tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 6, 2013 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
women. so we honor two great men by being here today, two men with uncomfortable souls. we also have just acknowledged other brave human rights activist who received this prize and who stand before us. because each of them has also known what it's like to come up against governments and powerful forces who are determined to squeeze the hope from your heart to imprison your mind, to break your spirit. chung stood. to that kind of oppression.
escaped from it as tom escaped from the holocaust and ran towards freedom. i'm very proud that the united states is a place he ran toward. that it was our country thanks to people like tom lantos who others who might see in this audience who held high the banner of human rights as not being something given to you but something you are endowed with. paul, thank you because you stood your ground. you stood in the face of another horror that was almost unimaginable. the horror of genocide in our time. you saved and protected others in a great example not only of courage but of compassion.
as we gather here, we are reminded of those who have given so much to ensure that the hope that is represented in tom's legacy lives on. this foundation really embodies tom's spirit. it's quite humbling for people like mat lynn albright my dear friend and i to know that secretaries of state come and go but what remains is that profound commitment to making a difference in whatever position we find ourselves and standing up and speaking out for those
who might otherwise never have a voice. i'm deeply honored to be given this award particularly on behalf of two causes near and dear to my heart women's rights and internet freedom. i want to acknowledge publicly the great work that to mica, tom's grandson did for me in the state department and continues to do in that intersection of civil society and government and how we can help people help themselves to make sure their voices continue to be heard. i also think it's critical that we look broadly, globally about why this mission that many of us
embrace for the full participation of women and girls in their societies is so important. it's not just the right thing to do. it is not just the recognition that women and girls just like men and boys deserve the opportunity to live up to their own god given potential. it is because we know that when women and girl participate in economies, economic growth is greater than would be without them. where women and girls are given the chance to be educated and to get the healthcare they deserve to have, we know that societies benefit. where women and girls can participate in peace making and peace building as full members of society trying to resolve conflicts, we know that resolution is more likely to be
sustained. it's a great honor for me to have this award. but it is a reminder of how much more we have yet ahead of us to accomplish. to make sure that tom's dream, tom's life, the examples of the award recipients with us and those unable to come, bring out in each of us our own commitments to what we will do to further the cause of human rights, universal human rights for every man, woman, boy and girl in the world. it is certainly what tom would expect us to do to hold high his ideals and by accepting this award and knowing that tom would not let me off the hook, otherwise, it is something that
i will continue to be committed to in every way that i can with every fiber of my being. because the kind of world we want is a world in which the nelson mandelas and the tom lantos's can be proud. thank you very much. >> i'm very honored to have the opportunity to say a few final words and before i do, i also want to acknowledge all of the
ambassadors who joined us today. we are very grateful to have your presence here. i hope all of you feel as i certainly do, that it has been a great privilege to be here today. we have had the chance to honor and be inspired by a truly extraordinary woman not just of i feel very confident that my grandfather who is one of my personal heroes would have been incredibly gratified to to see secretary clinton. he loved and admired for so many reasons, her intelligence, %ñnacity and strength and her willingness to step forward and lead. as we leave this gathering today, i hope it is with renewed sense of commitment to follow in the footsteps of two remarkable people, tom lantos and hillary
clinton. we can find a way to be little braver, kinder and determined and standing up for the rights of our fellow human beings. in other words a little more like tom and hillary. i believe that we all come into this world with the power and potential to be brave, to be determined to be champions for justice and dignity for all mankind. a little more than two years ago my husband and i welcomed our daughter, tom's seventh grandchild at that time into the world o' a day that was deeply meaningful for us and our entire family. nelly was born on august 4th. nelly came to us on this day with a feisty and fearless personality. i sometimes tremble at the sight
of crossing her. but more importantly, she came to us with the legacy of selfless pursuit of social justice. freedom and liberty for all. because of the legacy of people like wollingberg, like nelson mandela and like her own great grandfather, nelly will grow one the opportunity to be actively engaged with the good fight to make this world better for all people, regardless of who they are and regardless of what circumstances they may have been in. because of the example of women, like her great grandmother and like secretary clinton, she will never have to doubt that she can this world. thank you secretary clinton for inspiring every person here today and millions throughout the world. thank you for the inspiration you will surely provide for the rising generation including my own nelly. i want to extend my deep tanks
-- thanks to each and every one of you for being here on this special occasion. thank you. [applause] >> former secretary of state hillary clinton receiving the lantos human rights foundation award and using her remarks to pay tribute to former south african nelson mandela who passed away yesterday. we are learning that president obama and first lady michelle obama will travel to south africa next week to attend memorial event. former secretary of state madeleine albright spoke earlier. she paid tribute to former california congressman tom lantos and hillary clinton looking at her years of service. >> thank you very much.
thank you to mica for your kind wonders and good morning. thank you to all of you. i am thrilled to be here. we're here to celebrate those who dedicated their lives to the human rights movement and we would be remised if we did not speak as to mica did to honor the passing of one of the movement's greatest heroes, nelson mandela. president mandela was a activist, political leader, a statesman and he was above all a teacher. he taught us that the power of forgiveness is greater áhan the power of hate and the differences of race and nationality matter less than our shared humanity. his presence on this earth will be sorely missed but his lessons will endure in the hearts of millions. this has in fact, become a very special event as part of what
tom talked about an awful lot. it is a sadness that nelson mandela has passed from this world but it is very much the same kind of story that tom lantos talked about so much. we come together because of this extraordinary trailblazer, a man who admires from washington. as much as we're awe of tom., tom was in awe of his family. what a big family it is. if you spend more than five minutes talking to him, you knew all about his 17 grandchildren and two daughters. he would include his dog. when asked about how he define himself, tom said, first, and foremost, i think of myself as the husband of a remarkable
woman. it was so clear how much he loved annette more than anything. the nearly 60 years they spent married today, only bright ended twinkle in his eye. thank you annette. for everything that you do to make sure that the human rights torch that tom lit with you stays lit. tom said he was a humble worker in the vineyard of the enterprise to make this world a saner place. we all know the truth, that he had a unique call to conscious, a permanent vigilance against discrimination, genocide, oppression and anti-semitism. as annette, he was democracy's staunchest defender and that was the core value of his existence.
you may not know that he was also a staunch defender of the rights of women. he led the charge to expand access to healthcare for women in africa. he promoted reproduct every health in the united states and around the world. he asked the tough questions of those who obstructed womens progress and rights. i'm especially delighted that we honor a dear friend of mine with this award that bears his name. it's been nearly 20 years sense i joined secretary clinton on the fourth world conference own women. human rights and womens rights are human rights. that rainy day in beijing is now watershed moment in the history of the women's rights movement even before that defining
speech, hillary has been expanding the frontiers of how many -- human rights and pushing back against inequality both around the world and here at %ome. she understands that women rights are human rights and also women's progress is human progress. we all bent when women have the chance to participate fully in every aspect of life. the world needs the wisdom and strength and vision of all its people, not half. people say that democracy for all its limitations is the greatest force for peace and prosperity. %he knows that denying women their rights is one of the greatest force against peace and prosperity. she knows this because she has seen it firsthand. she carried the american flag to over 100 countries and delivered a message directly to its women
even if it rattled the government. she said i stand with you in your fight to shatter your glass ceiling, the united states stands with you. they believed her. forward with her no ceilings initiative at the clinton foundation which looks back at how far we have come since beijing and look forward to the progress we have to make. if we can help give women -- the cycle of poverty can be broken, health education improved and societies are better off. it behooves of us, those of us who live in places where we have economic and political voice to help other women. as far as the world -- hillary is such a visionary. so much so, she's been even
channeled her long departed predecessor eleanor roosevelt. she takes after our mutual -- mutual hero. she really connects. sometimes when she needs womens rights leaders in countries they are oppressive, they ask if they can get a picture with her. they know that a picture with hillary clinton means they will not get harassed, abused or attacker. i can go on and on about the awards and the miles she traveled and lives she's changed and rights she defended. to me the most powerful illustration of her example is the fact that a simple picture with her can save a life. it should come surprise to absolutely no one that this woman who is qualified for everything, has proven to be an
outstanding mother and wife and daughter and advocate and lawyer first lady, senator and secretary of sta÷e and a really good friend. hillary has the ability unlike anybody else to look past everyday to help expand womens rights and human rights and peoples rights and speak out on behalfúof the voiceless. i have said there's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other. madam secretary, although it's 100 years away, i think there's a special place for you next to eleanor roosevelt, congratulations on this special award.
