iran. in light of all of this, and the significant deterrence that would be created by providing israel these weapons, do you support the administration's unwillingness to provide israel with the 30,000 pound bunker buster capability which is totally outside of the four

corners of the deal. just like to hear from anyone? >> i actually support the administration's position on this. obviously i support the security of israel. but i think in this instance if force has to be used against tehran it should be by the united states. we are much more capable and we have much greater legitimacy internationally given the fact we've been leading this negotiation and at the head table. if they used force and i don't think it would be as effectively military and it would be difficult for the israelis and for us and would you like to see u.s. if we have to use force, to be the one that does it. >> i'm in the same place congresswoman. if we empower the israelis to do that, we have given another nation the ability to put us at war so i agree with ambassador burns. can i draw down one additional layer. a question i genuinely have and i'll be a little oblique and not

suggest anything behind the screen, it is obviously against our policy that israel conduct an overt strike against the iranian nuclear system. what are our views and what are we prepared to do if israel attempts -- covert action against the iranian nuclear program and what will be our policy prescription and our relationship with israel with regard to that question? >> congress woman, thank you for your statement and your question. i have a different point of view. i think particularly if this agreement announced today is not rejected by congress and goes into effect, the willingness of the united states to provide israel with a so-called mop, the big bunker buster will be part of a necessary strategy to regain the confidence of the israelis. frankly, i think it will have -- even though i agree that if

military action has to be taken against iran because it has taken a nuclear break-out it is much preferable for many reasons that the united states take that action. but i do think, if this agreement is not rejected by congress, and goes into effect, the willingness of the united states to give the big bunker buster bombs to israel will have a deterrent effect on iran. it will encourage iran to keep the agreement because i think frankly iran has less confidence that the israelis won't take military action against them than they do that we won't take military action against them. >> one thing to add to that, it seems to me if you are looking at this agreement as the best means of safety and security of israel, stability of the region, the best way of doing it is

stringent arms control agreement. the transmission in the aftermath of an agreement where you have to transition such weaponry is showing the deficiency of the deal. >> thank you congresswoman ming. and now to randy weber of texas. >> thank you. i hope to have some pretty simple questions for y'all. do y'all agree if this agreement goes into effect that money will ultimately find its way to hezbollah, yes or no? >> yes. >> you pretty much all agree that will happen. so how much of that money is acceptable? $1 million? $5 million $5 million? how much will anybody give us a value? >> chris i would say none. >> ambassador? you would say none as well.

doctor? okay. good. so ambassador burns, you said that you wished obama's world war with -- war of words with israel would stop and would makeup to use your words. which is worse, obama's war of words with israel or iran's hateful rhetoric toward the united states and israel? >> obviously what the iranians have done in threatening israel is the problem here. president obama is not the problem. >> okay. >> and the difficulties between president obama and netanyahu are two-sided and they are both responsible. >> no. i want you to say the iranians' spewing of rhetoric needs to stop. so if the veto is sustained what would happen. would you all agree if the president said in his remarks that we negotiate from a position of strength and power and something of that effect but would you agree if had we gone

in with seven ten nantz one release our hostages. number two halt all enrichment and do away with the centrifuges. number three, give the iaea unfettered 24/7 access any time 24/7, 365. number four, stop exporting terrorism. make sure that hezbollah doesn't get any of the money. number five stop the rhetoric toward israel and the united states. and number six, prove their sincerity of wanting to rejoin the world community by exhibiting this behavior for one or two years or more would that have been a position of strength for us to negotiate from senator? >> well, sure. i mean, i think, again, i wasn't there and it is too easy to say from this perspective but it felt to me -- look, we're a great power. military, financially -- >> and let me move on to the general. pardon the interruption.

general would that be a position of strength. >> it would be a position of strength but we were focusing on the nuclear question. >> ambassador, position of strength, if we required those six items? >> i'm confident that president bush and president obama started there, but that is not how negotiations. >> john kerry told me himself and i asked him about the hostage release and they were not going to make that part and parcel of this agreement. >> i'm talking about something different. >> all six of these. >> in our conversations with the iranians, all of those issues are important, but you can't just insist on what you want -- in negotiation. >> and forgive me ambassador they came to us wanting relief. we didn't go to them wanting relief. doctor, wro that have been a position of strength? >> general hayden has suggested that the premise of these negotiations was to resolve the nuclear issue. i do think both president bush and obama share those concerns

regarding the sponsorship of terrorism and retaining of the american hostages and other activities, i do think that is a shared bipartisan concern and i think the president obama and president bush actually have fine iranian treatment of the -- >> but i would argue they are all important. we've heard the saying talk is cheap. apparently it is really not because iranians are getting hundreds of billions of dollars because of their talk. we want action. we want them to demonstrate the willingness. so here is my question. if we do override the president's veto can we come back then and negotiate from a position of strength? >> i would say that i think as general hayden and ambassador burns suggested going back is going to be tough. i'm not suggesting it shouldn't happen under extraordinary circumstances, there should be renegotiating but i don't think

we should -- it can be done but we shouldn't discount the difficult of achieving that. >> agree with my colleague grace ming that we need to provide israel with the bunker buster bomb because that may be the one item that iran relates to and i'm out of time and yield back. >> we now proceed to proceed to congress from tennessee. >> thank you panel. i know it is a long morning ab you've been sitting there a long time. we appreciate your testimony. i think it has been reiterated a number of times today that we feel that this is a much better deal for iran than it is the united states. and really on paper we should have the upper hand in these negotiations. therefore, if it is our goal to ensure peace and stability in the region and prevent iran from developing nuclear capabilities why have we conceded to their demands especially with regards to domestic uranium enrichment.

