have played a week and masterfully and the americans have played a strong hand miserably. was noblete purpose from the start. i will leave it to i will leave it to nuclear exports like bob einhorn and others on what the best way is to make sure that this deal does not fail, but i will give you the three recommendations that are quite broad, that could be useful for the immediate future and the next 10 to 15 years. you have to have clear language and consequences of failure to comply with the provisions of the deal. that's not an option. you have to get serious about campaign deliverables. if you show hesitation or ineffectiveness, the united states will wind up with far fewer friends in that part of the world. compensation, i don't like that term. i think at the end of the day what contributes to regional stability should be the ultimate

purpose. bunker buster bombs, i'm not sure how that contributes to that. an arms race, that's hard to measure. i'm not sure the provision of military hardware contributes to the arms race. there are tons of scholarship about that, we will not get into that. if, with your permission it is only fair that i respond very briefly to these assertions that nasser made earlier that i quite respect. t is just useful to provide a counter argument to it. it is important for the debate here and over there as well. i think the central theme of what he is saying is that iran is misunderstood and if only be better understood it, it would be primarily defensive posture in the region things could be so much better. fair enough we have a lot of

misperceptions about that country. some are failing. it is quite a notoriously opaque system over there. it is becoming increasingly easier to read through the long negotiations between the united states and iran. we know much better about iran today but there is still a lot that we do not know. what he describes as stabilizing efforts are seen by the adversary as nothing but destabilizing. it's not a theoretical conversation. there is a substantial amount of evidence against iran's laims. for example, what is iran doing for the saudis to threaten their security? there's always been indirect compensation through proxy warfare. lends its full support to a man who single-handedly for

to a man who single-handedly broke that country and caused a tremendous amount of human catastrophe and tragedy and also has contributed to spillover of the civil war into iraq, that in no way contributes to stability. when iran contributes terrorist acts and place itself inside bahrain and iran plants themselves inside kuwait, that does not contribute to stability. when iran provides military assistance to a militia, and yemen is not a priority, regardless just to really poke at the saudi's, that does not contribute to stability. the verdict is still out. there is plenty to play. like no other actor they are fighting isis. on the other hand -- let me just finish my point. professor hadian: one area that we have active against the saudi's is not just their stability. bilal: as i mentioned to you earlier, there has never been direct confrontation between the two countries.

my final point, you can describe how they do that directly. here is 22 praise in iraq. but it is worth asking -- does the end justify the means? when they recruit militias to fight isis, that exacerbates sectarianism that prolongs the survival of isis. you look at this list of actions that are really incontrovertible, as there is not much to debate in terms of them having a negative impact on stability, i'm not sure why iran is misunderstood or why there is so much to debate about the regional role. at least how the arab gulf states view it and how many folks in this town also view it. barbara: ok. ok. i want to give the audience time for more questions.

can i borrow this? i have something written that i want to read. this is something i wrote for the u.s. institute of peace. some years ago. but i think that this is still rue. iran's goals seem to be largely offensive. iran appears to be largely defensive, to safeguard the system against foreign intervention and to prevent and minimize actions that might run counter to iranian interests. in the service of that iran has been willing to sacrifice many non-iranian laws. bilal: i have never heard an assessment of a country that is bent on offensive action. it's always defensive. barbara: the gentleman right there, if you could take the microphone? say or name and ask a question. >> -- say your name and ask a question. >> could you talk some about the assembly of experts selection

next year? do you see the guardian council blocking a substantial number of moderates and reformists again? do you think the success of a nuclear deal and lifting sanctions will have a positive or negative impact on moderate success? bilal: that's a great question. professor hadian: the election is next february. briefly answering your uestions, yes, we expect these forces who are pro-the government and think they are for modernization forces, we expect to see a massive disqualification of the big names. but still we expect to win the election. because the people are hopeful from what has happened. although they are not going to see any tangible impact in their life, the hope is there, the optimism is there.

the optimism will lead to basically increasing of the participation rates. as the participation rates increase, the chances of these orces winning elections or -- are higheras normally is the case, the presidents have been able to give the control of the advisors. but a 10 year election -- an . entirely different thing. for those of you who do not know, it's a minimum of 86 people who are all supposed to be basically muslim clerics. not to be clerics, but normally they are clerics. they have three main functions. to supervise -- not supervise, but check the power of the upreme leader.

in case he is not handling the job, to be removed. in the case of his death, to be replaced. they are not all that important terms of the day-to-day affairs of the country. but they are important for appointing the next supreme eader. you know, again, we the pro-modernization forces are about as helpful as we can in having major input in that election. t is going to be elections between the society and the arrivals of hardliners. they have a good chance of winning that election. [laughter] barbara: very quickly. rofessor hadian: regarding a

sically, what you said about bahrain and kuwait, i'm not sure where you begin to get the information that iran exploded a bomb in uwait. >> there was a discovery of xplosives they said. professor hadian: there is no incentive on the part of iran to do anything with kuwait. bahrain is a different case. there are many in iran, secular and nonsecular. they feel that the government there has been so passive in its reaction, to be frank with you. for many it was really umiliating to see saudi arabia ending forces and invading bahrain and scapegoating iran

for what they are doing. it is humiliating. to see that -- why should they do that? why should they send their forces? yes, we are involving kuwait. we are involving iraq. e are involved in lebanon. but we are not involved in bahrain. barbara: we mentioned this earlier and i wanted to give you a chance to say something about the impression that we get in this country is that it was a huge win for iran and a huge loss for the united states, but there is a substantial component of individuals who think they this. gave away too much, so i wanted to give you a chance to mention that. professor hadian: thank you. i have been critical of that myself. i doubled up on criteria for

accessing. these criteria are for the iming. strategic weight of what was given and what was taken. strategic composition on what was given. then irreversibility eversibility issues. on the timing, we are talking about cash promise. 59 pages of the documents, you will see that in terms of the timing. the confession that iran has given is far more. first of all, we have to remove 2000 centrifuges from those hands. you have to dilute or get rid of about 11,000 kilograms of enriched uranium. you have to transform the core f the reactor.

we have to answer the p.m.d.'s questions. after we did all of those things, the iaea should say -- i'm satisfied. then the sanctions could be suspended afterward. frankly, i would not have signed this deal. i would have negotiated it differently. what happens if the iaea says i am not satisfied? what happens if the u.s. congress passes a law preventing the president to take whatever measures he is supposed to take? what would happen? we would get rid of 2000 centrifuges. we would get that other 5000 we are going to this one. that was not the right way to do it. that's exactly what happened.

of course, optimistically i trust the administration, but it should not be relying on trust. as you say here, it should have relied on a different kind of verification and way of handling this issue. number two, strategic weight was given. and what was taken. i'm not one of those guys who says it should be 50:50. that's too much to expect from ranians. but we can quantify, as i've done in my books. quantify what was given earlier nd what was taken to me. i think the strategic weight is not all that important. what is more important is the composition of what was given and taken. what i mean by that is, basically preferring to have only had three cascades of econd-generation centrifuges

enriching and closing down iraq. what you have are centrifuges in the hands of the first generation, which are very old odels. that's what i'm critical of. the composition i want, given what was taken. on the u.n. side you have four principles guarding the egotiations. number one was basically four asses. then there was the issue of detection. that is why you basically upported a very robust verification system.