>> see the event r' its entirety at c-span dog. coming up later, kentucky senator rand paul speaking at the economic -- detroit economic club. talking about jobs and the economy coming up live at 12:35 eastern right here on c-span. treasury secretary jacob lew gave update on the dodd-frank regulation law. speaking at an event hosted by the pew charitable trust, secretary said the obama administration would press for more comprehensive global financial regulation in up coming g20 summit in australia. >> good morning everyone and thank you so much for joining us for this very special event.
little housekeeping before i get started. please once secretary lew finish his remarks, stay seated. @&c"pe hosting this 76th secretary of the united states treasury jack lew. it has become a major influential voice on many of the toughest issues confronting society today. throughout 65 year history, pew has remain faithful to the guiding principle. tell the truth, and trust the people. be it healthcare, be it environment, economic mobility, pew has spoken truth to power to improve the lives of millions of people throughout the world. of course almost two years ago, pew along with the c.f.a.
institute cofounded the council. which sought to give voice to the people's interest. i'm particularly pleased secretary lew will be speaking this morning on the importance of completing the financial reform. secretary lew came to the job as a widely expert on policy. his expertise and knowledge have proven invaluable as he steered the nation through budget and debt limit negotiations. he has brought a very free perspective to the cause of financial reform. he spoken eloquently of the need for regulators to finish the important task that the
dodd-frank law before them. he steadfastly fought against efforts to reopen dodd-frank. he rightly argued that regulators should be given time to strengthen our financial system through dodd-frank implementation. he is tackled unafraid the thankless job cheering, five different regulatory agencies to finish their long over due work of the volcker rule. he has demonstrated the patience of the biblical figure. if press reports are accurate, his focus and patience are scheduled to pay off on december 10th. i commend you for your commitment to protect the public
for facing the prospects of lost jobs and lost savings. please join me in welcoming secretary lew. >> thank you very much sheila for that kind introduction and for all the work do you to advance the cause of financial reform. i like to thank pew #or hosting me here this morning and also for the work that you do everyday. so many important public policy issues. i like to spend a few minutes discussing how far we've come to repair the financial weaknessings. the progress we've made, reshaping our financial architecture. five years ago the united states economy was reeling from a devastating financial crisis that helped trigger the worse recession since the great depression. in late 2008, our businesses
were shedding more than 700,000 jobs a month. our economy was shrinking. credit was frozen, our auto industry was sliding towards the abyss and millions of americans were losing their homes. to make matters worse to contain the damage and keep our economy from melting, the american taxpayers were forced to provide extraordinary assistance to financial institutions and other companies many of which have taken risks attributed to the economic crises. the president faced an economy teetering on the edge in response, he quickly moved to put out the financial fires, restore growth and get people back to work. he was determined to make sure a financial crisis like this never happens again. this effort produced the most comprehensive over hall of our financial system since the great depression. bringing our financial system into the 21st century and creating tools to create a ever changing market institutions. these reforms created the
strongest new financial safeguards for co'sumer and investors in nearly a century. in the matáer of law, they state clearly no financial institution is too big to fail. five years later, our economy has steadily grown. our businesses creately nearly 8 million jobs. our housing market is recovering and financial system is strong. has been made. as regulators complete the remaining core elements of wall street reform, there are four things we need to keep in mind. first, the rules of the road must be effective and designed to address the modern financial markets. second, we must make sure that regulators have the resources necessary to get the job done and they are held accountable. third, other countries need strong standards and mechanisms
to address risks that reach cross borders. finally we must remain vigilant constantly monitoring risks. while the process of putting these reforms in place has taken longer than we hoped, much has -we are committed to finishing the job. as avery said before, this is not about a righting a set of rules. this will require ongoing attention, ongoing fact finding, review and action. the measure of our suggestion will not hinge on how fast regulation are put in place, but rather how we strike the balance. with a completion volcker rule,
resolution authority, the tools of financial reform are being used to make our financial system safer and holding financial system responsible without the backstop of public support. regulators have worked hard to find the right balance that protects our economy and taxpayers while also leaving room for well functioning financial markets that fuel growth and help the private sector create jobs. the dodd-frank rule addresses root causes of financial problems. a premium on consumer financial protection, curbs on excessive risk taking, transparency and over site and massive over the counter derivative markets and necessary tools to prevent large and financial institutions threating the financial system. some of the greatest damage to both ordinary individuals and major financial firms began with deceptive and harmful practices that left millions of americans owing more than they could ever
repay. dodd-frank created the consumer protection bureau to create transparency and choice. since opening its doors in 2011, the cfb already taken bold and actions. bringing payday lenders and debt collectors under federal provisions for the first time. in just a few weeks ago the cfpb created new mortgage reforms. five years ago, most americans did not know what the enormous
over the counter derivatives market was. its lack of transparency put all of them and our economy and financial system at risk. dodd frank set forth comprehensive requirements. earlier this year, requirements for trading platforms, central counter party clearing and trade reporting went into effect. reducing risks from derivatives by creating transparency and moving towards more standardized transactions. in society, g20 leaders great oh agreed -- agreed to proposals. regulators will make sure that consistent safeguards protect the financial system from external shocks. part of ensuring that financial institutions bear their own risk, it's to make certain they
have sufficient capital to absorb the loss they place. banks will begin compliance next month. rules requiring the largest firm to decrease leverage will propose this year and soon be finalized. bank regu&ators can conduct annual stress tests. for banks that do not past the rigorous test, changes requires including raising capitals or extending dividends. the federal reserve will finalize enhanced standards soon to impose tougher risk management standards and introduce connectivedness. there's measurable progress. the largest banks are now better capitalized and less leveraged adding more than $450 million of capital since the first quarter
of 2009. dodd-frank restricts the types of high risk activities that banks can participate. next week regulators will begin voting on the volcker rule putting in place investment in private funds by banks. rule writers will soon put forward a tough volcker rule that i expect to be true to president obama's vision. the rule now before regulators is a product of much intended vote and analysis. it prohibits risky proprietary savings. the rule prohibit risky trading bets. it puts in place strong require those in charge of financial institutizns to make sure that the tone at the top sends the right signal to the whole firm. in order to make sure that taxpayers are truly protected,
it is critical to have an effective resolution in process so that indivtu(s failing firms do not jeopardize the entire financial system. ending too big to fail requires us to be confident that in future crisis we can and will use the tool the law provides. the largest financial companies have already submitted levering wills or blueprints for how to unwind firms that fail. regulators will require firms to rework these plan it is they're not credible. if firms unable to provide a credible plan, regulators can propose remedies to and line their businesses. they are continuing to develop strategies and guidance for
