tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 1, 2015 2:00am-4:01am EDT
reform everything i had as governor. because if we fail at that responsibility, it is a bit or loss. i believe in the right to rise in this country, and a child is not reading. [applause] -- and a child is not rising if he is not reading. [applause] almost half of fourth graders were functionally illiterate, and was half of high school kids never graduated. we overhauled the whole system, set clear standards, and brought out the best in our great teachers. we insisted on testing and accountability. we created the first date i private school choice program in america. we expanded high performance charter schools and ended the insidious policy of promotion and third grade, the practice of passing kids along as if we didn't care, because we didn't care, and we should care.
you don't show that by counting out anyone's child. you give them all a chance, and that's what we did in florida. [applause] a lot changed in those years. graduations grea rates went up. the number of students passing exams increased four times over. we became the leader in early childhood education, and we still are today. among minority children, florida saw the greatest gains anywhere in the united states, and what is that show? it shows that every child can learn, no matter the race, background, where they live. i know this can be done. the debate is changing. old orthodoxies are falling away, but we can never forget that long-term reform does not help a child right now. years of learning are years that are lost forever. i think of the kids in
washington dc who receive opportunity scholarships, a couple of thousand boys and girls, almost all black, have been given a chance to leave the worst schools and go to the best. yet every to leave the worst schools and go to the best. yet every year the unions and the politicians want to shut this down because they do not like parental choice period. here is what i believe. everyone should have high standards and expectations and the federal government should have nothing to do with setting them. washington should provide support where the need is greatest but building knowledge in shaping character is the work of principals, teachers and parents. when president obama says "for too long we have been blind to the way past injustices continue to shape the present," he is speaking the truth.
[applause] but we should be just as candid about our failures of addressing problems later more recent origin. in our cities, we have people who have never known anything but poverty. it is a tragedy for them and such a loss to our country because every one of them has a god-given purpose and god-given talents this world means. -- this world means. everyone of them was promised one big break in life to prove who they are and what they can do. for millions, it is a false promise. as technology advances, the first rung of the latter is getting higher and higher and higher.
i want to work with the urban league to end this adjustment -- and this -- end this once and for all. this nation has pursued a war on poverty and massive government programs funded with trillions of taxpayer dollars. this decades long effort, while well-intentioned has been a losing one and the casualties can be counted in the millions who never had a chance at work, whose families fell victim to violence and drugs and the crushing of the spirit. one of the best anti-poverty programs is a strong emily, -- strong family, led by two strong terrence. poverty among dual parent families is about 7%. among month families with single mothers, 35%. the reason is
simple. it is tougher to raise a family alone. too many kids are growing up without their dads. it is incumbent upon us to exert the positive societal pressures that can turn the tide in the breakdown of fatherhood in america. but for many that is not an option and there is no tougher job in the world than being a single mom. [applause] so, as governor of florida, i tried to do something about it. i doubled our efforts to collect child support payments. the children were better off because of that. together with quality education and a family support system, ending the cycle of poverty improves access to jobs. i set a goal to defy my economic agenda should i become
president. i do not for one moment except the new normal of anemic 2% growth. i believe we can achieve annual economic growth of 4% and a lot rides on the difference. the new normal is more businesses going under then starting up. 4% is a true revival of the private sector in 19 million new jobs. the new normal is the static present for struggling cities. more people are moving in, a higher tax base, and more revenues. a better chance to save our cities. we can do this as a country. we can grow at a pace. big, audacious goals are second nature to the minimum and of the
urban league. we have seen anger and violence yet again this year. with -- when all of these issues i discuss make it harder and harder for people to imagine a hopeful future, it is easy to see why there is anger and disillusionment. trust in our vital institutions is at historic lows. it is up to all of us to rebuild that trust. that happens one person at a time, one politician at a time, when police officer at a time. one community leader at a time. it begins with respect dialogue, and the courage to go out in peace. that is exactly what we saw with two of your affiliate presidents . [applause] these good men were tested, and
they showed us the way. strength of love, as martin luther king called it, always shows the way. and sometimes, as in charleston last month, it shines as a true light in the darkness as the community of that city found such grace, such. he of hearts such boundless mercy -- such purity of heart such boundless mercy in the face of evil. we hope that it told people something good about this nation and it surely did. but even more that congregation of believers and that city bore witness to a character that built a movement and inspires it to this day. i will endeavor to live up to the goodness of charleston and work with you to better our communities whether as your
neighbor or as her president. i know there are great and lasting things we can achieve together. maybe only together. to keep america faithful to its ideals of equality and justice for all. your support in that effort is something i will work every day to earn. i work for your friendship and i ask for your vote. i bless you all and thank you for your invitation. -- god bless you all and thank you for your invitation. >> of her bush, one more time -- we at the national urban league will promulgate -- ladies and gentlemen, please keep your seat . i have three questions and then an announcement about the schedule for today. we are going to promulgate a questionnaire. you are in. and then the other two
questions, the young people, the new generation millennials, and the second one, small businesses, african-american owned his misses, poverty, and what do you do about that? governor bush: when it comes to millennials, if you think about it, young people have not gotten a good deal. college graduation rates are lower than our generation -- or my generation. marc: thank you. [laughter] governor bush: it is amazing. we have flatlined those levels. student loans have grown exponentially, but regulation rates have not risen. so, young people are stuck with debt. the job market growing at 2% is not creating the first rung on the latter for young people. our government is obsolete.
they are frustrated with that because they are much more tech savvy. we are not growing at a rate that lifts people up. in fact obamacare is designed to be effective for young people to be mandated to be in the exchanges to take care of people that are our age that may not be potentially as healthy. we have not given them a great deal. you are in great shape. but the point is, we have to create a high growth strategy for people. one of the ways that you do that as relates to african-american owned businesses is to use the power of government. we had a tough fight with a program called one florida. it was very controversial. but we ended up, because we turned it into a leadership model -- instead of saying we are going to have a bunch of people certifying businesses.
i pretty much know you are a black man. you pretty much know i am a white guy, right? i do not need to spend a lot of quality time going through that. so, we turned these bureaucrats and compliance officers into marketing arms for businesses and the amount of increase of procurement for black-owned and hispanic owned and women-owned businesses grew exponentially, 400%. government can play a useful role in providing opportunities for people that may make it possible for them to sustained or business and expand. i think that is a useful place for us to operate as well. the final thing, access to credit, the issue has been made worse by the most complicated financial regulatory system. and i tell you, the two big to fail challenge israel. i -- the too big to fail challenge is real.
the problem is, the same rules apply to small banks, community banks, banks embedded in the community for urban and rural and the net result is they cannot sustain their business because they have to hire the same compliance officers lawyers, and accountants as jpmorgan does. if we're going to be serious about making sure the next generation of entrepreneurs gets capital, we better protect capital. marc: thank you, governor. ladies and gentlemen, governor jeb bush. ♪ marc: ladies and gentlemen lunch will start at 12:30 instead of 12:00. workshops will go from 11:00 until 12:15. please note the change.