general? >> i asked the same questions congressman. i think a good macro view is that the iranians needed a deal far more than we did and we wanted a deal far more than the iranians did. and i think it is fair to say -- and look i work with nick in the same administration, this is really hard and there were no easy answers but it does appear that we've had a series of concessions in order to keep the iranians still interested in the talks. >> this may be an easy question for you all to answer but for people listening and watching this hearing, why have we not stood our ground and insisted that iran import the enriched uranium such as other countries do, south korea, italy and others. >> i think we moved away from that particular parameter. i suspect quite a while back. and maybe even during the bush years, i don't know. the parameter that i think we should not have moved from is

the position of the united states and the russian federation and the people's republic of china in 2013 was that iran should have an enrichment program but only a symbolic one that would satiate their public diplomacy and public demands and not necessarily be misused. i don't know why that position was changed in 2013. >> i think it is obvious to most anyone if iran is serious about not obtaining nuclear weapons that is the claim they are trying to make in exchange for all of the money, then they should be able to join 20 or 24 nations that are doing the same thing, importing their enriched uranium. and i think we dropped the ball there and it shows that iran's intentions aren't peaceful. ambassador burns, do you agree with the president's assessment from april and to quote him, what is more relevant fear would be in years that 13, 14, 15 they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly and the breakout

times would be shrunk down to almost zero. can you please krarfy -- clarify that point. do you or do you not support the arbitrary sun set in the agreement? >> i understood the president to say when he spoke in april about the interim agreement when the agreement lapsed in the 10-15 year agreement they could constitute and the breakout time would be down to zero. but i think he was talking about the period beyond the freeze of the first ten years. >> so you think it is a good idea for -- i mean do you think then it is a good idea for iran to have an industrialized nuclear program. >> no, i don't think it is a good idea. but our president and secretary of state have to operate in the real world of what is possible and not possible. i think this is the best deal they could have achieved and support it on that basis but obviously it will take a long to

make it work and it will take a lot of that. >> you are the only candidate on the panel supporting the deal but you basically conceded that you expect iran to cheat, is that correct? >> i think it is likely that iran will try to cheat at some point. i think that is just an objective statement. but i support it because i know how having worked on this issue in the bush administration how difficult and complex it is. i think our national security will be met and be improved by locking them up in a box, freezing them for ten years and then of course any american president, if iran tried to break out toward a nuclear weapon, would have the right and the capability to stop them through military force. so i think the president and secretary kerry are to be commended. >> it looks to me like a case of obama legacy building here because from of the discussion we had today this is not a good deal. you are basically taking a hope and a prayer hoping the next president will be like reagan

and do something to stop what this deal sets up. you think they will cheat. and right now chairman royce started this hearing saying they will take this money unfreezing of billions of assets and use them to build tunnels into israel and give them smart weapons to further endanger israel. do you think that is cheating? >> i think we're going to have a tough time implementing this agreement but i also think it is the best for our national security interests. and i also think it will be a generational strug: we are in a long-term struggle with iran and it will be up to democrats and republicans to figure out a way to contain them. i worry if congress disapproves votes to disapprove and override the president's veto which he threatened, it will waken the united states and our position in the middle east. and i worry about that. >> and i respectfully disagree. i yield back. >> we proceed to congressman

yo-ho. >> thank you. i don't know where to start. there are so many conflicting things here. and i want to pick up with scott. if the goal of peace -- if we start from the very beginning when this all started, i remember president obama saying iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon period. 28 times he said that. they will not have it. but again another red line drawn in disappearing ink and now we are delaying it for ten years, and i don't think it will be ten years and sitting on this panel you have said iran has enough nuclear material to have a bomb six months ago. and then eisenhower said if the goal is a peaceful nuclear program, a civilian nuclear program flourishes through cooperation and openness. secrecy and isolation are signs of a nuclear weapons program and a pessimist -- this is something

i read the other day. a pessimist who doesn't think something will occur in the middle east, is an optimist who hasn't studied middle east history. ambassador burns you said we can't see into the future, and maybe the iranian people will rise and change this regime they tried that in 2009. we didn't assist them as senator lieberman said. we have in the past. we let the uprising happen. do you think if iran gets a nuclear weapon and my prediction is it is between now and ten years from now, they'll have one, they have all of the elements for that and we know they've detonated a nuclear trigger device and do you think that they'll be more allowing of their citizens to rise up and have regime change or change their politics? >> it is a good question. i would answer it in two points. one is i think it is not at all probable that iran will achieve

a nuclear weapon in the next ten years. after that then i think the calculations change, first. second, i think regime change is desirable. i would like to see a change in the regime to a democratic -- >> it doesn't matter what we think -- >> but i don't think we have the capacity to produce that change on our own. >> not now we don't. there is a old proverb i read a long time ago and is fed if you want to see -- if you want to see one's past, look at their present situation. it tells you what their past efforts were and what they invested in and what the habits were and you say we can't predict what is going on in iran in the future. if you want to see one's future look at what they are presently doing and what they are in vesting and their habits and i see a country that is promoting terrorism, shouting death to israel death to america, propping up the syrian regime. i can see their future. and it is not a healthy one. and they are going to be more

emboldened with the nuclear weapons. let's see. i agree with senator lieberman in that you were stating that this is a bad deal. and i said last week, being a veterinarian, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. this is a bad deal. we need to walk away from the table and then -- and the reason i say that -- and correct me if i'm wrong, because if we wait and other countries invest into that -- in iran, in the economic development they are seeking, the other countries that go in there, the p-5 and if we wait three or four or five years and they have the economic development, what is the likelihood of the snapback which is a fictitious condition of that happening if we wait five years versus if we walk away from the deal now and the sanctions are back in place and we can't sell it to the american people. what will happen?

>> it will be harder in three or four or five years ab i hope that what you describe happens, we walk away but it is clear that the administration are not walk -- will not walk away therefore the only way that the u.s. walks away is if congress exercises its authority to reject this agreement and then overrides the veto. >> one very quick thought. we talk about what happens if. i would offer you the view that it is a defensive proposition that it would be more absent a nuclear detonation in iran and more difficult to reimpose sanctions in five years that it will be to sustain sanctions if we turn our back on this agreement. >> i would just like to say congressman, if we walk away now then we will have less leverage on the iranians and they will have a nuclear program without restrictions compared to all of

the restrictions they are going to be put under. that's not a good deal for the united states. >> we were talking about iran has always skirted the restrictions. you look at the u.n. resolutions and sanctions they have not lived up to those. they have been playing cat and mouse game. i see an administration incompetent on this agreement. i think iran has done a great job. time will tell. i think we should put money in development and prepare our allies with that. we shouldn't delay. i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent -- >> we have a dilemma in that

