tv Washington This Week CSPAN June 21, 2015 5:05pm-6:01pm EDT
going nuclear. if sweden tried this we would say, oh no another failure of the npt, it's sweden. i don't lose sleep because britain has nukes or france has nukes. a regime like i just described to you, if they have a livable nuclear weapons, that's worrisome. -- deliverable nuclear weapons that's worrisome. alright, so what do you need to get a nuclear a nuclear weapon? you need three things, three components. enriched uranium, and you need to know how to make a warhead out of that enriched uranium and you need a a delivery system to send it to your target. as we know, from iaea reporting and the international science
and, i always get this wrong because the acronym is isis unfortunately. in any case, david albright's fantastic group does reporting on this. according to their reporting as long as eight years ago they had blueprints for a nuclear warhead and was working on the trigger testing to set off an imposing sequence to detonate a bomb. general flynn mentioned that the pentagon had estimated that the iranians would have the range to reach continental u.s. from iran this year. missiles are not even on the table for discussion in the current negotiations. ok, so those are the things you need to make a deliverable nuclear weapon capability. what are we doing? p5 plus one.
britain france russia china and oz plus germany is the plus one part. we are in these negotiations that began in secret in 2013. the israelis had a find out about them from the saudi's. the saudi's let them know that they were dealing with the u.s. in secret. the united nations security council has passed six resolutions demanding that a ran -- iran halt all nuclear. they can't have such a high percentage or whatever. they can keep their stockpiles of low enriched geranium. that used to be something there was was to give up and shipped out of the country. while they don't have to anymore.
the dilution process has also gotten completely stalled and nobody really says anything about it so it's still in the form that's more quickly turned into a bomb. 20% is the cutoff where you begin to cut talk about high enriched geranium. -- uranium. they have stockpiles of low enriched uranium and that's not even up to discussion. 19 known centrifuges. they get to keep them all. they're supposed to unplug some of the centrifuges and put them into storage but were not sure about that.
advanced centrifuge r&d. we can keep talking about what the output might be that assumes you're talking about the first generation, most primitive centrifuges that they have developed. newsflash, they have developed centrifuges up to the eighth generation beyond what were talking about that are superfast by comparison. ten or 20 times as fast in enriching geranium, the kind that were talking about. they get to keep on doing that r&d in those centrifuges. they're not going to be stopped from doing the r&d. investigation or inspection of military facilities, iranians tell us that's off the table. you're not a allowed to go look at those. where would you go hide your military nuclear program? where did the soviets hide theirs? who taught the iranians how to do programs and hide them? the kgb did.
even some that we know about, off-limits. past bomb work, we thought that was a redline to that the iranians were going to have to come clean about their whole past work just as michael said the south africans did and were certified given up their program. while now secretary of state carey says, while we don't really have to have them explain all that because we already have absolute knowledge of everything they every did. that's his quote, his words. we know for a fact that ever since the iranians nuclear weapons program began in the late 1980s, there has been a clandestine program. there has never been a year since 1988 when the iranians did not have a clandestine nuclear program.
the one they are negotiating in geneva is the overt part of the program. we don't know what we don't know about the covert part. but we are pretty confident there is one. i'll just wrap up here quickly so we can get your questions. i don't want to take up all the rest of the time but let's quote a couple people. former director of the cia said, such perfect knowledge about a -- iran's past program does not exist. they said we don't know what they did in the past. the only reason we know about the iranian nuclear program is because the opposition intelligence services, satellite imagery services, satellite imagery and other intelligence work found it out.
they never volunteered any of that. they didn't even know they had a program until they blew the lid off it with press conferences and showed pictures of imagery. the iranians have never volunteered anything and the only reason we know about the program at all is from sources that were not iranian. finally, i'll conclude with this, the longtime, i call it a joint venture agreement with north korea is not even up for discussion. north koreans have helped iranians since the beginning of their program with nuclear specifications, with centrifuges assent distance, with missile assistance, their scientists north korean scientists are in iran all time. they are attending at the launch pads.
the north koreans, he appeared before congress in 2015 and open testimony and said the north koreans, this is open testimony the north koreans have the ability to miniaturize warheads and put them on the top of missiles. the north koreans can do this in the iranians can't? that's not even up for discussion. maybe we can get into electro magnetic pulse capability. north korea has it, iran doesn't? let me stop there and open it up for your questions. >> in the interest of time why
don't we just take questions from the audience. i'll call on you and you can direct who you want. speak to them i can tell us who you are. >> hi i'm an independent consultant. one area we haven't discussed yet. i have two specific questions. assuming that the president does make a deal with iran, what role should the congress play and what will they do? >> congress has the responsibility when they passed the bill to take about on any ultimate agreement between us and the iranians.