>> ♪ violence violence living it up in the city got to kiss myself so pretty two hot -- too hot hot damn say my name you know who i am too hot hot damn girl say hallelujah girl say hallelujah because of town funk is going to give it to ya because of town funk is going to give it to ya don't believe me, just watch don't believe me just watch don't believe me, just watch don't believe me, just watch
don't believe me, just watch hey, hey, hey oh wait a minute still my cup -- steal my cup put some liquor and it hollywood, jackson mississippi too right too hot make a dragon want to retire, man i'm too hot say my name, you know who i am break it down girl, say hallelujah girl, say hallelujah girl, say hallelujah because of town funk is going to give it to ya because uptown funk is going to
give it to ya don't believe me, just watch don't believe me, just watch don't believe me, just watch don't believe me, just watch don't believe me, just watch hey, hey, hey oh! ♪ ♪ do do do do ♪ ♪ before we leave let me tell you something uptown funk you up uptown jump jump on me don't think about it come show me it's saturday night
what? ♪ [song changes] >> ♪ go to times square, take a picture of me with a kodak tonight tonight -- ♪ >> ♪ tonight i am going to rock with you tonight give me everything tonight we always know we may not see tomorrow do it for love do it for love give somebody and tell them, hey do everything for life give me everything tonight's give me everything tonight ♪
[rapping] >> c-span's road toe the white house is providing live coverage of the two-hour coverage on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. you can provide your input by joining our call-in program or adding your comments on facebook and twitter. "road to the white house" 2016 on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. the c-span's city's tour
working with our cable affiliates is in cities across the country. this week we're joined by comcast to learn more about augusta, georgia. jimmy dais awarded the carnegie medal at the age of 19. he was also ordered the medal of honor posthumously. >> about 10 years ago there was a decision to do a permanent military display to honor jimmy dais. i went through over 9,000 carnegie medal recipients. and the 35 medal of honor and it turns out he's the only person to have earned both awards. he would almost say for sure that he did not deserve it. he was very humble. he never talked about the carnegie medal.
when i interviewed people who knew him when i did the book a long time ago, people knew him well. i said tell me what about the carnegie bell that he earned when he was 19. they didn't know anything about it. i've known a lot of medal of honor recipients. most of them will tell you i didn't deserve this medal. it should have been given to someone else. it's a piece of humility that we all would learn from. i think he would have been in that category. >> president wilson moved to augusta when he was just 1 year old. he moved to this house when he was 3. president wilson's very first memory was in november of 1860 before he was 4 years old. he was standing on the front gait out in front of the -- gate out in front of the house and two men came in a hurry
with very excited voices. and they said abraham lincoln has been awarded president and there's going to be a war. young tommy asked his father what was war? why were they so excited. we think it's remarkable that his very first memory was about another president abraham lincoln and about another war. wilson would have to lead the country through world war i. >> see all of our programs from augusta on c-span's 2 book tv and on american history tv on c-span 3.
>> president obama signed a three-month extension of highway funding hours before it was set to expire. he also made some brief remarks to reporters in the oval office. president obama: if this wasn't in front of me ready for cigna chures we would have programs that would be frozen after midnight. on the other hand, we have now made it a habit where instead of five-year funding plans for transportation, instead of long-term approaches where we can actually strategize about
one of the most important infra struck chures, how are they getting paid for it, the locality about how they are going to approach critical infra struck chure project roads, bridges ports airports. instead hand them out three months at a time which freezes a lot of construction which makes people uncertain. businesses not willing to hire because they don't have any long-term certainty. it's a bad way for the u.s. government to do business. so i want to make sure that before i sinet congress get -- sign it, congress gets the clear message which is we should not be leaving the business of the u.s. government in the last minute.
they haven't rethorsed the inport export bill which creates tens of thousands of jobs all across the country, good paying jobs because it increasing our import. when i was in ethiopia we had sold a score of flames ethiopian airlines from boeing not just in boeing's plan but across the small businesses all who benefit from us being able to facilitate the sell of u.s. products in other countries. i had a group of small business people with employees ranging from 12 employees to 500 employees who were saying that their business failed was starting to be affected by congressional inaction on what has traditionally for 81 years been a bipartisan support of the export/inport thing. that needs to get done.
congress has had all year to do a budget. and yet congress is leaving on vacation without it done. and when they get back they're going to have about two weeks in order to do the people's business. and this is going to be critical. we've got big issues that we have to deal with on the defense side. make sure that we're dealing our campaign against aisle. the support we're providing our allies. dealing with some very big problems and around the world extraordinary commitments that our armed services have to make in order to keep us safe on the domestic side. i've already said that we're not going to accept sequester level budgets. that it results iner feckive cuts to critical programs like english cation that are imperative -- program like
education that are imperative to our growth. congress probably deserves some time with their families, refuel a little bit. that some of these next six weeks are prepared to come up with a plan and an approach whereby democrats and republicans would sit down and work out a budget that works for everybody. and that everybody comes back with the spirit of compromise and a spirit of how do we make sure that our defense budget, dough mystic budget is reflective of things that are going to improve people's lives not just this year but the years to come. i also hope that we can go ahead and get an export/inport bank done because that's going to be crit catch. i hope we have longer term approach to transportation.
we can't keep on funding transportation by the seat of our pants three months at a time. it's just not how the greatest country on earth should be doing business. i guarantee you this is not how china, germany other countries around the world, other big powerful countries around the world handle their infrastrukechure. we can't have bridges collapsing and potholes not being filled because they can't come up with an adequate funding. ok? with that i'm going to sign this and i hope members of congress are listening and i hope that republicans could work things out among themselves. i think we've got to do some intraparty negotiations as well as negotiations between the parties. there you go. thank you, everybody.
secretary earnest: good afternoon. nice to see well. happy friday. let me do a quick announcement and we will go to our special guest today. on this coming wednesday, next week, the president will travel to american university and washington, d.c. to deliver a speech on the historic deal reached by the united states alongside our partners and allies to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. the president will continue his effort to make the case for why the iran deal verifiably prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. he will lay out the enormous stakes in the current debate taking place in congress and describe what is to manage is far preferable to the alternatives. many of you know, students of history, that 50 years ago, president kennedy spoke of a
future defined by peace, not war, at american university. the president will also describe how this debate is fundamentally about u.s. leadership in the world and how we can leave global efforts to address threats like iran's nuclear program the way we did when president teddy made the case for diplomatic efforts to address the threat of nuclear weapons and avoid catastrophic conflict. that should make for an interesting day on wednesday. joining me at the briefing today is energy secretary earnest moniz. many of you will recall his visit to the blog briefing room. since the announcement on july 14 of this final agreement, we have been trying to schedule his appearance here the briefing room to discuss the deal and to answer your questions about it. based on the president's travel schedule and secretary moniz's visits to capitol hill, today is the first day we were able to schedule this. secretary moniz? secretary moniz: my opening statement is there are too many familiar faces. i would like to reinforce what
was said that obviously, this agreement was focused on the question of nuclear weapons and iran. and the president's commitment and what i will believe will be a commitment a future presidents as well to commit that iran will not have a nuclear weapon. i believe it provides us with a lot of tools to make sure that is the case for it or if it isn't, to make sure that we find out in a timely way to respond. with that, i am open for questions. >> i'm wondering if you can clear up whether it's possible that iran -- secretary moniz: that's really question for the intelligence committee. i think what they would tell you is we feel pretty confident
that we know their current configuration, clearly the deal, of course, is ultimately based on verification. as general clapper said earlier this week, while we can never have 100% certainty, that we know everything, this agreements provides tremendously enhanced insight into the program, and certainly over the years ahead, with the measures we have taken, and with the considerable international presence in iran we expect to provide the intelligence community with many more tools. >> because of our lack of information on the iran nuclear program, could you talk to us
about the insights that you will get come in layman's terms, what you are expecting to get this deal goes through and you are allowed to walk in and see what's going on? secretary moniz: we should really think about a verification system as opposed to just one element here, one element there. they all work together. i think the critical issues are first, that we have tremendously enhanced presence at their nuclear facilities. if you like, they are known or declared nuclear facilities. that includes the most stringent containment and surveillance opportunities for the iaea, including the use of advanced technologies. secondly, and very important is there is an impressive and to visibility into the entire uranium supply chain. all the way from uranium basically just getting processed through a centrifuge manufacturing to conversion to gas. you name it.