there are a number of things beyond that additional protocol. but also beyond that additional protocol. number three, number three is back out or sneak out. you are complying or heating. we want to have enough time to react. the time to decide for one bomb. it is now two months to three months that we want in one year. that concept guided your negotiations. that is the subject of basically centrifuges and enrichment processes. that is why we have to go down to 300 kilograms of enriched uranium. many of the things we are going to do are easily reversible. iraq is a reversible. diluting or sending these out,

this stockpile of enriched uranium, is irreversible. all this time you are calling it practically the sanctions are irreversible, but theoretically legally they are very much reversible. it's not back in the agreement. the architecture of -- the s are ure to have sanction there. they can be easily -- that's what i say. these four criteria, we feel that was given and what was taken -- at the end of the day. i say why, because of the sequences. the relationship, these are the

sequences. number four on sanctions. sanctions of -- >> i want to say something before i take another question. > very quick minute. i would love to go back to the debate. i'm fascinated by it and i'm not satisfied with how we're ending it. i realize the limitations. >> you want it to be more specific? >> let me frame it differently. perhaps it is a little bit more comfortable. what i would love to know is this debate that is happening, is it the typical and i know it is not a useful description. moderate vs. hardliner. ing within the hardline camp? this is all extremely useful for everybody. >> ok. >> i think the debate is as i mentioned across the board. you can find them on the

hardliners. revolutionary guards. think tank. policy makers. rofessors of university. generally it is supportive of his perspective. key positions in all of these laces. you mentioned a good point. the indication of what i said was in the actions. iraqis ee in practice and iranians are not moving toward -- that is a good way of knowing the impact of the second group of the policy.

what should be done? generally, the government is a supporter. not everybody in the government supports. there are key positions in all of these laces. -- all of these places. as you mention, you mentioned a good point. the indication of what i said is in the actions. >> my question is related to what you just discussed. i would like to hear from both of you. i suspect you would have different views on this. it seems to me two of the individuals, if you put a face on iran's different foreign before the nuclear agreement, they had the nuclear profile. they continue the have the

regional style. now post deal, it seems that they are capitalizing on the political success and having some sort of a free range, you know, seeking diplomacy within the region. now my question is to what extent do you think they have their -- whether they are actually testing the waters for you know, actually exceeding restrictions and coming up with some diplomatic solution within the region and achieving iran's objectives in the region or whether they are sort of a tool, putting some lipstick on iran's involvement with the region. basically whether it is just an act or -- >> ok. >> we are not all that fund emoryly different.

the way we have been perceived. a very powerful individual. like superman. that is not case. in fact, he is a very pragmatic man. the most important -- a key factor to bring to our attention is these decisions are not being made by any one individual. we have an institution and all of them, they are all there. they debate the issues. all the issues of major issues basically. once the decision -- once the decisions are made, they are implemented by everyone. so in that -- in that nstitution, they can be more

powerful than -- the former commander of our navy and very key figure in -- very key figure in the evolution of iraq, basically. can argue he is more powerful han both of these men. he is exercising more influence on the regional issue than anyone else. also too this is not something that is -- report to the supreme -- and they -- nor does he by himself make these decisions. it is not the case. basically it is going to be discussed and debated and finally make the decision. no supreme leader that is authority to legally make the decisions.

98% of the time he would support the decision that was made. t is not a one man show. he was not making the decisions. what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, those decisions somewhere else. >> i could not agree more. i will share with you a recent conversation i had with a senior rouhani official. about this false economy actually. he said the iranians are incredibly smart. they show i get economy of views between practice and the figures, but in practice, everyone is working so harmoniously, he said. perhaps not as well, but within a system so -- but not with any system so fractured that the world would like to believe.

> gentleman over here. >> this is hassan from pakistan. i am a journalist. i have a question for nasser. there is a fear in the middle east that it will fuel an arms race in the region. because it is also tantamount to recognizing iran as a nuclear power. how would you respond to that fear? >> i do not agree with you that it would lead to an arms race. the reason that we have an agreements is to prevent an arms race. when you discuss the alternatives, the alternatives are not all that attractive.

weaponization, for sure, we know it's going to lead to an arms ace. but that would stop basically any nuclear arms race. for arming ourselves, as i said, we have all of the resources and we don't need that tough of armament to be able to defend ourselves for the future. the type of threats we are facing is crime, refugees, chaos. it is not the need to have sophisticated weaponry or hatever. that is the type of thing which we have. and we hope that it can help us

to concentrate more on the region, and to stabilize. the first group, which are pro-stabilization, they would love to go all the way to meet and cooperate with americans toward stabilization. that is the type of threat we are really worried about. barbara: the front here and then back over there. >> i have a question for you, bilal. you keep mentioning the threats to iran. what are the specific threats oming from the saudi's and coming from iran and the other question is that the saudi government is a very closed,

tight structure. they have been for centuries. it seems that they are more afraid of a collapse rather than a threat coming from iran. correct me. thank you. bilal: i wish we had an official representative from any of the gulf state to speak your because the last i want to look like it's i've -- is if i'm here to speak on behalf of the gulf states. as i mentioned earlier, the hreat is not direct. it is indirect through the proxies they support throughout the region. both countries, which seemed to be the main adversaries in the region, have weapons in a number of theaters, whether it is iraq, yria, or others. each one back its own proxy.

unfortunately, in many ways this confrontation is seen as zero-sum. if you were to push me, a security threat coming from iran to saudi arabia is what is going on in yemen. and how the threat is perceived, that the backing of their -- of the houthi's and their allies, that seems to be the biggest hreat to saudi arabia. what goes on in lebanon, as you very well know, iran supports hezbollah. half of the lebanese population sees that as a major detriment to the stability of the country. saudi arabia has its own vested interest. it went on for quite sometime. perhaps the biggest damage that has happened in saudi interests and security interests as well, o secret about it. a huge, implicit acknowledgment in the region that those who

were behind the assassination were syrians, the iranians, whoever pulled the plug doesn't matter. i will go back to the same thing over and over again. it has never been a direct confrontation between the two. it is an asymmetric confrontation. >> thank you for the terrific panel. bilal: i did not respond to the saudi state collapsing. maybe we'll get to that. orry about that. >> i wanted to ask you to answer something that bilal answered as well. the iranians have emphasized after the deal, focusing on the region, and a deputy foreign minister has said that there might be iran gcc stock -- iran gcc talk soon. my understanding is they have not been scheduled yet. why haven't see seen this dialogue begin? is it the gcc or the saudi side that has been reluctant to engage? prof. hadian: they have traveled

to kuwait and qatar, but the saudi's are reluctant. i know for fact they are trying to approach at times. for the resolution or the cooperation. to deal with the regional issues. but they are reluctant. they have their own perceptions. as i mentioned, personally, it is hard for me to convince them otherwise. you have made up their mind. they know what is happening in reality. they have their own perception. as i mentioned, no matter how , we are not them forgiven you as a threat but they perceive us as a threat. i do not any reason why they quickly.ut it very

they may decide, you know, they , to cooperatework with others, to handle or to contain their insecurity and the reach. >> i do not think it is useful or fair to try to understand one threat perception and completely disregard the other. i think, in the end, the primary significance of this debate, instead of useful conversation between these two heavyweight, is long overdue. it is ridiculous how it has been , and noster obviously blames the saudi. i think the condition are right for it. i think the saudis would the philly the interest. to for are waiting collapse.