congressman just came and i know he would want to proceed. >> i would be very happy to yield to the gentle lady for her remarks and questioning. >> i think our witnesses are going to see the ultimate politeness and courtesy. i only say to the chair and ranking member thank you for your courtesies. if it is appropriate for this member of the committee to go forward please tell me how i should proceed. i am more than happy to follow protocol. if i am given the time i will handle it in the appropriate manner. >> the time is yours. >> you all are extremely courteous and so are these patriotic witnesses. i serve on the homeland security committee but i am an adopted daughter of this committee and they have been kind having worked a lot in the mid east and worked with congressman deutsche

as well as congressman wilson as well as the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member. let me thank them for courtesies. let me start before i go to senator lieberman who i am so delighted to see and fellow alum, start with general hayden and secretary burns. the first thing that we heard as we woke to many was a break through and exciting news about appropriately cautioned because of the many friends we had in the middle east was that this would begin an arms race for our allies sunnis in particular saudi arabia. i am going to ask would you respond to that. the second question is that as we were negotiating i was leaning towards the spontaneous inspection that would come about. i now hear that it's regulated

and you're either going to be able to go to bases or not go to bases which gives me a concern. if you would answer those questions i guess i want them abbreviated only because i have others and i didn't want to go on with my questions and i have other questions. >> i agree with you. the managed access aspect of the inspections i think is very disappointing and very problematic. with regard to how the sunnis will respond i probably don't have the confidence to say it is inevitable that they will race in the direction of the nuclear infrastructure and nuclear weapon, but i think it is more rather than less likely. >> secretary burns? thank you all for your engagement of this long process. i understand as i have been here 13 years plus. go ahead. >> i think president obama's agreement diminishes the chance that the saudis will try to obtain a nuclear weapon and give

them some reassurance that the iranians are not a nuclear weapons power themselves. that is one of the advantages of this agreement. >> can i follow up with you secretary burns? i understand the agreement lays out a ten year under 15 year scenario. is that too short a period of time before we might see them iran moving towards that concept of a nocuclear weapon? >> i think i would have preferred an entirely different set of parameters for the negotiation, an entirely different framework but it is the framework that we have negotiated and i want to see our country succeed. we all do. i think there is a chance for success here but it does worry me. i would have rather have seen 20 years or 30 years rather than 10. >> let me follow up with you. the collective body politic of those who sat around the table

having been engaged directly when secretary clinton was the secretary of state and you were dispatched to begin these discussions over a period of years, do you take comfort in the individual nations that joined the united states to be part of the enforcement of this agreement and given it more strength for peace for all of us? >> congressman, there are a couple people named burns. that is my friend bill burns. >> take the credit. >> he deserves all the credit. >> i saw you looking i said that is not the same burns. i worked with you for so long. >> i worked for president clinton and president bush. >> thank you bill burns. >> i do think the choice that we had was and the choice we still have depending on what congress does is do we want to go it alone or do we want to lead a

coalition? i think in this case we are stronger leading a coalition keeping the coalition together, using leverage to get what we want and to see the deal implemented. i fear congressional disapproval would put us on our own. we are very powerful and profit from a breakup over this. >> as i asked senator lieberman i do not want the iranians to profit. i have worked for a long period of time on camp liberty. i think we have seen each other and continue to want to raise this question of protecting my friends who believe in liberty and peace. and so senator lieberman how would you fix this if you are not seeing this agreement as the way it should be? >> you mean on the specific question of the iranians at camp

liberty? >> no. i am concerned that i don't give iran too much happiness until they ultimately fix that issue, but on this non-nuclear agreement, how would you move it to a position where you would want it to be? >> well, i -- the most dis -- there are two parts of this that bother me. the first part was clear from the framework agreement in april which was that we were not going to achieve what we originally wanted. the end of the iranian nuclear program in return for the end of sanctions against them, they were going to promise to freeze for ten years if they keep the promise and then after that we basically legalized their path to becoming nuclear power. as i looked at the agreement this morning with things i haven't seen before the most disappointing part is the inspection part. it's not anywhere anytime.

it's nothing remotely like that. it allows the iranians to reject. the negotiation goes on with the international atomic energy agency. that takes 14 days. there can be an appeal for seven days. it's not clear that there is a real enforcement mechanism. this is the hole in the agreement. that is the part i would dramatically change. >> this committee has been courteous to me and simply thank them for extending me this time and say in conclusion that i want a congress to take its task seriously and to emerse itself in many different committees, homeland security, foreign affairs and others in the importance of this agreement and peace in the mid east. i want to thank this committee for its concern of my friends in camp liberty if they are still not where they need to be

treated with dignity allow to get medical and as we proceed i think it will be appropriate to continuously raise these issues with iran who seems to want legitimacy, world legitimacy and they cannot get world legitimacy by inhumane treatment putting aside nuclear efforts that this administration has worked so extensively on. i want to congratulate president obama for his efforts. if they are going to get world notice for being a country that is in the world arena with dignity for all of its persons then they are not at that place right now in my mind because of the horrific treatment of some of their own citizens in particularly those that are fighting for justice and equality and freedom over in camp liberty. i thank you so very much and i yield back my time. thank you for your courtesy.

>> we proceed to congressman of new york. >> i thank the distinguished panel for being here as well as your service to our country in many different ways. i know that you have been here for a few hours. it's now afternoon. i just want to say thank you, as well, for being so generous with your time with the committee on such a timely and important appear appearance. i don't need to wait 30 or 60 days to decide this is a bad deal. it's okay to be open minded. it doesn't mean a requirement is that we are naive. it is a bad deal. i think about -- i have a really important question for you. you worked for presidents, a tremendous amount of generations of administrations over the course of your time in government. the next president comes in whoever the person is, republican democrat doesn't matter. that person decides that

something that wasn't part of these negotiations they are motivated to tackle. some of the stuff that weren't part of the negotiations, iran overthrowing foreign governments, sponsoring terror financing terror, developing icbms, unjustly imprisoning united states citizens including a pastor, reporter, united states marine developing -- pledging to wipe israel off the map, we are handing them $50 billion signing bonus but not giving it to them with strings attached that they can't use the money to continue to finance terror. these people have blood on their hands from u.s. service members. all of this wasn't part of the negotiations. so president comes into office january of 2017 and let's just say god forbid that these u.s. citizens are still being imprisoned or they decide that we need to stop allowing them to

