dan >> and you are, to former

u.s. ambassador's talk about negotiations surrounding iran pause nuclear program. followed by jeh johnson's first major speech since his confirmation last december. an update on the israeli palestine negotiations from the middle east institute. watch our program on first lady laura bush saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. and watch our recent interview with mrs. bush at 8:30 p.m. and live monday night, our series continues. is an evolutionary process. you grow into this role and my sense is that you never get comfortable if you are always pushing for change and growth. not just in yourself, but the issues that you care about. there is never a point in time or you feel like, there, i am now here. i can do this the same way all the time.

>> monday night at 9 p.m. eastern. also on c-span radio and c-span.org. and six world powers will continue their talks about a long-term deal to curb the country's nuclear program february 18 indiana. burns and robert einhorn, two former u.s. diplomats with the george w. bush and obama administrations gave their view on the negotiations. posted by the partnership for a secure america, this is just under an hour. start from the beginning. good morning, everyone. thanks for that kind introduction. i want to support what the partnership for a secure america is trying to do. to build a better sense of bipartisanship on capitol hill. in particular, both bob and i worked for republican and

democratic administrations. i was the career foreign service officer starting as an intern in the jimmy carter administration and went all the way through the george w. bush administration. i believe that while politics is important when it comes to the national security of the united states, americans have to unite. there is no reason that they can't be in support of each other. most important issues and the iran nuclear issue is probably the number one priority of american foreign-policy in 2014. the administration is at a very critical juncture. let me start off by saying that i strongly support what president obama and john kerry are trying to do. served in the george w. bush administration working for condoleezza rice, we try to negotiate with iran and we offered negotiations. the p5 plus one group. being the one. britain, france, the u.s., russia, and china offered

publicly for the iranians to negotiate and they turned us down. we formed this group of security council members because we thought it was important to have a global conversation with iranians. down, we turned us turned toward sanctions and the bush administration helped pass with the security council three chapter seven sanctions resolutions. the obama administration really took the baton from the bush administration and carried it forward. have always seen this policy to be highly bipartisan. i don't discern many differences at all between president obama and president bush on this issue. we can take comfort in that because it is a key issue for our country. i support what the president is trying to do. . andy mentioned until the negotiations over the last six months that it is ably handled under secretary of state wendy sherman for secretary kerry, we have not had a consistent,

sustained, strategic dialogue with the iranian government since the jimmy carter administration. and if there is a probability that the united states at some point could theoretically have to consider the use of force against iran, it does make sense to exhaust diplomacy first. and entered into the negotiations the president has committed himself to. so i support the idea of negotiation. it's entirely consistent in my view with what the bush administration was trying to do. i also believe that the president was right to negotiate the interview. and bob can speak with far greater authority on that and i can because he was part of the team that led the obama administration's efforts in the first four years. but that deal essentially freezes in place, as you know, the major elements that iran's nuclear program still provides the time for diplomacy to act and to operate. this problem will not be overcome simply or quickly. you need a time that the

president has now given us to negotiate. but i do think the next round of talks, for the final agreement, which begin next week in geneva will be infinitely more difficult. because now the pressure is going to be on iran. and the spotlight will be on the iranian government. because they're going to have to agree, in my judgment, to a significant rollback of their current nuclear, civil nuclear program, the idea that they would have 19,000 centrifuges spinning is something that the united states i don't think can tolerate. we are going to have to see dismantlement of part of the program. i would think that the negotiators from our side and the european side would want to see some significant transformation of the arak heavy-water reactor. either a just moment of that facility altogether or some kind of transition or that facility

so that we can be assured that it doesn't open up another route through plutonium to nuclear weapon. and so i heard, under the foreign ministers the reef said last week that he had not committed to dismantlement. i expect, i have to hope that was for domestic purposes and iran. and i have a very complicated political theme in tehran. but i hope he understands and every in devon understands that dismantlement has to be part of this. and that the iranian government, which is seated before the international community and being judged, because they've misrepresented or lied about their program in the past, and because they have gone far beyond what the international committee wants them to do, they will have to prove to us not just through inspections, the iaea, but through dismantlement that they are ready to become a peaceful country with civil

nuclear power, and not a country intent on developing nuclear weapons. that's the test within. i think the pressure has shifted to them in peace negotiations. i strongly support the president and what he is trying to do. i think he has brought us very skillfully to the as and a where negotiations will not be much tougher. a couple more points because we want to speak very quickly to get to your questions. i know that congress has been considering the merits of additional sanctions on iran. and my own view on that is that the president has to decide, execute american foreign policy. we elected him to do that. the constitution gives them great authority in foreign policy. i don't think it's a reasonable proposition to think within a 535 people negotiating with iran. the president has to represent the united states and he has clues add to this administration has said that further sanctions at this time would not be helpful. if that's what the negotiator

thanks, i would think we should honor the wishes of the negotiators and support him on a bipartisan basis. there may come a time should negotiations break down where further sanctions by the congress would be helpful, but we would want to see, aching in my judgment, and integration between executive and legislative branches on this very important issue, it is not a trivial matter. this is the number one issue facing our country overseas. and so i hope that the report that congress will likely stand down on the current sanctions. i hope those reports are accurate. and that congress will give the president that time and the space in the room that he needs to be our chief diplomat, which is what he is, and her chief negotiator along with secretary kerry in this very important matter. and, finally, i do think it's important that we have leverage on our site. diplomacy often cannot succeed unless it's helped by leverage. what they mean by that is, i hope the european countries and the other countries that used to

trade with iran will now not rush as they are going to do to open up business as usual with the iranians. we've seen lots of delegations from european countries and asian countries in tehran trying to set the scene for a reopening of commercial ties if sanctions are lifted. and the major sanctions are still in place. it's the wrong message to the iranians to make them think that they are 90% of the way there. they are not. they have not yet made the fundamental compromise and i think secretary kerry was absolutely right the other day, two days ago, when he criticized this and said that we have got to maintain unity, internationally and send the iranians one message. and that is, there will not be business as usual with them commercially until they earn it. and they haven't yet earned it. and, finally, if you're trying to assess probability of the president has done that publicly, he called it a 50/50 probability of whether or not the united states can be successful, i would think that

the complicated politics of iran at some point are going to become a major part of the story. i don't doubt the sincerity of president rouhani or foreign minister zarif. they seem to be generally interested with a new relationship with united states and europe and in reform in general. but if they do negotiate and they bring back to tehran i think it is at least an open question, how the revolutionary guard, national security council and the supreme leader how money will react. and so our job, the job of our government is to defend our country at the negotiating table and negotiate the best possible and the toughest minded deal. it's going to be up to the iranians, the government to make sure that they are fully on board in tehran and that to me is an open question. we have yet to hear in a convincing way from a more reaction elements of the iranian government but i support the president in which the administration success, and very happy to be here with my friend,

bob einhorn. >> andy, thank you. i think the partnership for its secure america for inviting me. it's a special pleasure to be here with the nick burns who is one of the best foreign service officer from one of the best diplomats i've had the privilege to work with over these decades. i think since the geneva joint plan of action which agreed in november has been a kind of dynamic at work between tehran and washington. and it goes like this. critics in each capital attack their own administration for having gotten the short end of the stick in negotiations. what happens then is that the administrations understandably

defend themselves. they stress the benefits to the country of the interim deal, and they reassure their critics that in the final negotiations, they are going to be very, very tough. and then these defenses in turn become ammunition for critics on the other side to attack the deal. so, for example, u.s. critics point out that the interim deal doesn't dismantle iran's nuclear infrastructure. that's correct, it doesn't do that. so the administration, the obama administration naturally feels compelled to say that in a final deal there's going to be a major dismantlement, a major reduction of nuclear infrastructure. and then the iranian critics say, you see, we told you.

