tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 2, 2015 5:00am-7:01am EDT
mean, you would be granting relief to discover that you do not have a meeting of the minds. you need some meaningful period two verifies you have an agreement. the second point or the french being hard-nosed? it should be a matter of some concern to us if the french are being more hard nosed than we are in the course of negotiations. >> senator leiberman, i want to come back to that in a second but first i want to probe you on this. kind of the anomaly we face is two of our rivals for power and influence, china and russia seem to like the deal and will sign on.
on the other hand, some of our best allies in the region seem to hate this deal. how should we think about that that some of our allies in the gulf really feel threatened by this deal. how do we weigh this in the balance. >> we should weigh the reaction of our allies in iran's neighborhood heavily as we consider going forward. they are the target of a rainy and hatred, anger.
we've all talked to them, talking about the israelis and the arabs. they can't believe that we're negotiating as wholesomely as we are with the iranians because they say this regime since 1979 has given us no reason to trust them. you have to have a demand an agreement that really ended the iranian nuclear program for our best allies, israel and the moderate arabs, to feel on threatened by it. israelis and the arabs. they can't believe that we're negoti ith the iranians because they say this regime since 1979 has given us no reason to trust
them. you have to really have an agreement to really end the iranian nuclear program for intoxilyzer rail and the so-called modern arabs to feel unthreatened by it. so it has -- the fact that we've gone forward has really diminished our credibility with our allies in the region and our influence with our allies in the region. and i think it will diminish our ability to keep the region peaceful. colleagues have talked about the fact that the saudis will definitely match every step that they know that the iranians are taking to develop nuclear weapons. the israelis still take the right to take military action
because they think it is that much of an threat. also this is the age of global communications. our allies in the rest of the world, beginning with asia, go to eastern europe particularly go to africa or latin america. they're watching this and part of what they're seeing is that we have not involved or listened to our closest allies in the middle east as witness-3 gone ahead with these negotiations. that makes them anxious that we will pay as little attention to them if the
>> it is not all that viable. physics enters in here quickly. the air force is small. the targets are numerous and many are hardened and frankly we nor the israelis are sure we know where everything is. and if the israelis get to do this, it's a raid, not a campaign. and because of the distances some of the fighter aircraft would have to buddy refuel the weapons carriers in order to get into the target area and have enough time and maneuver and safely get home. this is a really hard do for them. i don't think there's anyone i know in intelligence who thinks this is a great idea. they'll do what they're told and well but then their strategic question then becomes, john,
would any israeli government put any relationship on which the survival of the israeli state depends at risk of rate that would set the program back if successful three to six months and my sense is the answer to that is no. >> there is quite a bit of discussion now as to the kinds of benefits in the aftermath of the deal that the united states might provide allies. talking about israel in particular, there has been a bit of talk. i do not know how realistic it would be, we ought to provide israel with the kinds of capabilities, specifically something like the massive ordnance penetrator, as well as a platform to deliver those. established the credibility of the option to make sure the iranians have to worry about the israelis in terms of violating
any deals. can i get your view on whether you would be supportive of that? >> i am distant from what is being discussed on capitol hill. there is great bipartisan support for israeli security and about the impact of a nuclear iran on israeli' security. it should have a deterrent effect on iran. no one in israel is talking actively about a military strike. it seems to me, they would have to have intelligence that there was a breakout occurring. in other words, the israelis couldn't say they're going to
get nuclear weapons in 10 years and we are going to stop them now. there would have to be evidence that there is breakout intelligence at that point. i think there would have to be evidence at that point. and of course the general is right about the relative capacity of the israelis to do damage. i believe they could do some damage. they might have some surprising allies along the distance from israel to iran who would help them refuel. but the iranians have been preparing for this for a long time. in other words, they've been act defensively.
this is really a disbursed operation and as somebody, a great man who i respect greatly once said to me, there's not been a time in if last 25 years where there has not been a part of the iranian nuclear program that we have not known about that. so you have to assume that's probably true today. >> one of the big, i guess criticisms that the administration throws back at the skeptics of this deal is that while the deal is not perfect, it's good enough and it's better than any alternative that the opponents of this particular deal have put guard -- have put forward, and nothing that has been put forward as an alternative is realistic. it tends to be idealistic. i wonder what your view of that is. was it ever true? is it true now?
if there is an alternative, what do you think are the outlines of it? >> with regard to your last question, john, i would be all forgiving the state of israel any weapons they need to defend themselves. with regard to launching a preemptive strike against iranian nuclear facilities, we need to think about that. not because i would be reluctant for the israelis to have such weapons, but i think it may be a distinction without a difference because if they attack, iranians attack, there's no way they would not believe we were involved and would probably react the way they would if we just did it ourselves. i think we just need to think through the whole idea of pre emption.
to do this right, it would take a longer period of time. the downside would be significant. you need to maximize the chances you can be effective. you need to bring down the iranian air defense capabilities, revisited the target from time to time. and this is a difficult situation. if it were not, it would have been solved a long time ago. it does deal with the essential
nature of the iranian regime. are they willing to change themselves? you have to be skeptical about that. in terms of alternatives, i would say, if i were still voting on these things, the status quo is better than a bad deal. the counter to that is the iranians will breakout and achieve nuclear capability. if that is how they are going to behave, then you know who you are dealing with. if you think that is how they are going to behave, what does that suggest about any agreement? the economy has come back some. sanctions have been relaxed some. it is not great right now. a legitimate alternative would be to say, we have tried and
tried. to put it back on the iranians and say they have not been willing to come far enough in terms of meaningful and factions, a reasonable period where each side can verify the good faith of the other and to maintain the status quo and see how they behave. that's an alternative in a situation where there are no perfect or great ones. >> senator leiberman, one thing you suggested that could have been what would be the consequences of that? they talk about the iranians racing ahead.
this would be a bomb or war in the collapse of our position with our international friends. is any of that realistic? >> let me start with my prediction about what happened, assuming there is an agreement and assuming it is as bad as i believe it will be, i believe congress will reject the agreement. it should not be minimized. the president has negotiated an agreement that bipartisan parties in congress will reject. then, the question is, he vetoes it, presumably. is it possible to get two-thirds in both houses? it's difficult. but i think it's doable. i think you need a third of the democrats to join most of the republicans. i don't know that all the republicans will vote to override a veto and i believe at that point there will be a
massive mobilization of people who feel we're at a turning point in history. if a bad deal goes forward and the iranians are on the road to nuclear weapons, it compromises the security of us, our children, and grandchildren. they are working on these ballistic missiles not because they want to be in range of israel or saudi arabia. they already are in range. these are missiles long-range that europe and the u.s. in mind, a cold war or hot war situation, i think it is possible.