this part to do the negotiation right now. right now, let us negotiate you with a solution. >> as we speak, there is more pressure on his forces and we have seen in a very long time. >> the analysis is the collapse of the removal of a sad would lead to the collapse of the regime. collapse of the regime is going to create more chaos that's no one is going to assess here to the point right now it to , for toe for transition be removed. there cannot be a precondition for they could negotiation. that should be the result for the negotiation. the consequence of a negotiation.

that is not the way the saudi's would perceive. fact, i may beis, in ok i am totally fine with you, i would love to make thyself. they're not going to have any problem with that. the point is in syria, they are fighting us. that is the point. we are not fighting saudi. phil jones. i was wondering if you could they something about the changing threat perception in iran, given the very dramatic changes in the international situation. for decades this was the u.s. versus iran, the u.s. policy which was to isolate iran.

they would isolate it. that isolation has been broken partially by the agreement by also by the change and the international situation. i will point out everything. china's world in the middle east , the promise of the silk road and china's going to be playing a more important role there, we saw the cruise and, now we are sending troops to syria. i do not think it is simply farming on this part. there's a concern that the whole thing spilling out into chaos and he wants it different project three. he has gotten support from the europeans on that. saying maybe are this is the way we have to go to get a diplomatic solution. thirdly, the change on the europeans given the refugee situation. whereas only they did not -- for not only they decided to take in the refugees, but critical voice and race about the u.s. and

their policy. that is a different ballgame we are working in. how does that reflect in the threat perception and iran? >> they think they have been vindicated. they would say that is exactly the art and. -- exactly the argument. we have to continue the policies we should have. as i mentioned, there's not just one group in iran, there are ,ebate and they feel that ok the agreement would give us a good chance to play different role. chance to bd us a secular ties.

particularly on the foreign president. successfully, -- to pass a number of resolution. basicallynow, we can moved to a d secretary station. and then we can deal with the regional issues, and as you mentioned, particularly china. china being as a rising power. we are arguing more and more about china. as a is being perceived strategic layer in the war. because no longer the energy security for china is going to be taken as granted. in other words, they have relied

on the u.s. to provide security for that issue. power, china's going to be the biggest economy in the world. sure aboutant to be the energy security. in other words some of that is why they are going to be in iran -- not-- not as only the the only taken the market, but seekr to the -- rather to a more strategic partnership. we are in the midst of another debate about china. china's role in the future and china's world in iran. >> john bloomberg. -- john lindberg. my question is that these debate on both sides of the golf.

voices inn is other the debate that are advocating for better relations? with the neighbors? in other words saying, look, whatever our problems these people, these other, they are our neighbors. if are not going away. and we sharelture a history and we share a religion. theefore, we need to change existing situation, which is not in our interest. tinsman as i mentioned, to report to you. we never considered saudi arabia as the enemy. we never consider them as a threat.

strategies,ed the ok, how to deal with them. we consider them exactly as a neighbor. we think we have to improve. the situation is very different. in that two years, how do you find a voice, which is that we should not have a good motion ship with saudi arabia. -- a good relationship with saudi arabia. he thought he had a good relationship. and we can improve the relationship. even today, he is ready to do that. the number one and 44 in iran, we are ready to take the initiative to improve their relationship with saudi arabia. isis very much side -- it

very much one-sided. we cannot consider them an enemy. why should we consider them an enemy? the other set is true. they are the top of the front with. rest -- thef the list. the threat theirtional security by -- i said why don't you travel tothe country yet the improve the relationship because of the same language you may be able to give them more confident what can be done?

we shot -- we for sure have to take initiative. be an easyoing to thing to do. now, and particular two years or three years, we have to become the enemy. reason.s to be a >> let me add to it. john, don't you think that the animosity goes back to when ayatollah main part of talking about the saudi as an illegitimate president to look

after the holy place? -- one that -- except for serious support it. also, why did saudi arabia wait so long to send an ambassador to iraq? involved,unyan got why did not the saudis get involved? thank you. >> that is a good point. decade ofor the first revelation. we got over it. we said those stuff but after that we had a better relationship with then.

you know, historically you are right. maybe it is in our culture, the negative view against one another. ,ut if you put aside even those those about reasons why we should not have a better relationship, i mentioned there is more -- we have to look at the action. not just the rhetoric. if you look at the actions, the gcc was wrong. they supported all along the iraqi war. i feel after all these animosities, you are right. at the beginning, we did not even call them saudi arabian. we do not want to recognize the saudi. that is very much in the beginning of the revolution. after war, inc. change.

we cannot explain the current behavior on the basis of what happened. we have had much different relationship after those. >> you speak with much confidence and cancer. it is something to admire. court with a to legal case -- if you are to go to court with a legal case that is yours. understand that truedless of how valid and erotic osseous claims are today, iran'svalid and true claims are today, it is not have to be right. if it is, in fact that you are right, you have to explain it to the community of relation -- the

community of nations around you. the problem is also that there are tons of evidence against what you are saying. everybody wants to believe what you are saying but it is really hard to. side, johnny asked who is really interest in in relation, including a dialogue between both died? -- between is easy to speak of the gcc as one entity. they've been doing it for a long time. saudi with the kuwaitis. i think the kuwaitis are rather in different when it comes to relations with iran. but it isadversarial,

not fun not entirely positive. they are an entirely differently for reasons of their own. i think cutters relations with iran are drastically improving. neighbors.rin of the saudi arabia, we have been talking about it all day, there's no point. you are exactly right. 10 and the most and adversarial it -- perhaps the most intense and adversarial relationship is between abu dhabi and iran. dubai has fewer concerns of iran. >> i know there are many more hand out there but we are at of men. i think this has been a very interesting debate that we have

on the iranian foreign-policy debates. i think you very much for coming. -- i think you very much for coming. thank you very much for coming. >> in august, workers for the epa cause a rupture for the holding pond for the gold king mine. loggers is now investigating the toxic rivers will. epa administrator testifies this morning before the senate environment and public works committee. we have live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on seas than three. the fda is trying to improve the food safety risk. this afternoon, the fda commissioner will testify before senate panel, along with other fda officials. let coverages at 2:00 p.m. eastern also on c-span3. up next, army secretary john mccue about the challenges