the americans are only interested in cutting our enrichment program. and then rouhani, to defend himself against that charge, says we're not going to reduce any centrifuges in a final deal. and so you are off and running. another example, the iranian critics of the deal say that the sanctions relief in the interim agreement are peanuts, are insignificant. and so the rouhani administration at that point feels compelled to say that, well, this interview was the first big crack in the wall of sanctions, and that sanctions inevitably are going to unravel. and so u.s. critics read that and say, look what's happening to our sanctions regime. you know, it's falling apart.

and the administration then has to say, well, no, they are not falling apart. in fact, the main sanctions remain in place which is absolutely true your queer going to enforce the existing sanctions. in fact, we're going to impose additional sanctions measures under the existing sanctions regime. as they did by the way yesterday. then iranian critics look at that and say you see, the american administration is not series about the negotiations undermining the talks are there only after regime change. they are operating in bad faith. i was and remain a supporter of the two-step approach to this negotiation. gaining an interim deal and bind time and space for negotiations on a company to do. i think there are reasons for the. it gives us six months to test iran's willingness to implement the deal conscientiously, and it

holds for the progress in iran's program. so you are not in a situation where iran is making major progress in its program while you are negotiating. that would be kind of politically and strategically unacceptable. but one of the downsides of this approach is that you open yourself up to early criticism and maybe you make it more difficult to get to the in game. but i agree with nick that this first step deal, the joint plan of action, is a very good deal. but, of course, the test of a diplomatic track will really be what happens in the comprehensive agreement, and that's at least six months down the road. the joint plan of action does halt for the progress in iran's nuclear program. and in some small respects it

reverses progress. the requirement that iran neutralizes its stocks near 20% enriched uranium. and it's important to remember that in the absence of this interim agreement, iran could make major progress over the next six months in its program. it could shorten quite substantially the so-called breakout timeline, the time it takes to go from a decision to build nuclear weapons to having sufficient fissile material to produce a single nuclear weapon. that timeline would be shortened very substantially if iran would continue its program. but it's unable to do that. it's true, the interim deal doesn't dismantle a single centrifuge. it permits some continuation of research and development activities. that's absolutely the case, but these are objective. these are items towards the

comprehensive view. on the sanctions relief, i think it's the wide precipitation that significant sanctions which are, in fact, quite modest. i think the concern is that there will be a kind of psychological shift, shift in expectations, and this will open the floodgates to new business activity with iran, and unraveling of the sanctions regime. now, this concern is that by a number of development. the rouhani government has been quite skillful at pursuing a public diplomacy campaign. you saw it at the dog goes world economic forum. iran is open for business, inviting businessmen to come to iran and cat new deals -- davos. you see it in succession of trade delegations, the french

delegation. a turkish delegation led by prime minister erdogan. reports of russia-iran's oil for goods deal, which by the way hasn't materialized, the administration has strongly opposed it with the russians and at the highest levels. but talk of that kind of activity raises concerns about whether the sanctions are really evaporating. but while there's a lot of smoke, so far we see no evidence of fire. businessman, governments are very cautious about engaging at this point. they know that the major sanctions on banking, in the energy area are still in place. they know that the administration is going to be imposing sanctions during this period. new sanctions under existing

authorities, if attempts at evasion are detected. and so my sense is that, that this regime, sanctions regime will remain intact for the six-month period. there will be some benefit for iran to of course there will be benefits for iran otherwise iran wouldn't have joined this interim deal, but the existing sanctions will provide plenty of incentives for iran to negotiate a final deal. a concern has been that they will be so much sanctions erosion during the six months that there'll be no incentives left for iran to negotiate. i don't think that's the case. i think rouhani and his advisers understand that if there is done is to on track, it will require a lifting of sanctions, not just the easy of a few measures.

and so there will be plenty of incentives to negotiate. so the talks on the final deal if they begin favorite 18th, coming up very soon, but as nick pointed out, there are differences between the sides. i'll just mention a few them, probably the biggest is about the size of the enrichment uranium enrichment program that iran will be able to retain under the agreement. the u.s. goal is to lengthen this breakout timeline, the amount of time it would take to have enough highly enriched uranium for a single nuclear bomb. and to lengthen that timeline, i'm sure the u.s. and its partners in negotiation will press for a significant reduction in the number of centrifuges, constraints on the types of centrifuges that can be

used, tight constraints on the amount of enriched uranium that at various levels, that iran will be able to keep on its territory and so forth. iran has given every indication that it's going to resist deep cuts in its nuclear infrastructure. it will want to retain as much as what it already has installed, and perhaps even expand what it has already deployed. it will claim that it's got a robust, a nuclear energy program, and it needs to expand its enrichment capacity in order to support that program. perhaps a way forward is to focus on the practical needs of that, iranian civil nuclear program. in fact, the joint point -- the joint plan of action indicates the final agreement will provide

for a mutually defined enrichment program based on practical needs, but what are iran's practical needs? they are, in fact, quite limited. iran has a small research reactor. it out has produced enough fuel to fuel that reactor for a long period of time. it has a power reactor supplied by russia, but russia is supplying fuel for that reactor. it wants to build some small research reactors to produce medical isotopes. that's fine. we support that, but those small reactors don't take much enriched uranium as fuel. so, in fact, iran's real needs, it's practical needs are very limited. and i think that can be a basis for agreement on the enrichment question. nick also talked about the heavywater reactor at arak. i have no doubt that this

reactor was designed to produce plutonium for a nuclear weapons program. it's precisely the kind of reactor, the size reactor that a number of countries use to embark, to be a weapons programs. i'm sure that was the initial intention of the iranians. they say now that it is to produce medical isotopes, but it's not the best type of reactor for the production of medical isotopes. much better for that purpose, and a much poorer producer of plutonium would be a reactor moderated by heavywater. i'm sorry, light water research reactor. the head of the atomic energy organization of iran a few days ago gave some hints that they would be prepared to accept some design modifications of that reactor in order to reduce the

plutonium production threat. it's not clear what he means by that. one way to modify it is for it to be fueled by lightly enriched uranium rather than natural uranium which should be somewhat better than filling it with natural uranium. that would be fine but it was not nearly as useful a step as converting it to a light water research reactor. and i think that's the solution that would solve this difficult issue. there's also the question of this underground enrichment facility at fordow. this was a secret facility. it was outed by western intelligence agencies in 2009. my guess is that it was designed as a covert component of a nuclear weapons program. but now it's at a facility that

was previously used as a military base, buried deep underground, less vulnerable to preemptive attack. it has no logical role to play in a future iranian civil nuclear program. it could be dismantled altogether, but if that isn't too difficult, too much of a loss of faith, then perhaps it can be repurposed, converted into a research and development facility with all of its centrifuge cascade removed. monitoring and verification would be difficult to i think it's positive that the iranians have agreed to ratify the additional protocol under a comprehensive deal. that's a good step, but the additional protocol isn't enough. given iran's track record, which is a very poor record, track record of compliance with its

safeguards, obligations, it's important that they agreed to go well beyond the additional protocol. in a number of there is, the joint plan of action is a good step in that direction, with access to centrifuge production facilities, uranium mines and mills. these are things that could give us some confidence that they are not pursuing covert nuclear program, but in a comprehensive agreement they have to go even further. a very hard issue will be one that is called the pmb, a possible military dimensions of iran's nuclear program. november 2011, the iaea director general came out with a report itemizing areas in which the iaea believes iran come in the past, engaged in research activities related to nuclear weapons development.

for two years, the iaea and iran tried to get to the bottom of this, stonewalling by ran made it impossible to clear up the iaea's concerns. so now the issue remains, and without a full understanding of these past activities come is just not going to be possible to resolve this issue in any fundamental way. it's made harder by the fact that president rouhani keeps saying, not only does iran, is it not pursuing nuclear weapons, but it never pursued nuclear weapons. besides that, the supreme leader talks about i thought law, saying that nuclear weapons would be against islam. so becomes very difficult to confess that iran was engaged in nuclear weapons related activities, given all of this.