>> and has required this administration to spend political capital. to have a another heavy lifting congress when there is significant skepticism and concerned would be more difficult. the 60 votes would be there to get to 67. that is hard. i think you would be in two or three votes of such a thing depending on how it played out. it does affect this to some extent. the other thing i would say, the most effective argument made by the administration and their allies is along the following lines. who are we kidding? the chinese and russians are about to head south anyway. it is all going to go away whether we wanted to or not. they are just heading for the hills on this thing.
we may as a get whatever we can even though we will not say it publicly, it is not what any of us would like. that is why i get back to the status quo. the economy is not good in iran right now. my guess is you have a better chance of convincing those countries who are perhaps contemplating taking themselves out of the sanctions a better chance of getting them to remain in place for some period of time than you do at this moment of really hammering out an agreement that the majority of congress can look at and say that is a good agreement. we can verify it. i think your chances of maintaining what we have are better than getting at an acceptable agreement. thank you. i am getting the notice that we need to the audience q&a.
while we go first tier to the second road. please state your name affiliation, and state it in the form of a question. >> my name is jim. i am a portfolio manager with westshore funds. a question for general hayden. the effectiveness of sanctions depended upon u.s. control of the payment system and control of our allies of a swiss payment system. in addition to acquiring uranium, iran, along with russia and china, have acquired 6000 tons of gold and are building out an alternative payment system. the panel has talked about how snapback maybe problematic. if you did snap back, is it possible it will be an effective -- it will be ineffective because iran will have extricated itself before that happened? gen. hayden: i will comment but
not too much. we take the point is a serious one. senator lieberman mentioned the banking system being the gold standard. frankly, targeted sanctions and what we are able to do with regard to global finance, i would say become the precision guided munitions of the 20% 1st century. the more you use it the more you , motivate people to build an alternative system. i would argue the chinese are doing that because of this. because of their own economic self-interest. but it does make our use of these kinds of tools more challenging in the future because our control is less exhausted. i do not know it is in place quickly enough to do what you said for this problem, but it is something facing us. >> i just put in a quick blog
for the center of finance and sanctions which is looking at this kind of threat and economic warfare. right here in the fourth row. >> rachel oswald. my question is a bit of a hypothetical. assuming there is a nuclear deal that broadly follows the preliminary framework of april 2 , and assuming congress is not able to overcome a veto of any resolution, what with the panel like to see happen in 2017 when there is a new president? >> anybody? mr. lieberman: when i was in the elective office, my staff told me to never answer a hypothetical. but now that i am born free again, that is a really interesting question. assuming there is an agreement it is rejected, the president
vetoes and it is not overridden the first question is, does the new president in 2017 continue to abide by the agreement? there's a real pressure on any administration not to break an agreement that a predecessor made. there will be pressure on that. the new president might -- i should say whoever he or she is -- might be tougher on the details and implementation of the agreement. the other thing that would happen up here on capitol hill is that there would be -- i hope there would be a very aggressive oversight of the sanctions and lifting of sanctions after the agreement is implemented. there would probably be -- particularly with regard to israel -- an attempt to mandate
and provide weapons assistance to israel with which they could defend themselves. or if the circumstance arose, be more effective against an iranian nuclear breakout. i am really blue skying their. i think it would be a bad situation. but the best move would be for a new president to say, this is a bad deal and find a way to get out of it. not easy. >> right here. right here. then we will go to the back. >> thank you. my question is for senator lieberman. conor wolf.
lindsey graham has positioned himself with having a lot of experience with foreign policy as why he should be president. in your personal view, does this experience -- with this experience be good with this type of deal in maintaining or helping future deals? is he the leader we need? [laughter] mr. lieberman: he is a great friend. i will answer quickly. lindsey is extraordinarily experienced and informed on matters of foreign and defense policy. he is capable of making tough decisions. i have a lot of respect and affection for him. he has been quite outspoken on the question of negotiations. probably as outspoken against
the direction they are taking as anybody has been. so you can expect -- between now and then, his role in congress, including as the chair of foreign operations appropriations committee, that he will be trying to use that leverage in various ways to either inhibit a bad agreement or strengthen our allies in the region. >> fred, in the back. >> i am with the center for security policy. senator lieberman it has been said that iran has yet to provide an explanation for why it is enriching uranium. prime minister netanyahu said the whole purpose is to make nuclear bombs.
the center for security policy believes there is no possible reason for an agreement that allows iran to operate thousands of centrifuges and develop advanced centrifuges during an agreement. my question for you, do you think it is possible to have a meaningful nuclear agreement with iran that allows it to continue to enrich uranium? mr. lieberman: simply and clearly, no, i do not. the original purpose of these negotiations was to stop the iranian nuclear enrichment program. in return for the sequential elimination of economic sanctions, which is quite significant for iran and quite significant, when you think about it. that unfortunately has nothing to do with its terrible human rights record or expansionism. but to let that in richmond go on, to me, -- enrichment go on,
to me shows -- as the ayatollah said, the americans want this agreement more than me. that is never where you want to be on the issue. >> jessica schulberg with huffington post. general hayden, there is talk about how the deal put an incredible burden on the intelligence community to detect violation with enough time to give the president time to react. can you explain to me why a proposed deal would require iran to follow additional protocol which would expand sanctions? does that put the intelligence community in a better position to detect breakouts? gen. hayden: anything that adds to the ability to visit quickly where they are believed to have
suspect activity would give me greater confidence in our ability to verify information. american intelligence is not without tools. i am not betraying national secrets to say that we are open to suggestions from member states about the issues that raise concern they want to share with the international body. but there could be a cooperative relationship that gets it to a level of confidence that we need. if iran is not cheating and is truly serious about the agreement that sort of thing is precisely the sort of thing that should welcome in terms of -- the term we use is "confidence building measures." >> you will go to the back. >> thank you. federation of american scientists.
thank you for a great presentation. i would like to follow up with something senator bayh talked about, going with the status quo. it means somebody probably walked away. how significant is it for the continuations of sanctions policies that it is the iranians that walk away instead of the u.s., especially of the other members want to stay with the negotiation? mr. bayh: i think that would certainly be a relevant factor. certainly would affect public opinion about how other public perceives such a thing. it is conceivable we are going to get to a deadline. it is not unknown in these situations for deadlines to be extended again. we said june 30 was the final deadline. but it might be that we achieve the status quo by both sides realizing it was in either of their interest to be perceived as "walking away."
so the talks went into a hiatus. it would give each side the ability to put their own spin on why an agreement was not reached. it would clearly benefit our position if the iranians perceive it as being in transit and walked away. mr. lieberman: i agree. ithe status quo is better than a bad deal. unless we are all shocked by what comes out of the negotiations, it is going to be a very bad deal. but in some ways, the best bar in a really good deal would be that the iranians walk away. that their stubbornness stops a very good deal for them. and then i think you have the possibility of increasing the economic sanctions on iran and having not be done by more than
the united states. that would give us some small hope that sometime in the future iran would return to the table for a better negotiation. >> just a follow-up -- i'm expecting a deal. i'm not expecting the situation that you are positing, but i also would not expect us to announce that we are giving up and walking away. i do not think we put ourselves in that posture. we say we haven't given up hope and that we haven't gotten there by the deadline. both sides need a period of reflection to avoid the stigma of being the cause of the agreement not having been reached. >> i think we had a question over here in the front. >> i wanted to see if any of it
gentleman's comments on the advocacy of economic sanctions or in the context of the status quo was not back. if you could comment on the impact to iran broadly if the goal of economic sanctions is to target behavior and change behavior and you are still having very real impacts and retail impacts in iran. how do stronger economic sanctions achieve that goal? mr. bayh: my hats off to the people in the treasury who did a lot of work on this issue, really over an extended period of time and coming up with more effective ways to put sanctions in place. the treasury department did a great job. the history of sanctions is that they are not perfect. there's a previous question about the iranians finding a way to work around them. but they are posing a real cost
upon the iranian economy of which the regime is not entirely impressed. -- impervious to. they are willing to see their public absorb economic pain to pursue broader objectives. but they are also sensitive to unrest in their society and a variety of other things. to the extent that the iranian economy is not growing as robustly as it might, by definition that means they have less resources with which to pursue other objectives, including syria and yemen and elsewhere. it is not a perfect instrument. there are other countries that you're familiar with that we impose sanctions on and they are willing to see that they have been imposed upon a fair amount of economic hardship. that does not mean that they are olivia's to the tool. another way to answer questions -- i cannot think they would be at the table talking today if they were not feeling some urgency about getting the sanctions removed, which in
itself is an argument for trying to maintain a meaningful sections missing for as long as we can. mr. lieberman: there are billions of dollars being held. some has been let go for every month since the interim agreement. that will be a tremendous infusion of capital into iran. they have been hurting. while they are a totalitarian government in that sense, they are not a popular government from everything we know, in their own country. to the extent that there is economic deprivation in the country, it creates the possibility of instability. and an uprising. so i think -- incidentally, i want to pat congress on the back. this was, going back to my law school teaching experience,
this has been a case where congress inserted itself into foreign policy. and going back to what john said, it did not matter what the party of the administration in the white house was. they did not want congress getting involved in this. for a lot of reasons. they have a broader range of issues they are dealing with bilaterally, multilaterally. but congress was focused on it in a bipartisan way. the last two administrations did a tremendous job of implementing. i agree with evan. that is the only reason that the iranians came to the table. what agitates me is that they are going to walk away from the table with sanctions being removed and they're going to have given us very little in terms of the elimination. there will not be elimination. they will dial down a little bit on nuclear weapons programs in
enrichment and all the rest. and that's why i keep saying i'm fearful it is went to be a bad deal. gen. hayden: there are multiple purposes for sanctions. punishment, changing behavior, reducing capacity. you have got our view on whether we are getting a good, a dad, or no deal. let's just assume for a minute that we get a good deal. you still have to live -- and i think this is what senator lieberman was suggesting -- you still have to live with massively increased iranian capacity. because you now have relieved them of sanctions and allow them to gather resources to use for all the other activities about which they are unrepentant. mr. bayh: i was just going to add one final thing. there are no great alternatives. you are running risks no matter which course of action you take.