overthrow foreign governments and cut off funding supply to hezbollah, whatever the scenario is if we give away all of the sanctions right now, tactically what are the options that are left? the reason the iranians are at the table right now is because sanctions were working. what is the impact on the deal on that motivation to tackle all of the other actions that we have an issue with? >> congressman we have not had sustained contact with iranians from 1979 until august. we couldn't mix it up with them and really get in there and work with them and try to move them and leverage them. we have that now. the obama administration made a tactical decision that for the life of the nuclear talks they didn't want to introduce other issues. you can argue pro or con whether that was the right decision. secretary kerry has a relationship of sorts

professional relationship with the iranian foreign minister. i wouldn't wait. i think the obama administration should take on the hostage issue and take on the terrorism issue and the regional issue and try to do what we can to motivate the iranians to change their positions. it's going to be tough. >> the iranians aren't negotiating with us because they are good actors, they are good world citizens. these are bad people blowing up mock u.s. warships while this is going on fighting with the syrians against us and others cht what is the leverage to actually other than say for obama to go back a few months from now or secretary kerry to say please can you stop overthrowing foreign governments what is the actual leverage left? >> i think the actual leverage is to strengthen military relationship with gcc countries.

>> why would the iranians do anything that i just said if what they want we're just giving them with this deal? in my opinion the president of the united states should be sitting at the table with a strong hand inheriting good will. and with that good will and that american exceptionalism say this is everything that we want in exchange for $50 million plus of sanctions relief. all of the stuff was left out. i guess what do we have to give the iranians now that the sanction relief if the sanction relief was met, what do we have to give the iranians as leverage to get what we want out of them? >> the decision the obama

administration made was to focus on nuclear issue as greatest immediate danger. now that that is underway and you have an agreement that hopefully will be implemented we are going to have to build up our power and our coalitions against iran. it's not about giving them something they want. it's about outmuscling them and outpowering them. that is what the united states traditionally has done going back to the carter administration. we set the persian gulf as an area of vital concern to warn iranians about military activity in that area. >> my time running short here. i appreciate that. i think that for the life of the obama administration or at least this particular moment in time no one in the entire world whether within the united states or the middle east or elsewhere believe if the president says that the military option is on the table that he would actually do it. we saw what happened with syria where there would be consequences and nothing ended up happening.

so the president says the only alternative to whatever he agreed to was war and the irony is that this deal will result in more instability in the middle east and cause nuclear arms race to some degree in that region, as well. i'm just concerned that the president has negotiated a way that leverage that brought iranians to the table in the first place. america got played and the president was complacent party to it. the american party and representatives in congress, we should have the final say, not the president with a stroke of a pen and announcement this morning made at the white house that it was filled with falsehoods like 24/7 anytime anywhere inspections that aren't real. i appreciate all of you bogueeing here. i'm concerned about the future of our relations. >> one additional thought maybe a little more aggressive than what nick just suggested. live by executive order die by executive order. you are not going to lift these

sanctions. the president is going to use his authority within your legislation to lift sanctions based upon his executive decision. future executive can reverse those decisions. >> i'm concerned that when you get rid of sanctions that take eight years to put into place and you talk about snapback sanctions when you are working with foreign governments and foreign entities it is very difficult to just snap them back. >> it is but with regard to sanctions you are not going to repeal the law. i think that is very clear. we will ease those sanctions based upon the will of the executive which can be changed. >> i appreciate the general's remarks. i would encourage my colleagues in the spirit of that discussion of what power congress has or hasn't or what power the american public has or hasn't that we do not accept defeat and a deal with iran because of the consequences. i appreciate the remarks. i yield back the balance of my

time. >> thank you. and thank you for your military service, too for our country. god bless you. we proceed with congressman of florida. >> thanks to the witnesses. you know a lot of what goes on here is just kind of we talk and do these hearings and we take meaningless votes about frivolous issues. this is really a big vote and a big issue. congress needs to step up and do the right thing for the american people. in my judgment that means stopping the deal. i think this is bad for our country. i think it is bad for national security. when i was in iraq back in '07-'08 the number one cause of death was iran and the shiite militias that they funded. i'm looking through this deal and i notice they are relieving sanctions on the cuts force. of course, the $140 billion is a huge influx of cash to the iranian regime. is the regime going to change?

i looked on friday the regime is sponsoring the protest death to america, death to israel on cuds day. i think the agreement really enhances iran's power in the region. i think they are going to emerge from this the dominant actor in the middle east. we have seen their authority grow over the course of this administration i think it's actually good for isis because in a place where i served if the choice is between an iraqi government backed by a shiite power and shiite militias or isis a lot of those folks who aren't bad people are more apt to side with isis than to side with the central government of iraq. the fear is that with u.s. policy tilting so far in the direction of this dominant shiite power i think you see more recruits flood into isis. we may be killing some of them but there will be folks who replenish it. the verification is a joke.

it's not anytime we want to go in. there is a committee. by the time you want to see things that can be concealed. i think this really turns our back on israel. our most trusted ally in the region. this is a country that iran boasts as a one bomb country. they boast that they want to wipe them off the map and i think the relationship that this administration has had with the israeli government has been a disaster. i doept think this is the way that you treat an ally. let me ask you this because i think you did as good a job as anyone i heard of justifying your position. what would be the reason to remove sanctions off of the iranian revolutionary guard corps? >> it's an extraordinary difficult thing to do. >> i don't understand. it's because of how the negotiations were constructed. >> it's just a concession having

nothing to do with the nuke program. on one hand we are told iran never had military uses for this but yet removing sanctions off very key players. so the question is, is there a relationship there or is this a totally unrelated concession? we have been told from administration witness after administration witness sitting where you are that they didn't want to discuss terrorism and wanted to focus on the nuclear negotiations. it is very odd that that would be in there and particularly just so because of the blood that they have on their hands. >> i think the agreement announced this morning is framed such that all of the sanctions that were passed against iran in the security council and other places are going to be lifted whether about directly nuclear program or not. is it a problem that the iranian revolutionary guards corps may