so i think negotiators are going to have to be very resourceful in finding a way to resolve this. i think the key will be to frame the issue in such a way that iran doesn't have to admit past guilt, but provide sufficient information to satisfy us that some activities engaged in the past do not have implications for covert programs in the future. that's going to be hard, that it's going to be essential. and the final issue i will mention is duration but if you look at the joint plan of action, it only says at the end that the conference of agreement will be of long-term duration. the parties could reach agreement on a precise number of years. it becomes very important because another element of the joint plan of action is that once this comprehensive agreement expires, then iran

will be treated in the same way as any nonnuclear weapon states party to the npt. and what that means is that perhaps some of the special restrictions on an enrichment program, on the iraq -- arak reactor, monitoring arrangements, some those especially restrictions will no longer apply. so the link of that comprehensive agreement becomes very important. my own view is that the duration should be 20 years or greater. i think the iranians have in mind single digits, low single digits, and the sides are very far apart. so what's the outlook? president obama had mentioned is yoview that it could be about a 50/50 probability in the state of union. he also indicated that perhaps it won't be possible to reach a deal. i think, i think 50/50 may be

optimistic. the issues are very wide. the differences are very wide, but i think it's possible with sufficient creativity on some of these issues to reach agreement. i don't see a agreement being reached in the first six months, the joint plan of action talks about the possibility of extending the interim deal by mutual consent. at the same time it indicates that a final agreement has to be completed within one year. i think that's, those are the parameters, between six months and 12 months. i think any longer than 12 months i think there will be strong pressures, domestic pressures both in transit and in washington that this has taken enough time -- in transit and in washington and you have to complete it. so i will end it there, andy. >> thanks very much. thanks very much. there's a lot to chew on.

please jot down your questions and get some of your so that i can then post them for our two speakers. there was one question that was asked me and written down before we actually started, and i'll just post the question here at the ousted. it was touched upon, bob come into final comment in this is question that pertains to verification. and the question is, the questioner says she wonders whether he you could comment on the enlarged role that is foreseen for the international atomic energy agency under, in the interim agreement? for example, the question is, i think the implication here is what the agency be granted the necessary access that they need to answer some of the outstanding issues, the outstanding questions that have been lingering there for a number of years but as you mentioned, particularly access to the parchin military facility is where there is suspected possible military dimensions taking place. questions are pouring in.

either of you just talk about that. >> under the joint plan of action, the iaea plays a major role. there will be a joint commission involving iran and the p5+1 countries that will look at implementation, both on the nuclear side and on the sanctions side. so it will play a role. but the parties recognize that the iaea is the organization with the expertise to do the job. so i would look to the iaea as the principal actor on verification. on parchin and those issues, those are going to be hard your recently, the iaea and iran agreed to a kind of program of action, six steps, that are useful but they don't get to the military dimension aspects of the past. so this will be very hard but i

think iran has to understand that it has to address iaea concerns or there will not be a final deal. >> i would just add what bob has said, and i agree with what he said. i think a lot of people remember when president reagan was negotiating nuclear arms reductions with the limitations with the soviet union back in 1987, president reagan said very same is fully -- said very simply, trust but verify. the verification in escape with a run comes with the iaea. a lot of people of modified what president reagan has said. iranian nuclear issue and i agree, don't trust. but verify. unique verification, and we trust the iaea. if it's fully empowered on a 24/7 bases to be the eyes and ears of the world to assure ourselves that the iranians are not cheating. but given the past record of the iranian government that bob and i have both spoken to, they have not been credible. or honest. they have hidden these

facilities, fordow now being one example when president obama exposed in his press conference in 2009. so we can't trust the government of iran. we must verify. another final point. foreign minister zarif and others have put a spotlight on verification and said we will go the extra mile -- i'm paraphrasing -- on verification. that's not going to be enough. because what is being verified is the critical issue. and we don't want to have a fully empowered and constructed centrifuge program to be verified. we want that such the program to be rolled back. we don't want the arak heavy-water reactor to be verified. as bob said, it's got to be transformed into a light water reactor, or dismantled completely. so the core of the negotiations will not be verification. the core of the negotiations is the main government willing to

dismantle parts of its program? then you verify. the agreement that you strike with them. and that's the proper order of thinking about verification's usefulness. >> okay. we will go to some of the questions now. here's a very straightforward one, response i think, i think bob maybe to mention this. the question is, what with the additional sanctions that were put in place yesterday? >> my understanding, i haven't been through the treasury trease announcement but my understand is that these were entities in a bunch of countries around the world, six, seven, eight, which were involved in mediation of the existing sanctions. so they weren't new sanctions. under the joint plan of action, the u.s. pledges not to impose new sanctions. these, involved in the execution

of existing sanctions, but there are sanctions against evaders of the sanctions regime. and these various entities in six or seven.com including countries allied to the united states, were seen as deserving of this treatment. the iranians predictably reacted against this, but the u.s. administration has informed them several times that the current commitment is not to impose new sanctions, new legislation, new executive orders and so forth, and that it will continue to implement existing sanctions. that is what was done. iranian's should have expected it. i think they're protesting in part to do with their own domestic audience. >> an interesting question.

do you think that analogies can be drawn or lessons learned from north korea? that is, that can be applied to iran or vice versa. >> well, bob and i have both been involved, in my case, in the clinton at bush administration, with a bitter expense with the north koreans. i was not involved in either negotiation directly, but i know it all good intentions in the world and the clinton administration with agreed framework of 1994, and i know president bush and secretary rice and a bass and chris hill did back in 2007 with that negotiation. i do think that there are differences year that don't, that make it difficult to equate the north korea situation with iran. north korea is a singular state run by a mafia family dictatorship. there's no other way to describe it, really. and they're all big and cut off from the rest of the world. they're cut off from the global

financial system. and they seem to be willing to live isolated from the rest of the world for the glorification of the ruling family. the iranians are very different. iran is more of a civilization. very proud. it is a key country in the middle east. iran wants to be integrated with the economies of turkey and the gulf and europe and north america and asia. and, in fact, that's been iran's traditional historic roll over many centuries. and so i see at least one of the motivations by iranian government here is to iran reenter the international system. they don't want to live in isolation and, therefore, i think -- and despite the fact that i disagree with almost every aspect of government govet behavior in tehran, it appears to be a highly rational regime and that's why it's important that at the negotiating table with the united states are china and russia and germany, france and britain, and supporting it

are japan and south korea. iran but the answer to the entire world if it violates an agreement with the perm five countries. and i think the chances if the agreement can be negotiated, successfully, of then executing it successfully are far higher with iran than they were with that completely mendacious regime in pyongyang. >> i would agree. i would just add something to the. people often ask me, is easy to sanction north korea or iran? the reality is, it's easier to sanction iran, and for some very simple reasons. north korea has one big benefactor, china. it's not prepared to let it go under. it's prepared to provide whatever food, fuel, for the support necessary to keep that regime afloat. iran doesn't have that. but iran has a crucial economic dependency, oil, the export of oil. which north korea doesn't have. north korea only makes one

thing, trouble. but the iranians really are dependent on the export of crude oil, and it's been the ability to get countries around the world to cut back their purchases of iranian crude oil that's led to huge drop in oil revenues, close to 60%. that's what has made a sanctions regime effective. and so that's why it's easy to put pressure on iran. and ironically than it is north korea. >> there have been a number of questions that have been submitted on your cards concerning the regional applications of where we go from here. let me read one of them. it says, clearly israel feels very threatened by these negotiations are what is the real risk to israel from these negotiations? can use shed some light on the concern? let me just add to that, with the saudis concerns are, if you want to add on to this question as well.