one of the risks we could be concededly taking under a "bad agreement" with the iranians is that they will get their hands on billions of additional dollars that have piled up in banks account -- bank accounts of the don't have access to rent after if you are allowed to fully export petroleum once again, reduce the price of oil a little bit, but there will still be an additional tens of billions of flowing into the dollars iranian treasury. if we have not given ourselves a grace period to verify they are complying with the agreement, if we do not have in place strict inspections, there will be huge additional resources for their ballistic missile program, for what they're doing in syria and yemen. or if they have not given up their nuclear aspirations for possible additional covert activities. we are really empowering them
with the potential to do a lot of things. this is outside the subject of this conference and these negotiations, but they are clearly a state sponsor of terrorism. giving someone like that tens of billions of additional dollars will lead to adverse consequences. >> i wonder if i can impose on our two senators here to give sap consigned. come july, let's say we have a deal. that is problematic as you all say. you are a democratic senator. what is it like? we saw the administration and the president earlier in the year call critics of the deal "warmongers." we saw them accuse certain members of being political opportunist who were paying more attention to a domestic constituency than u.s. national interests. but he is a lame-duck president.
what are the kinds of pressures and calculations you face that make it so difficult to get 13 or 14 or 15 democratic senators to say this is not a good deal? mr. lieberman: this is about what the democrats doing. i assume republican leadership will try to keep all the republicans which will be the moment of truth here on the vote to override the president's veto. the president is the head of the democratic party. there are a lot of democrats who like him and feel responsibility to him. the president has not done this a lot when i'm about to say, but he would in this case meet with people. he will call people. there has been a lot of personal outreach. democratic leadership will make it a test of loyalty. on the other side, there will be, i believe, a very substantial organization of
people in the districts of swing democratic voters in the senate and the house, the undecided and , members will have to put it together. part of it will be -- in some sense, it may be loyalty to the president. maybe some of them will agree. but once i agree it is not a bad deal and a good deal will be in the category of those who will not vote to override the veto. the group in the middle will be affected. evans said the fascinating thing which i think is important to remember is that democrats in the house particularly are going to be squeezed in the coming days and weeks about the trade promotion authority. they are going to come to this vote with that kind of feeling in their minds. forgive me just a moment. this is old war stories. it took me back to a point -- i guess it was 1997 -- the clinton
administration. we had been through the balanced budget act. the clinton white house had to really work on democrats to support it. this was bill clinton and newt gingrich's coming to this incredible agreement and it had stuff in it that a lot of democrats did not like. they created a surplus in the federal government. a short time after that, by historic irony, comes the trade promotion authority bill. as in right now. it passes the senate and goes to the house. i get a call from the white house. john and i were both active in the democratic leadership council. there were more moderate democrats in those days. they said, the president is inviting about 30 moderate centerleft democrats who are undecided on trade promotion authority to come down to the
white house tomorrow. i forgot who came out there -- maybe you were there. to join us in the pits. the president came out and spoke movingly and we all just spoke from our guts. i thought it was going well. john podesta was the chief of staff to the president. as they all left, i lingered and i said, john, i thought that went well. what do you think? he said, a lot of these people are not happy with us about the balanced budget bill we just passed. he said you were really fantastic today. here is my prediction. tomorrow, they will feel really badly when they vote against us. long story, but it shows a human dimension to a really enormous national security and global issues. i think evan may have had a really good point today.
many good points, but that really struck me. >> first time for everything. >> any other questions? >> thank you. my question is to senator lieberman. you suggested it might be a good deal for legislators to layout the minimum criteria for an acceptable deal. what would be the list of minimal criteria? mr. lieberman: i think this is a really critical interim period. probably, it is going to be hard to get time on the floor for this. i suppose it is possible somebody could put it on the national defense authorization but probably not. it may be expressed in a letter. congress does this all the time. a letter to the president.
to the secretary of state. basically saying, here we are. legislation passed. and this will presumably preserve the agreement. we want you to know, mr. president and secretary kerry that we will have a vote. these are our minimum terms to accept the agreement. it is up to congress what they want to say. i would certainly say, first anytime-anywhere inspections. bottom line second to the extent that you can stated, that sanctions not be removed until there is some real proof evidence, that the iranians are keeping their part of the bargain. others in congress may have other points of view. i think it is an important preface to the ultimate votes. congress has set up a procedure
in the core corrosive solution -- corker legislation. they ought to express themselves in a bipartisan basis as they vote for corker's bill about what standards they will bring to the vote they will cast on the agreement. >> anybody else in the audience? one more right here. >> thank you very much. thank you very much said the cochairman and the task force. i want to ask a question that has not been touched upon. two dimensions of iran's nuclear program that are of concern to the task force. one is the sunset provision. i think you have alluded to this nuclear deal, many of the restrictions will be sunsetting , disappearing in 10 years. most will be gone in 15 years.
iran will emerge with an industrial sized nuclear infrastructure not with one year breakout, but with breakout, zero undetectable breakout. that may happen earlier according to president obama. that may happen at your 13. so the issue of the sunset provision, the temporary nature of nuclear restrictions in exchange for permanent sanctions. the second key element verification inspections, the iranians have been stonewalling the iaea about pmd's. can you have a proper inspection regime without full disclosure on pmd's? do they have to talk to the scientists and get verification to determine what iran may be doing? gen. hayden: all of us will have comments, but i will jump in quickly. i want to talk to the president,
and he is the oppenheimer of the iranian nuclear program. i want to talk to him at a facility they have been trying to get to for decades. i cannot know that they will find anything. it has been destroyed and paved over. they still cannot get there. if you look at the four-page white paper about what it was we think was agreed, pmd's are something that remain and hope to be resolved at some point in the future. they are not a prerequisite to signing an agreement. just going back to my narrow intelligence lane, it creates an increased burden on verification if i don't have high confidence in where the iranians actually are.