have more money available to them? yes. it's a problem. when i testified earlier i said i support this. i think on balance it's the right decision for the united states. but there are risks here and there are trade offs and some of them are very difficult to digest. that is one of them. >> senator lieberman, this influx of cash to the regime, is there any doubt in your mind that some of the proceeds will be used to fund the iranian terror network? >> none at all. it would be hard to conceive of a situation where that doesn't happen. how much is spent is up to the iranian authorities. the only other thing mentioned briefly is that a lot of the rest of the money may go for domestic purposes but will be used to strengthen the position of the current radical regime and to essentially under cut the popular opposition that is there. >> and getting the cash, is that going to cause the regime to

change their militant islamic ideology in your judgment? the fact that they are getting these concessions i guess the hope is maybe it will change. is there a change that they will change their militant islamic ideology? >> i bet that they will not based on everything we have seen. and the agreement strengthens their hand. in other words, as you have said tough choices in a negotiation. the negotiation did focus on the nuclear program that they have and it's not that we accept it all the terrible things they do but it was off the table. now, congress does have a role to play here in the months ahead which is to come back and the administration, too, really, to strengthen sanctions based on human rights, support of terrorism, their treatment of the people in camp liberty which

is horrendous. so that right now i think this message is not only did they get a good deal on the nuclear agreement, but they're basically free to do whatever they want to do in every other part of their radical program. >> i yield back. thank you for your military service. we have one final follow up from congressman deutsche for ambassador burns. >> i just wanted to follow up on the last point since there is a very big agreement we are sorting through. your assessment is that all of the sanctions are being lifted as part of this? i want to make sure i understood correctly what you said. >> in my response to the question i said the framework of this agreement is that many of the sanctions that were passed under varying authorities are being lifted as part of the overall agreement. so it is a multiple type of

sanctions in here. that was my answer. >> i appreciate it. >> thanks. >> thank you. as we conclude i want to thank you for being here today your insight has been very helpful. we are certainly concerned for the security of the american families and you have expressed that. you can see it is bipartisan the level of concern and participation. i am very grateful for everyone participating today. i know that many of us are just so hopeful for democratic change in iran. with that we are now adjourned.

this weekend on c-span networks politics books and american history. our road to the white house begins friday night in iowa. at 8:00 eastern we are live on c-span from cedar rapids for the democratic party hall of fame day starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern live at the family leadership summit. sunday evening interviews with two republican presidential candidates first south carolina senator lindsey graham and then ohio governor john kasich. and saturday morning beginning at 11:00 eastern live from new york city for the harlem book fair with author talks and panels on economics, african-american identity and race and politics spolitics. sunday night at 10:00 political

common commonalm commontator. speakers include authors historian and the executive director of the national first lady's library. a little after 9:00 the national archives at kansas city shows how the u.s. government used propaganda to persuade citizens to join the military. get our complete schedule at cspan.org. and early next month a forum with republican presidential candidates. c-span is partnering for the newspapers voters first forum. all 17 current and likely gop candidates have been invited to participate. the forum is live in manchester

on c-span c-span radio and cspan.org. house speaker john boehner today called the iran nuclear agreement a, quote, bad deal. and the house minority leader nancy pelosi says she strongly supports the agreement. here is a few minutes of the reports on iran starting with congress woman pelosi. two days ago early in the morning an historic nuclear agreement was announced and that is the product of years of tough old clear eyed leadership on the part of president obama. i have closely examined this document and it will have my strong support. members are reading the document now. this is the document plus the annexes very important.

i am very proud of the attention, the careful attention that our members are getting to the document to the joint comprehensive plan of action. congratulations to president obama, to the leaders of the p-5 plus 1 all of the countries and i want to commend secretary kerry for their exceptional leadership throughout these negotiations. we had two really talented experienced leaders -- more than two, but those two senator kerry, a long term senator with experience on foreign affairs committee, and secretary monice.

president has been very clear. nuclear iran is unacceptable to the united states, to the world and in particular to israel. this agreement is precisely about intensifying our vigilance over every aspect of the iranian nuclear program. we have no illusions about iran. president reagan said trust and verify. in this case i would say distrust and verify. on iran given everything i have seen so far this is a bad deal. yesterday the president admitted that likely further iran's support for terror activities throughout the region. it blows my mind that the administration would agree to lift the arms and missile bans and sanctions on a general who supplied militants weapons to kill americans. president obama says it is this

deal or war. i say false choice. sanctions were working and bringing iran to its needs. we will continue to review this but we are going to fight a bad deal that is wrong for our national security and wrong for our country. >> this weekend the c-span cities tour travels across the country with time warner cable. to learn more about the literary life and history of lexington, kentucky. edward prich rd was a state hero. >> in the mid 1940s if you had asked who is a bright shining star in american politics on the national scale a lot of people said -- he is one of the people who work in the white house and seemed destined for great things and then came back to kentucky

in the mid 1940s, went to prison and so that incredible promise just flamed out. >> we also visit ashland, the former home of speaker of the house, senator and secretary of state henry clay. >> the mansion at ashland is a unique situation. clay's original home had to be torn down and rebuilt. it fell into disrepair and son built on original foundation. what we have is a home that is essentially a five-part federal style home with architectural elements et cetera and an added layer of aesthetic details added by henry clay's granddaughter and great granddaughter and so on. >> see our programs from lexington saturday evening and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span 3.