seems to be some simultaneity of concerns by both the israelis and saudis about the negotiations that are going on. so let me just stop at that point. >> well, i think is most americans, i'm very sympathetic to the situation that israel finds itself in as result of the arab revolution of the last three years, all of israel's borders have been destabilized. all more dangerous today than they were three years ago when -- particularly very worrisome trend of the signer with jihadi groups striking at the egyptian government and, of course, threatened to strike at israel. the weakening of jordan, the weakening of the border, the civil war spilling from syria over the border and golan heights and into lebanon, israel's northern border. so if you're an israeli, or if your prime minister netanyahu, you've got to be concerned. in addition to this prospect

that the iranian government that has never sufficiently answered, you know, the blame from hostile rhetoric of the ahmadinejad government, they face an iranian regime that appears to be a mortal enemy. so one can easily understand the problems that israel has. i certainly believe that prime minister netanyahu can put his faith and should put his faith in the president obama. israel has a great friendship with us, and we have been a very reliable partner to the israelis, defender of israel for 40 years. since henry kissinger transform politics in the middle east after the october war of 1973. and i would hope that the israeli leadership would give president obama but time and space to negotiate, and it appears that they will. the israelis will be in a very tough position should these negotiations fail and in a way, you know, as you build up leverage against the iranians,

it's important that the iranians know that israel will defend itself but israel cannot live and should not live within iranian nuclear cannot pass the, and neither should the united states. i would hope the trend will continue to lead and israel will support the united states. and diplomacy be given enough time so that it might succeed. bobob makes a good point. these negotiations might not succeed and that my require additional time. and if that's the case, and iran is well short of our red line, possession of a nuclear weapon, i would help israel would support, continued negotiations. and help the saudis would, too. i'm a private citizen, so i can say this. i've been very disturbed by the public attacks by saudi officials on the united states, and i'm president obama and secretary kerry. i've been very disturbed as have been many americans by members of the israeli cabinet criticizing in a very public, very open way secretary over the

last few weeks. these two countries have a great friend in the united states and these are tense times. so i would hope the saudis and the israelis, governments, would give the obama administration the outright public support. because we need to be unified in facing iran. bob and i have both talked about this, embarrassing spectacle of european politicians leading trade delegations to tehran over the last several weeks. we need the iranians to your tor united message from europeans, americans and the saudis and israelis. >> if you have more questions, go ahead. >> here's a question i see directed to you, nick. would it be a good idea to ask the iranians to allow a few americans, staff people, the staff the intersections in tehran? this is a question of engagement

obviously eric this is a question which i'm no not sure quite understand but this is what happened in 2008 with the bush administration? why didn't they ask them? this is a question about more contacts, but also staffing an intersection in tehran with americans. >> well, i take my advice from yitzhak rabin when his prime minister when he was explaining, i think back in the '90s, why he would sheikh arafat's hand in the south lawn of the white house. and he said something to effect, i'll paraphrase, you don't negotiate with your best friend. to negotiate with very unsavory enemies. and as a former diplomat, i teach diplomacy, i from the bleep do we have to be talking to our adversaries and our enemies. at the worst thing you can do from your own perspective, from your own national interest if you shut yourself off. so despite the fact i think we agree that north korea regime is odious, we have had a conversation with them. because it's in many ways a powerful regime and i think that

the idea that the united states and iran were to establish a consistent channel, a very effective one and a very good one for our national interest. we don't give them a favor. we do ourselves a favor by having the capacity to be more intelligent about their country. that's part of what diplomats do. we live overseas, our foreign service officers on point and difficult places, and we translate what's happening in the country for washington, and we haven't had that. so i entered the foreign service full-time in 1982, nobody in my generation went to iran. much less learned farsi. when i was the iran initiative for the bush administration, i never met an iranian diplomat. we weren't allowed to. there were no talks. i spent all my time sanctioning iran. so the fact that wendy sherman, our undersecretary of state, has had this opportunity to engage the iranians, the fact that secretary kerry has had the opportunity is good for us. it doesn't get -- it doesn't give anything away.

it makes us better at negotiation. i do want to get public advice to the administration. i would trust the nsa should decide when the right time is to establish an intersection. i'm iranians would accept a. it's a paranoid regime. they have a distorted view of the united states. they don't tell the truth about us. that's why we need voice of america and bbc and cnn to be broadcasting into iran because the iranian government distorts we are, but i trust the obama intersection to forget when the best time is. but the idea the jeff coston temptations and diplomatic representation makes perfect sense to me. >> just add, i completely agree with nick on that. interestingly, at this munich security conference last week, secretary kerry sat down with iranian foreign minister zarif. it hardly made the newspaper anymore. and i think that's a good thing because we need to have this dialogue. we need to understand what they

are thinking. even if we have serious differences, and i think it's good that it's becoming more routine that americans and iranians sit down and talk. >> right, next question. since this is a congressional audience, largely so, this is an questioned what of those damaging appendages steps members of congress could take to help or hurt the negotiations over the next six months? i know you don't want to advise members of congress but nonetheless, treat this as a very general question. >> i think it's a good thing that senators step back from a vote on the recently introduced sanctions bill. we all recognize the importance of very strong sanctions to motivate iran to negotiate

seriously, and to reach agreement on an acceptable deal. but i agree with the administration that now is not the right time to impose additional sanctions. and in part because the particular sanctions bill that was introduced contain a number of poison pills in it. you know, for example, it indicated that even in the next six-month if iran were to conduct a long range ballistic missile test, or to be seen as supporting directly or indirectly ask of terrorism, then we would be free no longer to implement our pledge that we wouldn't impose new sanctions during the six-month period. to me, that's not reasonable. ..

that gets to nick's point about how we have only one administration negotiating here sanctions, can lift if he can certify that he's achieved a deal that is unacceptable, then they have little incentive to negotiate. so this bill has some poison pills in it. i think it's good that the senators step back. it's there, it sends a message but i don't think the message has to be brought to a vote. >> i agree with bottom of i just wanted to add i know we're

here on capitol hill and there are many staffers here from the republican and democratic sides. congress has already played a very important role. iran is at the table in large part i think because of the sanctions voted by the american congress and bit european union the but we might look to history to just recall how meg has dealt with different crises in the past. with the president out in front and congress in support. when president jefferson dealt with the barbary pirates in the beginning of 19th century or roosevelt with the russo- japanese war, 1905, president frankly roosevelt the leaned-lease deal before the second world war, j.f.k. and crisis, these le are all issues where we entrusted the congress to lead. congress always has the final

say. president wilson found that out after the first peace conference in 1919, 1920. it will need to come back to the congress because some of those sanctions can't be lifted without congressional -- congress agreing. so congress will play its historic constitutional role but at the table, one american i think has done a very fine job of positioning us at that tible. >> because we're running out of time i'm going to ask two more questions. i'll ask them together and then maybe you can respond to them. the one question is more of a technical question. very simple. should we recognize an iranian right to enrichment? that's been controversial. and the second question is what should iran do to avoid military action while it's till an option on the table?

>> on the right to enrich, the united states has not recognized any right to enrichment. it doesn't believe there is such a right. the nonproliferation treaty protects the right of compliant parties to engage in nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. it doesn't talk about enrichment per se. it's a dual use technology that can be used for nuclear weapons production and clearly iran because of its infractions regarding its safeguards obblequations -- albelin gations has at least temporarily forfeited the right to pursue civil nuclear energy in these particularly sensitive areas like enrichment and

reprocessing. so even in the joint plan of action there is no recognition of a right to enrich but there is a kind of understanding that in the context of an otherwise acceptable final deal there can be a mutually defined enrichment program in iran but not as a question of legal right, as a question of uccessful negotiating outcome. >> i cannot improve on bob's answer. he knows that subject backwards and forwards. i just wanted to take a swing at the last question, what should iran do to avoid the use of military force? i think it's obvious to everybody that iran is facing a fateful choice. they have to choose, if they wanted to integrated into the rest of the world, trade freely, they have to own up to what they have done in constructing a nuclear weapons apparatus, an apparatus to

support a program and it's our job to help them dismantle it and that's the key issue for the next six months in these negotiations. i must say i think a lot of people, myself included, have been very impressed by prosecute rouhani and the foreign minister. they are ziff than any other iranian leaders we've seen since is revolution of 1978-1989. it's been very hopeful to sit down and talk and think about the possibilities for arab security, saudi security if iran can become a peaceful nation in the middle east. it's a natural leader and always has been in the middle east, but it now needs to demonstrate that it's going to live peacefully and we cannot rely on words or just verification the before he to -- verycation. we have to rely on actual deeds

to dismantle the program. so the question is how can that he void the use of force? by doing the right thing. becoming a peaceful state. by acting like almost every other state in the world. we're transparent, we tell the truth about our national security apparatus in a way the iranians have not done, and they've got to negotiate ine fair basis. if they do that, you have seen that the president and secretary of state are willing to meet them halfway. so i really hope all of us can get behind the president and support him, and let's hope the iranians can meet the challenge.