facing the military including possible budget cuts, veterans' health care, and the accident election made of anthrax. the event is associated by the american enterprise. to and bank welcome to the american enterprise institute. it is a pleasure to have all of you and a guest of honor. where renting out our series with dishware coming at our series with the joint chief. i can't think of any better way to edit with secretary mccue. uponll be able to reflect the entire obama administration today on the eve of his retirement not from the defense department from government

service. he's a true civil servants in every respect he is been an unsung hero for the army and this elders and it. not just in his capacity in the executive branch but during his long tenure as representative, west point board of visitors as many other roles and commission and responsibilities he has held in the last 40 years. we were just discussing. i am an and honor to host and in police to have them here. and to welcome all of you. we will be live tweeting part of it. want to give much more of an introduction beyond that because i know you know him well enough thank you. it is a pleasure to sit and talk and learn about not just what is next for you, but talk little more about looking back a little

bit for a moment. we'll open it up to questions and answers. things,ve been a lot of when we think that what the army was doing six years ago, what you're talking and thinking about today, it has been a wild ride. you have dealt with navigate challenges. secretary mchugh: arrived where things were things were painful. they were more subtle than that. we knew where the challenges lied. we knew what our missions were going to be. andnew who are friends opponents were. as you noted, things have a habit of turning around on you. if you have the last 20 months, particularly, from the army perspective, where dealing with a menu of missions and challenges that were largely unforeseen. even though west africa, we had

not really thought about the united states army going and being a foundational force their to deal with that challenge and to contain it. we were called upon. we did it. i still was obviously not the kind of force that is not today. the activities and eastern europe, the adventurism, was not on our plates directly. the good news is, as they always have been, the men and women that were the unit and all ranks were able to adopt and have her on it. it has been pretty breathtaking to watch. >> absolutely. it has been in some ways, it is a very high profile of the job. in other ways, there is a lot of work to do behind us and. -- behind the. -- behind the scenes.

agoknow it is, nine years you had over 100 thousand .oldiers while they are in different places now, the tempo still is high for a lot of different personnel and service members. it is a challenge because you withber the difficulties want appointments, 12 112, deployment ratio time, how hard it is on people and their families. now we have more rotation-based. andhe height of the iraq anniston for, stabilize, take care of your people. then we switched to this current model and it, no one wants to be in garrison force anymore. hygiene of expectations in a changing world and what the army is going to do?

i've beenmchugh: asked repeatedly what keeps you up at night? one of the things i really worry most about is as we transition out of the conditions that you describe, where virtually every soldier news at some point or another going to go into a theater.ter -- combat challenges.redible as i went forward their 26 trip -- toq and against an iraq and afghanistan, i was amazed see the long -- to see these young captains doing things. magnificently and they enjoyed that authority. and learn from it. one of the worst things we can that to bring leaders like

, soldiers like that, that enjoy getting out and being a soldier. i do not think they enjoyed getting shot at. all kinds of opportunities going forward. and born into the -- and boring them to death. ofthe one hand, the reality the world couldn't care of that for us, you mentioned kind of a rotational approach to much of that. when hundred 36,000 soldiers who our deployed are preparing to deploy. while the world is on the link to people like me to our soldiers, it still provides the opportunity to go out and engage and train with other nations, etc.. we have to begin to do better they should training. we have to make sure as challenging as our funding may be, we are maintaining our combat training center rotation.

older look to get out into the field and train. well and to as focus on other things, broadening opportunities, education, partnership opportunities. just to try and do everything we can to make life in uniform of interest and challenge to our soldiers. nobody likes war. nobody in more so than a soldier. we do have to be creative in how we keep them excited about being a member of the army. >> it is simply challenging. they're going to complain if you are sending out there, they're going to complain if you are not geared but not in a good way -- but not in a bad way. perfectly -- that goes perfectly into another important shift in priorities. i would argue throughout the that admin is ration,

there has been a focus on people. dod in uniform. more longer conversation about diversity, not just diversity in terms of gender or race or religion, but in terms of like the hearings. -- in terms of life experience. bringeed to be able to people in briefly as cap them back out into the real world. not a more lateral entry. changes to the upper out promotion. longer time. preferential treatment as your high performer. a lot of this is being forced to the future. this is a conversation has been underway since the last administration.

while the conversations have been underway for a decade, there have been some changes like a member of the guard of the joint chief, some other type of compensation changes. this force of the future stuff is hard. it is difficult to do. do you see progress being made in the last 18 months and this administration or assist something that because of the executive and legislative branch, they probably have two different definitions of success , can we maked progress? can they be a big right approach or assist setting that is going to take years? secretary mchugh: i think there is any of -- i think there is an opportunity here. the first thing you have to have in this itty is an agreement

that something needs to be done. matters, there -- and ons is to both capitol hill. there are broader issues of agreement that i think can provide the foundation to do some very positive things from now until the close out of this administration. there's nothing more to the solid foundation by which the next administration can continue to work with the next batch of leaders in the pentagon. the other thing that i think is encouraging, as you mentioned secretary kotter takes it very described is a fairly progressive outreach in silicon valley. the challenges are more broadly based than just what silicon valley is likely to be able to provide and whether it is ever

-- whether it is cyber and the emerging technologies the military knows we're going to have. we just have to be more creative. as you look at how you would come to the military in the past and set lengths of towards, you can understand that. the approach all of us are trying to take is ok, how kelly bracht -- how can we break that down? for all the military, the primary possibility is to be able to out and defend this nation. on larger terms of these highly , we haveical skill set to work more cooperatively with the private actor. i think we're making good progress there. we offer opportunities, and i

will use cyber as an example. that the private sector cannot offer. we are facing very highly emphasized challenges. operations that the private sector does not. . it provides opportunity for a skill set development that in important ways can be of considerable value to the private sector. we have to make sure that both interests are better served. i think there are real chances for them to do better. i am encouraged. your colleague ray mavis was here and made headlines. sec. mchugh: he will do that. ms. eaglen: he talked at length about the budget challenges that you and the chief face and the growing money that is spent on functioning and

processes of the department -- logistics like health care management, contracting, etc. in many cases, for good reason, right? when you grow the army, and to the force, like you did after 9/11, you would think civilian work forces would grow, but no one knows the challenges better than the army that the active duty forces dropped off quickly and precipitously. there are no reductions in the manpower andthe duties. that is the normal flow of things. we could argue that we would probably agree that it is best not to take peace dividends. we often think a piece is coming that is often elusive. in the 1990's we thought the active duty came down 28% and

civilian came down 24%. this time it is inverted and the army is dropping like a rock. that is a tough challenge. it does not mean they are not doing amazing work and they are not necessary. putting all of caveats aside, , institutionally, is looking at challenges the the threeadiness, like it at store, strength and modernization, and what is happening in the civilian workforce. what advice would you give your successor in want to think about as priorities. there is only enough dollars to fund one or two. how do you prepare for risk management in the best way possible for the army and nation? sec. mchugh: i did not take notes on ray mavis' comments,