this sunday artist and journalist molly crabapple on use of drawings to tell investigative stories. >> the pelican bay isn't alone in this. around the country you can land in solitary. >> i go around and draw. a lot of times that's not necessarily to show the finished drawing and to build repore with people. very often when you have a big camera it puts a distance between you and the person. they are taking images. it is almost vampiric in its way. whereas when you draw it is a vulnerable thing that can see exactly what you are doing. if you suck they can tell you

so. most people haven't been drawn before and most are delighted to be drawn. so a lot of times i draw people because i like to and i like talking to them when i do it. >> on q&a sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. senator kelly delivered this year's commencement address at penn state law school. her commencement address is 15 minutes. [ applause ] well, first of all, i want to thank you for that kind introduction. i'm honored to be here with president barren trustee benson members of the university administration, members of the board of trustees faculty, parents family, friends, but most of all

i'm honored to be here with the class of 2015. congratulations on what you have accomplished today. [ applause ] i have to say it is wonderful to be back here on campus at penn state. and with what you have accomplished in receiving your law degree today you can look back on the years of hard work in law school and take great pride with what you have achieved. and you can look ahead with confidence in knowing that you have received an excellent education at the dickenson school of law here at penn state and that this education will allow you to reach your full potential and to make a difference. i have to say i regret that there was no law school here when i went to penn state as an

under grad. so i am so glad to see all of you here and graduating from this great institution today. on this campus as an under grad i had the opportunity to have my first experience with a try at leadership as a student leader. it was here not only that i gained a phenomenal education but it was also here that i had the opportunity to appreciate the reward of what it means to work with other people to get things done, to try to solve problems for the greater good. and i have to say i have to mention i did have a lot of fun here, too. who doesn't like penn state football? as a nittany lion one of the things i can assure you as you go forward to all of you today is that not only have you received a law degree that is going to prepare you for success in the future but with this

graduation you are joining one of the greatest alumni communities in the world because everywhere you go you will find penn stateers. you will find a network of people who share your common experience and who want to mentor you that want to help you and so really take advantage of that alumni network as you are charting your path in the career because i can tell you we have a very active alumni group in the state of new hampshire and there is not a place you will go where you won't find a fellow penn stater and around the world. we are happy to have international students. it seems like yesterday i was sitting where you are. i remember feeling full of lots of optimism fear and also in debt, i have to say, which i'm sure many of you are. many of you may know what your next step is.

some of you are going to go off and clerk for a judge or you are joining a law firm working in a company or perhaps becoming a government lawyer. and you may think you have the plan chartered already for your career, but i can assure you there is one thing about your career path as you go forward right now. there are going to be many twists and turns along the way. rather than thinking of those bends in life as a detour which sometimes they may feel that way, look at them as opportunities. opportunities to find a career that you love in the law. after i graduated from law school i have to tell you the thought of becoming a murder prosecutor or attorney general or for that matter a united states senator was not on my radar screen. that was not what i thought my

plan would be in life. when i went back to new hampshire after graduating from law school my plan was to go work for a private firm because i had to pay some student loans off and make money and really just be in the private practice of law which can be very rewarding. that's what i did. but my life changed because you'll find that with your law degree there are many opportunities to use your degree in many different ways. so one day the firm that i was working at in new hampshire there was a partner who came to me and he asked me to cover for him at an arraignment in federal court in a criminal case. and so of course the partner comes to you, you are eager to prove yourself and i said yes, i will do it. what i didn't know at the time is that he was sending me up to a very significant criminal

case. it was one where it involved a bank robbery in new hampshire where unfortunately two guards were murdered. and it involved charges against five defendants that were charged with committing bank robberies up and down the east coast of the united states. and this was a case where i walked into federal court and i have to say i had never done an arraignment. i had only been a lawyer for a few years and i felt way over my head. i was surrounded with many other experienced lawyers. even my client had more experience in the courtroom than i did. [ laughter ] in fact, i have to tell you the first time i went down to meet my client because he was charged with a very serious matter i went down to the cell block and i met this very tough looking individual. and here i am a young woman in

this case. he looked at me. i looked at him. he had a look of terror on his face, this tough guy. the only thing i could think to tell him is don't worry i'm not your only lawyer. [ laughter ] so at that first hearing i spent most of the day at that arraignment just looking at the other experienced lawyers in the room thinking am i standing in the right place? am i supposed to be here? as many of you who may have looked and studied criminal law the arraignment is just you appear in court. you don't have to do much at that point other than obviously enter a plea for your client then the real beginning of the proceedings happens after that. so on my way back to the office that night i'm thinking about this case and i'm thinking this is a big case. and i'm obviously a new lawyer, but the more i thought about it i thought this is an exciting

opportunity to do something i didn't think i would do. i went back to the partner who sent me to this case and i said i want an opportunity to work on this case with you. obviously he was much more experienced and the appropriate lawyer to be handling the case. he gave me the opportunity to work on this case with him. and as a result, my first jury trial i spent three months in federal court. i learned about the dna evidence. i had the opportunity to cross examine witnesses and most of all i found a different path in my career. i realized that i wanted to be in the courtroom. i realized that i wanted to serve the public because it looked very exciting, first of all, to be part of an important case on either side and to know that it made a difference to the people of our state. so i applied for a job as a prosecutor at the attorney general's office and i wasn't hired on the first try but i

kept at it. and they finally hired me and, in fact, i took a pay cut to take that first job at the attorney general's office. it was worth it because after that i spent years prosecuting cases and within a decade at the attorney general's office i became the first woman to serve as attorney general in our state. and what i took from that experience is that don't be afraid to take on case ss on a new issue that really stretches your boundaries and really pushes you. it looks difficult and looks like it may be over your head. there are people that will help you. it will push you on to the next level and allow you to really push yourself to show what you're capable of. the other thing i took from that whole experience is that sometimes what looked like a

detour in your career is actually something that will bring you to your true calling. and something that you have a passion for. i think the passion is the secret ingredient that drives hard work and excellence. for me my passion is to serve the public to be in the arena of public policy to have the opportunity to solve problems for our country, to be in a position where i can make a difference. and i wish for each of you that you use your law degree and the degree that you are getting today to find your passion, that you find that career path which allows you to use your law degree to its fullest so that you can excel in whatever you do and that you can make a difference. it's a privilege to serve the country in the united states senate and to serve the people of new hampshire.