>> on behalf of the partnership for a secure america, let me thank both nick and bob for sharing their expertise with us this morning. it was an extremely good seminar on the iran nuclear issue. could you all join me in addressing our appreciation. national cable satellite corp. 2013] national captioning institute] >> watch the senate when they re in session live over on c-span 2. and kentucky senator rand paul is our guest this week on newsmakers. he discusses kentucky politics and immigration reform in congress ahead of the elections. here's a brief look. >> the democrats can't say, ok, we're the great defenders of women's rights in the workplace and we'll defend you against

some kind of abusive boss that uses their position of authority to take advantage of a young woman when the leader of their party and the leading fundraiser in the country is bill clinton, who was a perpetrator of that kind of sexual harassment. you know, so they can't have it both ways and so i really think that anybody who wants to take money from bill clinton or have a fundraiser hays lot of explaining to do. in fact i think they should give the money back. if they want to take a position on women's rights, by all means, do but they can't take it from a guy who is using his position in -- of authority to harass a woman in the workplace. >> watch kentucky senator rand paul's remarks on newsmakers sunday atd 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. next, homeland security secretary jay johnson's first

major -- jeh johnson's first major address since his confirmation last september. e outlines his policies on cyber security, [applause] >> good morning and welcome to the wilson center. you are just some of the folks who are about to listen to this. there is a worldwide audience. there are overflow rooms. you are here for the right reasons. let me recognize a few of our special guests in the front row. dr. susan demarco johnson is secretary. she is right in front of me.

some of the dhs leadership, including alejandro mallorcas. is julia pearson here? the first director of the u.s. secret service, who happens to be a woman. the fema director -- you should applaud for that. [applause] fema director, craig fugate. and thomas michalski. he spoke here recently on strategy. a number of ambassadors and members of two groups, the aspen institute homeland security group is in the front rows, and the homeland security advisory council. these are folks who in various

ways, including me -- i am a cochair and i am on the other group, are trying to give our best advice. leading dhs is a tough job. some of us were the founding mothers and fathers. blending the culture of 22 agencies reporting to more than 100 different congressional committees and subcommittees -- dod only reports to 36 -- and keeping americans safe is daunting. security is my bag, as i said. as a former nine term member of congress who chaired the intelligence information sharing and risk assessment subcommittees, and who represented some of our most vulnerable infrastructure, including lax and the port of los angeles, i can tell you that one decade after its establishment, the department

remains a work in progress. but, significant progress has been made. lots of it has been showcased here at the wilson center. in the past year, we have welcomed former secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, to discuss the efforts to include the private sector in our cyber security efforts. a washington post columnist on government capacity against terror threats in a borderless world. and we hosted an event on the entry-exit systems in north america. over the past three years, we have hosted the winter meeting of the aspen institute homeland security group. that is cochaired by former secretary michael chertoff and me. we met with the secretary this morning about a report we have produced to recommend some action he might take. we hope to be useful in the future.

so, today, i am pleased to welcome secretary jeh johnson for his first major policy address since taking office on december 23. as a former assistant u.s. attorney, general counsel of the air force, and later dod, he has been on the frontlines of counterterrorism policy, from desperately needed reform at guantánamo bay to our u.s. drone policy. more said later. in a major speech at the oxford union in 2012, he said "we must be able to say to ourselves that our efforts should no longer be considered an armed conflict against al qaeda, rather, a counterterrorism effort against individuals who are scattered remnants -- who are part of groups unaffiliated, for which the law enforcement and intelligence resources of our government are principally responsible in cooperation with

the international community." that was his tryout speech for secretary. he is thoughtful and courageous and he will need these skills as he confronts the threats of today and those of the future. he will outline those threats in his speech, so i am skipping the stuff that i have put here. i want to say that 2014 will be a pivotal year. it surely is as we speak. in sochi, in syria, and in other places. the secretary is here to help us understand what is on his agenda. please welcome secretary jeh johnson. [applause] >> thank you, jane. before i begin with my remarks, i want to acknowledge to other people in the audience here today.

the first is fema administrator craig fugate, who everyone agrees has done a wonderful job in leadership of that agency. i would like to acknowledge the commandant of the coast guard. he is a strong, solid leader. i know that a number of people are very proud of his leadership. he is retiring in may. after a distinguished career in public service in the defense of our nation. i begin by thanking the woodrow wilson center and the aspen homeland security group for inviting me to speak here today. i also want to thank jane harman for your leadership and continued service to our country. your willingness to be a supporter, mentor, an adviser to me, and to numerous others around this town.

when jane harman advises, i listen. as many of you have heard me say before, september 11 is my birthday. on september 11, 2001, i was in the private practice of law in new york city. like millions of others, i was an eyewitness to the events of that day. i watched in shock as the beautiful, serene, and ordinary work day was transformed in an instant to one of the worst days in american history. while thousands of people, and ultimately the nation, coped with a tragedy that theretofore was unimaginable. the department of homeland security was born. it was out of that day that my personal commitment to the mission of homeland security was born. for the next several minutes, i

would like to take the opportunity that jane has provided me to spell out my vision for the department i am privileged to lead. a cliché too often used is that we are in a time of transition. the department of homeland security must always be in a time of transition. we must be agile and vigilant in continually adapting to evolving threats and hazards. we must stay one step ahead of the next terror attack, the next cyber attack, and the next natural disaster. the most important part of my day as secretary is the morning intel brief which ranges in scope from the latest terrorist plot to a weather map. we monitor world events in real time and take action when necessary to confront and respond to these threats. in support of russian authorities, we are keeping a close eye on the sochi olympics. they are beginning pretty much as i speak. within the last 48 hours, we

have, out of an abundance of caution, issued advisories to air carriers and others based on what we have learned. we have adjusted tsa security measures and are continually evaluating whether more is necessary. also, within the last 48 hours, in response to a very different type of hazard, fema has issued 95 generators to the state of pennsylvania. several hundred thousand people are without power due to the snow and cold weather. in the homeland security world, no news is good news. no news is often the result of the hard work, vigilance, and dedication of people within our government. we prevent bad things that you never hear about, or at least help the public protect itself and recover from the storms we do not prevent. our overall challenge within the department of homeland security

and within the homeland security community is to learn from and adapt the changing character of the evolving threats and hazards we face. 9/11, hurricane katrina in 2005, the underwear bomber in 2009, the deepwater horizon oil spill in 2010, hurricane sandy in 2012, the boston marathon bombing in 2013 -- they illustrate these evolving threats and hazards. the terrorist threat that we face is increasingly decentralized. it is self-motivated and may be harder to detect. the cyber threat we face is growing and poses a greater concern to a critical infrastructure that is becoming increasingly interdependent. natural disasters are becoming more severe and causing significant economic loss.

there are more variable consequences driven by climate change and aging infrastructure. the basic missions of the department of homeland security are and should be and should continue to be preventing terrorism and enhancing security, securing and managing our borders, and forcing and administering our laws, safeguarding cyberspace, safeguarding critical infrastructure, and preparing for natural disasters. as we all know, at the time dhs was created in 2003, it was the most substantial reorganization of our government since 1947. in my opinion, the creation of the department of homeland security in 2003 was long overdue. many other nations face threats similar to ours. they have ministries of the interior or home office with the

same basic mission of bridging national and domestic security, counterterrorism, and border security. perhaps because our nation was protected by two big oceans from many of the world hotspots, we thought that one department devoted to the mission of homeland security was unnecessary. that thinking obviously changed on 9/11. further, consider where all of the 22 components of homeland security existed before the creation of the department in 2003. scattered across the department of agriculture, energy, justice, treasury, transportation, defense, health and human services, and the general services administration, including departments that do not have national security or law-enforcement as their core mission.