but i think they are recognizing the challenge to reduce their faces, as we say. kindu noted, without that of reduction, the workloads do not reduce. i will speak for the army, they have taken on the civilian workforce reduction very aggressively. the secretary of defense ordered us to reduce headquarters by 20%. i upped it to 25%. that was not without some concern, as you might understand, in the army halls. we are overachieving there. we took that definition of headquarters down to 2-stars and above, which was more broadly based and was required by the dod or congress. at the height of the civilian workforce in the era of two conflicts of war was 200 85

thousand. that growth occurred not because civilians were saying we want more, it was done so we could take operational -- or generating more soldiers that were training in our school houses etc., etc. -- and put them into occupational positions. we substituted civilians as they went forward. mccains and senator especially have been very clear, and by the and the army will be 233,000 civilian employees, a reduction of over 50,000. i have not done the math, but is roughly equivalent to the percentage reduction we have in our in strength as well. we cannot do what we need to do as an army when they think of armies without the civilians. and you are gracious in noting that. we do have to be in balance.

when it comes to the operational , you stated it correctly. we are challenged on all three of those legs now. environment in the that we are seeing across the globe, and the likelihood of the next unforeseen thing, which is another matter that keeps me up at night -- readiness has to be the number one concern at the moment. we managed our developmental programs, set aside most of our major acquisition programs for large developmental programs until the 20 20's and beyond, not because that is the best thing to do for our soldiers, but it is required by the fiscal reality looking at the smt and things -- s and t. looking at what we would like to

have 20 years from now because we think it might be necessary, and knowing that we might need certain things, particularly for the soldier in the squad, better armor and systems, better systems for operating in a visual environments. robotics, unmanned aerial etc. -- a better energy programs to save money and light in the load on our soldiers. diminish the number of convoys that provide inherent danger of getting water and fuel from point a to point b. these are critical things no matter what the army -- i should say no matter what the enemy looks like or comes from. we try to be smarter, but our readiness continues to be a concern for me. our metric is somewhere, and it depends, you can get the g3 if i will0% or 70%, but

leave that open. 33ht now we are 32% or percent ready amongst combat formations. we are seeing that readiness because of unforeseen missions. while that is sustainable for a both the i said, in former chief and i have testified repeatedly, if sequestration returns, any meaningful budget reduction in addition to that which we are trying to manage now, for the next unforeseen thing of any dimension we are in a very bad place. i have testified should either of those occur, someone will us to stop doing something. frankly, as i look at the world now, i'm not sure what that would be. this is a critical turning point the departmentd

of defense, and logically, for the nation. is that isowing what why we are following very carefully what is going on on capitol hill. general: major to make forceful but respectable comments. to what policymakers as they prepare to think through how to fund the government in the short-term continuing resolution, and i think he was right to do that. to lie down -- to lay down a readiness,line for etc.. the key to the first part of your remarks in the last question was the link between readiness and modern -- the readiness and modernization. to get better technology at the squad level. it is not only about rotations, it is what you are providing.

what they are driving, remotely piloting, weapons -- what they are capable of doing, etc.. i do not want to pick on the hill as a block, i think the housing committee, there is a great understanding. sec. mchugh: i agree. ms. eaglen: it is a segment of congress, as you know, a key statistic that often surprises me every time i hear it is the majority of congress, we are in congressange is new to and this administration. just while you have been secretary. if he went back you would not know the majority of the faces, well you would because of your job, not because of working there. the learning curve, the restarts, and the education is more frequent. this the gene taylor's, and

the carl levin's, and the old bulls that were around. the policy space makes it more difficult for service sec westerville -- for service sequestration to come on board. putting on your politician hat, you don't have to if you don't want to, but if you were on the hill and ranking member -- the chairman of the armed services committee -- what we do hope leadership does on these committees and hear about .ay-to-day challenges beyond reversing sequestration, would you want them to repeal bta? what outcomes would you look for? i am a recovering

politician. i'm not sure where i left my politician'sat -- hat. we are confident and comfortable with the posture of the oversight committee. the members understand the plate and nuances. that is why they are on those committees. the other members want him to be the expert. if you are talking about the reid,ship, senator senator mccain, mac thornberry, adam smith, and the subcommittee chairman, they are trying to do everything they can to help other members, some duration, 10-year, or otherwise, to understand. that is the challenge. if all we had to do was to get the committees to react, whether it is repealing pta or something else, we would be in better shape. that is not how the democracy

works. that has been the challenge. if you talk to any member, most members, they will give you deference to the problems we are due deference to the problems we are facing. this is a complement to the united states military. thankfully, they are not having to deal with 9/11 or a world war ii environment where everyone knew someone who served. these individuals go back and their constituents are worried thet their next paycheck, survivability of social security, their children's future, education -- and that is what numbers are focused on. the challenge is not only for congress a leadership on the oversight committee, but for us, our legislative ways to help other members and their staff. the staffs are critical in

bringing issues to members and helping them understand it. that is our job as well. i've mentioned last week, given the state that we find ourselves in, we have not been as successful as we would like to be. we are continuing those efforts, whether it is a structured one in posture hearings, or the opportunity to show our stuff in insa which is coming up october. we are going to the hill and trying to meet with mla's and psn's and tell them of the reality of what we are facing. if this were easy we would have passed this already. ms. eaglen: one of my last questions, on the aviation restructuring initiative. we were briefed on it extensively by the brain children of it in the army

active-duty service members and officers. it is remarkably well thought through, just terrific. i know it has been difficult to move through the system, but it is whether you had money going up or down in the army. how is it going? how was the hill reacting to recent activity? do you see this moving forward? you have had better luck in the air force operating changes. i commend you for that. how is it going? what do you see for the next 18 months in that regard? sec. mchugh: i appreciate you saying that it is the right thing. right or around, and i think you could get a debate on the right aspect, it is necessary. i'm not sure we would have gotten to it at this point in our developmental efforts were

it not for the budget constraints. the reality is, analysis showed clearly it could save $12 billion over the life of the operationally one billion dollars a year. we could not continue to afford kyowa.g up the areaviation brigades amongst our most hard-pressed, and their first out the door. reluctantly, and as i said, inescapably, made the decision we made. to be sure, we have had outside analysis. we have had formal reviews from , not always our rs.hest praise

all of them said it is done well . we are going forward in the guard. their medium requirements, which are somewhat constrained by legislative limits, but we're living with those. we think we can continue to do that. we do need to execute this, and it is simply, as i said, the right thing to do. i understand the garden -- the guard's concern. we have not just tried to take from them. the aircraft taken out of the active component versus the -- who recognize they have a vital role as they have demonstrated over the past 14 years operationally. is that they no

longer have a combat role in the air. that is not the case. if you look at the combat support and missions flown in majorityan, the vast were flown by apaches and blackhawks. we are prepared to give them 1000 or so of the most modern lack cox. that maintains the role -- most modern black haw -- black hawks. that maintains their role in combat. we believe that is essential. we have tried to smooth this over. the guard continues to be concerned about it. i fully understand that. from the congressional perspective we have the commission on the future of the

army that is continuing deliberations. i am sure that until the commission reports back, and makes recommendations, or lays out forces of action for the congres -- or lays out forces of action, the congress will stay steady. ms. eaglen: i was in death valley thanks to the u.s. army. sec. mchugh: i have been there for six years. ms. eaglen: this is on the west coast death valley. for the super bowl of combat training. it was impressive. a joint of forcible entry exercise. my understanding is they have not done one in 10 or 14 years. sec. mchugh: 14 years because they were focused on one mission. ms. eaglen: i joked that it was the marine corps of the army. it was august on all of your equipment.