i wake up every day with a sense of purpose. we have many problems that need to be solved in washington. i think we can all agree with that. but i want you to know as much as i love what i'm doing as united states senator i have not lost my love for the law. keep that love you have for the law and why you are getting this degree today. in fact, my job as a u.s. senator has made me appreciate the law even more. and what it has made me appreciate is the importance of the rule of law to our democracy. i serve on the arms services committee. as a result of that i have had the opportunity to travel to different countries around the world, countries in the middle east countries in eastern europe countries in asia and other areas around the world. and what i have noticed in traveling to other countries that are embroiled in conflict,

in countries where sometimes women are treated as second class citizens or where people are being persecuted because of their faith, in the countries where we see challenges and problems, one of the things that is often absent and the most glaring thing that becomes absent is the rule of law. in some countries people are fighting to the death because there is no second place. in the united states because we are a nation of laws you can lose an election and keep your life. in the united states you can lose an election or disagree with our leaders or our government and you won't lose your business. you won't lose your family and you won't lose your freedom. what you see in areas where you have conflict or you have people who are dying and fighting over

trying to take control of a government or to fight for their freedom, you see when people don't believe that they will find justice in a system of the rule of law they will try to obtain their own justice and it won't be an objective justice. it will be one that is based on people's subjectivity. think about places like syria when you dare disagree with the leader you are met with violence. this is something that we i think take for granted too much here in this country. think about our own elections. the case of bush versus gore the most powerful office in the world, the president of the united states was decided by a 5-4 supreme court decision with less than 1,000 votes in the state of florida would decide the outcome of who would serve as president of the united states. yet once the supreme court decided the outcome it ended

with a peaceful transfer of power and we accepted it. how many people live in conflict or tyranny around the world that wouldn't want to live in a system like that? yet as important as the rule of law is we have to make sure and we have to beware that if we don't nurture our legal system or if we overly politicize it we will erode it and by eroding it we will erode our democracy. today as you graduate and you receive this degree and you receive your law degree from this great law school you become a guardian for the rule of law. and by doing so you are a guardian for our international students, you are a guardian for your countries. for all of us we are a guardian

for our democracy in the united states of america. regardless of the role that you choose in the law, every lawyer has the ability to speak truth to power. that means standing up for what you believe is right no matter how difficult it is. you have the ability to do so and the talent to do so with your law degree. that means standing up for the weak or disaffected or those who do not have a voice to understand when we defend the most unpopular among us you do a great service to our justice system. it means telling clients not what they want to hear but what they need to hear. that's what a good lawyer does. i will tell you it means admitting what you don't know because often there is so much we don't know and we need to

know if we are going to do a good job in our legal profession. and finally it always means applying the golden rule and i pleev the golden rule is the most important rule as you go off into legal profession and that is to treat adversaries and opposing council like you would want to be treated. in the law more than any other profession what goes around comes around. you will be surprised as you go forward in your career how many lawyers that you have had on the other side of the case that will refer you in your next case. why? because they saw how you treated them with respect and they saw how good a lawyer that you really are. when you receive your law license don't under estimate the awesome opportunity that you have been given to effect

people's lives for the better or for the worse and the responsibility which comes with that opportunity. with the degree that you receive today you have the opportunity to make our country and to our international students to make the countries from which you come here from stronger, more just and more compassionate. don't squander that opportunity embrace it. remember a good lawyer is a god send to a free and democratic society. and you have the tools you need today to be that god send for our country. we are all so proud of you and that you have chosen this noble profession. i want to say congratulations and i will see you all in court.

[ applause ] at berkshire community college in massachusetts senator elizabeth warren delivered this year's commencement address telling the class of 2015 to fight for what they believe in. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. so nice. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you president kennedy. thank you, trustees. thank you, faculty and administrators. thank you family and thank you class of '15 for having me here. it is good to be here. i'm really tickled. it is a great honor to join you at tanglewood. i am deeply grateful to stand on this stage and share this very special day with you. you know, as i stand here i can

just hear the echoes of the boston symphony orchestra playing some of the world's greatest music. i can hear james taylor singing about friendship and love and burke shires. i can see the future, too. in a few weeks lady gaga will walk across this stage just like i did. she will use more explosives and will have a cooler outfit than i do but you know what i mean. today we celebrate the 55th commencement of the commonwealth's oldest first community college. this is it. it's where it started! [ applause ] so we start with the word of the day, congratulations. i want to offer my congratulations not just to this graduating class but also to

your parents and to your kids, to your families and your friends, to your teachers and advisers and for so many of you to your employers and your co-workers because i know as well as you do you don't get through college all by yourself. making it to this stage requires the support and the understanding and the encouragement of people who love you, people who care about you and people who want to see you succeed. today we applaud your success and the success of everyone who helped get you here. [ applause ] that's what we do. now, i know that this moment is a time for celebration, a time to taste the success, but i want to talk about what you had to master to get here. and no i am not talking about

mastering elementary statistics although 77.42% of you did that. i'm not talking about overcoming the long, long, long trek from campus to the fitness center. i'm not even talking about surviving the roughest winter on record. i am talking about mastering the hard art of making something happen. i'm talking about learning to fight for what you believe in. sometimes it means fighting for yourself and sometimes it means fighting for something bigger than yourself. either way, figuring out what you want is the first step and fighting to make it happen is the necessary second step. now, president lincoln said determine the thing that can and shall be done and then we shall find the way. and today we celebrate a graduating class full of people

who determined that something can and shall be done, your graduation and then you found the way. now, you faced down some real challenges, even tough ones. i have no doubt that along the way there were plenty of people who told you what you couldn't do. plenty of people said how hard this part would be or how that part would stop you dead in your tracks, money, child care work plenty of other things to do besides homework plenty of reasons not to enroll again next semester. but you hung in there and you made this day happen. one more time. [ applause ] one more time! you did it! so today you are going to walk across the stage. we are going to celebrate reaching your goal. i hope you celebrate even more the hard work, the determination, the grit that got

you here because those are the ingredients that you'll need to reach the next goal and the one after that and the one after that. now, graduation speakers are supposed to inspire, but i know my limits. i can't play music like the bso. i can't sing like james taylor. i cannot put on a fashion display like lady gaga, but i can set a goal and make it happen just like you did. so i'm here to urge you to use the same skills and determination that got you to this day to help you get to a lot more days that are just as meaningful. i once had a day like this graduation. for me it was a celebration of fighting for what i believed in. the president partly talked about this. i grew up in a family with a lot of ups and downs money wise and