in just seven weeks, i have already seen the wisdom of combining a number of these capabilities within one department of government. when i convene a meeting to discuss how the latest terrorist threat might penetrate homeland, the participants include dhs's intelligence and analysis office, border protection, tsa, immigration and customs enforcement, citizenship and immigration services, the coast guard, and the national protection program director. put another way, with the creation of dhs, a terrorist searches for weaknesses along our air, land, and sea borders or ports of entry. they are met with one of federal response. for me, preventing terrorist attacks on the homeland is and should remain the cornerstone of homeland security. through our counterterrorism effort in both the bush and

obama administrations, we have put al qaeda's core leadership on the path to defeat. the threat has evolved. since 2009, we saw the rise of al qaeda affiliates, such as al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. they have made repeated efforts to export terrorism to our homeland. working with others, we must deny them a safe haven, a place to hide, training to launch attacks. we're focused on foreign fighters heading to syria right now. based on our work and the work of our international partners, we know individuals from the u.s., canada, and europe are traveling to syria to fight in the conflict. at the same time, extremists are actively trying to recruit westerners and indoctrinate them and see them return to their home countries with an extremist mission.

last night, i returned from poland, where the attorney general and i met with my counterparts from the u.k., france, italy, and poland. syria was the number one topic of conversation for them and for us. syria has become a matter of homeland security. dhs, the fbi, and the intelligence community to continue to work closely to identify those foreign fighters that represent a threat to the homeland. we face threats from those who self radicalized, to violence of so-called lone wolves. they did not train overseas or became part of an enemy force. they may be inspired by radical ideology to do harm to americans. in many respects, this is the terrorist threat to the homeland. it was illustrated last year by the boston marathon bombing.

i worry about this the most. it may be the hardest to detect. it involves independent actors living within our midst, with easy access to things that, in the wrong hands, become tools of mass violence. we must remain vigilant in encountering all of these threats. at the department of defense, i was witness to the extraordinary efforts of our military and the other national security and intelligence components of our government encountering terrorist threats overseas. here at home, given the evolving threat, i believe it is critical over the next several years that dhs continue to build relationships with state and local governments and the first responders in those governments. we must also continue to encourage public participation in our efforts on their behalf through the nationwide suspicious activity reporting

initiatives and campaigns such as if you see something, say something. that was on prominent display at airports and even at the super bowl five days ago. homeland security is a team effort. border and port security is indispensable to homeland security. good border security is a barrier to terrorist threats, drug traffickers, transnational criminal organizations, and other threats to national security and public safety. in my first month in office, i visited our southwest borders. smuggling organizations are responsible for almost all of those who cross the border illegally. i saw the south texas border on the rio grande. the shallow places on that river where someone could walk about 200 feet across without getting their knees wet -- by helicopter, i saw the arizona border. there's the fort isabel detention center near brownsville.

i saw detainees, only 18% of whom were mexican. the rest represent over 30 different nationalities who migrated to mexico in an effort to get to the united states. in arizona, i visited the ranchers who live and work on the border, frustrated by damage to their properties caused by those who cross the border illegally. i have met a number of groups and individuals who represent a wide range of views about the border. i will make it a practice to continue to do so. with the recent addition of funding for staffing and surveillance, we have made great progress in border and port security. there is now more manpower, technology, and infrastructure on our borders than ever before. we must remain vigilant. the answer is not simply to build longer or taller fences. as my predecessor used to say, show me a 50 foot fence and i

will show you a 51 foot ladder. border patrol experts preach an intelligence driven, risk-based approach that focuses resources on the places where our surveillance and intelligence tells us the threat exists. we must be prepared to move. i believe in this approach. it is a smart, effective, efficient use of resources. i also believe in smart and effective use of our resources when it comes to removals. we must prioritize our resources on those who represent threats to national security, public safety, and border security. in the senate confirmation process, i pledged to continually evaluate our priorities to ensure that we get this right. i have already begun this process. we must also continually review conditions that test at our detention facilities to ensure that they are safe and humane.

we are gratified by the support that congress has provided to our border and port security efforts. we need the additional border and port security resources that immigration reform, such as legislation, would provide. in this regard, the republican'' recent statement of principles on immigration is a serious step forward on reform and contains recognition that immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. this should not be an issue used in one way or another for political advantage. rather, we must define common sense solutions to a problem that we all know we have. the president, the business and labor communities, people of both parties and others, all recognize the immigration reform is a matter of economic growth. immigration reform is also a

matter of homeland security. there are an estimated 11.5 million undocumented immigrants living in this country. they are not going away. they're not going to self deport. most have been here for years. many have come here as children. as a matter of homeland security, we should encourage these people to come out of the shadows of american society. pay taxes and fines. be held accountable and be given the opportunity to get on a path to citizenship like others. this is not a special path to citizenship. it is an opportunity to get online behind those who were here legally. this is not rewarding people for breaking the law. it is giving people the opportunity to get right with the loss and it is preferable to what we have now. when reform legislation is enacted, dhs must be prepared to implement reform.

to prepare for this potential outcome, i have already directed the deputy secretary of homeland security to coordinate the process to ensure that we are ready to implement the law. next, dhs must continue efforts to address the growing cyber threat. it is illustrated the real, pervasive, ongoing series of attacks on things like stores, banks, e-mail services, power substations, and the public that defends on it. the key to the government efforts is to build trust with the private sector. we must attract the best and thebrightness to come and work for us. people like our deputy undersecretary of cyber security, who came to us six months ago from the position of chief technology officer at mcafee. i'm going on a talent search. next week, we are traveling to georgia tech where phyllis received her phd.

we will recruit more like her. we're a big fan of cyber student volunteer initiatives, which allows volunteers to come and work for dhs in support of cyber security. it allows us to educate them for our mission. through the president's executive order, 13636, on cyber security, and presidential policy on strengthening security and resilience of critical infrastructure, both issued a year ago, we are making good progress furthering our partnerships with the private sector. there is more to do. many have expressed a willingness to help in cyber security. we appreciate those efforts. our basic legislative goals are one, new hiring. two, modernizing the federal affirmation managing act to reflect new technology.

three, additional clarity and codification of dhs responsibility to protect the federal government civilian networks. four, legal clarity that dhs can provide assistance to the private sector when requested. five, legal clarity that the private sector may exchange security information with the federal government. six, enhanced criminal penalties for cyber crimes. we can also support some form of limitation on potential solo liabilities for private sector entities, provided it is narrow and targeted and necessary to protect networks. we must continue to be vigilant in preparing for and responding to disasters, including floods, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, and, most recently, chemical leaks like the one in west virginia that threatened the water supply of thousands of people.

fema has come along way since the days of katrina. we have improved disaster planning for public and private sector. nonprofit organizations and the american people -- we have learned how to pre-position a greater number of resources. we have strengthened the nation's ability to respond to disasters and a quick and robust fashion. we are helping communities and cities recover and rebuild faster. we will continue this progress. finally, we must be mindful of the environment in which we pursue these missions. we operate in a time of severe budget constraints. the days when those of us in national and homeland security can expect more and more each year to our topline budgets are over. i am therefore obligated to identify and eliminate inefficiencies, waste, and unnecessary duplications of

efforts and expenditures while pursuing important missions, such as recapitalization of the coast guard fleet. dhs also operates at a time when the public's confidence in the government's ability to function and work for them is low. dhs is unique among federal agencies for their long daily engagement with the public in airports, seaports and land ports of interest. the attitude toward the entire federal government can be shaped by the department of homeland security. we must be mindful of this as we seek public support. this is why i am pleased to announce that the commissioner of border protection will soon make the use of force policy public. we must do a better job of highlighting the good you do a half -- we do on behalf of the american.