not just in material development but in their weapons program. we do have intelligence estimates that do remain estimates. they have for a country that says that is not our objective they refused to come clean on , their past. i realize, mark, that if we insist on that that it is a dealbreaker for the iranians. i do not know why we have to accept that premise. how can we know the intent?how can we know their capacity for breakout or sneak out without high confidence in where they are now? mr. lieberman: absolutely. i could not agree more. i would add that is another element in whatever expression by members of congress. it probably is a deal-breaker. but how can you make a deal with a country that will not agree to that kind of reasonable term and
has stiff armed the iaea, which is not a branch of the u.s. government, but the united nations. with apologies, i have to go. thank you. it has been a wonderful discussion. [applause] >> with that, we will close out. mark dibble went has a few final comments. >> thank you very much. i want to especially thank the council of foreign relations the originator of the idea behind the iran task force. thank you for inviting me to be your partner in this. the task force has 10 memos we put out, 10 reports, and the 11th memo will be coming out next week. ali is one of the few people in washington that has had to
spend a lot of time negotiating with iranian nuclear scientist has a lot of expertise and war stories about that experience. the task force on iran.org will -- is where you will find the materials. we welcome vigorous debate on this issue in the coming months. again, we look forward to seeing all of you at future events. thank you again. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> coming up on c-span assistant attorney general leslie caldwell on federal
efforts to afford cyber security attacks. after that, another chance to see senator lindsey graham's presidential campaign announcement. >> this weekend, the u.s. senate failed to extend certain provisions of the patriot act that allowed for the national security agency's bulk collection of americans telephone data and wiretaps to follow a suspect from one communication device to another. the senate returns at 9:30 a.m. eastern. at 10:30 a.m. eastern, members will hold a procedural vote on the usa freedom act, a program that limit certain major surveillance powers. the vote will decide if members of move forward with the legislation. you can see live coverage of the u.s. senate when members return always on c-span two. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color
photos of every senator and house member, plus bio and contact information and twitter handles. also, district maps, if old out map of capitol hill, and a look congressional committees the president cabinet, and state governors. order your copy today. it is $13.95 plus shipping and handling did the c-span online store at c-span.org. >> next, assistant attorney general for the criminal division, leslie caldwell, discusses federal efforts to afford cyber attacks. the remarks came during the georgetown law schools third annual cyber security law institute. this is 35 minutes. attorney general shah: the georgetown cyber security law institute is honored to have with us a leading force in the
prosecution of cybercrime. assistant attorney general leslie caldwell, who serves as the head of the united states department of justice's criminal division. attorney general caldwell assist cases across the country and help develop law and criminal enforcement policy. in addition, aag caldwell works closely with the nation's 93 u.s. attorney offices in the investigation and prosecution of criminal matters in their districts. the majority of aag caldwell's story 30 year career has been handling federal criminal cases both as a prosecutor and as a defense counsel. she spent her first 11 years at the u.s. attorney office of the eastern district of new york. after a move to the west coast aag caldwell served as a chief of the criminal division and chief of the securities fraud section at the u.s. attorney's office in the northern district of california. from 2002-2004, she served as
director of the doj's enron task force, during which time her work was highly recognized in several occasions and won awards, including the procedures attorney general's award for exceptional service. aag caldwell nearly a decade at the private law form when she was cochair of the firm's corporate investigations and white-collar practice group. on may 15, 2014, ms. caldwell was confirmed as the assistant attorney general. during her first year as head of the criminal division, aag caldwell has made prosecuting cyber crimes a top priority. she has innovated new initiatives that not only seek to investigate and to put cyber criminals behind bars, but also proactive strategies that aim to collaboratively work with the private sector and law enforcement around the world. one of the highlights of her
first year was a creation of the cyber security union within the vision -- the division of criminal property. please kindly join me in a warm welcome to assistant attorney general leslie caldwell. [applause] attorney general caldwell: thank you. thank you also for not coming out and saying that i really old. [laughter] instead of saying 10 years in 30 years, i was starting of thing oh my god, really good thank you so much for inviting me to speak it today. as all of you know, cybercrime and cyber security are very couple dated and challenging issues. -- complicated and challenging issues. they raised concerns that the five simple solutions and defy our traditional criminal investigative tools. there is no single technology or law or policy or practice that will magically guarantee the security of our data, the
security of our information systems. the victories in this area of prosecuting cybercrime and investigating cybercrime and setting up cyber security are very hard-fought and not easily one. the same is true of our prosecutions of cybercrime. we have been in the business of fighting cybercrime for more than 20 years. the criminal division set up thinking -- the computer crimes and intellectual property section. the department of justice and us in washington are fond of acronyms. i will call that as ccips. that section investigates high-tech crime of all types. they investigate and prosecute economic espionage and work along with the national security division. they work with a network of 270 computer hacking prosecutors across the country and work hand-in-hand and ccips has become the department linchpin in the efforts against cybercrime. they have really been involved
in one capacity or another in every cybercrime case of the of heard of since the 1990's. over the years we have developed a a lot of different strategies to combat cybercrime and we have tried to evolve the strategies as the thread itself has evolved. one of the things that we have done and what are the things i want to talk about today is that we really collaborate a lot. the private sector as well as with our international law enforcement partners all over the world. as all of you know, cybercrime is probably the most international of kernel activity. so we have had to develop relationships and we have great relationships with law enforcement all over the world. we also have great relations with the private sector who helps us in many of our sophisticated cases, and frankly we couldn't do it without the private sector and without foreign law enforcement. it is more collaboration, we are really able to identify what are the biggest threats out there. sometimes people say, is an cybercrime prosecution like playing lacrimal where you hit
one and another will pop up? the criminal division is no longer to the extent focused on the guy in his basement and pajamas and bulgaria. we probably still are focusing on some of those people, but if we are, it's because they are part of a bigger network and a bigger organization. that is what we are focusing on. we are able to identify what threats are our priorities and we are only able to do that because more collaboration with law enforcement agencies all over the world. we are also able to dismantle infrastructures that cyber criminals use to victimize people all over the world. that collaboration between the private sector, government, and governments around the world is really critical to our success in this area more than any other area of criminal prosecution. and i will want us to not only continue that collaboration, but expand on it and enhance it as we go forward. today, i really want to impress on everyone in the room that we
need to have a real sense of urgency when we talk about cybercrime. this is a huge problem. it is given bigger every day. cyber security weaknesses a call for companies and many individuals vulnerable. every day, cyber criminals are getting more sophisticated. they are getting more organized. we see networks with overlapping personnel can moving data breach -- committing data breach after data between it is really robbing people of their sense of personal security stealing their data, stealing their identities, stealing our intellectual property, and enriching ourselves -- the cells at the expense of people in the u.s. and around the world. and of the expense of our companies here in the u.s. so i'm asking you to continue to work closely with us and work more closely with us because we are actually better positioned than we have ever been before to help fight in this problem. we can really bring the intruders on your network justice. we can help you better defender networks.
i'm going to talk in a minute about the cyber security division that we have created to help do just that. right now, we have a place where we cannot tell you with the next data breach is we can't stop it. one of the things we're trying to emphasize more and more is we need to prevent it. the department of justice, in creating it cyber security unit , is trying to be a strong voice in just that he -- space. stepping back a minute, everyone in this room knows that cybercrime is a huge threat, as i just said. i know the director was just here saying it. a couple years ago, trade publications were calling 2013 the year of the breach, because there were so many data breaches. more recently, publications and others have called 2014 the year
-- but i can't imagine it's the 2016, years of the breach will be stopped. we have seen a series of invasive and damaging data breaches that have targeted some of our largest businesses across the spectrum. they are focused on banks, they are focused on all sorts of companies. the victims have ranged from really any company that has personal identifying information that can be monetized and sold is at risk. that could be a mom-and-pop tax preparer business, could be a huge bank, it could be a health care data. these breaches or really anyone who has this kind of data. it is the data that hackers are seeking so they can sell it on dark markets. one study last summer estimated the annual loss now to the global economy from cybercrime is about $400 billion. last week there was a study that said by 2019, the number will grow to $2 trillion.