resolving major financial institutions minimum disruption to the financial system. there's still more work to do, particularly to make sure international rules mesh with our own. we know too well, financial crisis do not respect national borders. we may not know how well these rules work until they are tested. dodd-frank ended too big to fail as a maáter of law. tough rules are now in place to make sure banks have the capital to absorb their own losses. monitoring through stress test is under way. resolution authorities and plans are in place. there's a growing recognition of these changes and market analysts are factoring them in. the reforms put in place raises the cost to be large, requiring fr)ms to internalize their risk and together with resolution authority and living will, make clear that share holders and
executives and not taxpayer will not be responsible if a large institution fails. earlier this year if -- based on the totality of reforms we're putting in place, i believe we'll meet that test. but to be clear, there's no precise point at which you can prove with certainty that we've cone -- done enough. essential part of meeting that test, will be to make sure regulators have the resources necessary to police markets and financial institutions effectively. even with the best rules, illegal behavior or excessive risk taking will go unc$ecked unless regulators have the resources to conduct regular, examinations. this is not an either or proposition. the best rules will fall short without executive supervision and enforcement. effective supervision and enforcement are only possible
with sufficient resources. after failing an efforts to block or roll ba(i reform, some in congress -- failing to fund supervision and enforcement of the new rules amount to virtual deregulation. if put americans american at risk. even in tight budgetary times this is not a budget driven choice. how could any of us say to someone who lost their job, home or retirement security because of lack of over sight that a safe financial system was a luxury we could not afford. we saw with that rut in 2008 and it cost americans trillions of dollars. we cannot let that happen again. the work these agencies do is money well spent. for example in fiscal year 2013
alone, the cftc imposed $1.7 billion in sanctions including $1.3 billion for abusive actions. these sanctions made our system safer and provided disinsert for firms to engage in behavior that undermine market integrity. in the near term, its essential that congress provide adequate funding for our regulators. if annual funding does not meet this goal, congress should consider moving the market regulator budget out of the current budget process and treat them like bankint agencies. that way instead of unpredictable funding that shifts from year to year, over sight of our markets and institutions will be guaranteed. political winds may shift, but the government's ability to protect markets must be constant. there are alsoen going -- also
ongoing effort to strip the financial bureau and undermine its ability protect consumers. already the cfpb has taken enforcement actions. we must make sure that the knew -- you can understand why some out there will want to reign in this agency. unfair, deceptive and abusive practices. it needs to stay that way. s we funds and support -- as we fund and support our regular la tore agency, we need to hold them accountable. there has been and will be ungoing debate on what are the right level for capital,
liquidity and side of banks. one thing is clear, the regulators are charged with these duties continue to use the tools. if necessary regulators can and should do more. regulators must understand risk exposure, demand strong compliance and reporting. when regulator see failure in internal control leak the failure that occurred during the events involved with the london whale and ms global, it's clearly they hold those responsible for account. regulators like everyone else must be held to higher standards. the stakes are high and the standard for performance needs to be just as high. the u.s. responded to the financial crisis aggressively and in a bipartisan basis to make our domestic system safer
and secure. given the global nature of a our financial system, we must continue working with other regulators. from the outset of the crisis, the time and energy we put into the domestic regulatory reform has been repaired with international efforts. we've made considerable progress through the g20 and the financial stability board in designing a more stable and resilient global financial system. design is not sufficient. implementation and follow through are key. we must avoid the race to the bottom. next february i will meet in australia with g20 finance ministers and i will use this as an opportunity to call on the world biggest economies to bear down even more forcefully on implementation. our 2014 agenda is this, we will take steps to make sure that global banks, meet the high standards. that means moving swiftly to
build strong and high quality capital, properly weigh risk assets, curb leverage and build strong liquidity buffers. several years ago, the g20 recommended the trading reporting of over the counter derivatives be in place now. we need to make sure these -around the globe.e put in place there will be different cross border issues to manage. these are complex. major financial institutions work globp&ly and for resolution of these firms to work fully, cross border resolution must be part of it. the failq of -- underscore that in the future, new resolution tools will need to work across the borders. our agenda in the coming year will focus heavily on completing
the work under way on international arrangements that establish how home and host authority will cooperate to wind down a globally active firm. the failure to work out su(r arrangements could pose a significant future risk to our financial system. treasury emphasizing this as a priority and we're working with our domestic regular lator -- regulatory partners to get this in place. as we've seen with libor and circumstances around foreign exchange rate, we must guard against the potential for market manipulation both domestically and internationally. we little also prioritize our work with international partners on ways to address the risks from short term wholesale funding markets and shadow banking. in short, we are leaders in the international efforts to develop
and enhance measures for all types of financial institutions and working to align these approaches with the strong u.s. frameworks. our aim is clear. we want a global rate to the top. free trade agreement presents opportunities to drive growth and create jobs. we can't allow these agreements to serve as opportunity to water down domestic financial regulatory standards. we will press other jurisdictions to match our robust standards including in@ europe and across asia. we will do so by continuing to pursue our international regulatory agenda in bilateral and multilateral forms. this will help prevent gaps in over sight and protect taxpayers from financial risks. implementing the dodd-frank act and encuraging global alignment with our strong reforms are all
necessary steps towards a safer and sounder financial system. as we take these steps, it's also essential to remember that the crisis revealed that regulation and over sight failed to keep up with a rapidly evolving financial system. @3 the fact is we must remain vigila't to appear on the horizon. dodd-frank created two new organizations to help combat the potential new risks. the council brings the regulatory community together and charges us to look across our areas of responsibility whether it's banks or markets or other financial institutions and to identify risks that may emerge in the future. the o#fice of financial research is working to understand what data we need to better track risks in the system and what we can learn from that data. they are leading efforts to create international data standard so we can anticipate the next crisis with information
that is accessible and useable. in many ways these firms act like banks but without the comprehensive over sight or safeguards that banks are subject to. it's essential that we better understand and address the risks these firms and activities present. the triparty repurchase agreement -- >> just a few moments left in this presentation, we'll leave it hq)e to hear remarks about rand paul. he is a keynote speaker at the detroit economic club this afternoon. >> thank you very much people ask me how big is deal is it to give a speech to the
detroit economic club. i say it's such a big deal that i gave so many speeches and %nterviews saying i was going to give a speech, then i lost my voice. i'm not kidding you. it is a big deal to be here. i'm really glad to be here. there's a little girl she wanted a $100, she decided shq write a note to god. dear god, would you send me a hundred dollars. i'll do good things with it. postmaster got the letter and he he sent it to the president. the president said that's cute. why don't you send her $5, she'll think that's a lot of money. she gets the $5 and she's like her parents say send a thank you. she said, dear god, thanks for the money, next time don't send it to washington, they stole 95%.