a new tsa prechecked application center at dulles airport. it illustrates the risk-based approach to homeland security that i talked about earlier. it is smart, effective, as an efficient use of resources and taxpayer dollars. in december, we extend the benefits to all military including those serving in the coast guard, reserves, national guard. by permitting travelers to provide information about themselves ahead of time, we expedite the process for them in airports. better focus resources to the pool of people we know less about. this advances aviation security and should be popular with the republic. -- the traveling public. lastly, i am mindful of surveys that reflect the morale within various components of dhs. our greatest asset is our people. each and every day the men and

women work hard to fulfill our critical and noble mission. they dedicate themselves to the security and advancement of our nation. i will be a champion for those men and women of dhs and will advocate on their behalf. morale also depends on good leaders in place of each of our components. we must inject energy. the leadership starts with recruiting new leaders to help run the organization. with the help of the white house and congress, we're bringing in some terrific people to bring in the large number of senior management vacancies that exist. i spent a part of almost every day on this. i am pleased that in december, congress conference arnie deputy secretary and in october our new general counsel. we look forward to the confirmation of suzanne spaulding to be the

undersecretary for national programming -- national protection of programs directory. leon rodriguez to be the next threat of u.s. citizenship and immigration services and dr. ritchie brothers between next undersecretary for science and technology. we are actively recruiting telik -- talented people to be undersecretary for intelligence and analysis, director for immigration enforcement. the next chief financial officer and other key positions. finally, we will also continually reinforce among all the men and women of the department the common unifying mission of homeland security that binds us together. homeland security security is the most important mission in the government can provide for its people. i told you i was in new york city on 9/11.

for years, my secretary at the law firm i was with in manhattan was a woman named gina tichiari. she works about 50 hours a week, raises two kids, the wife of a retired new york city police officer, plays by the rules and never makes waves. she was walking into the world trade center with her three-year-old daughter -- in 2001 she was walking into the world trade center with earth real daughter when the plane plowed into the building above her. gina picked up her daughter and either walked or ran with her in her arms all the way to 14th street. anyone who knows manhattan knows that is a long way even to walk empty-handed. the image of a 5'3" mother

running for her life with her mother -- with her daughter in her arms, thousands of displaced americans at the louisiana superdome during katrina, the image of the finish line at the boston marathon turning in an instant to a blast zone, these should be constant reminders of the urgency and the importance of our homeland security mission. i am aware that there is another component to my job. in the name of homeland security, we cannot sacrifice our values as a nation. we can build more walls, install more screening devices, ask more questions, expect more answers, and make people suspicious of each other but not at the cost of who we are as a nation of people who cherish privacy and freedom, celebrate diversity, carry our flag at the olympics and are not afraid. thank you very much. thank you for listening to me. [applause]

>> i got teared up as i think others did by the close of your speech, mr. secretary. let's remember that most of this room, everyone in this room are sons and daughters, spouses, many are parents. on that day on 9/11, many of us knew people who parish of people -- perished of people who were at risk and suffered with a scar that in some ways will never heal. i'm going to ask you some questions in a friendly manner.

we know you were born on 9/11. i'm told you wanted to be a subway conductor in new york city when you grew up. >> that is my next life. i will be a subway motor man on the number seven train. >> in case you don't know this, the new york subways are protected to a substantial extent by dhs assets. look at this. your background is assistant u.s. attorney and a guy who has a lot of experience in the department of defense. what equips you now to take on this awesome responsibility to be the principal spokesman for

our u.s. counterterrorism policy? >> i lead a terrific organization of men and women in the people that are there as leaders. i think we will be doing a terrific job in the next couple of years. the department of defense, a lot of people ask me if dod is like dhs, are they different? how are they different? the dod is essentially a military organization. dhs has people in uniform. we have the coast guard. for the most part dhs is a civilian organization. it is a different culture. like the department of defense, it is a large decentralized organization with components who are capable of running themselves.

while i was at dod, i had the privilege of working with two terrific secretaries of defense, bob gates and leon panetta. i was part of their management team. i saw them make decisions. when you are the general counsel you have purview over the entire department of defense unlike almost everybody else. i was part of the management team. helped solved a lot of problems. i was involved in a number of difficult issues. as you remarked, i have been involved national security. i came back to government in february 2009. i have been the eyewitness to many historic events that occurred and were involved in some of the decision-making here in washington. i would say that the thing that comes to mind first when you ask a question like that is i have a passion for the mission.

i left government a year ago thinking i was done and was settling back into private life. the president asked me if i would do this job. it never occurred to me that i would be sitting here, that i would be asked to do this job. i have a passion for the mission. i believe deeply in the mission. i want to serve the country. that is why i am here. >> good answer. i have to get my own shout out to suzanne spaulding was the director of the national commission on terrorism formed by congress in 1999. it is one of three groups that predicted a major attack on u.s. soil. i was part of that group. people started to pay attention. she is very well trained for the

mission. as are many other people who work with you. since i mentioned congress, let's talk about congress. >> i love congress. [laughter] >> good start. >> i do. nobody believes me. >> you'll get a lot of opportunity to do that. >> the other day i was on the hill. i said, let's do some drive-bys. let's stop off and see friends of mine. >> are you sure? >> do make appointments? we can do that. i just stop and say happy new year. it is relationship building. members of congress that i know and respect. >> i'm pleased to hear you say that. when michael chertoff was the director, he would routinely invite me as the chairman of a

subcommittee down here for breakfast. we would talk about issues. we formed a professional relationship which just developed into a friendship. i know you are having fun. it is a fact that 100 committees and subcommittees of the united states congress, this is not an exaggeration. they have some piece of the homeland security mission. i think it was on the national journal cover and look like a where's waldo picture. it showed all the different jurisdictions. the 9/11 commission was a member of that recommended a number of things which congress did in the president did except there is one glaring gap. that gap was to reorganize congress in a way that would streamline the homeland mission. you are going to get numerous

request to testify across the board. that is one issue in terms of the time snap for you. the other way is when you are a member of congress, you want to do something legislatively. pick one. reduction of overclassification of materials. you are on a committee. they have a piece of jurisdiction but not the whole thing. it is very frustrating from congress' end to do something. for sure you have thought about this. how are you personally going to navigate this? >> i do not think it should simply be get off my back. there are a lot of people interested in the homeland security mission on both sides

who ask how can i help, how can i work with you? how can i support your mission? part of my remarks this morning was to try to answer that in the cyber security world by spelling out the legislative priorities. some of them might have a better chance of passing than others. i did want to spell out what i think the legislative goals of the cyber security mission should be. there are a lot of committees and subcommittees who have a piece of the department. as you know, committees do not often ceade jurisdiction. very protective about that. at least in the beginning i want to build relationships on the hill. at some point we will have to have a discussion about realigning the jurisdiction of

congress. it does require a lot of time and attention by the secretary and the senior leadership to go back and forth in response to committee testimony or individual visits. that is time that is useful, valuable time for a senior leader. i do find it useful to know what is on the minds of members of congress. the confirmation process is what it is. i had a relatively good experience. it is an opportunity to find out what is on their mind. there are a number of very thoughtful members of congress who are embedded in these issues, who gave me a lot of insight in that process. you are right. there is a tremendous amount of oversight. it needs to be realized at some point.