it was impressive. more than just multi-components in the army, it was interservice with a heavy air force presence. it was truly impressive, and i hope that you are successful and have more washington people out there observing. the new army operating concept does positive things focusing on leader development. not trying to predict 20 years in the future, but trying to say that we have tomorrow's leaders that are comfortable in the unknown and can react rationally. and the joint force. in today's era you have to percent of multiple dilemmas to and enemy. -- to an enemy. if you have this service or that service, that is great, but if the enemy knows that all you have is a 100 mile per hour fastball, they will figure it out and react.

essential.orce is as you saw in death valley we are trying to focus on that. it is in the army's interest, and i would argue that it is in nationshe services and interest. we want all the branches to be the best. and when the need comes, to be able to operate effectively together. we have not had a chance to focus on that, and we are trying to that basic skills that. ms. eaglen: i want to commend of in your outreach education. secretary kendall was there and i think that is critical for the army to expose policymakers to seeing the army in action and getting them out of their comfort zone in the beltway. questions.n up to please wait for the microphone. the cameras will not be able to hear you.

>> you said that you were a public servant. i think of you as one. when you came to washington i thought of you as a good government guy. i have to say, frankly, after watching you in congress, you did not fix congress, it was dysfunctional -- but in your -- but on your behalf -- sec. mchugh: it went to hell after i left. >> it'd get worse after you left. i think you have tried to do the same thing at the pentagon, but i would say that you did not change the beast of bureaucracy at the pentagon as much as you would have liked to do. and you tell me what you think of your performance? as you came to washington you run. hard to make things you were a pro-worker and pro-government person at a time when most of the government,

most of your party, was pro-worker and pro-government. not pro-worker and pro-government. sec. mchugh: i remember when i staffer, albany as a the senator i worked for had a cartoon on his refrigerator in his conference room. the caption read: when you're up to your address in alligators, it is hard to remember -- when in're up to your ass alligators, it is hard to remember that your original intent was to drain the swamp. do dramatico things. we want to to take steps to provideonalize and professional development opportunities to the civilian workforce. we made progress, but i have admitted previously, it is mighte near i hoped we

be. reality slaps you in the face in these jobs. from my time as secretary, when you walk in and all of a sudden you are in 2 theaters of war, that takes up a large share of your energy tank. we have been working hard to meet the realities of both training, manning, and putting those soldiers forward to keep them as safe as possible while they were in the the at her and get them back as quickly and safely as possible, but also caring for their families. one they got found myself doing was taking the family care programs, and doubling that to $1.2 million. i thought that was a moral obligation, frankly. there is a more basic reality that today's soldiers, they are always going to worry about

their families, but you do not want them worrying about things they should not have to worry about. we focused on taking care of those families. now, we are seeing things such as ptsd, the aftercare for pretty significantly wounded soldiers, and how they go forward, suicide, all of those plans, godman laughs. it would have been nice to focus 100% of the efforts on the agenda we laid out. i would be happy to discuss the progress we have made in the areas i outlined, but you have to deal with the wolf closest to the sled. in a differentt direction. that is more better excuse than anything else, but it is the reality that i've had to deal with. it has far less to do with me as

secretary, or any number of stars on anyone's shoulder, this army is the greatest land force the world has ever seen. for all of the bright people at the pentagon, that is for one simple reason -- the young men and young women in the station that continue to step forward, and they are incredibly skilled, dedicated, and amazing patriots. i wish you did not ask me, but if i had one wish i wish that every american could see the true heart and nature of what these amazing soldiers did. i would extend that to all of the services. we are a fortunate country to have volunteers stepped forward to do this amazingly difficult stuff. on eaglen: why don't we work -- we will work right to left. you?llo, how are

pentagon's top officials for the bioterror lab, can you explain what we had so much difficulty tracking deadly agents like anthrax and the thene, why they have misplaced, and why you ordered the moratorium? sec. mchugh: i ordered the moratorium out of a sense of extreme caution. while i think the cdc and others have stated that we do not see at this point any threat to human health and safety when you are dealing with these kinds of pathogens, i think a better policy is to air on the side of is to err on du -- the side of caution. we have partial answers, all of them correctable.

i think that we want to be very sure that we understand as completely as we can the full picture before we come out and lay out a way forward. part of the moratorium i ordered included all of the labs under my to reade authority train, check standards to make sure that -- to retrain, check standards, to make sure that everyone have the right skill sets and redoing things in the right way. this started with the question of protocols, the scientific they sit protocols you applied against these pathogens to make them an act to. .- to make them inactive are they valid? these things are complex and challenging. i do not pretend to be an expert

on the science behind it, but i am going to make aren't sure -- sure that as far as my responsibility goes, we will take every step to make sure the public is protect did and we develop a way forward that will allow us to conduct these tests that are essential for the security of this nation and , and keep them as safe as humanly possible. >> thank you. as you conclude your 10 year, i wondered if you could talk about the acquisition broadly, and that2 specific portfolios finance questions. one being the next generation vehicle and air missile defense. where are you leaving things, and what is next in each of

those areas? sec. mchugh: this is kind of like writing my own obituary. when i first arrived at the pentagon, as you heard me say, it was no secret, certainly from my time on capitol hill, that army acquisition was not performing where it needed to be. one of the first things i did was order a report that later, famously, he came known as dr. er-wagner.deck it was us looking at us. while it came in and told us things that we knew, it was shocking to see it all in one report. fromce of the findings armyto 2010, 22 failed major developmental programs

which cost taxpayers $30 billion . you do not have to be an analyst to know that we have to do better. we looked at how did we get to that place? as they are in his complex matters, there are a lot of different answers. a big part is the next big shiny thing. if mature technology. everyone wants something they think might the available. -- immature technology. everyone wants something they think might be available. we now know that in that period of the field. this program was able to come forward. we tried to rein in our requirements program. i remember the first iteration of the combat vehicle after i arrived, they came out with 1000 must haves, telling the potential bidder you have to give us all of these things.