think about that. this is all money is flowing out of our system, intellectual property that's being stolen these numbers are huge and daunting. it doesn't even count the damage that happens to individuals when their data gets stolen. i know i got my letter from anthem blue cross saying that we are really sorry, we're worried that perhaps your data has been stolen and we have been buying insurance for you for a couple of years. it didn't make me feel that much better. against the soul backdrop, we have achieved some significant victories. those serve as a reminder that although it is complicated and on a grand scale, cybercrime is not unsolvable. it's not unsolvable type of crime. we shouldn't just put our heads down and not try to prosecute it. in fact, cyber criminals have become more sophisticated around the world, so have we, so have our investigative agencies. so have investigative agencies around the world. we are using old-fashioned types of investigative work with
really cutting-edge technical expertise, and again in collaboration with the private sector in almost all of our cases. we are really doing things that folks said couldn't be done. one thing i've heard is quite -- why do you bother to indict these people who are in vietnam were russia -- countries where we can't get the people? we bother because we do get the people. a few weeks ago, we unsealed the indictment of the many who were -- of two bit enemies hackers who were responsible for the theft of over one billion personal records over three-year span. last year, foreign partners arrested a notorious russian hacker. one day, he was vacationing in the maldives, the next day, he was in jail in seattle awaiting trial. we successfully extradited
another hacker who traveled to the netherlands and was arrested by our partners in the netherlands. he was part of a group that was responsible for data breaches a retail stores. where more than 160 million credit cards identifying information was stolen. in just the last year, we extradited about a dozen very high level cyber criminals from all over the world. including people like the ones i just mentioned, who were from countries that we had no reason to expect we would ever get them unless they traveled. these people do travel, they are making a lot of money selling these things on the internet. it's a long winter in russia, i don't mean to single out russia. [laughter] ms. caldwell: there are a lot of countries that we do have extradition treaties with and that we collaborate with. that's going to grow, because we are not the only victims of cybercrime. all the countries are victims of cybercrime. i think the international cooperation is just going to grow. it's really in everyone's interest, and something that
affects everyone. we also are doing other things to try to disrupt the tools the criminals use to carry out their crimes. for example, last summer -- u.s. law enforcement working with foreign partners in more than 10 countries, and with numerous private sector partners, we were able to disrupt a sophisticated type of malware that was designed to steal banking and other credentials from the computers it infected. unknown to the rightful owners of the computers, the infected computers became part of a global network or botnet. it was made of compromised computers. it was used by the cyber criminals for various purposes but in this instance, mainly stealing confidential
information and gaining access to financials such as bank accounts. it was a networked summer between 500000 and and one million computers worldwide. many of those, most of those were in the united states. the network was used to steal hundreds of millions of dollars from relatively small businesses and individuals. a lot of those small businesses were -- had their entire bank accounts wiped out. because they were business accounts, they weren't insured, so that's all their money. we saw that over and over again, so it's really serious. the game over zeus botnet was a crypto logger for rent -- readransomware, which is a form of software that would encrypt files on victims computers until they pay the ransom. it infested more than 200,000 in futures in a very short time. half of which were in the united states. in that same time, victims paid more than $27 million to get their computer files unencrypted. that's a lot of money, but it's a particularly staggering amount
of money when you know that each individual victim was only paying around $750. adding up to $27 million in a short time just shows how serious that was. those of the people who paid the ransom. so that operation was a success. it was court supervised, as are all of our operations. we couldn't have done it without the law enforcement partners overseas, and we certainly couldn't have done it without some technical assistance from some companies -- and will not mention them all, but some were crowd strike until secure works, and microsoft and shadow server. as an aside, we didn't stop the day we announce the takedown of the shutdown of game over zeus botnet. we continue to pursue the people responsible. we have warrants for people's arrest. the state department recently announced the $3 million reward for information leading to the arrest of the russian national who is the mastermind of the botnet.
so it's a long winter in russia, there are people in russia might want that $3 million. so we are hoping the reward will help us get him. again, they're not hundreds of thousands of people out there who are engaged in this kind of activity. they are relatively small number. a lot of them are known to the fbi. we're really focused on getting the big people. because as we have seen, and i don't know if the director said this in his remarks -- we see overlapping cast of characters in a lot of the different data breaches and other problems online. so the collaboration we really achieved in game over zeus with the private sector and with law enforcement in many other countries was not an aberration. that is going to be -- that is the new normal in our investigations. just a few weeks ago, we dismantled another botnet -- i don't know who comes up with their names. it's not us. i know the fbi comes up with crazy operational names, but
these are all on the hackers. that particular botnet installed fraudulent antivirus software and ransom ware, it also stole bank login and password information. once again, the private sector's assistance was critical to dismantling this. so i think i've made it clear that we really appreciate your help, we want your help. but we also want to help you. as was mentioned last december , -- the georgetown law school campus where i announced the criminal division's plan to act more closely with the private sector and to work more closely with other government officials and the private sector, on the issue of cyber security. we recognize that prevention is really important because as we said earlier, we can't for see when these things are going to happen. right now, we can't stop them in advance. we have to really help people prevent these breaches from happening. we created a new section called
the cyber security unit, which is part of ccips. our reasons were pretty simple. as i said, cybercrime and cyber security are inextricably linked to each other. vulnerabilities and hardware and software, inadequate implementation of security protocols, that's all what facilitates and enables cybercrime. so in creating the unit, we hope to use the lessons we have learned and skills that ccips has developed over the years from investigating in developing -- disrupting cybercrime to create useful guidance to support public and private sector cyber security efforts. and also by creating that unit within ccips, we were already focus on cyber security, but this is a dedicated unit to make sure that cyber security gets the constant regular security it deserves and warrants. ccips has extensive security
experience, that will concentrate that in a relatively small group of people. what the cyber security unit will do. we are already doing it. it's been in effect now for almost six months. they have been analyzing and providing legal guidance on cyber security issues. to the extent they appliqued -- implicate federal laws. they're working with congress on cyber security related legislation priorities. they have been working with the national security council and others in the executive branch on various cyber security initiatives. most important for this audience, they are actively engaged with the private sector and the public at large to address the kind of legal challenges related to cyber security. i'm happy to announce that even though it's only been in existence for a few months, the cyber security unit has really broken a lot of ground. it has been a big hit. there is a big hunger for it.
we have been conducting outreach with the stakeholders like the private bar, meeting with security researchers and industry groups, in-house counsel, trade association financial institutions, others in the private sector. i will give you a couple of examples. we recently had a discussion with the center for strategic and international studies, with some leading security experts to talk about the subject of active defense. what can companies do when they are hacked? we have on the cyber security units website a summary of the discussion if anyone is nerdy enough to go look at it. i did. that just says that i am nerdy. we also learned a lot more as a result of that session about in-house counsel's challenges when they are faced with very unfamiliar area, a cyber security breach or what to do to prevent a cyber security breach.