really i can just stop there because that's essentially the plan. it is an honor to be here in detroit. i want to thank bit for making -- beth for making things work. i like to thank dottie for introducing me and letting us be a part of this. when i started thinking about this, i said we need to find out something great that's going on in detroit. i was looking for somebody that said something, i heard this great thing by jack white. i did find a young intern at quick-in loans. she wrote in one of their magazines, she said i found out the truth about detroit. it's unstoppable. not because it's wealthy and powerful and growing, detroit is
unstoppable because the people here cannot be stopped. the citizens of this city are the light at the end of the tunnel. the underdog who actually wins. there are optimisms, promise and potential and hope. optimism is bringing this city back. this isn't afraid of opportunity, it's not discouraged by its past, it's excited by its future. i love the way she put that. one thing is certain, detroit's future and lisa's future will not come from washington. the magic of motown is here in the city. what detroit need to thrive is not washington hand but freedom from big government's mastery. to thrive, detroit needs less government and more freedom. less red tape, less taxes, more money left in detroit. the answer to poverty and
unemployment is not another government stimulus. it's simply leaving more money in the hands of those who earned it. today i'm here to introduce something i call economic freedom zones. this is a bill that will be introduced next week in washington. these freedom zones will dramatically re"uce tax and red tape so detroit businesses can grow and throb. he called his plan a conservative war on poverty. it's time we revisit some of the ideas of jack kemp and expand upon them. the bill that i will introduce, will introduce power and freedom zone. this political lower personal and corporate income taxes in detroit to 5%. my bill will lower the payroll
tax, 2% for the employees, 2% for the employers. economic freedom zones will cut out the red tape that keeps new businesses from starting and old businesses from thriving. inside these ozones will suspend the capital gains tax. we will allow all small businesses to deduct most of what they invest in the first year of purchase. how will this differ from traditional government stimulus? first these phones don't ask houston or they don't ask atlanta to bail out detroit. these zones free up detroit to bail themselves out. this isn't just about detroit, i'm a politician, so i'm concerned about my home, we're concerned about kentucky or any zip code with unemployment 1.5 times greater than the average. any community in america with 12% approximately or more will
be eligible for these freedom zones. it will include many in my home state. there are 20 counties in the eastern part of my state they are in depression now. it's not just detroit struggling, we're struggling in my state too. the freedom zones differ from traditional government stimulus in that no central planner, no politician in washington will decide against the money. the money will simply be left with its rightful owner. the manner the woman who by sweat equity and earned it. the government stimuluses that we've had, the money gets passed out to special interests and those who give you campaign contributions, they get the money. it's not based on whether they can do anything or run a business. those are the people that gets stimulus money. the money will stay with the
people and consumers who voted for. the people in the democratic capitalism has already run through the gauntlet. heck run a business. too often when government picks a winners and losers, we wind up with mostly loser. think solyndra, over 5er hundred -- $500 million of your money was given to one of the richest men in the world. it turns out people didn't want the guys product. they didn't want those solar panels. it went out of business and we lost all of the money. we're stuck with the tab. economic freedom zones won't make that mistake. the lower taxes will benefit any business that consumers have already seen fit to endorse. only consumer tested winners will get the money. through their success, create jobs, more jobs for the rest of us. economic freedom zones will over
a 10 year period, leave over $1.3 billion in detroit. those who say, it won't work, there won't be enough money. we've calculated it. $1.3billion stimulus, not from houston, not from atlanta, from you. it's your money. we're not going to take it to washington. we'll leave it with you. how can anybody get on with this? $1.3billion will be left and it will help to create, help detroit to drive again and it will create jobs here. the money went go to my friends or president obama friends, it will go back to the people who earned it. regulatory relief will also help create opportunity. it will lower the opportunity cost that hold new and old businesses back and cost detroit millions of dollars a year.
it happened in maryland. i estimate that repealing some of the storm water crazinss they're forcing every city to do that will save detroit $16.5 million a year. i'm guessing that will pay for police protection, some fire protection and all the basic things you want in your city. we want to encourageentrepreneurs in detroit but we want people to we want to allow immigration to our country with people have capital. right now we're losing people. people going to canada because income tax is 15%. expedite these visas for people who have $50,000. detroit doesn't need a handout.
look at the proud history of detroit. we were the industrial giant of the world, detroit was the greatness of america. government didn't do this. you did this. government didn't discover, create, motown greats like smokey robinson or diana ross. we need to look at ourselves. we need to look in the mirror and we need to allow ourselves the freedom to create and innovate. you have leaders. think of dan gilbert of quick and loans they are pouring their hearts and souls and money into detroit. quick and loans have spent more than a billion dollars in detroit and moved 3600 employees into the city, creating thousands of jobs. quick and loans and center companies have 12,000 employees working in detroit.
quick and loans is proving all the nay sayers wrong. go to quick and loans and you'll get a glimpse of detroit's future. detroit situation is a result of a corrupt marriage, a big government and big labor and big the city of detroit for decades. the result has been a defecáive government, declining business sector and failing schools. i don't say this to make a partisan point. the fact is both parties are to blame. there's enough blame to go around. both parties, democrat and republican, they must admit we haven't done all we could do for the people who live in the city. many have said the problem we see in detroit, it's just means it's the end of times. let's give up. they say we can't create enough jobs. i disagree. they say the schools here will just keep getting worse. i disagree. they say the divide rich and poor, black and white will
grow, i disagree. i don't believe it. anywhere else detroit or anywhere else in the country, this is the end of times. we are the greatest country on earth and developed so much capital because we believed in freedom and we believed in ourselves. for this to come true again, for us to revive our cities and economy, we have to try to do something we haven't been trying. we can't just keep doing the same thing over and over again. we need a new vision and prosperity. one that won't leave hope and communities behind. politicians have thrown our money at problems before. this current president gave you a trillion dollars in stimulus. you divide it up and it was $400,000 per child. it doesn't work. let's try something different. we spent unbelievable sums in
money on education andxother schools are falling apart. throwing money is not the answer. in order to -- innovate. we must end corporate welfare and crony capitalism. we must encourage policies that will lift up the individual. allow creation for new jobs and improve the schools. can't be a bailout though. it won't work. it would lead us further down a path of dependency. more jobs are only one part of the solution though. i believe we must also show that we can build on a government that values our god given rights of all americans. in addition economic freedom, we have to have a 21st century civil rights agenda with education, choice, voting rights
no one life should be ruined because of a youthful mistake. no one should be thrown in but themselves. no one should lose their voting rights because they spent time in prison. it does us no good to create jobs for young people in detroit if they can't later get such jobs because of out of control war on drugs. ....
they should be able to vote and have a life and build a family. their children should look at what comes from happiness and hard work. we talk about the family unit owing down the drain, and we are preventing families from going back to the. we must address the federal mindset that values our rest rates. it is not because white kids in affluent suburbs are not also
smoking pot, it is they tend to be arrested and do not have as good representation and the police gravitate there because it is easier. it has been going on for a long time. it is not a purposeful racism, but we have a racial return on the war on drugs that is not fair. minority communities are easy targets. some say that is good politics. maybe it is bad policy, and good people suffer every day as a result. it is a policy that tears apart families and hollows out communities, yet every day there are more victims of this war on drugs. it is not point of pride in this country that we now have the highest incarceration rate rate in the world. incarceration rates have 1980.keted 800% since the growth of the prisoner population is unsustainable. we are spending your money every year to keep people locked up,
many of whom who are not a threat to others. is a turbo fact that the war on drugs that black and latinos are disproportionately incarcerated. the number one in pediment of voting in our country comes from the war on drugs. they state you never get right to vote back. i have a friend whose brother group marijuana diets in college, got convicted of a felony, he still cannot vote 30 years later. when he tries to get a job, heat checks off a box -- he checks out a boss to say he is a fellow. we are destroying people's lives from the beginning. we need new voices that will talk about this. policies that brought up this injustice should be repealed. the best way to help young people i think keep them happy, prosperous, and out of jail is education. it is a tricky business. what we have is not working.
it may not be a magic list that will make our schools the best, but what we can do and what we need to do is expand the options, more choices for people, have to be better. the best way to provide education is through competition and school choice, just vouchers, charter schools. we need and all the above strategy, less mandates from washington, more local control. we need to give people flexibility when it comes to where they send their skins -- their kids to school. a pastor says school choice is a civil rights issue. we might be right. we part of the country that tries school choice as he benefits, especially minorities. too much the government says here is a school in your district, it is coming, tough luck. people in detroit have had enough of this. a percent of the parents in detroit would have enough choice would take another choice. families want the screen to choose to send their kids were
they would like to send them. i want them to have as many choices as possible. i live where public schools are good. mike kids are stashed my kids are sent to the public high school in kentucky. in my county, my kids can choose from five different schools. they have to compete with each other. i cannot understand how anyone could be against competition, empowering parents with choice. the freedom to innovate is important. charter schools get rid of this top-down approach, one-size- fits-all. kids learnd charter more material than their counterparts. opponents of school choice complained and say that his government money. the money tornment private or religious schools? ly, but it is not government money.