i am not 100% confident that we a hundred% confident that we are going to get to that point. i do think it is a tremendous benefit to the regime to spreading things out. they get the sanctions relief as michael said, they get all the dessert upfront and they don't have to either spinach. the congress has responsibility and has taken it upon themselves to vote. unfortunately the way they passed a law is that the bill goes before the president and if the congress time turns down the agreement and the president, predictably vetoes it, they must then have a two thirds majority vote to overturn the veto. it will be a very high hurdle they set for themselves but they have the responsibility. this is a bad deal no matter how you look at it. from what you were hearing, it is a bad deal and a bad a bad deal is much worse than no deal. we need to let our congressional representatives know to vote down this deal.
[applause]. >> right over here, is the mike still there? to i'm from. >> i'm from the institute of world politics. i was wondering how these sort of concessions on nuclear proliferation's will affect saudi arabia's potential acquisition of nuclear weapons. >> very good, basically we have a bad habit of assuming it's just us and a specific adversary or state of concern at any point time. the second order effects on this are incredible. it's not the issue of concessions, it's the fact that this is an incredibly bad deal and if we would listen to any of our allies in the region israel or any of the arab countries for whom this is brought up a great deal of unanimity, i'm told look, we don't oppose the idea of diplomacy but have
enough self confidence to share with us the draft. were draft. were so used to working with the iranians we can point out the loopholes. they don't need to cheat because they can drive a tank through these loopholes. i would point out that in 1994 as framework negotiations were concluded, south korean concluded, south korean president at the time gave an interview to the new york times in which he said this is an incredibly bad deal. you should listen to us because we have decades of working with the north koreans and the white house, when they read this, went ballistic. they got the bb treatment. that only convinces everyone in the region that we need, that they need to go it alone.
i'm not one to defend saudi arabia, not at all. when we have given them the three am phone call, because of the nature of the alliance they've answered the call. i would expect to be put on permanent call waiting from here on in. the last point i would make is when the president of the united states loses credibility, it's automatically restored to the oval office every four to eight years when a new president comes in. there is no matter magic wand to restore the credibility that united states is losing. north korea's calculation and throughout the world, we are hemorrhaging our credibility and that's only gonna lead to bloodshed. >> i'm a a member of the acu board and a former member of
congress. we have been hearing for what seems like forever that iran is three months, a year away from having a nuclear weapon. we fiddle around with whether we get a deal or don't get a deal. i wonder frankly it matters or if we wake up one morning before or after we got a a deal and we find out iran does in fact have a nuclear weapon. when we get to that point and iran has a nuclear weapon, it feels to me that the obama administration which has a little time left, has already made the decision that will you with it after they have one. -- we'll deal with it after they have one. what do we do then and what's the balance of how it will look like in the middle east but in the world and what are americans options to defend america in our allies interest?