as a direct result of that session, we arranged to make a presentation to a group of in-house counsel from a particular sector of the economy. we also learned from that session which defensive measures cyber security experts actually are most effective and actually work. and we are assessing whether we can have a role in assisting companies in the implementation of some of those measures. we also recently held a roundtable with leading private sector data breach response experts, many of whom were outside counsel representing various companies. and it was mobbed. we actually had to turn people away because there is such a hunger for this issue, such a hunger to understand. we see a lot of -- in the case of data breaches, we see a lot of in-house counsel who were bewildered and don't know what to do. so there's a real demand for that. we had a very robust discussion at that roundtable about various
issues including the benefits of prompt reporting of data breaches. and the new attorney general loretta lynch, gave opening remarks at the conference, but also has made clear the water -- that one of her top priorities as attorney general is to address the problem of cybercrime. the cyber security unit has also began collaborating with other agencies, non-doj agencies under regulatory issues. one agency we have been collaborating with is the ftc, and the ftc actually today issued a statement on its website saying that it was -- i will read from the statement. the company that has reported a breach, this is on the ftc's website -- a company that has reported a breach of the appropriate law enforcement and cooperated with them has taken an important step to reduce the harm from the breach. therefore, in the course of conducting an investigation, it's likely we do that company more favorably than a company that hasn't cooperated. that's the ftc's statement after
consulting with and coordinating with doj and the cyber security unit. i won't speak for the ftc, but from our perspective, we view victims of data breaches as victims. i think this statement will help show that other enforcement agencies are also willing to view data breach victims as victims. a public example of our work so far in cyber security is also on our website, which is a document , a guidance document, for best practices for reporting of cyber incidents. this is our first written contribution to the cyber security discourse, and it's been very well received. we got a lot of inquiries about it. that guidance consistent with our mission overall, and draws on our experience that cyber crime prosecutors have in investigating, and prosecuting cybercrime. it also draws on input from the private sector and organizations that have handled cyber intrusions and hacking. it also captures some pretty
common sense obvious things that are prudent measures that an organization should voluntarily undertake to both prevent and react appropriately to cyber security attacks. it provides step-by-step advice on what a company should do or organization should do before, during, and after a cyber attack. some of the things might seem obvious, and will seem obvious to everyone in this room. but what might not be so obvious is that many companies including some very large companies, didn't have these things. they didn't have a plan. they didn't know what to do, they were thinking -- sony is an example. i'm not involved in the sony case myself. i don't think sony really thought they would be vulnerable to the kind of attack that was made on them. i think there are a lot of companies that this has been a wake-up call. they think, we are defense
contractors, we don't have to worry. we are not financial institutions, we don't have to worry. every company has to worry. i think that's really been something that has been surprising but helpful. the plan says what you should do before a cyber attack occurs. it makes what probably seems like an obvious recommendation which many companies did not have, you should have a plan. you should have a plan about what you're going to do to prevent this. and what you are going to do if it happens. your response plan should identify what are our most important cyber assets. adopt risk management practices within the company. to protect those assets. and make sure you have the right people with access to those assets and you have people who are identified in advance of a breach who are going to be the responders to that breach. you should also develop relationships with -- before a cyber attack, and a lot of companies are scrambling to do this, you should develop a relationship with law enforcement. you should probably have an outside counsel in mind, we will -- who you will call, an expert
with the next cyber, who you will call if something happens so you'll be ready. the guidance, and are not going to go into a lot of detail, but the guidance goes into some detail about what do you do if you are attacked and after the attack? the most and port in thing from -- the most important thing from our perspective is that you notify -- hopefully you already know that law enforcement person -- that you notify the person. i know the director spoke of that too. it's really important because we have tools that cyber security vendors don't have. we have information they don't have. we have the ability to do certain things they can do. -- can't do. we can tell, if we look at data breach a combat retailer, it's the same people that did retailer a which the cyber , security companies might have more trouble doing because they
don't have all the information we have. these recommendations in this guidance are carefully thought out and really the product of long experience, as well as input from others who have similar experience. we really hope we see the end of the day where we are called in and called into a situation where we are meeting with a totally bewildered company bewildered in-house counsel, who didn't have adequate authority to monitor their networks, help identify intruders, didn't know what to do to preserve their data after there was a breach. might have taken measures on their own, which i will talk about in the second, in response to a breach that swore our ability to investigate effectively. we drafted the guidance. it applies to any organization but it's really aimed at smaller organizations that are probably less likely to have current cyber security relationships. i think they are probably the most likely to benefit. but i really think it can benefit everyone. we understand that in cyber security, just as in compliance
generally, there is no one-size-fits-all type of plan that you can impose. you have to tailor everything to your company and your risk. but i think it's a good starting point. it's also the kind of document that is a living document. we're going to be updating it as circumstances change and as we get additional input from others in the field. this is just the first document we are putting out. we will be putting out additional guidance as we go forward. so in addition to what i just described in the guidance, the guidance also says what organizations should not do. consistent with the goals of the cyber security unit, we are hoping that the guidance will help steer companies away from what might be their first instinct, which is to engage in defensive measures, including a hack back. i know the director talked about that. it's basically when you hack into somebody's system, hack back into you think attack to
either harm them or retrieve your stolen data. based on our decades of experience, we think that hacking back can carry serious legal consequences, and also raises significant policy risks. and frankly, probably won't get you anything more than just the satisfaction of thinking that you damaged somebody that damaged you. let's talk about our legal position on hacking back. they're commentators that say hack back is lawful, that is not our view. our view is that it is not lawful. even if it were lawful, we would recommend against it because it creates a lot of risks. i think that sound policy considerations also militate against hack back. first cover it poses significant risks to innocent third parties. in many of our investigations, we've seen sophisticated cyber criminals who hijacked the infrastructure of innocent third parties and use that in the structure to commit their crimes
while masking their identities. you might be hacking into some unsuspecting innocent third party. cyber criminals frequently use multiple third parties somewhere they might keep their stolen data for later retrieval. so when you hack back, you don't really know who you are hacking into. also, as i said earlier, hacking back can interfere with our investigations. it can interfere with our ability to gather data that's important investigations. that's not a theoretical concern, that has happened several times where company has taken its own actions and we have been unable to piece together the digital trail and we have been very hampered in our ability to do that. there's also a very significant risk of dramatic escalation if you hack back. you don't know who these people are. it could be a sophisticated cyber criminal, it could be a foreign intelligence service
that will have much more powerful, much more destructive technical capabilities that anything you have when you attempt to hack back. another issue is that hacking back, first of all, our view is it's not legal here, but it's also not legal in some other countries around the world. you might be hacking back into some person or entity who resides in a country so that you are violating the law of another country. there is also the possibility that whoever you hack back into could mistake your action as an action of the united states government, which would create all sorts of other problems from a foreign policy perspective. we also think, significantly another reason why it's not worth it is because it doesn't usually work. it doesn't usually attain the desired results. that's not just us talking. there are a lot of commentators out there -- there was recently a christian science monitor article where they pulled a
group of excellent across government and private sector in private advocacy groups, the privacy community on whether companies should be allowed to hack back. 82% of those said no. we've also gotten similar feedback from cyber security experts at the csis meeting with the cyber security unit, there were a lot of cyber security experts. their view was that hacking back is a bad idea. i am encouraged by the innovative cyber security proposals that we have seen and that are out there. i think they're going along way they are increasing security through alternatives to passwords, improving private sector capability to immediately devalue stolen data so that it is not that bad, because the there is nothing they can do with it. anything that can defend a network, is not necessarily a good idea just because hacking back is something that we feel
very strongly doesn't really work and is a bad idea and might expose you to legal risk. here and overseas. we are considering now the cyber security unit is considering whether to offer guidance on defensive countermeasures, not hacking back but other defensive countermeasures that we have been told by several security experts are beneficial. and we are also increasing our efforts to make sure that we can act, along with our law enforcement partners, in a more timely fashion, when there is a data breach, we can respond more quickly. we can respond in real time. we have international partners we have a 24/7 network around the world and we really want to help stop these data breaches and react to them appropriately when they happen. we are working to make ourselves as fast and nimble and 24/7 as
possible. i want to finish my speech by reiterating what i said earlier. everyone in the department of justice who works in cyber security feels the threat. we feel it breathing down our neck's. we feel the sense of urgency. we want all of you have that same sense of urgency. the status quo is not good enough. we have got to keep up with these people and try to get ahead of them. cyber criminals are doing more and more every day to invade our lives and homes and to steal our money. and harm our businesses. really have to find ways to prevent that. reacting to it is great, prosecuting is great, we are going to continue to do that and continue to put notices out all over the world in case someone travels from russia to the maldives on vacation. but that's not going to solve the problem. the problem can only really be solved by prevention and by education of companies so that they know what to do and how to prevent an attack, and what to do when an attack happens.