is there some kind of mythological government that it longs to -- that it belongs to? [applause]it is your money, taken out of your paycheck. if you want to use your money to send your kid to a private school, i all means let's do it. the president does. [applause] the president is rich enough to do it. he does not have a voucher, but the rest of us, we may not have enough left to set our kids to private schools. back and our money send our kids where we want them to go. along with these freedom jones, the bill will give education money to the students eric right now or is money that comes back that goes to poor schools. we attach it to the kids. do not send it to the schools. they take it to whichever school they want to. the good schools will rise up and succeed and the bad schools will fade away. we have tax credits for
education. $5,000 tax credit. this is a broad agenda, how we transform communities. it will touch everyone in this city. from the first time they go to school to becoming parents. economic freedom so that will remove government obstacles to success. it will provide a generation of citizens, students, workers with a new bargain, and the government will get underway. it will treat you like an adult. it will treat everyone equally under the law, it will help pairs control their children's future and their education, it have morecreators jobs for workers. it will treat you the same way everyone else, the matter the color of your skin, what part of town you comfort. the bailouts,the excessive taxation, it has not worked. it does not work. we will try a new approach bridge -- approach.
you can meet your new challenges ityou rebuild your cities, will endure and prevail. i promise you that i will work you do we do that. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] hundredsmy job to sort of questions and tried to get them into some kind of order. i will start locally with a student question. what made you take interest in detroit's issues? >> they are in the news.
it from twot different perspectives. i will be honest with you. i am about politician, i'm a republican, i want votes. our party needs or votes and they are not getting more out of detroit. and i want toan diagnose problems and come up with solutions. in the past, a lot of times republicans have said the free market will float all boats. it will -- all votes. it is the best humanitarian system. you will see specific problems. that want a specific solution. detroit is the culmination of the problems of a lot of big cities. chicago has the same problems. 20 rural counties in mice date have -- in my state had these problems as well. we are talking about detroit. everything i'm saying that apply to other parts of the country who are steadily.
there's a history when big cities were the great engine. now with the government drag, we bigto get active where the cities are an engine for improvement. >> the next question, how do you plan on eating african-americans to embrace your detroit plant and the gop in general, and could you sign my pocket constitution? [laughter] [applause] republicans got about five percent of the african-american vote. that is not very good. it used to be better. at one point in time it was completely the opposite. in 1920 we got nearly 99% of the of african-american vote. i did 28, we were up over 2/3 of the way. from 1928 switch
21932. it is not that the issues, we have to change our opinions and attitudes on issues, but it is you do not have money or you do not have a business, you are not concerned about regulation and taxes. if i talk to people trying to get ahead in life and are not yet successful, that could be young people, it could be certain ethnic groups on abouton, there is a site regulation -- a site about wrigley's and taxes, about the idea that everybody should be treated fairly under the law, that the justice system should imprisoned people of some races, and your individual liberty should be protected. one thing is we do not think any individual should be incarcerated without a trial. that sounds like a new in america does not believe that? you would be surprised. we passed two years ago a law that allows for the indefinite detention of an american citizen . i had a debate with another
senator, and i said this means you could send an american citizen guantanamo bay without a trial? he said, yes, if they are dangerous. that begs the question, who gets to decide who is dangerous or not? , think back to richard jewell everybody said he was a bomber. everybody in the media said he was guilty. if he had been a black man in a content in the south, he would have been strung up from the closest tree. that is why you have to believe in you process. we once did it to african americans, because what we did to japanese-americans, and now what we threaten to do the people we accuse of crimes without a trial. of justice,as believing everybody has a right to a lawyer and to a trial by jury, not everybody believes that anymore, and if we can talk about these issues of justice, fairness, and so continue to believe in low taxes and less
regulation, talk about privacy, how your cell phone is your business, your e-mail is her business, all of a sudden there will be a new group of people who will listen to us. >> thank you. [applause] question is around the federal auto rescue. the question says, the federal auto rescue worked. thousands of jobs were saved here and across america. much as been repaid. isn't this a success story? >> i think there are two different ways to skin a cat as far as trying to get something to work. for me, for example, it is the difference between government stimulus to everybody versus front to give targeted tax breaks to people who need to get ahead. what i would've probably done, and you could argue whether it much has beenhow payback back and how much the stock is worth, and there are debatable point of both sides, but i would say is there are
ways to do this where we would look at the car industry and say what is government doing to make the car industry less profitable? are the ways we could get government out of the way? i prefer those over the a direct bailout of any industry. i may not be popular in the chart, but i think it is better to look at an industry, when an industry is suffering, to say what are the obstacles that government is placing in its way, taking those obstacles out of the way, rather than have a specific government payment. [applause] ofthere's a couple questions, this again is a student question. for this new bill, how do you plan to receive a partisan support? >> we have already started. i had dinner with your senior senator, senator levin, about a month ago, and discussed superficially some aspects of this. we sent this bill to all your
michigan legislators. it will go out to all of them. there will be some obstacles, cause what i am talking about is maybe in some ways philosophically effort than what many in the democratic party believe. many on the democrat side only believe in the government sinless, that the government the money out to everyone and give everybody in detroit a check, or $50,000 to start up as this. the reason it does not work is dying out of 10 is is is fail so how do you know the right person? we open the republican office in northwest detroit earlier today and a gentleman came over who owns his own business and has a restaurant. his question was, do you have anything in your bill for tax breaks for small businesses? if he is succeeding, made it a year or two in business, that is where the customers have chosen him.
that is who gets the money. all of us together when we buy stuff become smart enough to decide who the businesses are. i think that is how the money ought to be distributed. [applause] fromis question, moving detroit more toward washington, and larger issues. how can you resist -- assist boehner to unite groups in the republican party, chairman, unite behind the budget and control spending caps, to ensure 218 votes to pass legislation in 2014? someone is really counting. >> i thought we said no hard questions. [laughter] it may be impossible. it is the thing you always try
historically, to square the circle. it may be impossible. the reason is we have to pass budgets. the house passed a budget and so did the senate. the house budget did not raise taxes, and the senate budget ised taxes. we do not want to split the difference on that, but i will not compromise on raising taxes and $500 billion. it would be a disaster. i'm trying to lower taxes for detroit. i do not want to raise taxes. it is hard to come to an agreement. we have divided government. the most likely thing that happens in january is another cr. a crummy way to run your government. but when we are so far apart of the subway, our country is almost evenly split. half republicans and have the guts. but we believe in is very far apart, and it is hard to find agreement. the debate is good and we should aresay because they
debating him because we have the discussion that is bad. the have been debating since the beginning of a republican, -- a republican. >> there are several questions around this question of the polarization and the discussed st thate -- disgu americans have for gridlock in washington. what do you propose to help heal some of that? >> i think we can agree to disagree and not necessarily always be disagreeable. some of that is personalities and how we work things out. we president and i, i think get along fine. i have written on air force one when he is talked about infrastructure. i have tried to be supportive. there have been various foreign- policy initiatives that i have not attacked him and try to be supportive of him on.
on the drug issues, it has taken him a while, but he is now doing something about some of the minimums.bill in -- on infrastructure, there is a way that infrastructure only for the trip across america, we could have more infrastructure money is all the money earned overseas by american corporations, nearly $2 trillion from it could be brought home. andit at five % -- at 5%, probably hundreds of billions of dollars in money comes home, but justin tax revenue, at 5%, you would doubled the money we have available for infrastructure and if we could just tax it at 5%. win-win solution. we lowered the tax rate. we get more revenue and we build some roads. and i talked to the president about that, and the president cbo score is a loss of revenue because it is not coming in at 35%.