i think an important part of that is that if iran were to try to develop a covert program, they would have to re-create an entire fuel cycle. an entire supply chain comics use me. beginning to and, in multiple locations, doing multiple technologies and one weak link in the supply chain and there would be a problem. that's very important, this entire supply chain. what i was saying earlier, it's really about more tools for the intelligence community. a third point i want to emphasize is, because there has been a lot made about the iaea process with regard to undeclared sites, and that is that we have for the first time, anywhere, a fixed time period for resolution. and secondly, we remain very confident in our abilities to
detect the signatures of any activity with nuclear materials. >> you been spending a lot of time on the hill talking the lawmakers and you mean a certain threshold -- you need a certain threshold of votes to override a veto. how may votes in the house and senate? secretary moniz: i don't count votes, just try to explain the deal. we remain convinced that the more chances we have to explain exactly what the agreement is, and of course, not for me but for the president and the secretary of defense, secretary of state to talk about the ensuing activities around regional security arrangements then the more i think we will be able to carry the day. >> iran has long denied they ever intended to develop nuclear weapons.
this is all about civilian nuclear energy. what is your sense, looking at the iran nuclear program -- do you have any doubt in your mind that the nuclear program was established with the intention of developing nuclear bombs? secretary moniz: a little historical perspective. of course, their nuclear energy programs started many, many decades ago. in fact, prior to the 1979 revolution. so, they were definitely going for nuclear energy for quite a while. now, one of the things, and i will refer to my previous life as an academic analyzing nuclear power issues, we always said that the economics were not there for developing things like enrichments, until you had the order of 10 nuclear power plants. iran statement that they are in
fact planning for a program of that are even greater size, and that they are, in light of supply challenges, looking to develop capacity to provide fuel for at least part of that. but that is their statement. we have said many times, this is not an agreement based on trust. if their statement were simply accepted at face value, they wouldn't have ended these engines regime in the first place. there would not be iaea reports out there that talk about structured programs up to 2003 that were looking at technologies relevant to a weapons program. this is all about verifying. it's all about, especially for the first 15 years, having dramatic restraints on their nuclear activities. from day one, and forever, to having strength and verification procedures.
>> what you say to the people of israel who are convinced that this, although in the ministrations perspective would make that country more safe, does just the opposite and that there will be so much money now with the ending of sanctions programs that will effectively put a bull's-eye on the state of israel from the money that will go to many of iran's partners like hezbollah, hamas, and others. whether it's a nuclear weapon or other weapons, they think it's a bull's-eye the goes on their heads. secretary moniz: even though i will tire of repetition, i want to emphasize this significantly rules back all aspects of their nuclear program, and that's the verification. with regards to funding, this is obviously not my lane. but i can certainly repeat what secretary lou has emphasized over and over again, first of all, the resources to which iran will have access is probably in the range of around
$55 billion. a lot of that is going to get tied up in a whole variety of areas, including their need to be able to finance international transactions. as jack has also said, obviously we're not going to say that some of this funding will not go to their military. so it's going to go there. what we say is, i think, what the president has said, what secretary kerry has said, what secretary carter said on wednesday at the senate hearing is that we are going to have to redouble our efforts around regional security issues, we're going to have to confront directly and energetically the various areas in which iran is generating instability and supporting terrorism. i think in the end, we need to
have a system that, without iran, having the confidence of iran not having a nuclear weapon, that we will be able to focus even more intensely on these additional security challenges. >> thank you. i want to ask you about the undeclared sites. what are the verification mechanisms that will be at play when you are monitoring the so-called undeclared sites? has that differ from monitoring undeclared sites, if it happens that iran is in sums sort of material violation, it is there a mulligan? what is the process before the international community does more than just sanction this regime? secretary moniz: there's a huge difference between declared an undeclared sites. in the former, in the iaea they will have daily access using advanced technologies, increased number of inspectors
and the resources to carry that out. by definition, an undeclared site starts out with one of -- with no monitoring because it was undeclared. intelligence is the foundation of being able to point the iaea to those locations. once that happens, then we have this defined process with a defined timeframe for resolving it. i would say that if you think in terms of possible violations of the agreements, clearly there was the opportunity for graded responses. for example, the snapback of you and sanctions is termed in whole or in part. so now comes the issue of what deserves a graded response versus a more robust response? for example, one of the very important conditions of the agreement is the 300 kilograms of low enriched uranium for 15 years.
for a short time, if there happens to be a little imbalance there, that's probably something that's going to get corrected. but you wouldn't call a material response to kind of bring down the whole 64 times. on the other hand, if there is nuclear activity, nuclear materials activity and undeclared site, that is found, i would consider that to be a very material breach, and one that would call for a reaction. >> yesterday, the president told supporters in a conference call that because so much money is being spent in opposition to this deal, it a lot of members are really feeling the political heat and some are getting quote -- squishy. are you experiencing that, and when you -- when the president does feel someone is getting squishy, are you the guy who calls to firm things up? secretary moniz: i'm certainly get enough calls -- getting enough calls to speak to
members. and i welcome it. i have been very frankly pleased at how many members are really getting into the documents, both public and confidential documents that we have supplied. squishy, i wouldn't use that term a. i have spoken to many members after they've had visits -- shall we say. it has led them to sharpen their questions, and hopefully for us to sharpen our answers. that is a we can do, to continue the process of explaining exactly what this agreement is. i think it will stand on its own. >> how much this has raised concerns.
[inaudible] secretary moniz: i want to dispel this idea of secret site deals. make sure the record is straight on that. there is no secret side deal. the jcdoa agreement is that iran will stop blunting the iaea attempts to finish the investigation. somehow we think this last visit to one site is kind of the whole thing. there has been many, many years of activity and reports that that is was responsible for a lot of the sanctions over the last years. the agreement is -- this is not secret, this is public. iran must respond by october 15 in terms of providing iaea all of the access it has asked for in their agreed-upon
protocol. those protocols, as a standard, are called safeguards confidential between the country and the iaea. the iaea's independence is very important or long-term interests. is a standard safeguards confidential protocol. i will give you an example. if you go back almost 25 years, the iaea basically took apart the south african program. those documents all remain confidential. that is the standard. the issue is, iaea negotiated with iran in confidential protocols. what would be the steps required for the iaea to have satisfaction that it could finish the job and issue the final report on what happened? typically we are talking 12 years ago. i welcome that.
i should say, when i met with the director general in vienna a few days before the agreement was completed, he said then that he was going to be very happy to come and have discussions with the administration and with the congress. i am personally quite pleased that he is following up on that in a timely way. i think it will be very helpful. >> you said you are not responsible for counting votes, but you set a considerable time on the hill, in public and behind closed doors meeting with members of congress. he also said you didn't refer to any of them getting squishy. what is your level of confidence on the hill?] secretary moniz: i remain confident this agreement will go into effect. ultimately, certainly unless there are too many closed minds, the thing which most
disappointed me was all of the opining on the agreement before was reached. i think as long as their open minds, the agreements is very, very powerful in its constraints on the iranian program and on its enhanced verification measures. i think as long as we keep at it and keep explaining that, and have others like the secretary kerry and secretary carter and the president reinforce our regional security , i think the deal will certainly go into effect. >> i know some people see this is corrected to the -- connected to the iran deal. there is a growing number in congress -- is that something you would support or are concerned about? secretary moniz: i find the
linkage to be interesting. i would note first of all a slight difference that iran is, after all, an oil exporter they would like to be more of an oil exporter than they are today, obviously. the united states remains an importer of 7 million barrels of crude oil per day. these are very, very asymmetric situations. there's a broader issue in general about american oil experts, obviously the congress has been acting on that. that is a question for secretary cisco. -- a question for secretary fisk or. >> i understand you just had a meeting with leaders of major jewish organizations, some who oppose the group. can you tell me if you think you made any headway in selling the deal? what are the questions you think are most formidable to persuading these leaders who are opposed? secretary moniz: it was a very good meeting.