we have to find new ways other than hacking back to alter the state of cyber security in this country. i think we can do that, but it's a big job, and it's going to require all of us. it's going to require the private sector, the public-sector, experts from academia. it's going to require everyone to fight cybercrime and improve cyber security. i think we can and will, and i look forward to working with all of you to do it. thank you for having me. [applause] >> on the next washington journal, gerry connolly. he is here to talk about the debate over nsa surveillance programs, the fight against isis in iraq and syria and other foreign-policy issues in congress. then representative steve king
of iowa, member of the agriculture in judiciary committees will discuss the future of the nsa information gathering program, the work in the house on immigration, and the role of iowa in the 2016 race. "washington journal" at five every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. -- is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the u.s. senate failed to extend certain provisions of the u.s. patriot act. the senate returns at nine: 30 a.m. eastern. at 10:30, members will hold a procedural vote on the usa freedom act, program that limits certain major surveillance powers. the vote will decide members
move forward with the legislation. you can see live coverage of the u.s. senate when members return always on c-span2. south carolina senator lindsey graham announced his intention to seek the 2016 republican presidential nomination monday from his boyhood town of central, south carolina. before being elected to the senate in 2002, he served four terms in the u.s. house, several years in the u.s. air force, the national guard, and the air force reserves from which you will soon retire. senator graham is the ninth candidate to officially enter the gop presidential race. this is 25 minutes.
>> good morning. it is so good to be home. i look out and i see so many familiar faces, faces of friends and family, and i just want to thank you all for joining us on this very special day. as many of you know, we grew up in one room in the back of those buildings right there. not one bedroom, but one room where we lived and slept and ate. and our parents ran a cool hall a bar and restaurant, and those buildings where they worked long hard hours. to earn a living to support us. that instilled a very strong work ethic and important values in us. i have some great memories of this town, one of my fondest is lindsay teaching me how to ride a bicycle on that sidewalk right
of her there. he would hold onto the bicycle and would run along the side of me, give me a big push and shout , keep pedaling. he was the one who comforted me when i saw pedaling a fella the -- fell off the bicycle. as i got a little older, my parents were so proud because he was the first in my family to go to college. when he left, we missed him terribly. i remember being so excited on fridays. i could not wait get out of school. i knew lindsey went on -- was on his way home for the weekend. i would stand on the sidewalk what seemed like forever waiting on a greyhound bus, and when he arrived, he would be so excited to run back down the street to see our parents. as excited as i was to see lindsey, i think i was more excited to see the expression of my mother's face when we walk through the front door and she
saw him. when i was around 10, my parents have finally saved enough money to buy that house next door to the stores. it looked a little different then, but we were so happy. life was good. we loved this town and the people in it. then our mother started to get sick. she was in and out of the hospital a lot, and lindsey stayed by her side day and night, he never left. on june 9, 1976, almost 39 years to the day, she lost her battle with hodgkin's. i was 11 years old and he was 20. only 15 months later we lost our father. it was a really tough time for us. i can remember the day my father passed away, standing in the living room of that house,
absolutely scared to death, and lindsey wrapped his arms around me and promised he would always be there for me and always take care of me. and i can assure you he has done that. he has never let me down. as hard as it was for him, lindsey went back to school. i lived in seneca with a very special aunt and uncle. but lindsey came back every weekend, unlike most college kids that age who stayed on campus in columbia and had fun, lindsay came home to check on his little sister. now that i have a daughter who is almost 21, i realized how young he was and how hard that had to be on him. what a huge responsibility it was, but he never made me feel like a burden. he always made me feel so loved and so secure.
he also made sure i finished high school, went to college, he even legally adopted me. lindsey has been by my side through some wonderful times many special events. and both my children's lives, emily and nicole. and he has been by my side through some very tough time. the values we learn in this town, work ethic instilled in us by our parents and the love from the people in this community are what got us through the tough times. those are the values lindsey took to the air force, the statehouse in columbia, and to the united states senate. with your support, i know he will take them to the white house. [applause] when i needed lindsey, he put my interests ahead of his own. in politics, he has done the same thing, putting the
country's interests ahead of his own political interests. we need that kind of leadership in the oval office today, and lindsey graham will provide that. [applause] lindsey, i love you so much. you mean the world to me. i don't know what i would have done without you, and i am so proud of you, and i know our parents are looking down today beaming with pride. ladies and gentlemen, it is truly my honor to present to you the next president of the united states, lindsey graham. [applause] guest:
♪ [crowd chanting "usa"] senator graham: thank you. i am lucky to have darlene as my sister. to all my family and all my friends, thank you. welcome to central, south carolina. my hometown. many of you have known me for a long time. i am not aging that well, am my? -- and my? some of you have known me since my family lived in the back of the bar in that building. but i am pretty sure no one here, including the, ever expected to hear me say, i am
lindsey graham, and i am running for president of the united states. [applause] thank you. ok, i'll turn back there. i hope they hear that all of the world, that i running for president of the united states. it is because of you that i can make that statement. everything i am, everything i will be i owe to the kindness and generosity and kindness of people of central clemson seneca and other small towns , throughout south carolina. thank you. thank you for everything. [applause] i want to be president to
protect our nation that we all love so much. so get ready. i'm ready. i want to be president to defeat the enemies that are trying to kill us, not just penalize them or criticize them or contain them, but defeat them. ronald reagan's policy of peace through strength kept america safe during the cold war. remember those times? but i have come to conclude we will never enjoy peaceful coexistence with radical islam. because it's followers intend to destroy our way of life. however, america can be and will be secure only if we have strength.