0% is coming home. we have to overcome the cbo score on this. i said, that's vote to overturn -- let's vote to overturn all the other roles, let's vote to overturn this one. there is a chance we could past that. there's more of a chance that we could pass that than overall tax reform, which we do not agree on. >> why are you such a proponent of congressional term limits? >> sense of the bombs home. they need to get a job. s home. the bum they need to get a job. [laughter] >> we should have people come in. i asked if i could practice medicine and they said no. you actually would want people up there to maintain their job so they would not be afraid of losing their job in washington. we have term limits for the president. fdr, that is too
much for the presidency. i think 12 years in the house, 12 years in the senate. if you want a lifetime up there, 24 years is a long time. you could do 12 years in the house, 12 years in the senate. i think 12 is better than six, because six they not be -- you have this debate. they may be too sure. i think at the same time they can also, we can have people there too long. it would eat you down. i've been there three years and i get beaten down every day. it is how long you can maintain your thursday as him and try to change something. i think fresh blood is good. [applause] question, how do you think the republican party or the conservative movement can convince their own members that broadening our party to minority outreach is actually possible? >> i think they just have to
look at the facts. i have been pretty harsh about our prospects for winning the presidency as the republican party. we either adapt, we eve off, or we die. that is a pretty harsh assessment. if you look at things in demographic terms, and i hate to categorize things by risk, but if you look at by race john mccain got more of that andasian vote than bush did lost. bromley got more of it than mccain did and lost. we need to be a more diverse party. we need people in our party that do not all have ties on. tattoos,eople with without tattoos, people with pony tails, hearing some from all different walks of life. all different colors, creeds, and democratic party is more diverse than we are. it is why they're winning more elections. some of the diversity is also we need to appeal to people in cities. some of that is ethnically related. we need to use all the big
cities. we have to change. we will not be able to win nationally again, and some people are stuck in a rut on this. a lot of people are waking up. michigan gop knows we have to do better if we're going to win. >> i am bringing it on home with the last two questions. what are your thoughts on obamacare? [laughter] too many questions. i had after used three -- i had to ask you three. . >> i need a couple hours. it is unraveling on its own effects. i was telling jonathan that i think it is not that government is inherently stupid, although that is a debatable point. [laughter] it is that they do not get the right senators. the business would be run this way because you would be run out of business immediately. we have put into law perverse incentives. insurance had cheap
no longer can buy that. it is what they could afford and that is the only way they had it. i was one of them. i used to have family coverage for five people, for $5,000. a $5,000 deductible. in obamacare, you can have a higher detectable and still pay higher dollars because there is a mandate because intuit. the problem is the insurance company is never going to offer those policies again because they are told within a year if you delay it for year, then a year everyone will be forced to buy the new policies. which are more expensive. let's say you sell bread and you sell for a dollar a loaf, and they say, we're going to force everybody to buy for two dollars above, but you have to continue send it -- selling it for dollar. the problem is the young healthy people were already not buying interest because it was too expensive under the old system. now we have made it more expensive. you think we have more or less people buying it? within a year it may spiral out of control or premiums come back
before the next election and the premiums go up to such a deep greedy that the system -- a degree that this is an collapses. it may come down to democrats begged us to fix it. [laughter] the only reason they may not is the president seems to think he is a monarch and that he can fix it on his own with no vote. --the final question [applause] is from a student and what everyone in the audience wants to know -- what are your plans for running for president in 2016? [applause] >> where is my cell phone. can i call my wife? i tell her there are two votes in my family. my wife has both of them. both of them are no vote. right now i do not yet at, but i
thank you for your interest. thank you very much. [applause] >> senator paul, thank you so very, very much. what a privilege it has been to be your host today, and what a privilege it has been for you to lay out your plants at the detroit economic club. we so appreciate it. so much.hank you ladies and gentlemen, we know you're busy. take you for investing time with us today, and with that, this meeting is adjourned. thank you for being with us. have a great day. wrapping up with rand paul. if you missed any of what he had to say, here at the detroit comic club, you can watch it in the c-span library, go to www.c-
span.org. the labor department released november jobs numbers about dropping the employment rate to seven -- 7%. a five-year low. the economy generated over 200- 3000 jobs -- 200-2000 jobs. there is reaction on capitol hill. boehner issued a statement that says today's report includes positive signs that should discourage calls for work emergency government stimulus. >> i am a combat vet. i served in the navy for seven
years before i was medically retired. i contracted a terminal lung disease in iraq. hands,crushed oath of my parts of my hands, and had to have my hands rebuild. i am 100% disabled. i can no longer work. he now ise expenses down probably less than two years. my husband is my primary caregiver. i do not need anything from the v8 any longer. -- from the v.a. any longer. mike obligated think took four years to adjudicate. once during that time to the present one single piece of new evidence. the entire claim was submitted fully developed in its entirety for i was discharged from the navy. i am here not represent my claim or my issues. my husband and i are here to make sure that this panel and that everyone that will listen to us will understand that cases like my own, and unfortunately, like mrs. mcnutt's, are not
isolated. i personally have dealt with at this time almost 1000 cases just in the last six months of veterans and their spouses and children who are dealing with cobwebs things that are being denied over and over and over again or being lowballed and zero rated. >> this weekend, that house veterans affairs subcommittee hearing dealing with the backlog with the v.a. disability claims. on book tv, taking stock of the grand old party. joe scarborough late saturday, just past midnight at 12:15 a.m. on american history tv, 50 years ago, lbj step from vice president and to the oval office. sunday at 3:00. in this after war, things
escalate so quickly. a moment that seems so loving and just turn and flip and be so out of control, and this is one withose days, and it ended going through these things and seeing the hidden handgun, and saying what is the deal? i need to sell it and get the money. they have no money. and so she just held a gun and he went in the run and came -- and went into the room and came out with a shotgun and tried to jack it up her. as i describe in the book him and based on what was told me after, she wanted to. finkel follows men of the infantry, sunday night at 8:00. housearks now from
intelligence committee chair mike rogers on the conflict in serious and future relations with iran. he was joined by chris van hollen at this event held yesterday by johns hopkins diversity -- university. this is about an hour and a half. thank you. let me begin with the theme of the conference. the cooperation between moscow led to theton has passage of a security council resolution about the discretion of syria -- distraction of syria's typical weapons. the you considered this a positive sign about russia's role in the middle east it is a positive sign if you take it for what it is, and what -- and where russia wants to go. we have to understand that russia is first and foremost at
the head of the agenda at their own national security foreign policy interest. if this is good for russia, they will be at the table. edged sword.ble it can be a great way to solve some problems across the middle east, but we need to be extremely cautious of setting the table but so any agreement or arrangement with the russians also protects u.s., our allies interests in the region as well. at thead -- if you look tenets of the chemical agreement, great we got some chemical weapons off, but the russians cleaned up on us on exactly what they got in that particular field. and because of that we alienated our allies in the region. that is an important component. i'm forgetting that he'll, -- i am for getting that deal, but we are paying a price for that deal, but not only including the allies in negotiating that deal.