>> if i can jump in on this quickly before turning the floor over. if i could rephrase the question a bit, too often we focus on what will we do when they get a nuclear weapon. we have to wake up to the reality that five years after they have 100 of them? we treat containment and deterrence as rhetorical strategies rather than military strategies. they are loosely defined containment is all the states in the region to wage war independently until the caverly can comment. -- cavalry can come in. it's a multibillion-dollar strategy and were trying to do it. -- it on the cheap. deterrence, loosely put is the willingness to kill millions of people and that's not a road i want to go down if there are policies which we can apply now to never have to get to that point. >> agreed. i would just add that the united
states intelligence community does not have a great record on predicting or knowing ahead of time when a country is going nuclear. i can mention the soviet union and its time, china, pakistan et cetera. so given all of the input that iran has had in the regime has had for all of these years from north korea, pakistan, russia, china in the technical assistance and all kinds of expert assistance and so forth it's inconceivable to me that they do not already have at least warheads. again go back to the joint venture with north korea and the exchange in the presence of their officials in each other's country at test sites and so forth. north korea is as far advanced as we do know that it is another failure of deterrence or containment and that iran does
not have or is using north korea to test nuclear components or warheads for it. when iran finally decides to demonstrate its nuclear capability, whether it's out in the desert like the pakistanis and the indians did, underground just a demonstration of we have this, or a mushroom cloud over tel aviv or something over kansas, it's a game changer and it's too late by that point. michael is absolutely right, we have to be ready now. we have to be ready to take steps that ensure this regime in iran never has the most dangerous weapons. the only way to do that is to change the regime. [inaudible] currently we do not, at the
senior national leadership, no we do not. >> can i just throw my 2 cents in? if you come to the conclusion that we are where we are, we can't stop this deal and iran is getting nukes and other countries are getting nukes, you have to think about it in a different way. i think about economic warfare. we have the ability to conduct economic warfare with these countries especially with energy independence. if you have, have, throughout the middle east, all those countries have populations were 75 or 80% is under 30 years old 30 years old and doesn't have jobs. that's a revolution. if you could get those countries to the point where there economies are so stretched that they have to worry more about their own people, keeping their own, though be less worried about the others. [indiscernible] if you look at adversaries in the region, if they are going to get ballistic missiles that
could reach the united states, we need to have an adequate and central role best defense system. we need intelligence. if this is a world where they're going to be nuclear weapons in the middle east, we need to have a robust intelligence. we need to know who's doing what and who's coming here and we've been so by political corrections in this and we've been scared to do that. regime change does not mean war. the best means when you move things around when the people in that country decide they've had enough and they change the regime. any other regime change doesn't work. i think there are options that we have but we would have to count on the national leadership to do that and hopefully it happens before summary set something off.
>> placing things in a broader historic context, jfk and the joint chiefs of staff staff recommended an attack and he walked out of the room and said and we call ourselves the human race. shouldn't we be working toward global nuclear disarmament of everyone. >> were going the other direction. >> i vote that iran goes first. >> if iran gets weapons, but were going in a different direction. >> first of all i'd like to
strongly commend clare for the most beautiful description of what this nation is facing and how little the american public appreciate what she just said and how little the american public really understands the nature of the threat. throughout all of this is one thing just touched upon that should be explored even more and that's the islamic ideology that is motivating what iran is doing. not only the history of iran as a persian nation and some concept to reestablish it, the battle with ices, the attempt to take over iraq and to expand this ideology regarding the return. i think we make a huge mistake if we really think that once they do get one and it looks like they will, they will not use it. if we think containment will
work at that point, forget it. they have said, they would welcome death and destruction. yet we don't pay enough attention to the motivating factors of islamic ideology. above all of this we are in tremendous danger because of this. [applause] >> i think we all agree. you said it best. thank you. >> very well said. >> are there any women in this group who want to ask questions? >> i'm john from the retired air force. why do we keep hiding behind the nuclear delivery system as being one of the components of our ability to protect ourselves right now. given the fact that we have tons
of illegal drugs coming across the border every day and i can drive them all the way to des moines with no trouble or inspection, why wouldn't i put it in a container. fifty years ago we had gis driving around our country of west germany with a nuke called the davy crockett and they treated it like a hand grenade. the delivery system is not necessarily going to be a missile but containers, cars trucks etc. >> if i may just ask and answer, i answer, i agree with you. one of the problems we have in counterterrorism at-large's were always trying to defend against the last attack rather than recognizing that new attacks come in different ways that exploit different vulnerabilities. >> i wanted to ask you about cyber warfare. i think that is a primary element of the future. it seems so disparately
distributed through our national defense establishment at this point in time. there are pieces all over. what strategies would you recommend with regard to aligning and organizing ourselves more effectively in that regard? you are absolutely right that the cyber threats and cyber warfare is one of the most serious threats facing this country. as you may know, just last year in november 2014, an american company published a report called operation cleaver. they had been investigation the iranian capability through cyber warfare to access and manipulate and attack critical infrastructure in 16 countries including our own canada australia, western european
countries, israel, et cetera. they prematurely publish the report because they were so alarmed by what they found that they thought they couldn't sit on the results any longer and they put out most of the report devoted to the code to show people so they could take defensive measures but the iranians have the capability already to be inside of our critical infrastructure and to manipulate and attack that. it's an extremely serious threat. i talk about the threat that could take down our electric grid, lack of cyber cystic security is another big part of that. -- cybersecurity is another big part of that. that could also take down our electric grid and send us back overnight to little house on the prairie days minus the farm, the cow the chicken and any idea farm, the cow the chicken and any idea with what to do with what we have. when we think of cyber anything, the iranians were there too.