security through strength will protect us. [applause] i want to be president to meet our problems head on. honestly and realistically, for the purpose of solving them, not hiding them or taking political advantage of them. i want to be president to make government work for you, not the other way around. i want to make government keep its promises to you, to support your dreams, to embrace your values, and to reflect your character. i want to be president to help us build a future greater than our amazing past. and i will work with anyone to do it. [applause] we have made some dangerous
mistakes in recent years. the obama administration and some of my colleagues in congress have substituted wishful thinking for sound national security strategy. every day the headlines a test -- a test to the failures of the obama-clinton policy. it is sad for me to report to you, but barack obama has made us less safe. simply put, radical islam is running wild. they have more safe havens, more money and capability and more weapons to strike our homeland than any time since 9/11. they are large, rich, and entrenched. as president i will make them small, poor, and on the run. [applause]
i am afraid some americans have grown tired of fighting them. i have some bad news to share with you. the radical islamists are not tired of fighting you. in partnership with others, we must take the fight to them. building lines and defenses over there, so they can't come here. building up and supporting racial forces to go after their safe havens that can be used to attack our homeland. the world is exploding in terror and violence. but the biggest threat of all is the nuclear ambitions of the radical islamists who control iran. ladies and gentlemen, there are no moderates in iran running their government. if the united states isn't firm
in our intention to deny them such weapons, iran will trigger a nuclear arms race in the least stable region on earth, making it more likely the people who aspire to genocide will have the most effective means to commit it. our close ally israel, is at risk as a result of obama's failed leadership. with israel, we share values, we share democracy, and our friendship is unbreakable. to our friends in israel, i will never abandon you. [applause] i will always stand firm in supporting the one and only jewish state. i, too, say never again. i am running for president because i have the experience,
judgment, and the will, to deny the most radical regimes the most dangerous weapons. to defeat this enemy, it will require more than military might . the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is not a gun, it is an idea. the terrorists are selling a glorious death. we must sell a hopeful life. [applause] i have learned from my travels that a small schoolhouse in a remote region educating a young girl can do more damage to radical islam than any weapon we possess. however, radical islam is not the only threat we face. elsewhere, old adversaries are
seizing opportunities to challenge our interest. putin seized territory, and china building in free territory. our allies fill the absence of american leadership. our adversaries are taking advantage. american weakness anywhere hurts us everywhere. our enemies are emboldened and our friends are going it alone. both reactions are detrimental to our national security interest. it is time for america to come back. and come back we will. and the way you come back is to
make sure the next president must be an informed and decisive commander-in-chief. ready immediately to deal with the threats i have just described. we have learned over the past six years that speeches alone won't make us safe. if that were true, we would be really safe. superior power and resolve is the only way to be safe. i am running for president of the united states because i am ready to be commander-in-chief on day one. [applause] i am ready on day one to defend our nation. with sound strategy, a strong military, stable alliances and a steady determination. i have been to the middle east more times than i can count.
as a united states senator, and reserve officer in the united states air force. to all who have served our country, raise your hand. god bless each and every one of you. [applause] [chanting "usa"] i have got one simple message. i have more eggs. -- i have more experience with our national security than any other candidate in this race. that includes you, hillary. [laughter] [applause] we will have a reset with russia that sticks. i know the players, i know our
friends and enemies alike, but most importantly, ladies and gentlemen, they know me. i have listened, learned, and prepared myself for the job of commander-in-chief. i have served in the air force for 33 years. [applause] and it has been a true pleasure and honor. i have spent much of my adult life as part of the team committed to defending america. protecting our way of life. making sure we are safe. politicians focus on elections. the military focuses on the mission. if given the privilege to serve as your president, i will focus on the mission to defend america, protect our way of life, and leave the next generation a stronger, safer and better nation then we inherited. [applause]
that will not be easy. it never has. there are dangers that must be faced, and as usual, the best of us will have to face the worst of them. the best of us are the 1% of americans who are the men and women of the united states armed forces. [applause] i cannot promise as commander-in-chief that there are dangers that they confront will be less. the risk they run, the sacrifices they make will be fewer or easier. but i can assure them they will have the leadership to defeat our enemies.
[applause] i can promise them their sacrifices won't be wasted, and they won't fight with their hands tied behind their back. [applause] we will end this conflict on our terms, we will win. those who believe we can disengage from the world at large and be safe by leading from behind, vote for someone else. i am not your man. those who believe the best way to defend ourselves is to leave -- lead the world, to make history whether that be overwhelmed by it, i ask for your support. [applause] join me if you want to tackle the problems at home that have been kicked down the road to -- because they are too hard to
fix or too easy to demagogue. washington's failure to do the hard but right thing has put social security and medicare in serious jeopardy. anybody on social security and medicare? anybody want to be on them some day? all of us. as my generation retires, both programs are on track to go bust. we are living longer and fewer workers are supporting more retirees. that is unsustainable. everybody knows it, but not everybody will admit it. we have to fix entitlement programs to make sure people we -- who need the benefits the most receive them. that is going to require determined presidential leadership.
i know from personal experience how important these programs are to the lives of millions of americans. as darlene mentioned, we lost our parents when i was a young man and she was in middle school. we depended on social security benefits to survive. i have been fortunate. i have done better than i ever dreamed. if i and others like me have to take a little bit less and pay a little more to help those who need it most, so be it. [applause] and younger people, you may just have to work a little bit longer . as president, i will gladly do what it takes to save the program that once saved my family. [applause]
to those of you who yearn for a healthy and safe environment, i will join your cause. to those who seek energy independence, i will be your champion. i am tired of sending hundreds of billions of dollars per year overseas to buy oil from people who hate us. [applause] we must have energy independent. and i believe in the process that is possible to produce a safe, clean environment and create new well-paying jobs for americans of all generations. to my fellow republicans, i will be a champion for limited and effective government for strong national defense. i will be a voice for social conservative values without apology or animosity. [applause]
i love my party. i am committed to see it grow and prosper. to my friends in the other party, on the big things we share a common faith. i will work with you to strengthen the country we both love. our differences are real, and we will debate them, but you are not my enemy. you are my fellow countrymen. [applause] my enemies are those who despise our shared values. the enemies of enlightenment the culture of death that seeks to destroy the dignity of life. we will fight them together with our partners, and we will win. to the americans who trust neither party, i will seek the political common ground our nation so desperately needs to find.
[applause] that is what i have done before. don't take my word for it, examine my record. i got the scars to prove it. i intend to be a president not of a single party, but of a nation. [applause] i want to do more than make a -- it government smaller. i want to help make a great nation greater. i have traveled the world and had experiences and opportunities i never dreamed of. i have been lucky so much in my life, but never left here than -- luckier than in the people and place i come from. [applause]
those of you who have known me for a long time no i have had some ups and downs. as a young man i lost my parent, -- as a young man, i lost my parents, struggled financially and emotionally, and i would not have made it through those times without you. and the example my parents set for me. there are a lot of so-called self made people in this world i am not one of them. my family, my friends, neighbors and my faith picked me up when i was down, believed in me when i had doubts. you made me the man i am today. [applause] i am a man with many debts to my
family, my friends, to you, to south carolina. to the country. i am running for president to repay those debts and to fight as hard for you as you fought for me. [applause] in the end, ladies and gentlemen, that is the only promise i can make, and the only pledge i will sign. the only one that matters. if you make me president, i will fight each day harder than i fought the day before to keep this country safe, prosperous, and as good as the people who made it great. i humbly ask for your support and your vote.
wednesday, lincoln chafee makes his announcement in a speech at the george mason center for politics and foreign relations and arlington, virginia. the former republican turned independent is running as a democrat. you can see it live starting at 5:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. thursday, rick perry announces his second presidential run from dallas. that is live at 12:30 p.m. eastern also on c-span3. >> this summer book tv will cover books festivals from around the country. this weekend, we are live from the chicago tribune fest putting our three-hour program with lawrence right. near the end of june, watch for the annual roosevelt reading festival from the franklin d roosevelt presidential library. in the middle of july, live at the harlem book fair with
author interviews, panel discussions. the beginning of september live from the nations capital from the national book festival celebrating its 15th year. that is a few of the events this summer on c-span2's book tv. >> live today, washington journal is next. at 10:00 a.m., u.s. house returns for general speeches. at noon, the house takes up the rules for debating the commerce, justice, and science appropriations bill. coming up in 45 minutes, virginia congressman gerry connolly, a member of the foreign affairs and oversight committee. he is here to talk about the debate over nsa surveillance programs, the fight against isis in iraq and syria and other foreign-policy issues in congress. at 8:30 a.m., representative steve king of iowa, member of the agriculture and judiciary committees, will discuss the future of the nsa information
gathering program, the work in the house on immigration, and the role of iowa and the 2016 race. host: good morning, it is the "washington journal." today the senate holds a procedural vote that would change some nsa actresses concerning the collection of data. you can see that process play out today and by the way if that vote passes today a final vote on the legislation could take place by the end of the week are you senator rand paul has been getting much attention because of his actions on sunday. senator paul is running to