thist's consider conversation on syria. we you were a sponsor in the summer of the free syria act, a bill to provide arms and support to the syrian rebels. when we interviewed the said he wasve, he pleased to have your cosponsorship of the bill, a bipartisan effort. all this was overtaken with a threatened u.s. attack on syria that led up to the security council resolution. now we have a geneva ii conference supposing to happen on january 22. what is your thought on syria policy? do you support the geneva process? what else should the united states be doing in syria? >> this is the most obligated art of diplomacy. note that matt ever wants to believe in the military has to be a part of any equation. i have never met a format that does not want the 101st airborne in the seventh fleet over the
other. it is always a quicker way to yes. i think we have to set the table for a negotiated settlement in syria, and it has changed. the conditions of the ground have changed over the last two years. two years ago we had a set of options available to us. 18 months ago we had fewer options. 12 months ago we had fewer options. today our options are not that good. and so i argued then if you want to geneva talks to be successful you haveou have to -- to have some skin in the game in syria. that is why i supported at least trying to have relations with the rebels in a way that was positive to the united states, that start crafting our ability to understand who are the folks that would be likely to support the united states on the ground when this thing was over and who would not and would shape the battlefield in a way that brought people to the way. here's what -- what i think
there was a mistake made. we did not do that. we dillydally for a very long time. even the program that we talk about now is not robust enough to have an impact. in the genevaes talks and has the credibility to get everybody at the table. the russians can bring assad. clearly they can do that. what the united states cannot ring the rebels the table. that is not a certainty. we have no skin in the game. i have all our allies you are candidly very upset with the united states today. i talked to them frequently and they have to say they're very how frustrated they are with u.s. policy in the boat east. -- in the middle east. u.s. and thee russians on the ground, you will have no deal. you have to bring the rebels and the assad regime to the table
and the russians will have to be transparent in what they're doing in syria. i do not see that for will lining up for the talks. >> you have the leadership and oversight of the intelligence community. why in your view did the intelligence community as well as many analysts misjudged assad's staying power with? my in august 2011, president obama said he must step aside. why do you think that happened, because that may have attempted to some of the problems we have policy?yria >> they completely misread iran to russia's commitment keeping us in power. when you have intelligence providers to assad, the leverage
that gave him and staying power was limited. i think both of those were not factored in. if you look at it from recent history lesson here, when you look at what happened in libya, you can see all the formulations of why he was going to go quickly. they took that, plopped it over in serious and said it was going to be syria. you have the same elements happening in serious that you had in libya with that huge exception of this commitment of iran not to let it go, and the russians cannot let it go. they needed a warm water port and it was their last toehold in the middle east. they ramped up their ability to protect assad and to try to at least increase the ability of ,he syrian regular army forces the military forces in a way that you did not see in libya or anywhere else. the cause they did not lead what was going on, they completely missed the vote at how long he would stay.
secondly what they did when they did the chemical agreement, because there was no component of assad involved in that agreement about any tenure in his regime, you have empowered russians to keep assad as long as they want to keep assad. that upset the apple cart and you talk about what the u.s. s were against what the russians wanted, and i do not think the iranians would agree to in a thing. they need an have to have serious as a part of their the first date, military strategy land going forward in the middle east. >> and we spoke last month, you were concerned about a bad deal with iran in the geneva talks. the hill reported this week that house republicans are considering legislation about the deal. the senate may consider sections which the white house is arguing forcefully against. did the u.s. get a bad deal in
geneva, and much of the congress do at this point? >> on iran. i think it is a bad deal, let me tell you why. there are three components to a nuclear program. the missile component, the weaponization components, and the enrichment component. you had six u n resolution saying enron -- saying iran should not engage in enrichment because they had gotten into a rational actor on the world stage. they are the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, including trying to call -- to kill the saudi ambassador there by bombing at a restaurant in washington, d c if you look at the behavior and the three components of the wasram, and i thought this a serious mistake. they made this mistake in syria, if you do not include your allies you would create decision. -- create suspicion. he had these secret talks in om
idea,ch was a god awful and even if you like the deal you have created a level of suspicion now on the deal that makes our allies wary and empowers our adversaries use. the missile part of the program is not touch in the deal. they can continue to do missile the filament. the weaponization of their program is not touched. they can continue that. the facility they think they do that is not open to expect her's. if you're looking at triggers and for relation of all the modeling they need to do for weaponization, it has happened there. the last part on enrichment, which is shocking to me, it cannot be much of a great deal of the secretary of state is announcing there is nothing in the deal that says they can and rich and the irradiance simultaneously say that he'll allows us to continue to enrich. that is a problem. not that bright. i am an old fbi agent, and we would call that a clue that
there's a problem in the deal. if you cannot deal on the most primary, central focus of what we are trying to accomplish commodity cannot agree on that today you walk out of that room, that is not a deal. and not very good deal. why that is so important, and they will try to sell the 20% enrichment that we are going to get them hold 20% enrichment and then convert to a power form, what uranium restrict they had at 20%. convert it.days to a significant scientific milestone for enriching up to weapons grade is that 20% number. five new -- 5% is tough to get to. 5% to five percent to -- 20% is harder to do. they have one very important scientific milestone in the region of weapons grade uranium.
that is why they are not so bothered by the fact that they in their mind will pull a possum that they're doing because we keep all the elements of their nuclear weapon program. as chairman of intelligence, i am privy to other pieces of information. i believe that they are committed to buying time so that they can in plainest terms sheet on any portion of the deal they can cheat on. if i know that, i guarantee you the administration knows that. to walk into a deal where you know that is the framework and we got nothing, we dismantled pieces of sanctions. why that is important on this, if i may take a minute -- sanctions takes a long time. it does not always work, but can work. it takes a long time to corral our european allies. they have a lot of businesses in the middle east they want to protect. it takes a while to get all that
body in. to candidly force the present on the first round of sanctions. they had to force the president on the second round of sanctions. he does not support it. what happens is we finally got the bike in. in.ve got -- the buy- when you release that pressure, it is like a machine that is hardly hanging together, you take that first ball off, this the is likely to fall apart in a hurry. that was our concern. we finally got the pressure on sanctions, and what you want to have with pressure and sanctions is not us want them saying we are willing to release the sanctions, if you give us something, it is you want us knocking on their door saying we are ready to deal. and they got that backwards. that will prove dangerous to us. when you look at the gold and precious metals portion of the
agreement, that is one of their biggest ways to get around sanctions. which is why the chinese and the russians like that part of the deal. that cash does not mean that much. $4 billion. it was the pretzels -- precious metals that allow them to go around the barter system and we have seen them do in the in the past. that is why do not think it is a good deal and it is dangerous. you do not deal with iran, filed with the region. i've never seen our allies so upset. i have gotten calls from just about every ambassador now from the region. about how upset they were. first that there were were secret talks they were uprooted two, number one, and number two, if you look at our strongest allies in the middle east, saudi ifbia, uae, the jordanians, -- the total investment of the united states, it is hundreds of billions of dollars a year. the common theme with our allies was let us get us right. you have endangered our national
security for your allies that invests hundreds of billions is dollars in the united states for the iranians that have no friends in the region, other than the syrians come and invest how much in the united states? nothing. and so we have upset a very delicate long-term strategic alliance in the middle east for our allies. and israel as well. i think israel has made themselves known on the deal. when you talk to our middle eastern and arab allies, they are equally upset. by doing this deal that somebody is try to sell all avoiding conflict, you have make -- you may have escalated the possibility that israelis have to do something and escalated possibility that the saudi's and others believe they will have to acquire nuclear weapons in order to be a big allies sitting factor against iran -- a stabilizing factor against a run. we may have kicked off a nuclear
arms race in the middle east which i cannot think of anything more dangerous than the middle east in an arms race trying to acquire nuclear weapons. >> what about the congress' role at this time. the white house is saying these are sensitive divisions, a six- month or so tough, give it a chance, don't put any more sanctions in place at this time. out to you bounce your concerns about -- how do you balance your concerns about the deal with sensitive negations with rigor on and it is a first of agreement? >> i would push ahead with sanctions for this reason. we give the caveat to the president and the sanction regimes of making the decision not to move forward or putting a timeline on how you move forward or getting them the ability as they have just done to peel back some of these sanctions. we have put ourselves in the
worst possible position now, and when you say a six have a month agreement, the other problem -- the clock has not started taking it. they have not agreed on when the clock starts ticking. you can imagine they have to have another round of negotiations to determine when the clock struck ticking on the six months. one thing that iran wanted in this whole thing was time. they needed more time. we just gave them probably not six months, close to a year. that is why the israelis are upset, because the whole debate in this whole thing between our intelligence services all around the world was something called the dash.\ how fast would it take to put the weaponization portion of the enrichment or should on the missile portion of their plan? they know they have the missile portion complete. we believe they are well underway under their weaponization. we know they have scientifically hit the 20% mark what it comes
to in richmond. how fast when they put the program together? in intelligence circles, that is what everyone debates. thinkraelis will say they it is 14 months and united states may say it is eight months or whatever that number may be. other services would come in and say we think it is whatever, 12 months. guess what we are debating now -- is it 12, 14, 13, even after the deal? where debating when the dash is. if you give them 12 months for this thing, i'm concerned it will not stop any of the components of the program, and we may be in trouble. that's is what i would argue move forward, that the iranians understand that there is a big bunch of people -- the last sanctions regime passed with more than 400 votes, a bipartisan effort, and there's bipartisan angst in both the house and senate. our allies have angst. the israelis in the region, our air allies, the israelis have angst, the turks are not happy
with the deal. we know some of the european french are not happy with the deal. our argument is let's push forward, but pressure on the array and so they understand if they do not comply there is at least something hanging over their head, the sort of damocles, that if you do not comply, something bad will happen. christ you said on cnn that the u.s. is not safer on the war on terrorism. senator feinstein, your counterpart in the senate challenges committee agreed on this point. as i mentioned in my opening remarks, we published a piece ofay by a person, the rise al qaeda affiliated groups in sinai.