college wasn't in the cards for me. nobodien my family had made it through college but i wanted to be a teacher and i believed that i would be a good teacher. i thought that was a goal worth fighting for. the path was tough. i borrowed money. i married young. i dropped out of school. i went back and finally i got lucky. i got really lucky. we moved to a place that was about 30 miles away from a commuter college where the tuition was $50 a semester. i grabbed that chance and i held on for dear life and i pieced together enough classes including correspondents courses and i graduated. and best of all i got that job teaching special needs kids in public school. i loved that job. i think i was good at it. but i had a baby on the way and back then there were rules about

pregnant teachers. so i had to give it up, but i won a big battle. i graduated from college. i got a job as a i got a job as a teacher and that made me bolder. each time i thought for something i believed in and won, i believed i could do it again. the challenges got bigger the results got better the twists and the turns in my life became more and more unexpected. so i just want to fast forward to a fight from a few years ago. by the time of this fight i was a professor. yep, just like your teachers. and for about 20 years i'd been doing research on what was happening to america's working families. year after year i saw people getting slammed cheated on credit cards fooled on mortgages, tricked on payday loans. and it got worse and worse. i watched as big banks raked in billions of dollars by trapping people in debt.

and i watched as millions of families lost their homes, lost their paychecks lost their hope. what really burned me deep was that there was plenty of law to stop those banks but the government agencies that were supposed to enforce those laws couldn't be bothered. i wanted to change that. and that's when i had an idea. what if we built a new agency? what if we gathered up all those laws about mortgages and consumer loans and gave them to one agency, and we gave that agency the tools to enforce the laws? a sort of financial cop on the beat for american families. and then we held that agency accountable. a tough cop that was willing to take on wall street and big banks. what would happen then? so i talked to everybody i could about this idea. i went down to washington. i talked to folk in congress. i talked to policy gurus, think

tanks, newspaper people, anybody i could. and pretty much all of them told me two things. first one was, that's a good idea. that is actually an idea that could make a difference. and the second thing they told me was don't do it. now, think about that. they gave me a thousand reasons not to do it. but the reasons all boiled down to one very painful point. you can't win. don't do it because you can't win. don't even try because you can't win. you will never get this consumer agency passed into law. they pointed out that the biggest banks in the country would hate this idea and they would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to stop it. and they said to me, you're just a teacher. you got nothing. you got no money, no

organization no political juice. it won't happen so don't even try. now, i heard this, but there was something deep inside me that just refused to believe them. they said don't try and what i heard was try harder. and that's what i did. i jumped in and i fought for that little agency because i truly believed it could make a difference. the way i figured it you don't win anything that you don't fight for. so i was ready to fight as hard as i could. the fight was just about what you would expect only worse. the banks hated the idea of a new consumer agency. duh. these guys had built whole business models around cheating people. and they spent millions and millions of dollars to make sure that there was no cop on the beat to stop them. they hired an army of lobbyists. and i say that, no joke.

as the battle heated up, as i went down to washington the fight for this little consumer agency, those lobbyists thundered through the halls of congress in herds. people like me were pushed against the walls like we were invisible. the biggest most powerful lobbyists in washington. they thought they could eat us for lunch. and sometimes when i was pushed up against those walls i thought they might just do it. but i didn't back down and neither did anyone else. we kept looking for ways to make it happen, writing papers, talking with people, organizing groups. this was david taking on goliath. you know what eventually happened? we won. we actually won. [ applause ] i still half can't believe it when i say that little consumer agency, the consumer financial

protection bureau, is now the law of the united states. that's pretty damn good. [ applause ] now, before you go home and you say to yourself -- this is all over. you say, yikes i just clapped for the creation of a government agency. i must be turning into a total nerd. let me just remind you about this little agency. it has been up and running for just about four years now. and it has already forced the biggest financial institutions in this country to return more than $5 billion directly to people they cheated. now, that's government working for us. that's how it works. so look i get it. i know that building an agency to keep people from getting cheated on credit cards and mortgages may not be on your bucket list. it sure wasn't on mine.

at least it wasn't on my bucket list until it was on my bucket list. and that's really the point. i believe in the good that this little agency could do. and i so fought for it. even when people told me i couldn't win. the truth i learned along the way was pretty basic. you can't win what you don't fight for. so i say to each of you, you want to change something. nobody's going to give it to you. you got to fight for it. i wanted to be here today not just to be on the same stage where the boston symphony orchestra, james taylor and lady gaga do their stuff. i wanted to be here because i believe in what you can do. i believe in what you can do if you fight for what you believe in. no matter the odds, no matter who you're up against. if you fight, amazing things can

happen. amazing things will happen. after all, we're here to celebrate your amazing graduation and to think of many more amazing things to come. so thank you all, and keep fighting. thank you. michelle howard is the first woman and the first african-american to serve as chief of naval operations. she's an engineer by training and spoke at this year's graduation at rensselaer polytechnic institute in troy new york. she told the students to quote embrace your inner engineer.

>> president jackson, deans faculty, students, first of all, thank you for this wonderful privilege that you've given me this honorary degree. now, i will tell you my fellow honorands are somber and keen of intellect and achievement. they would not be one to let you know this is actually pretty cool. it feels a lot like a superman cape. and i just want to know does it stop bullets? i could use that in my job. but president jackson, fellow honorands, faculty students and especially the class of 2015, it's a sincere honor to join you on this extraordinary occasion. today marks a triumphant

milestone in your lives symbolically crossing the stage you will also cross over into the next phase of your lives. with each step back to your seats, you will pound into your souls the sweet feeling of accomplishment. years from now, you will recall the challenges of that last calculus class the anxiety of preparing for your last test, the excitement of your last big red freakout night and the last witnessing of the shirley ann jackson weather machine. [ laughter ] [ cheers and applause ] as a naval officer i thought it appropriate that i start this speech and share with you a sea

story. in my service the sea story is an important exchange of information. it's sold amongst fellow sailors and shipmates definitely generally in a small place with a beverage of choice and generally reaches great proportions of mythology over the lifetime of an individual. this sea story is true because it is not mine. this sea story was given to me by captain winifred click collins, the woman who a leadership award was named after. and i met her when i was a young lieutenant commander, and that began a relationship of mentor to protege. she was an iconic leader for my navy and she had many firsts of her own. she was born in