a number of the jewish leaders came in from across the country. it showed, think right there a very strong interest in really having a chance to discuss the agreement in depth. make progress, again, i don't like to make value judgments. i can say it was a very good discussion here it not surprising, these were people who were well schooled in the agreements. but also had lots of clarifying questions to ask. i felt that we made real progress in terms of clarification of issues in terms of how this agreement was ultimately good for our security, and for the security in the region. a lot of the questions -- some of the ones being asked here. what is the 24 days? what is the iaea arrangement?
i was a lot of it focused on these questions of verification. we all understand that those are central to this question of finding any covert activity. i think for example, a point that was -- we emphasized and had impact, and had not been as fully appreciated is this idea of having transparency across the entire supply chain. of uranium, and how that significantly enhanced our capabilities to find anything outside of that allowed supply chain. i think it was a very good meeting and you are certainly correct that i think it was quite appropriate, people came to that meeting with very different perspectives. >> on the whole secret side deal allegation. secretary moniz: there is no secret side deal.
>> the folks who say we are placing a lot of trust in the iaea in subcontracting out the decision about what american sanctions should do in the future. should we trust the iaea? secretary moniz: we have always trust of the iaea. is an extreme a confident organization. i might add, partly because at a place like los alamos national laboratory, we have courses that all of the iaea inspectors take, for example. that has been going on for decades. we have obviously, many, many nationalities involved in the iaea safeguards activities area a number of them are american. typically coming from our laboratories. they will not be part of the inspection teams because of our lack of diplomatic relations, but they are a very confident organization. but we have done is give them
the tools they need to apply this talents. and i might say, to expand their scope relative to other things as well. for example, the issue of having verification opportunities literally for the uranium supply chain is something they have sought -- they would love to have. they have sought in other occasions. unsuccessfully. this will be the first time they will have the capability. this is aperiod in which they will have the ability to deploy advanced technologies, enrichment monitoring technologies. i might add, developed in our national laboratories. electronic seals, our laboratories worked on that. etc., etc. they are very competent, they need to have the options at their disposal to deploy their
tools -- this is what the agreement gives them. >> i wanted to ask a technical question about the heavywater reactor. the original framework agreement that the core would be destroyed. think the final agreement said that concrete will be poured into the core. is that the same as destroying it? secretary moniz: it renders it unusable in that or any future reactor. >> is there a potential if the steel breaks apart that iran would be able to get that recore restarted or rebuilt in a way. secretary moniz: obviously if it is rejected, i presume iran would not take the steps required of it. one of the steps is removing the chlondria from that reactor and in collaboration of the
p-5 plus one to carry through a design with less plutonium production and then build that reactor and in addition to send all of the radiated fuel out of the country for the whole life of the reactor. but if there's no agreement personally i don't see why they would do that. they would leave it in and finish the reactor which is a major plutonium producer. >> how long is that process -- at what point in the agreement are they supposed to actually have done the redesign in secretary moniz: as the agreement says, a working -- a working group will be setup involving iran involving the p-5 plus one. and that will go forward
immediately. you know, it's not like there hasn't been some work done on this. many -- many of the country's technical teams including our own particularly the argon laboratory where a lot of research reactor goes on. we've done modeling. that's why we have confidence in the basic parameters and you will even find two pages of the parameter specification of the new reactor. and then it will -- as expeditiously as possible to go you through design and then construction and commissionening of the reactor. >> have any of them come up with a credible alternative that they've suggest to you? >> i've not been honest at least one that has the same impact as the agreement does. we have said and you know,
again, i'm not the secretary of state but nevertheless i would opine that if we now undercut this agreement, it's hard to see how there would not be very negative consequences and very negative consequences that we would see very quickly, the most important point here is i think one of the mogs surprising elements of this agreement to many is the fact that the p-5-plus one could hang together through a tough grinding negotiation over a long time at the same time in which it's very clear some members of the p-5 plus one have some other issues. and we all know, i think who we're talking about. and yes, there was tremendous cohesion. and i think a core urnlying reason and one that gives me
some confidence that this cohesion will stick. if there is any question about how iran has implemented the agreement -- does the p-58 have a self-interest in preserving the nonper live ration machine. and so there was self-interest in seeing that this is ex-kited properly. >> one more we. >> god to see you. >> i am too. you're kind of somewhat unusual figure in washington. you've got the longer hair than the rest of us. and so -- can you tell us what it is about bringsing an ackzemic to washington. it's an unusual thing that this
may have worked out. and why you think you have to become the spokesperson. that you now brought for us. i didn't see sa smokesman for the agreement. >> it's an area that as you know, this is -- frankly this is not part of my -- this is not part of my job description. but obviously it was a style. and this is an area in which do i have a lot of experience. actually it's not known but here's some news -- >> bring it. >> here's some news. 1978 you can look up the american physical society like waste management. it's terrific. i recommend it for insomnia.
and -- and there's a chapter in there for your safeguards. and frankly i was the lead offer of that the other thing is, i will be honest, there was a certain fortuitousness in the sense that mr. salafi, who was also an m.i.t. graduate, i did not know him then, but we have at least some commonality, which probably helped move the negotiation along because these kinds of relationships are important. whatever the case is, i am happy obviously to assist the president and secretary kerry to aid in the negotiation to advance this agreement. >> you brought m.i.t. paraphernalia to some of these negotiations, is that right?
secretary moniz: i want to make it clear guile or anything else. i have two grandchildren. mr. salahi's first grandchild was born during the conversation. it seemed appropriate to connect his granddaughter to the educational past. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> is the book on amazon? [laughter] 1978 book, is that on amazon, i am not sure? [laughter] >> thank you, sir.