to everyone's credit we looked at that and said that does not likelike a lot, and looks a repeated list. we scrubbed it down to under 200 of absolutely essential things. we allowed it contractors to trade-off requirements for abilities, etc. we understood that sometimes good enough is good enough. recognize the affordable way for us in the future was to build something in a fashion that incrementally, from generation to generation, we could add onto and adapt to whatever new realities of the day may be. we have turned to that 180 degrees, but in the last five years most developmental programs were on time and on budget. the reality we have had to deal with, sebastian, is available money to continue. whether it was because of a

budget cut or a continuing resolution that does not allow you often times to reconfigure your needs within a program. we decided on combat vehicles to put that aside. the urban legends, that was on time and on budget. it became in the near term unaffordable. areut that aside and examining technologies and advancements that were developed of to that point to see what we can do to maintain those, and or so.at back up in 2023 we need a new generation of infantry fighting vehicles, or non-combat vehicles, i should say. we invest those savings into our modernization packages on our bradleys, ra booms, and such.

that is a monetary necessity. it is not a failing program. on way forward, it depends the money that lies ahead of us. we are challenged in missile defense. and talk to partner nations, one of the first things patriots aret is sad. i visited many folks that are deployed, and they are amongst the most deployed units in the united states army. we are trying to go with missile segment enhancement and pack three, that becomes a money issue. what you are able to do, and a large measure, in every aspect of the military is what you are funded to do. we will see. ms. eaglen: who work act this way. -- we will work back this way. >> you talked about the

acquisition requirements process. lessons learned. the replacement of the helicopter coming out of vietnam was the lockheed and it was eight cheyenne. it was canceled. the next replacement was the -- byhe told by k boeing. built, flown, canceled. the lessons learned from all of , was it put into the new process the army is using? sec. mchugh: thank you for taking those up. -- digging those up. and some of her other developmental programs as well. analyzeot sit down and every one of those programs. i am sure someone has that sitting on a shelf. by and large, what we found in

terms of our procedures, is, like i said, an overreliance on undeveloped immature technologies and unreasonable requirements. always trying to get the very, very best next thing. kelsey grammer did a movie i'm notpentagon wars," sure if use it. it is not historically accurate, in termsotally unreal of how developmental programs have been approached in the past. in one instance they were bradley. porthole into we are doing better there. i cannot tell you had we done the things now that we failed to d thatthe comanche perio would have been fielded, but we found from a prescribed of -- from a prescriptive

perspective, it has been beneficial. we're not doing developmental projects until 2020 or beyond. every night i pray to god that one day he will let me live in and out year. there will be great in the out years. we will see if that comes to fruition. that is a budgetary reality, not a failure of the development people. >> from the atlantic council. i'm not going to ask you about equipment, but about organization. in the 1940's, the united states developed nuclear weapons, and that was proliferated in the 1950's. thought, we army need to reorganize, because we are afraid nuclear weapons will be coming our way on the

battlefield. the plan was called the thin tonic position -- the 10 tonic pentonic position. it was to deal with the offset strategy coming back at you. in the 1970's and 1980's the military got good at sending precision weapons toward enemies. now, and i think this is why the worriedecretary is about it coming back the other way. the precision weapons coming at american forces, potentially. that is why you have so much missile defense. the army thought about tactical nuclear weapons, which has not been used, as an organizational challenge. is there an organizational challenge for land forces in the rethinkdo we need to

organization or double down on the third offense that we don't need? what do you think? sec. mchugh: we have a lot of bright people who think about a lot of different things. of those offset is one things that is under discussion. i am a fundamentalist when it comes to warfare, because what i worry about the third offset is that somehow that will denigrate the role of land forces. r the human endeavor. humans live on land and to we sprout wings or develop gills. the baseline is that we are always going to need an army in aboutof discussions sanitizing war and fighting it with robots from 30,000 feet. we have future cast all of this stuff. for us, that work is done from a variety of sources, not the

least which is doctrine command. they look at that, and they can by matt with the old plans. in a way that goldwater nichols structure the south, and that commanders have their their areas ofs, responsibilities. they look at the challenges they are supposed to come in today, tomorrow, and how to best address those. there is that coordination. i cannot tell you how that will come out now. with more and mediate administrative, budgetary, and political challenge of running the army. i do not stay up at night wondering about -- we are not thinking about something. we are always thinking about those kinds of things. the fact that you are tracking the third offset strategy would show that this is an active

process. i cannot tell you how that will come out. >> i am meredith walker, an economist focused on national security and a philanthropist focused on veterans initiatives. as our longest-serving and most the army,secretary of you have traveled to meet with our men and women that serve in the army. you have said that civilians would be amazed if we could see our army in action as you have. as you please share with us one of the trips that impressed you the most about the men and women who voluntarily choose to put their lives in harms way and where the cloth of the nation that we might to be free? sec. mchugh: yeah. longest-serving. i don't want to take credit for

that. what of my trips to afghanistan, as in all my trips, they try to go forward to combat outposts. in one trip we went to a little village. we had a combat outposts probably half a mile away from the actual village. .e went into the outpost i met with the command leadership for the whole area. a captain and a lieutenant. the lieutenant was six months out of west point. they were there along with their troops. they had spent recent weeks clearing their portion of the valley of the taliban. anyone in afghanistan has seen those great cement walls. militarydoing that action successfully. they worked with the locals, the elders, that i met with. most of them were in their

middle 20's it seemed. many of the older people had been killed off. they got them to agree to work with our side, not except the tolley been -- the tally been -- the taliban out of coercive concern. they have developed a local militia. taken villagers and taught them how to be an effective militia. all at that level of command. normally, you would have a couple of stars running around in generations past doing this kind of stuff. to see that kind of young people , as i said, the captain was a special operator at the time. it is breathtaking. the other thing, the last time i told the story i broke down, we were transiting through

launch and visiting troops while our crew was resting. the soldier had just been brought in. he had lost one arm. andother arm was wounded mingled terribly. and one leg. he was intubated. they said you could go talk to him, even though he is unconscious. we do not think he will understand. over and whispered how proud we were of him and what a great american he was. i pressed a coin into the one hand he had left. itt soldier, intubated, saluted me. almost made it. ms. eaglen: i cannot think of a

better way to end then honoring the soldiers that you represent, and their families. there cannot be any better question or response. that concludes today's discussion. i know you are not off the job yet as the second august serving secretary of the army until your successor is can armed. i want you to know how grateful all of us are in this room for doing.k you have been often not in the public eye for this job in particular. sec. mchugh: thanks. [applause] announcer: up next, gop presidential candidate donald trump holds a campaign rally in

southern california. then anterior secretary sally jewell talks to reporters. on "the washington journal" we talk to sally coburn about the presidential race. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. on qa day, theht washington post reporter robert costa on the 2016 presidential campaign and the similarities between donald trump and 1992 presidential candidate and businessman ross perot. >> ross perot has a distinct personality that is different. the celebrity factor was not there in the same way that it attracts people to trump. 'sere is a power with trump personality that ross perot did not have. the republican party's relationship with trump has been

rocky. i broke a story a couple of months ago that he was asked to tone it down on immigration. he has now signed a pledge, but he knows what it is worth. we could see this year what happened with ross perot happened to trump. he talks about wanting to be treated fairly. trump is unpredictable, and could easily run as an independent regardless of the pledge. that is on c-span's key mandate. >> now donald trump holds a rally in san pedro california on the battleship the uss iowa. this is 15 minutes. mr. trump: thank you so much. i did not expect that.