>> if you want to look more in the english iranian news with regard to what they are planning with regards to to cyber and how they are exercising the capability, the unit that they -- unit of the guard for which is in charge of this capability is called the passive defense organization. if you google cyber warfare unit, you won't get it. if you google passive defense organization you will get it and you need to note the obvious there's already a unit within the islamic organization that is dedicated to this. >> the gentleman whose hand is up. >> i'm johnny long. we need to get our relationship
with israel built back or this country is in for a fall. i believe that with all my heart. i think i've been communicating with you in e-mail. >> the question was about israel and are we abandoning israel and what should we do? >> i would just point out, i agree with you. when we go back to the korean war, one of the reasons why north korea decided and believed they could get away with invading south korea is within the truman administration there was an outline of what our defense perimeter would be. we excluded south korea from that and that only brought aggression.
in the big picture i worry about israel but i also worry around the lope with regards to this. -- globe with regards to this. one of the other issues and going to throw out just very briefly, briefly, since i have the floor, when it comes to the no deal versus bad deal dichotomy with which so often we hear in the news, one of the problems is it seems increasingly that the obama administration is really playing russian roulette with congress. you have to accept this or else it's going to be even worse. the key to successful diplomacy and successful policy is leverage. hillary clinton, when she became secretary of state said if you don't talk to you to your enemies, who will you talk to. she pointed out that ronald reagan's sat down with gorbachev but what she admitted to say was -- omitted to say was that came after five years of leverage so you could get a victory at the diplomatic table. unfortunately we've taken our
eyes off the prize with regard to that and ultimately the chickens are coming home to roost. >> the lady with the bangs. >> then i think we have two more questions after that and we need to sum up. >> i'm with the heritage foundation as an intern. i have a question. looking forward at the relation ship what new threats are we looking at should these nuclear capabilities be passed along to these types of organizations and how is the u.s. foreign-policy going to have to adapt to those changes? >> the question would iran pass along, if it got these weapons to terrorist organizations. iran's preferred method is to operate via proxies, in
particular has below which has an extensive network of operation all over the americas the porter of north, central and south. in terms of a nuclear capability, i do not think the iranians would pass that capability to hezbollah. they've passed an awful lot of everything else, missile capabilities and chemical, biological capabilities to hezbollah. i think this is a nationstate capability and rather iran would use it if they didn't launch upon acquisition essentially, if they did not do that, they would use their nuclear capability for blackmail and insurance purposes. in other words to blackmail the region around them into kowtowing to their agenda so
they could more aggressively deploy their proxies or their partners, terrorist partners like al qaeda, into activities around the world with the umbrella of the insurance policy of a nuclear capability. a nuclear capability. i see it kind of that way that they would be more aggressive to deploying, feeling free to deploy and send out there terror proxies because they would feel protected by this nuclear umbrella. >> we have time for two more questions. the gentleman in the blue shirt. >> is there anything congress can do to either stay or contain the lifting of sanctions,.
>> congress ultimately if they're willing to put their next out on the line control the purse strings and that gives them a great deal of leverage. when it comes to the existing sanctions, sanctions, there's two problems. i'm saying this as an analyst, not as an advocate. number one, some of the most biting sanctions going back to the clinton administration in 1995 and 1996 were executive orders. that's number one. executive orders can be changed and can be waived. number two, it's been traditional in congress to provide waivers to the white house so that the president would be able to waive certain elements of sanctions. i'm not sure they ever expected that they would have a commander-in-chief who would become so disassociated from the national security protection of the united states that he would waive those willy-nilly.
ultimately that is willy-nilly. ultimately that is what we are seeing. ultimately the question is what lessons learned will congress have so when new sanctions are put in place at such waivers aren't there. the last quick point i would mate is just the irony that the sanctions which president obama and the statehouse now praise and now seek to take credit for, they opposed and the congress had passed 100 to zero over their opposition. >> we have time for one more question. the gentleman the back. >> hi my name is constantin and i study political science. i think one of the key questions that i'm interested in is what is the iranian state right now? are they had a crossroads? are they like a republic trying to go onto the world stage and into legitimate talks? connected to that i think both of you said you're open to
diplomacy with iran and this deal. what specific criteria would have to be in a a deal for it to be a good deal? >> number one, and this also picked up on what he said, there is a naive belief in the iranian system. if you wanna analyze the power structure with greater decision, you're not going to have a regime change led by the iranian people until the islamic guard fractures. one of our big intelligence holds as we do not have good insight into the factional -- factionalization within the islamic group. 75% of iranians may not care for the rule that was ushered in but again it's the guys with the guns that matter and so that's where our our focus needs to be.