all right, we will take questions, so if there are additional discussions, we can get to them. >> on a different topic, i want to see what your response was or the president to the fire that has been blamed on jewish individuals in israel. mr. earnest: josh, the united states condemns the vicious attack. the arson attack on a family the dead of night resulted in the death of an 18-month-old baby, and an injury of three other family members. we convey our profound condolences to the family. the united states welcomes prime minister netanyahu's order to israeli security forces to apprehend the murderers. we urge all sides to maintain calm and avoid escalating tensions. >> american intelligence including cia are saying that
the islamic state is essentially as strong as it was a year ago despite all of our efforts there. basically they are replenishing it as quickly as we are diminishing them. does the white house agree with that? mr. earnest: josh, i think any evaluation of the facts and anyone with memory about what has transpired over the last 12 months what knowledge that we have made important progress in the campaign to destroy isil. that is undeniable. over the last year, the u.s. coalition has now hit isil with more than 5800 airstrikes, and that has resulted in the destruction of thousands of fighting positions, bomb factory, training camps, and even some isil fighters. our partners over the last year
have made important progress on the ground when talking about iraq. isil has been driven out of or at least is no longer able to freely operate in 25% above the populated areas that they previously controlled. that is an indication that their footprint has been reduced. that is quite a stark contrast to what was taking place one year ago today when isil was essentially operating and moving unimpeded across the desert in iraq, even threatening cities like urbil and baghdad. you will recall around this time a year ago there was a siege under way us intermountain where minorities where traps, and isil fighters were threatening to slaughter them. since that time, effectively with forces on the ground, since
mountain is no longer the site of a widespread slaughter like isil was threatening, and has been retaken by anti-isil forces. there are a variety of ways to measure the progress we have made in syria as well. the progress made in syria is not as significant as the progress made in iran, none the less, isil has been driven out. we have talked about the significant losses that isil fighters have endured, including a key city was was previously the gateway to an important supply route and that has no been shut down. there have been prominent
extremists taken off the field. the president ordered a raid back in may in which a senior isil commander in syria was killed, and a treasure trove of intelligence information was obtained and is currently being exploited. earlier this month, the department of defense announced the removal of a key al qaeda affiliated group leader. that is different from isil, but it is still a security concern at the president's articulated a year ago. that is to say nothing of the important progess that has been made on a political front in iraq. we have always indicated that progress on a critical that's on the political front would be critical. one year ago today, prime minister maliki was sitting comfortably in office, governing that country in a sectarian way
that ultimately undermined the effectiveness of the security forces but more broadly undermined the ability of the country to confront this isil threat. over the course of a last year we've seen a new government take office led by prime minister abadi. he has also extended that approach to the security forces, and that is improve the performance of iraqi security forces. i think the variety of measures to evaluate the progress we've made against isil in iraq and in syria and the provenance of those measures indicate that we have made important progress but there is no doubt that there continues to be significant challenges in confronting isil. you noted one of them, which is that isil has continued to demonstrate some ability to continue to recruit fighters to their side. this is an important part of our strategy, and we obviously would like to see additional progress
in confronting the flow of foreign fighters to the region countering their radicalization strategy that they pursued and social media, but more effectively operating in these communities that had previously been taken over by isil to ensure that we can put in place some kind of stable governing structure that will make it more difficult for isil to recruit sympathizers to their side. it is a long answer, but an important one. thanks. jeff? jeff: does the white house of any last-minute measures to help puerto rico ahead of the expected default this weekend? if not, are you concerned about the consequences of that? of that expected default. mr. earnest: jeff, as you know the administration has for some time been trying to work with puerto rico and its local leaders as they confront the financial challenges that they face in the commonwealth. puerto rico is home to more than
3.5 million u.s. citizens, who have persevered through a decade-long recession. we have put in place, the president has directed the creation of a puerto rico task force. some of the president of the most senior economic advisers have been engaged in the work of that task or some and obviously secretary lew has been closely following the efforts of both puerto rico and this task force to confront some of these significant financial challenges. i know that there is a payment that puerto rico is scheduled to make i believe by monday. what we have said for some time is that there should be no expectation of a federal bailout, but there should be the expectation that the obama administration will continue to work with puerto rico and their local leaders as they work with some pretty significant financial challenges. jeff: are you concerned about
that fallout? mr. earnest: i would refer you to the treasury department for economic analysis of the consequences if that payment is not made. at this point, i would be reluctant to foreshadow what the consequences could be since at least this point the payment is not due. all right, john? john: first on puerto rico former governor luis fortuno, an advocate of statehood, said if puerto rico moved ahead with statehood, it would be a lot easier to resolve these problems. he recalled conversations he had with the president on this where he found him not committed. what is the president for the position with puerto rico and statehood? mr. earnest: our position is this is the decision for the people of puerto rico to make.
structure has been created to try to resolve this issue, but our position continues to be that this would be a decision for the people of puerto rico to make. john: i was wondering if you can clear up one more thing on this negotiation with iran. at the president's news conference, in his memorable reply to major, he said the question is, why did we not try negotiations to their release, meaning the hostages. think about the logic that that create, and he went on to thoroughly. the next day, secretary kerry appeared on the morning joe program and said that during the iran nuclear talks, and i quote, "there was not a meeting that took place, not one meeting that took place, believe me, that is not an exaggeration, where we did not raise the issue of our american citizens being held," and he said it was the last conversation he had with the foreign minister.
it would seem, on the surface at least, the statements the president and the secretary of state made are contradictory. can you explain it and clear it up. mr. earnest: i can, john. we said even while the conversations were ongoing, that secretary kerry and others frequently raise the case of americans being unjustly detained in iran with their counterparts on the sideline of the ongoing negotiations. it means there was never a situation in which we offered of these unjustly detained americans as a bargaining chip in these ongoing negotiations. it is our view that these americans should be released without any conditions so that they can return to the united states and be united with their families. we continue to advocate for the release, and we will continue to
do that. the president made an important point in a news conference in saying that the successful conclusion of the nuclear negotiation was, as all of you know, not at all a foregone conclusion. in fact, there was some healthy skepticism about whether or not this would be completed. the negotiations were not completed until two weeks after the original deadline. so to suggest -- had these individuals and their fates been tied to the successful completion of the nuclear negotiation, and the negotiation not have yield an agreement, it would've only set back our efforts to try to secure the release, and that is why the presidents may be prudent judgment to routinely and at secretary kerry indicated daily make clear that the state -- a safe return of the american citizens is a top priority of the administration.
we would not subject them to back and forth bargaining that took place in the nuclear talks. olivier? olivier: any timelines? mr. earnest: no additional timelines. olivier: does this play in the closing of the entire naval base, or just the detention center? mr. earnest: just the detention center. >> the oval office called out congress for the house specifically for leaving without having done the budget. what conversation or what is the white house already doing to try to avoid a shutdown? mr. earnest: what the president has done and what he did back in february was to put out a very detailed budget proposal. this is a budget proposal that fully funds our national security, that assures the
success of our community, and their holding was paid for with commonsense reform to our tax code that would make our tax code more fair and more straightforward. that is the president's responseability, is to be clear and direct about what exactly is priorities are. but ultimately, the founding fathers of our nation believe that it was important for congress to have the power of the purse, and this is a constitutional responsibility, the basic responsibility of anyone who goes to the united states congress, which is to legislate and pass a budget for the united states of america. this is a constitutional congressional responsibility and the good news is that we have seen democrats be very forward leaning. they are willing to sit down at the negotiation table with those in congress to try to find a bipartisan common ground. that is the formula for past success. in 2013 after the government shutdown with sustained for a few weeks, there was a patch put
in place in a paul ryan and patty murray, a leading house republican and a leading senate democrat, sat down at the negotiating table and hammered out a bipartisan agreement. it was certainly not a big agreement, and there are some aspects of the agreement that the president did not like, but what it did do is it avoided a second government shutdown, and it identified clear bipartisan common ground where we can make investments above and beyond the sequester, not just in our national security but also in our economy. we believe that as a template for success, and we believe that is what democrats and republicans in congress should do. democrats have indicated a willingness to do that, but we have not seen the same willingness from republicans. that is a source of significant disappointment because we know what is going to happen. we have seen this will be before -- the ending is not very good. they will come back in early september, and it will say oh, my goodness, look at us, we only have three for a government shutdown. and they will claim that they do
not have time. the fact is, that is why it has been a source of such disappointment that republicans have been talking to democrats to pass a budget. so what's the president indicated is he was hopeful that they would use at least a couple of the next 39 days that they are on vacation to start having these kinds of conversations even if they are informal, even if they are phone calls, even if they are around a table at the beach somewhere. that we consider having constructing conversations between democrats and republicans in congress, that ultimately we arrive at a bar -- at a bipartisan budget agreement that is not risk any sort of government shutdown. >> would you veto a spending bill that would include defunding planned parenthood? mr. earnest: what we have indicated in the past can train used true today, that we have
routinely opposed the inclusion of ideologically driven writers in the budget. certainly a writer that on a whole basis what defines planned parenthood, it is something that was certainly get a veto. >> has the president spoken with senator schumer? mr. earnest: the president has spoken with a number of members of the united states senate, democrat and republican, but i do not have specific conversations to give you. april? april: do you have more information on the white house can vacation with cincinnati officials after the charges of the police officer there, the university police officer? mr. earnest: i'm not aware of any specific conversations that have taken place in the indictment was announced in the last day or two. i know that after the last several days of valerie jarrett, the president's senior adviser has been in touch with the mayor of cincinnati, but i'm not aware of any conversations that have taken place since the indictment
was announced. april: pleaded not guilty hate crime charges for the charleston shooting. what is the white house have to say about that? mr. earnest: this is a case that will be handled by the department of justice, and i know they take a significant responsibility that they have very seriously, and the president continues to have complete confidence in the skill and professionalism of our federal prosecutors. we are confident that this individual will be brought to justice. april: the president went down and eulogized the pastor there. he did not use dylann roof's name, but he brought it up, and there were references to the confederate flag. we heard from eyewitnesses about pure, racial hate. what do you say to that? mr. earnest: all i will say -- i
will be careful because i did not want to say anything that will be construed as influencing the criminal justice process. the president has a lot of confidence in the criminal justice process, and in no small part because of the skill and professionalism of our prosecutors. i will say there has been ample evidence that has been presented publicly, but what is most important is for that evidence to be presented in a court of law, and for the accused to be given all of the rights and responsibilities that the constitution guarantees. but we know that our federal prosecutors take this case seriously and have committed to pursuing justice. we believe that his exact we what they are pursuing right now. john? john: to come back to the planned parenthood videos, i wonder if you have an answer now whether or not the president has actually seen any of these videos. mr. earnest: i have not asked him that question point-blank, but i know that he is aware of the news that those videos have generated.