willroup called and said you come and speak? i'm here for reason. you know what is tomorrow night. i asked a couple of days ago if it would be possible to say a few words. an endorsement from your group with so many veterans -- hundreds of thousands of veterans -- i really appreciate that, joe. i did not expect it. i did not ask for it. i am with the veterans 100%. they are our greatest people. they are being treated terribly. ,ot only the number of deaths and that is tantamount, what is going on is incredible, but as of two weeks ago on wednesday, the vets had the longest wait in the history of the

veterans administration. you go to see a doctor, wait for days, and it will not happen. is notn, believe me, it going to happen. one thing that i stress strongly is the veterans hospitals, obviously they have problems and are not properly run. when you have to wait long hours, long days, and in some cases have the doctors say, i'm sorry, i'm going on vacation, believe me, it doesn't get much worse than that. we are going to create a new system. we are going to take the system apart. if they are not doing their jobs, the veterans will go to private hospitals, public hospitals -- [applause] mr. trump: and we will reimburse those doctors and hospitals, and [applause]et the greates going to behat is

broken down into something that will be very special. you know it, we have illegal immigrants that are treated better life are than our veterans. that is not going to happen anymore. not going to happen. i appreciate it. it is unexpected and an honor to be here. they do not build ships like this anymore. i said, what about recommissioning -- look at this. the largest and most powerful guns in the world. i learned a lot about the iowa. iowa is a great place for many reasons. we have been treated so well. we are number one in the p olls, and we love those people. this is a great ship, and that is a great state. i want to say that we are going to come out with plans in a short time. we are going to build up the

military. we are going to make it so big, strong, and great -- [applause] and it will be so powerful that i do not think we are going to have to use it. no one is going to mess with us, that i can tell you. we are going to have a president who is respected by putin, who is respected by it -- respected by iran. for two seconds, let's talk about the iran deal. him,, as his people call the supreme leader of iran. obama talks about the supreme leader. i'm not calling him the supreme leader. the other day, he said after is completed,al you will never do business with

the united states again. we are finished with the united states. they have taken $159 billion, they're getting a deal that will go right into nuclear weapons sooner than you think. self-police.g to they have 24 day provisions. what people do not understand is the 24-day provisions do not start, you know this, it does not start for a long time before you get to it. the clock is ticking. it could take forever. we may never get in there. it is one of the dumbest deals and weakest contracts i have ever seen of any kind. so, we are going to do things in this country right. we're not going to sign deals were we have more prisoners over ande, they are still there, we do not ask if one of them is

there because he is a christian. we have a writer. is insane.hing they asked the president and the secretary of state kerry, who may be -- i've been saying that hillary clinton is the worst secretary of state in the history of the country, right? i have been saying it. it is possible, the world blew up around her. it blew up. the whole world is like a different place. it is possible that because of this deal made by secretary kerry, who has no clue how to negotiate, it might be that he is going to supersede -- and i understand he might want to run for president. he has no chance like she has no chance. we will see what will happen. [applause] mr. trump: we have many problems in our country. one of them is immigration. i took a tremendous hit when i

brought up the legal immigration when i announced i was -- brought up illegal immigration when i announced i was running for president. morelimbaugh has suffered in the press than anyone i've seen. what happened was that you now have found out what illegal immigration is about. i'm so happy that i am the one that brought it to the fore. believe me, it is a big problem. it is a big problem. ford 2 weeks, i said this is tougher than i for 2t -- you remember, weeks, i said this is tougher than i thought running for president. there are tremendous drugs flowing across the border going to chicago, new york, l.a., all over the country. the drugs poor in and the money pours out. we get the drugs, they get the

money. the drug cartels are going wild. they cannot believe how stupid our government is. they're making a fortune. the money goes out in the drugs come in daily. i was there, we saw it, everyone sees it every day. we have the kind of people that can do something about it, but we have no leadership. none, whatsoever. so, we are going to build a wall. [applause] mr. trump: and mexico is going to pay for the wall. believe me. you know, a lot of politicians have said they are not going to pay. they do not know anything about -- they never read "the art of all.eal" first of i sent one of my people the other day, what is the united

's trade deficit with mexico, japan, and china. $400 billion a year with china. if you have a country and you you have a company and you are losing 400 million dollars you have to do something fast. we have been losing money for decades. it is not going to happen anymore. with japan, with their massive , theydropping off cars drop off thousands, thousands, and thousands of cars. millions of cars. and we sell them beef. and they do not want it. their farmers protest our it back. they send and mexico, and i love mexico. i have many people from mexico

that work with me, for me, and buy my apartments. they are with china. i have so many people that paid me millions of dollars. am i supposed to meet china because they gave me millions of dollars to buy a apartment? i don't think so. i have one of the biggest banks in the world from china as a tenant. the leaders of mexico, china, japan, and every other country that we do business with is more cunning, and sharper than our leaders. i love the concept of free trade, but you need to smart people. i have the smartest people in the country line that. i know the smartest. [applause] , i trump: i have carl icahn have the best business leaders. they all want to do it. they're wealthy because they make good deals here it like me, i make good deals. is a talent.

you cannot be a politician and say -- look, i am fighting very nice people. i am waiting in the polls, but they are nice people. they will never be able to do anything with this country. it is an instinct. they do not have it. it will be more of the same. so, we are to make our country so great. we're going to make it strong. we're going to make it powerful. we are going to rebuild the military. we are going to make it so strong. we are going to take care of our veterans. [applause] mr. trump: in the end, in the end i want you people to look around. look at each other. this is going to be a special day. the other week, two weeks ago in mobile, alabama, 31,000 people

day showedn a rainy up to see us speak kerry we're talking about making america great again. in dallas at the american airline center, 20,000 people really basketball center of the mavericks. .0,000 people showed up i want to tell you, it was a love-fest. 20,000 people, there was not one heckler in the entire room. i kept saying, there has to be one. there were two words that used to be used. silent majority, they stopped using them, the silent majority is back. it somewhatan use differently. i do not think that we have to call it a silent majority

anymore. they are not silent. they're not silent. they are disgusted with our incompetent politicians. they are disgusted with the people that are giving our country away. see are disgusted when they border patrol agents that are good people and can do the job, they are disgusted when they see people walk in front of them and they are standing there helpless ur into theo country. they are disgusted when a woman who is nine months pregnant border, has ahe baby, and the u.s. has to take care of that baby for the next 85 years. they're disgusted by what is happening and our country. you're going to look around, remember the people that are here, and we are doing something special. this is a movement. we will make our country great again. we will make it great again. i love you all. thank you, very much. ♪

mr. trump: thank you. ♪ mr. trump: this is the hottest thing out hader -- here, this hat. you can't get them. ♪ mr. trump: thank you, everybody. we love you. an