any regime change be. any regime change isn't going to be us-led. the way i would put it is instead of the intelligence community spending $20 billion trying to figure out ahead of time who that chinese guy was in the square standing in front of the line of tanks, what's more important is to enable a template so someone feels they can stand up and step in front of the line of tanks. when it comes to what would be in the deal, when you teach military strategy, and this is the waves taught in the u.s. military academies, they talk about a diamond paradigm where every strategy should have a diplomatic, and informational, military and economic strategy to it. the whole is actually greater than the sum of the parts. after the last five years ago we
-- over the last 25 years ago we have started sequencing are strategies where we tried diplomacy first, if that doesn't work then economic stations, stations, if that doesn't work then military strategies which by the way, don't simply mean bombing as a last resort. it's important to go back and see what has worked with regard to leverage and for this we can look at 2003 with qaddafi coming in from the pole or we can look at the ronald reagan era. this is a whole history center if you want to have it and it's a cheap advertisement that we talk a great deal about with american diplomacy going back 60 years of terrorist groups. >> would like to recommend to you a series of nine points drawn up by my colleague at the center for security policy. he drafted a set of nine points that should be our redline absolutely, must be included for any deal to be considered a good deal. no enrichment. all sites open to inspection.
i'm not going to remember all on nine of them but let's see how many i can remember. the enrichment must be a halted completely and the stockpiles must be destroyed or verifiably destroyed or taken out of the country's. missiles have to be on the table. american hostages have to be released. iran must give up their support for terrorism. i forgotten at least one but center for security nine points. >> i like to take the opportunity to make my concluding remarks. i think from what everybody said, there are couple of things. when these negotiations started out a a year and a half ago, it sounded pretty good. we would lift sanctions and in return they would dismantle
or rollback its nuclear program. as a result of that rolling back there nuclear program, nuclear arms race would be averted. this deal doesn't do that. we have now gotten to the point where the president has said no deal is better than a bad deal and he is now to the point where any deal would be fine. the way they presented is, this is a a strong argument, it's either this deal or war. who wants war? so everyone is then forced into the position of saying ok, not a perfect deal and maybe this ok not a perfect deal and maybe this isn't ok but it's a deal. what everybody seems to be saying, if i can summarize is that there is another option. it's not no deal or war. there is a third option and that is regime change, after economic pressure and all the other things we have used previously in our history with great effects particularly in the reagan administration.
the other point to make is what's being perceived in the region is that the united states is choosing side. there is a growing conflict between the shiite and the sunnis. they said it would burn itself out ultimately but it will be very bloody in between. looks like the between. looks like the united states is playing sides in the cyber choosing is iran. the deal with iran, iran is not dismantling its nuclear weapons. as not being asked to stop support for terrorism. it is being rewarded with a signing bonus of a hundred or -- $120 billion on day one as assets are unfrozen. it means the islamic economy will boom. it will be like the california gold rush as companies and companies rush to do business in iran. they are getting nuclear weapons, they will have an
economic boom in the region and the other countries in the region aren't buying this. they will embark on their own nuclear program. it is a region where money will be no object. they can buy the programs. when that starts happening which we feel will be in the next several years, you will see nuclear weapons introduced into the most dangerous and unstable part of the world. a part of the world where people shouldn't even be allowed to play with matches and now will have nuclear weapons. it we've also seen in the last 18 months governments long time governments can fall overnight. what takes their place is not freedom and democracy and human rights. what takes their place is jihadist chaos. we could potentially be looking at the nightmare scenario that people like me have studied and written about and dealt with nuclear weapons my whole career. it's a nightmare of nuclear
weapons in the hands of crazy people who want to use them. throughout the cold war, the soviet union did not want to die in nuclear conflagration. we are now up against an adversary who has pointed out is happy, happy, willing and eager to destroy themselves as long as they can take others with them. our conclusion in all of this, and i think this, and i think i can speak for everyone, is we find this agreement to be unverifiable, unenforceable, and probably, to your point, unconstitutional. the argument that no deal is better than a bad deal, a bad deal, we have now gotten to a point where this is a very bad deal. we all would encourage members of congress, members of the international community in the united states intelligence to stand up and stop this. this is a deal were not only iran gets nuclear weapons but other countries in the region gets nuclear weapons.