john: one of the central questions here of course is whether or not planned parenthood was involved in selling the fetal tissue for profit. there sure seems to be a strong suggestion that is is that we what was being talked about on those videos. does the white house believe this should be investigated? obviously selling fetal tissue for profit is against the law. does the white house believe it should be investigated? mr. earnest: again, what i will say as i have not seen the video, but those who have taken a close look at them have raised some significant concerns about their authenticity and whether or not they accurately convey the view of those particular officials or in the broader institution. the "new york times" described this as a campaign of deception, "the seattle times" described
this as manufactured and the "new york daily news" as grossly misleading. other thing i looted to yesterday as we've seen this kind of tactic be unscented by other extremist organizations that have an ideological agenda, and they marshaled what is purported to be convincing and damning evidence that later did not prove to hold up to much scrutiny, so i guess the scrutiny that these videos have gotten thus far by a handful of news organizations raises doubts about their authenticity. when it comes to specific determination about what is to be reach about it whether or not any sort of behavior or criminal action took place, that is obviously a determination that will be made by career
john: it seems like this is criminal behavior. the white house believe that this long-standing ban on the for-profit fetal tissue sale should be enforced? mr. earnest: of course this is the policy and the law, and we think everybody should be following the law. it is also a question of ethics, and what planned parenthood has indicated is that their standards are consistent with the highest ethical standards that are out there. and again, there are significant questions that have been raised by outside organizations about the content of these videos, so i think that would explain the comments that i've shared here but when it comes to making decisions about whether an
investigation of possible permittivity or charges being brought consistent with the suspicion of criminal activity those would be questions for the department of justice. john: it sounds like you are saying we should just believe planned parenthood. they say they have upheld the highest ethical standards. mr. earnest: the standards they say they have in place are certainly relevant in this case, again, those who have taken close looks at the videos have raised some significant concerns based on their own observations about the authenticity of the video. but, you know, ultimately, i think the american people will take a look at the evidence and decide for themselves. but when it comes to making decisions about whether an investigation of possible i think a lot of people here have seen the video based on the fact that it has gotten a lot of news attention. but i haven't, and i don't believe the president has. conservatives have raised significant concern about the
content of those videos. john? john: secretary of state clinton made a speech today in which she referenced the end of the u.s. embargo on cuba. a position that the president also supports. i want to read from you a piece from "the miami herald," and get your reaction from it. they write that they have yet to see any significant action from the castro regime that would enhance the civil liberties of the cuban people. do you disagree with that statement? mr. earnest: what we have seen john, are some steps like human -- steps the cuban government has taken, both in terms of releasing some clinical prisoners, and giving the cuban
population greater access to information. they are steps that the government previously resisted. i think that is an occasion of some forward progress. i think the other thing i would acknowledge is that our expectations is that the kind of policy changes that the president initiated just seven or eight months ago is strongly in the best interest of the united states and cuban people in the long-term. what we saw is the previous policy that was in place for more than 50 years did not yield any progress that anyone could point to, in terms of changing the government posture in the direction of respecting, it even protecting, the basic human rights of the cuban people. that is what prompted the president's policy decision to begin to normalize relations with cuba, and even established diplomatic relations with cuba. we did not see progress for more than 50 years, and when you are trying something for 50 years
and it doesn't work, it is time to try something different. what we have tried to do differently has resulted in at least what can be described as some preliminary change and positive indications about the future. one other data point that i would point to is that available data about the preferences of the cuban people indicate that more than 90% of them support the policy changes that the president initiated. even if they are skeptics here in the united states, the president who has the national security interest of the united states at heart believes this is the best decision for our country, and it is relevant that an overwhelming majority, and near unanimity of the qa people -- cuban people agree this is in the best interest of themselves too. john: they also write said daily arrests, acts of repudiation of anyone who questions the official line is still in place. do you disagree with that?
mr. earnest: there is no doubt that there is significant progress that remains to be done. there are a number of additional steps we like to see the cuban government take to do a better job of protecting and respecting the basic human rights of the cuban people, including those in cuba who may have political differences with the government. there is no design that there is -- denying that there is additional progress that is needed. we believe that progress is more likely, it we can be more effective in pressing for that progress by more deeply engaging with the country, and reestablishing diplomatic ties. kevin? kevin: i want to follow up on the question about the planned parenthood video. you mentioned grossly misleading, partisan, even saying that have been impartial
observers who have raise questions. who are these "impartial observers" to whom you refer. can you understand why there are so many americans who believe their voices should also be heard here at the white house? whether they be democrats republicans who believe that what is revealed in the video is grotesque? mr. earnest: "the new york times" has referred to this as a campaign of deception. kevin: seriously, you can't say the times is an partial -- impartial about all things vis-a-vis all things planned parenthood. i've never seen them criticize planned parenthood, and you are saying they are impartial. mr. earnest: i will refrain from discussing partiality with regards to any news agency in this room. particularly about this
question. kevin: do you believe the law is being applied equitably, especially when you consider the david petraeus case. they went and got all of his information, took all of his computers. in the case of the clinton circumstance, the server still has not been picked up by anyone a law-enforcement. do think that is an equitable use of the law? mr. earnest: i would not judge the use of a lot by the -- the decision being made about enforcing the law by the department of justice. you should direct questions to them. kevin: if i could direct my question to the e-mails themselves, is the white house confident that the secretary of state, the then secretary of state clinton, was right to predetermined that which was classified, what does the white -- or does the white house believe that she should have
done something different and allow someone else to determine what was classified on her server? mr. earnest: the requirement for secretary clinton and for every official serving in the obama administration is to ensure that in those instances where they use their personal e-mail in the conduct of official government business, that they turn over those official e-mails to agency officials so that they can be properly maintained, archives, and use in responding to requests for information from the general public or congress. that is what secretary clinton has done, and those are request that the state department is currently attempting to fulfill. >> lastly, i want to ask about sandra bland. i would not say the case has gone cold, but there has been less news. mr. earnest: i understand that there was a commission created at the state level to look of the conduct of the state level law enforcement agency there. i know there are some state
legislators that are actively involved in the discussions. i believe there was a hearing yesterday on this matter. the department justice continues to monitor the situation, both the review at the local level, but also the efforts that are underway at the state level. carol? carol: are there any deal wednesday speech? will there be anything new in the speech? meaning, you have talked about this a lot, he has talked about this a lot. you are delivering this at a time when people are typically on vacation. mr. earnest: we will have some more details on a number of those questions next week. i can tell you the president is looking forward to the
opportunity to make a strong case about our broader national security interest and how preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon through diplomacy advances the interest of our allies. i think the other thing i alluded to in the opening statement is that this is also the venue in which president kennedy himself delivered a speech, i believe about 52 years ago, at american university where he talked to his effort to -- about his effort to try to use diplomacy to make a nuclear war less likely. in this case it was a war between united states and the soviet union. trying to advance our interests through diplomacy, even when the threat of nuclear weapons is involved, is something that has served our country well in the past. the president believes it will serve our country well in the
future, particularly when it comes to confronting iran. fred? fred: can you follow up on the new york times editorial board piece? mr. earnest: is there a question? fred: are you putting that in the context of an impartial observation because it is an editorial? mr. earnest: i am. i'm not saying they don't have an opinion, but that they are individuals who can look at the facts and can render an opinion. if you want to raise questions about the credibility of factcheck.org, ironically, you can as well.