what should the u.s. be doing to confront terrorism in the middle east, and what other threat should be seeing on the horizon? do not alienate our allies in the middle east. we have done a fine job of it. allies inr strongest our counterterrorism efforts are not happy. and the saudi arabians announced that they are going to find a strategic shift away from the united states, when we have other friends in the region saying we do not believe we can count on united states anymore, these are allies, arab league partners, that is a huge problem. inneed them in partnership implementing counterterrorism programs. that frame is concerning to me. in their mind they are mad about withholding money from the folks in egypt who are going after the muslim brotherhood among which is a problem they face everyday
in their own country and they do not understand it. he did not understand the redline in syria and then it turned out it was not a redline, it was a negotiation that was not conclude whether russians in a place they do not agree with. he did not ever agree with the iranian deal. as they told me, in the iran deal was the straw that broke the camels back for them. that is a problem, because what is happening in the sinai is when mursi was president, he withdrew all efforts to do counterterrorism efforts in the sinai. working with the israelis. we saw was he pulled back completely. the israelis try to re-kickstart , suchffort with the sinai a dangerous place. after the fall of libya, and the weapons flying across the egyptian border into the sinai, candidly, that place became the wild, wild middle east, and gas. very dangerous place.
once the military to back over, they initiated some effort to try to get in and get after these groups that were under arms, that are organized, clearly identified with al qaeda. that is part of that problem. we need to be aggressive in trying to help them, not condemn them, but help them get into the sinai and let them get control of the growing problem in the sinai. syria is a huge and growing problem for us. withnnot do syria, a deal eastern provinces of syria without that help of the saudi's , the united arab emirates others. we cannot do this by ourselves, and we should not, and we should not be expected to do this by ourselves. that is why i could -- why i am so concerned. i've never seen a cooling of the numbers of al qaeda. we did not see this in iraq at
the height of the iraq war, from foreign fighters, from regional attraction into the eastern the western syria border area indirect. it is very concerning. what you are seeing happening there is a debate amongst al qaeda affiliates, a smaller group, but growing, a serial based route, with the al qaeda core in pakistan, afghanistan region, they are having this debate about where they target their resources in syria today. the al qaeda core says focus on syria today. we will worry about external operations later. they say we have so many training whoo are we are putting through their paces, and we have our -- we are getting combat nutrients to, that we are ready to do external
operations. that will cost me about me and -- that will cost me a week's night possibly. we have never seen this number before. you think about while i am nervous. yet i allies looking for other partners in the region. we have this pooling of al qaeda area we do not have a good rebelson to try to vet on the ground. this is a recipe for disaster. have i talked about aqim? al-shabaab's increase in activities? their interest in crossing borders? all these affiliates are being and powdered in a way they have not felt before and are trying to engage in a notion of external effects.
it might not be the united states right away. what we are seeing they are getting better. two years ago, three years ago, maybe four years ago, you would never see them do a project of that scope in kenya across the border. they would not have done it. they joined al qaeda, started to affiliate them with al qaeda, and they are being successful. that is why we are so concerned. >> mr. chairman. thank you. we have a just a few minutes for questions. i would like to open up the floor. keep your questions concise and to the point. time is short, and i want to get in as many as i can for the remainder. eight for the microphone and state your name, title, affiliation before. >> thank you.
thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership. i am from georgetown law center. a question regarding intelligence. there have been a lot of common it fears about the participation of chinese companies in our telecommunication charger. i wonder whether we have similar fears that our service providers and telecommunication benefactors -- manufacturers are working out of the world telecommunication network? >> there is a difference in talking about -- and we did an intensive study of the committee. my ranking member and i decided that because of the sheer level of concern across the community that we were concerned that a company that was founded, run by a former chinese intelligence official may be up to no good. the pricing models did not fit the market.
their pricing models were designed to get in the markets. at a place we do not believe they could make a profit. investigation, both in china and here off the committee and came to a conclusion that that particular company and other companies were affiliated with the military intelligence charger in china designed to run act bones around the world, including the united states, to control the information running across the types. that is just a dangerous thing to allow to happen. we did our part. is huge difference is there no relationship about that with our providers. what happens is because of the leaks, and this is the most frustrating thing, trying to get the truth versus how the facts are run, i will give you an example. if you remember a few months ago when they said the united states
was spying on 70 million french citizens, and in 30 days, 70 million phone calls? then they said it happened to the spaniards, germans. that was exactly not what happened. in fact, cain you imagine us try our -- trying to hire 4000 french interpreters to order a good wine and cheese in france? it did not make any sense. what happened was the snowden affair, they took a slide out of the slide deck and it says france -- this is why we have to be so careful about reporting -- it shows a map of the phone we wouldd it has what understand operational codenames on the bottom. the reporter looked at that and said we got them, there listening to french citizens in france for the days, 70 million phone calls. outrageous. it would be outrages except for one small problem.
the french were collecting in areas where they had french , where weosed to harm had u.s. troops, they collected communications, and in the goodness of their heart they help youred to soldiers who are in harms way. it was not the u.s. about collected -- collect it. the french collected it. it was where there were dangers areas for soldiers. we spent three weeks trying to explain to people, the nsa is not listening to french phone calls, not listening to spanish phone calls. i just met with a group from the european union yesterday and there is a bipartisan group in two weeks.els i am leading the delegation. we will have these discussions, because what we do not want to happen is for them to use this -- asx use for excluding
an excuse for excluding american companies operating. there would be no reason to do that. candidly, and these are not companies run him a owned, operated we do not plug into them, as you might see in the press, for our american i.t. companies. it just does not happen. we have laws and protection and oversight. i told my allies, we send our intelligence services to the foreign intelligence surveillance court before they a foreign.listen to name another intelligence service in the world that sends them to a third-party court to see if they can listen to the united states. do you think they are having this conversation in china or france or germany or italy? as a matter of fact, the europeans who are screaming the loudest do not even have access to their iel