once that starts happening is not a matter of nuclear weapons being in the hands of people who overthrow their government. i've been impressed by the quality of this audience. we've all listened to a lot of congressional hearings and the questions to the congressmen and the aides to the congressman, the questions that you've asked are really profound. you've gone to all aspects of this issue and i think they speak to the great common sense and intelligence of the american people or at least people who come to the american conservative union conference. we hope to have conference. we hope to have many things like this in the future. thanks so much for joining us. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> on saturday bernie sanders
spoke at the university of denver and colorado. he discussed how to get big money out of politics, income in elegy, combating climate change and making college affordable. we will show you the entire speech later tonight, but here is a version of his remarks. -- portion of his remarks. ♪ bernie sanders: thank you. thank you. thank you.
well, let me begin by thanking robin for that wonderful introduction. let me think all the folks at the atrium. let me thank the many hundreds of the field. thank you very much for being here tonight. this is an extraordinary turnouts and i think all of you for being here. a few weeks ago -- if you weeks ago we decided we were going to do an event in l.a. and i said to myself, we are going to l.a. what of received we can get a room in denver -- why don't we get a room and denver and see if we can bring a couple hundred people together, see if we can find some supporters, and after
about 10 minutes after the e-mail went out we knew we had to change the venue. [applause] . and here we are tonight. so thank you. let me begin by telling you what no other candidate for president is going to tell you. and that is that this campaign is not about me. it's not about hillary clinton. it's not about jeb bush. is not about any other candidates. this campaign is about you, your kids and your parents. [applause]
it is about creating a political movement of millions of people who stand up and loudly and proudly proclaim that this nation and our government belong to all of us and not just a handful of billionaires. [applause] people throughout our history have fought and died to defend democracy. and democracy means today that we need a political movement of millions of people who come out
and vote, who educate, and who organize. democracy is not about the last election in which 63% of the american people and 80% of young people did not vote. that is not democracy. democracy is when people from one end of this country to the other stand up and say that there is nothing that a great nation cannot accomplish. now is not the time for thinking small. we have been thinking small for too many years. we are the wealthiest country in the history of the world.
now is the time to think big and to understand all that we can accomplish for all of our people. this country today i,n my view faces more serious problems than at any time since a great depression. and if you add to that, the planetary crisis of climate change, it may well be that today, in our time, we face more challenges than any time in the modern history of this country. [cheers and applause] and what we are here tonight for his to lay those problems out on
the table and talk about how we are going to solve those problems. [cheers and applause] today we live in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, but most americans don't feel that i don't know that. -- that and don't know that. almost all of the wealth rests in the hands of a tiny number of people. america now has more income and wealth inequality than any major country on earth, and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is wider today than at any time since the late
1920's. in my view, the issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time it is the great economic issue of our time, it is a great political issue of our time. [cheers and applause] let me be as clear as i can be. there is something profoundly wrong when the top 1/10 of 1% today owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. there is something profoundly wrong when today 99% of all new
income created goes to the top 1%. there is something profoundly wrong when we have seen a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires at the same time as millions of americans are working longer hours for lower wages, and we have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on earth. there is something profoundly wrong when one family in america, the walton family, owns more wealth than the bottom 130 million americans. this grotesque level of wealth
and income inequality is not only immoral is not only bad economics, is not only unsustainable, it is not what the united states of america is supposed to be about. [cheers and applause] and you know what? together we are going to change that. it ain't gonig to be -- going to be easy. the billionaire class controls much of the economy, our political life, the media. but what we are doing tonight is
sending a message to the billionaire class, and that is, you can't have it all. you cannot get huge tax breaks when children in this country go hungry. you cannot continue to send our jobs to china when millions of people in this country are desperately looking for work. you cannot hide your profits in the cayman islands and in other tax havens while there are massive unmet needs in every
corner of this country. the unconscionable greed of the billionaire class is destroying this nation and it has got to and. -- end. [cheers and applause] >> this was a portion of a town hall meeting with bernie >> c-span gives you the best access to congress. bringing you events that shape public policy.
washington journal is alive every morning. your comments by phone facebook, and twitter. c-span, created by america's cable companies and brought you as a public service. host: republican senator bill cassidy. sen. cassidy: thank you. host: let me begin with the supreme court ruling. what is republican alternative? sen. cassidy: i introduce something called the patient freedom act.