i will ask our colleagues on the hill to help. >> it will help. there are many good people who serve on capitol hill on both parties. the business model needs a lot of work. the committee structure's from the 19th century. there are opportunities, especially if you invest personally in changing at least some of the dynamic. let's just move to cyber security. you carefully identified issues in your remarks. last year, congress tried hard but failed to pass cyber security legislation. >> 2012. >> two years ago. most people think that we are

enormously vulnerable to cyber threats. the private sector basically controls at least 85% of our cyber systems. a lot of them have to do with critical infrastructure. the president issued an executive order which goes part way toward solving some of the critical problems of aligning the private and public sector. how urgent do you think it is to pass legislation? how can you as the leader of the homeland department overcome what was one of the huge objections before, the private sector did not have confidence that homeland had the capacity to handle its risk possibilities on cyber? >> it is not a cyber security threat. it is a cyber security ongoing series of attacks are different

sources on banks, substations, a -- e-mail services to a different degree of intensity. it is no longer just a threat. i think the key aside from the help congress can give us are breaking down trust with the. -- with the sector. i'm developing ideas with what business groups, what private sector entities we should go to. i think it is also a talent search. i think the resources, the talent are there, particularly among our young people, and graduate schools, people who are just out of school.

we were talking earlier about the cyber talent that exists in the military. military recruits from a very early age. the military is very good at identifying those within the ranks who have a cyber security talent and bringing them into the cyber security world. we have to build that talent from either with in our civilian workforce or attract from the private sector. part of my job in the cyber security realm will be to look for ways to attract private talent. i know it is there. >> would it also help for better management for the department as a whole? it is a huge task to integrate the cultures of 22 different agencies and departments. if you had better management to

mirror the good management and many private sector firms, could that help instill confidence? the big objection two years ago was it is not a well-managed department. this was the objection. we are wary of cooperation with it. >> i will not disagree with you. when you talk about cyber security, we have an office within dhs headquarters. there are components also have a cyber security mission. for example, the secret service. it is into cyber security. secret service is very involved right now in the effort regarding the target stores. i think that one of the keys to

answer the dilemma is visible leadership. good leadership but also visible leadership. good leaders bringing in good leaders. we have to be fairly transparent to become familiar with the private sector to become familiar with the public so that we build trust. that is one of the reasons we're here today. >> do you have plans to get out and about? i know you said you have traveled to the southern border. >> we are working on redeveloping some ideas right now. in all parts of the country. >> turning to a few other issues. first on the homeland threats, one of the things that was clear to me when i was in the roles i had in congress was how important the mission of vertical information sharing was to the department. it is not just a role played here in federal government land sharing information among the

federal agencies. it is getting information down to first responders who could be police but could also could be private citizens who smell something strange in the house next door or something weird anywhere. that mission is going much better. i am looking at charlie allen who at one point was the head of the intelligence function. we talked a lot about this. one of the improvements i think that congress insisted on was setting up something called the inter-agency risk assessment and coordination group. it was a teach for america group of state and local law enforcement folks who would come temporarily to the department of homeland security and the

national counterterrorism center, which was created just about at the same time. they would advise on what the bulletins should look like that go vertically from the department of homeland security down to first responders so that first responders could understand what to look for and what to do. are you aware of these outreach efforts? do you think they need support? >> absolutely. i think that given the evolving terrorist threat which is becoming more decentralized, more diffuse, less of a traditional al qaeda or al qaeda-like command control structure, we have to be more concerned about homegrown threats, the lone wolf, the person who self radicalizes.

that is going to require that we continue to build relationships with first responders. in the boston marathon bombing, it was a perfect illustration of this. we need as a department in a federal government to build relationships with state and local law enforcement and government. the federal government cannot be everywhere. the fbi, the department of homeland security cannot be everywhere. that is critically important. that is something i hope to advance over the next couple of years. you are also correct that homeland security is a team effort that involves the public. we do not want to scare people.

we do not want to make people -- to make people paranoid. it involves public participation. that can result in very constructive, positive teams if -- things if there is public awareness about what is in the trash container at the bus terminal or what is in a backpack that was left at the gate or something like that. if people are willing to note a suspicious package and report it to the nearest aviation security person or law enforcement officer. back can have a tremendous effect. we all hope it never gets that far. public participation is

critical. we never get to the point where innocent civilians have to take matters into their own hands to save their own lives. >> as your secretary had to do, such a compelling story. part of that is building trust with the public. it is a function i think you as the counterterrorism spokesperson have but so do local police departments. there have been very successful outreach efforts in minneapolis where the recruitment of folks in al-shabaab. in los angeles with the sheriff's department has had some very good cooperation with the muslim community. it is not only the muslim community that has problems. if you something -- see something at the local supermarket, you think saying

something to law enforcement or the fbi to somebody who will get the information where it needs to go is an appropriate thing to do. >> that is correct. when i went on my trip to the southwest border, i spent a lot of time meeting with mayors and county sheriffs and police chiefs for exactly this reason. as i see it, we need to continue to emphasize that this is a collective effort that involves multiple levels of government and the public. >> moving to border security, you mentioned comprehensive immigration reform. it almost passed congress, in case anyone remembers this, in 2007. president bush very courageously

put forward a proposal, michael chertoff was heartbroken when the bill failed. now the senate has passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. there was conversation in the house that the house version might be different. you commended the congress in your remarks for the effort it is making. in today's press, there is a new comment from house speaker john boehner that it may not happen this year. i think it will be a great disappointment to many communities across our country who were hoping it will and to our efforts to rebuild our economy after the most serious recession since the great depression. what can you do to persuade john

boehner of steps he might take in this election year to get this thing back on the right track? he was one of the one for said he wanted to make this happen. >> i do not have a crystal ball. there are people who talk to the speaker about this and other issues. i am sure he is getting no shortage of advice right now. what i hope will happen in 2014 is that there is an emerging, evolving realization that this should not be politics. this is a problem that we have in this country that needs to be fixed. those of us here in washington who represent the american public ought to do what we need to do to fix the problem. everybody agrees we have a problem with immigration, with enforcement and administration of our immigration laws. everybody knows we have millions of undocumented immigrants in the country.

they are not going away. they're not going to self deport. i do not know exactly what the statistic is. 80% of these people have been in this country for years. going back to either 2004, 2008, something like that. they're here. they're not going away. from my homeland security perspective, i would rather encourage them to come forward, be accountable, pay whatever taxes and fines they owe, go through the background check, and if they are able to, eventually, i think it is a 13 year period, get to a path to citizenship if they are able to do so. we need to deal with this problem.

i am hoping that, and i really do see the signs for this. i thought that was a very thoughtful statement of principles of the speaker and others spent a lot of time thinking about. i do not know to what extent it has the widespread support in the republican caucus. they are identifying a problem that we have in this country and seeks to address it. that is a very positive step to see both major parties recognize that we ought to deal with this. a message that i would like to convey and emphasize is that from the homeland security perspective, this is something we need to do because of the added resources that commonsense immigration reform provides an so that we can encourage people to be accountable, which is not

giving them a pass in some way. it is encouraging them to get right with the law. from my homeland security perspective, i hope people in congress and government will finally wrestle with this problem and we can deal with it. >> one more comment and question on this. i think the right term is "earned legalization." people have to go through a lot of hurdles and then get in the back of the line and 13 years later maybe it this law passes they can become citizens. the speaker was quoted as saying the american people do not trust the reform we are talking about will be implemented as it was intended to be. should people trust you and your department to implement the current law? >> we've already begun thinking about if the legislation that is contemplated in various

different forms becomes law, we will have to implement it. we have contemplated the limitation. it is not like it will happen tomorrow. it will happen over years. we are beginning to think about what we need to do to get ready for this. this is an advanced planning team effort to anticipate what the department needs to do, when and if this legislation passes. i believe we will have comprehensive immigration reform. i do not have a crystal ball on the timetable. i believe it will pass. i am assuming it will pass. i am optimistic. we need to prepare for it. we have started that process. > you mentioned syria. you said syria has become a matter of homeland security.

you did amplify that comment a bit. i think the audience might be interested in any additional comments you want to make about why syria has become a matter of like and as others director brennan has stated over the last couple of days, we are concerned about foreign fighters going your you will stop -- we need to see real -- syria. they are encountering all sorts of radical extremist influences there. we need to be concerned about that. that is why i refer to it as a matter of homeland charity will stop it is not just this country, our european allies are very concerned about this issue. in the conference i just left in poland, thas