the point i am making is that i have not seen the video. for those who have, they have raised concerns about the content. ultimately, what the president believes is that -- or, our position on this is that if the department of justice inquiry is required, that is a decision they will make. for questions about that, i would refer to the department of justice. fred: couldn't one argue that the funding of planned parenthood is ideological? in terms of receiving federal tax dollars. mr. earnest: fred, i think it is relevant to point out a couple of things. planned parenthood does provide
important preventative care and services to men, women, and children across the country. millions of men and women visit planned parenthood centers annually. the other thing that is true and this also applies to planned parenthood, and sometimes i think it gets lost in the debate is that no federal funds are permitted to cover abortions or administer plans that administer abortions unless in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger. that is the case since the 1980's. fred: is there any reason to believe the president will watch the video? mr. earnest: not that i am aware of. chris? chris: at a gay pride parade in jerusalem yesterday, at least six people were stabbed. do you condemn the action? mr. earnest: absolutely.
this is a terrible act of violence. one that the united states strongly condemns. scott? scott: what is the white house position -- mr. earnest: if she wants an opinion on this policy matter, she can do so in private. scott: we want an opinion. mr. earnest: this is a policy decision that ultimately will be determined by the secretary of commerce at the department of commerce. i don't want to leave you with the impression that the white house would be left out of the loop, but if any communication is necessary, that would take place in private. scott: gasoline prices tend to track international oil prices oil prices.
would that a relevant thing to consider in making that policy choice? mr. earnest: ultimately, that is up to the department of commerce to figure out. sarah? sarah: it was reported that both the times and several other news organizations were told that it was criminal, that later emerged to not be the case. is the president concerned whether accurate information or not, the justice department is leaking information about a potential successor? mr. earnest: i think -- i have gotten in trouble when i have opined on relying on information -- on relying on anonymous sources for important news reports.
i want to refrain from relying on that again. i would let you all decide on that. the department of justice, i think, has gone to some lengths to try and help you understand what is going on in this situation. that is made more difficult because the report not only relied on anonymous sources in the department justice, but elsewhere, who, one could logically conclude, maybe even impartially conclude, might have an ax to grind in this particular matter. ultimately, it is news organizations themselves to have to account for their own reporting. they will have to account also for relying on what turned out to be a questionable, if not misleading, anonymous sources for a really important story. ultimately, that will be something for news editors and media reporters to turn through.
i will let them to do that on their own. sarah: is it awkward though, for the administration, and has the president said anything to attorney general lynch, or at the justice department about dealing with things concerning secretary clinton? mr. earnest: no. i'm not aware of those conversations. the department justice, like the other agencies in the obama administration, goes to great lengths to help you understand what is going on inside the administration, and why it is happening. in this case, the department of justice worked hard to let the news media and american public know what was happening, and that was complicated by the fact that the original report was wrong. that did not prevent the department justice from trying to work to help you understand exactly what the facts were.
jared? jared: in a conference call last night, the president cautioned supporters to not make the same mistake as with iraq. how does the administration of -- when trying to sell the iran nuclear deal, avoid this paradox that the more that is known as objectively, the less is trusted about the veracity of those reports. that is a paradox that investigators fell into with iraq. mr. earnest: i think i see a little bit differently. as it relates to this deal, i think the more people understand the agreement and the commitments, and the nature of the most intrusive inspections the more likely they are to support the agreement. they will understand that this will shut down every pathway
that iran has to a nuclear weapon, and it would give us significant confidence that we had good insight into iran's nuclear program, and whether or not they are following the terms of the agreement that they committed to. andrew? andrew: -- or a little annoyed with you. i'm not sure if you heard something about this? [indiscernible] mr. earnest: it was. andrew: i'm wondering if you want to back those remarks. -- walk back those remarks or if you think they still stand. mr. earnest: i certainly still stand by those remarks. i stand by those remarks. andrew: just for clarification on the confidential protocol
between iran and the iaea, who is aware? of the contents of that protocol? mr. earnest: our negotiators. it is the basis of that briefing that we have made a commitment to sharing, in the classified setting, that information with members of the congress. my understanding is that wendy sherman is the individual who briefed house members in a classified setting earlier this week, and she has made an offer to brief members of the u.s. senate in a classified setting. that leads me to believe that she is the one who was briefed by the iaea on the contents of the agreement, but you should ask the state department directly. andrew: obviously you can't speak about confidential protocol, but can you envision a situation where the iaea would come to a broader conclusion as far as iran's nuclear intentions without access to iranian scientists?
mr. earnest: my understanding is that the iaea has indicated they will have access to all the information they need to write the report. i mentioned yesterday some irony of some republicans in the united states senate who say they are not scientists and therefore cannot form an opinion about the reality of climate change, yet, all of a sudden they have the expertise of a nuclear physicist and can effectively determine what sort of access and information the iaea needs to write the report. i think it is -- that is why we don't put a lot of -- that is why we don't find those are critiques from republicans in congress to be particularly credible. the last one, and then the week ahead. >> do you think members of congress will go on a five-week vacation?
what will the white house be doing to reach out or make themselves available to talk about unfinished business? will you call congress members back in the district or do any lobbying? mr. earnest: i may have been subtle with the previous question, so i will be a more direct. the white house has put forward a budget. i believe is february 1 -- it was february 1. if it was sitting here, it would be as big as a phone book. there is detailed information -- ample and firm -- information and a very detailed proposal that the white house has put forward on how we think the budget should be funded. if congress decides they don't want to do work and want to pass our budget, we would certainly welcome that. my position is that they would want to weigh in. the good news is the founding fathers have given that the responsibility of maintaining
the powers of the purse, so ultimately it will be congress's responsibility to pass the budget. that is why you have heard me say repeatedly that it is republicans responsibility and congress to sit down with democrats in congress and find some common ground to find a budget that can be passed well in advance of september 30 to keep the government open, and find it at appropriate levels in the best interest of our economy and national security. the white house will certainly be available to facilitate those conversations, offer advice, and weigh in with our opinion if it is requested. but ultimately when it comes to the responsibility of funding the government of the united states, the responsibility of the president is to put forth his own budget proposal, something we did almost exactly six months ago. it is the responsibility of the congressional leadership to pass a budget and put it on the president's desk before the end of the fiscal year. i will remind you one last time,
john boehner and mitch mcconnell, in the aftermath of the election, the day after the midterm election, when it was confirmed that republicans would be in charge of congress they penned an op-ed saying that they would get congress moving again. congress's most basic function, most basic responsibility is to pass the budget. what we know about the progress is it will require the support of at least some democrats in the senate for the budget to pass. that is why we have been urging for months for republicans in the house and senate to sit down with democrats in the house and senate to find this bipartisan agreement. that has been something that republicans have resisted. it certainly runs contrary to the promise that they made to get congress moving again. it will come back from their recess in september and will be worried about making all of this -- getting all of this work done in three weeks.
we are worried about it too, and that is why they should start now. the work they need to do now is there across the table from congressional democrats, and find some common ground. the silver lining of all of this is this is exactly how they work through problems in the past. in 2013, there was a government shutdown. in the aftermath, democrats and republicans set down across from each other and hammered out a solution. it was a solution that funded at appropriate levels, above the sequester, both for national security and the economy. there is a template that we should follow, that has been successful in the past. republicans, thus far, have resisted. that has been the source of the frustration that i express, and the president expressed in the oval office. >> efforts to reject the iran deal -- i imagine that will be to begin the recess, as we
approach the deadline. what will the white house be doing to counter that huge influx of money? mr. earnest: i think the president convened the call yesterday with americans across the country. because of his believe in the power of grassroots organizing. there are people all across the country who have been following this issue, and are concerned about making sure that we don't engage in a rush to war, that we have so much more focused on using other elements of american authority, including diplomacy to resolve questions that are relevant to our national security. in this case, the president has done exactly that. he has used his influence around the globe to build an international coalition. it put in place sanctions that we coordinated with the rest of the global community, including the largest economies around the world, put intense pressure on
iran, compel them to come to the negotiating table, and they voluntarily agreed to shut down every pathway they have to a nuclear weapon. to essentially render harmless a heavy water reactor at iraq, and agreed to the most intrusive set of inspections that has ever existed on a country's nuclear program. by following through on this diplomatic agreement, and working with the international community to implement it and enforce it, it is not only the best way to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, failing to do so only makes one in the middle east more likely. that is why the president has advocated so strongly for this agreement. that is why he will continue to do that in the days and weeks ahead, and that is what we will encourage americans all across the country to do. to talk to their friends and neighbors, their coworkers, the
people at church, to explain to them exactly what is included in this agreement, and why we believe it is something that should be supported not only by people around the country, but by every member of congress. with that, why don't we look at the week ahead, and you can begin your weekend. on monday, the president will address the second class of 500 mandela fellows at the african leaders presidential summit. the initiative, launched by the president in 2010, connects the united states to leaders in sub-saharan africa and provides them with opportunities they need to make a meaningful impact in their communities. the three-day summit will bring together 500 of sub-saharan africa's most promising young leaders to meet with the president and other entrepreneurs. the event will be a capstone to the president's trip to africa where he confirmed his commitment to youth across the continent and entrepreneurial
approaches to common challenges. on tuesday, the president will host ban ki-moon in the oval office. in the afternoon, the president will offer marks at the white house demo day. we will have more details on that over the week. >> what is that? mr. earnest: demo day. i think it is short for demonstration. white house demolition day is a different event, but an event that i am similarly looking forward to. on wednesday, the president will deliver a speech on the nuclear deal reached with iran at american university here in washington. on thursday and friday, the president will be here at the white house, but we will have more details on his schedule earlier next week. >> daytime? nighttime? mr. earnest: we are working on details, but i anticipate the daytime. we will keep you posted. have a great weekend. [captioning performed by the
national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> next, the secretary of state john kerry on the state department's 2015 report on human trafficking. then president of candidates hillary clinton, jeb bush, bernie sanders, ben carson and martin o'malley speak at the urban league convention. live at 7 a.m. your calls and comments on washington journal. on newsmakers, alabama senator richard shelby talks about the
export import bank, the dod d-frank banking law and other topics. newsmakers, 6 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the only pilot in history to ever fight the british navy to a standstill. >> this is unheard of. >> he actually fired the first shot. >> this sunday night author robert kersin on the search for the pirate ship the golden fleece and its captain joseph bannister. >> he started off his life as a noble english sea captain who was trusted by very wealthy shipowners to sail their ship between london and jamaica which
was known as the wickedest port on earth. for years, he did that responsibly and nobly. one day in 1684 for reasons no one could determine joseph bannister stole his own ship, recruited a pirate crew and turned into a pirate. >> sunday night at eight 8:00 eastern and pacific. >> on monday, secretary of state john kerry announced the release of the state department's 2015 human trafficking report. it assesses efforts around the world to fight slavery. the secretary's remarks are about 15 minutes. [applause]
secretary kerry: thank you. thank you very much. sara, thank you very much. thank you all for being here this morning and witnessing me on one crutch in public. if my doctor sees that, i am in serious trouble. i not supposed to do that until next week, but i could not resist. i really can think of no better way to start this week than with such a gathering of really remarkable people, all of whom are determined to make a difference in a cause that really counts. i'm very honored to be here, particularly happy to see from capitol hill my friend and former colleague, senator amy klobuchar, and representative chris smith, who has been such a longtime champion on these issues. both of them are two champions
in this fight. i'm delighted to see the first lady's chief of staff, thank you for being with us. also, i want to recognize jeff zucker, the head of cnn. cnn has made a special cause of the accountability reports as i travel around the world. jeff, i'm very appreciative to cnn for their commitment to this cause. there are members of the diplomatic corps here, and that is absolutely vital to us because international cooperation is the key to our being able to have an impact and make progress, and we are. there are leaders from civil society here. they are -- all of them bolstering networks that are built around the world to fight back increasingly creating sophisticated strategies. that is the only way we will
succeed in this battle. it is a battle against money. it is a battle against evil. it is quite remarkable that in the year 2015, we face a modern version of slavery. something we actually fought a civil war over here in this country. it is vital for us to push back against this. i'm particular grateful to the entire trafficking in persons team who stood up a few moments ago. i'm grateful to carry johnstone who has been the acting director. it is really a task that is brought together by every division, every office, every mission of the entire state department. this report is the product of
really an entire year-long effort. these holes will leave here today and will begin next year's report. it is a constant process of following up with the employees of our diplomatic posts around the world, gathering facts information, and helping to lay it out. this report is important because it really is one of the best means that we have, as individuals, to speak up for adults and children who back any effective platform whatsoever through which they are able to speak for themselves.because of its credibility, this report is also a source of validation and inspiration to activists on every single continent who are striving to and this scourge of modern
slavery. i want to emphasize, as i did last month when we issued a report on our human rights observations around the world the presence of this document is not to school, -- is not to scold and not to aim and shame it is to enlighten and to energize and most importantly to empower people. by issuing it, we want to bring to the public's attention the full nature and scope of a $150 billion illicit trafficking industry. and it is an industry. pick up today's "new york times" on page -- story about a young company and boy promised a construction job -- a young cambodian boy promised the construction job, goes across the border and finds himself in the hands of armed men and pressed into service overseas.