tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 9, 2015 9:00pm-11:01pm EDT
affairs, financial services, the judiciary, oversight and government reform and ways and means. and whereas the house of representatives is scheduled to vote on a resolution of disapproval on the iran nuclear agreement as soon as september 9, 2015, a procedure provided for under section 135-e-4 of the atomic energy act of 1954, as enacted by section 2 of the review act. d whereas such a vote is injurious as to the integrity of the house as it violates the process provided under section 135-4 of the atomic energy act of 1954, transmission -- transmittal of the iran nuclear agreement and all related documents, including side agreements and the observance of the congressional review period provided in section 135. and whereas in her august 5, 2015, letters to the members of congress, assistant secretary
of state fryfield inaccurately stated the united states does not have a right to demand the side agreement documents from the iaea. . where as the former deputy director and chief inspector of the iaea, according to the rules and practices such documents could be made available to members of the iaea board. whereas he further stated the issue of confidentiality is an important matter for the iaea, however it should not be used as a blanket to stop legitimate questions particularly regarding verification methods at perfect chant. historically the iaea had not viewed such as confidential. they have disclosed much more detailed facility speask a proaches at regular safeguards sim posea. additionally, in 2007, the iaea iran work group addressing outstanding issues accumulated over several years was made
available to all iaea member states and the board also received a 2012 document from iran related to very specific p.m.d., possible military dimension questions, which happened while the iaea was negotiating with iran for greater clarity and access. whereas part one section 5 of iaea information circular 153 provides that specific information related to such implementation of measures to safeguard nuclear materials in the state may be given to the board of governors and any such -- to such agency staff members as required such knowledge. and whereas article 6 of the statute of the iaea authorizes the board of governors of the iaea to direct the work of the iaea including and safeguarding nuclear materials and ensuring the peaceful end of a nuclear participating member states nuclear program, and whereas rule 18 of the rules of the board of governors of the iaea
entitled circulation of documents in particular importance establishes procedures by which member states of the iaea board of governors may access relevant documents and re-- related to their duties. whereas the united states serves on the board of governors of the iaea and has both the need and the authority to access the actual text of the two side agreements between the iaea and iran, whereas on july 30, 2015, white house press secretary josh ernest speaking on behalf of the president of the united states stated i will acknowledge that i don't know exactly what the requirements are of the iran review act. so i'm not sure exactly what that means congress is acting for. whereas on april 6, 2015, white house press secretary josh ernest stated, we do believe that congress should play their rightful role in terms of ultimately deciding whether or not the sanctions that congress passed into law should be removed.
whereas on april 7, 2015, white house press secretary josh ernest further stated, members of congress should consider the agreement and decide whether or not the president has achieved his stated objective of preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. shutting down every pathway they have and making them cooperate with the most intrusive set of inspections that have ever been imposed on a country's nuclear program. whereas the joint comprehensive plan of action which was negotiated and agreed to by the obama administration fails to accomplish these objectives. whereas any recognition by the house of representatives of the transmittal by the president of an iran nuclear agreement does not include -- that does not include all of the materials required by law, including the text of the two side agreements agreed to between the iaea and iran violates the rights of the members of the house individually, in their representative capacity, impeding their ability to make a fully informed decision on how to vote on behalf of their
constituents as conceived and provided for in the enactment of the review act. whereas the director of the national intelligence -- director of national spence james clapper has labeled iran the state's -- world leading state sponsor of terrorism. whereas the web shite whitehouse.depfment ov states that iran currentlyly has a two to three week break out time to build a nuclear bomb. whereas, legislative action on an iran nuclear agreement is one of the most important issues that will ever come before the house as it is directly affecting the safety and security of the members of the house and their constituents. whereas taking of legislative action without reasonable consideration and knowledge damages the reputation and cridibility -- credibility of the house collectively and its members individually in her representative capacities. whereas the president's failure to follow the law that he signed is an affront to the dignity of the house and cannot be ignored, now, therefore, be it resolved, that the house of representatives, one, reaffirms
its legal right to obtain all materials, including the full text of all side agreements exricing the iran nuclear agreement as defined in section 135-h-1 of the atomic energy act of 1954 as enacted by section 2 of the iran nuclear agreement review act of 2015 in the section referred to as the review act signed into law by president obama. two, directs the parliamentarian of the house of representatives not to recognize for purposes of determining the date of the congressional review period prescribed in section 135-b of atomic energy act of 1954, as enacted by section 2 of the review act any agreement and related documents commit smithed by the president that do not include the actual text of two side agreements between the iaea and iran. three directs of clerk of the house of representatives and officers of the house to correct executive communication number 2207 appearing on page
5522 in the congressional record of the legislative day of july 27, 2015, to state the following. a letter from the assistant secretary of legislative affairs state department transmitting a letter and attachment which does not satisfy all requirements of section 135-a of the atomic energy act of 19534 as amended by the iran nuclear review act of 2015, public law 114-17, as received july 19, 2015, jointly to the committees on foreign affairs, financial services, judiciary, oversight and government reform, and ways and means. four, instructs the speakerer of the house to dispatch without delay a notification to the president on behalf of the whole house entitled failure to follow the law and stating that, a, the president's transmittal of that agreement to the house is incomplete as a matter of law. b, consequently the congressional review period provided in section 135 of the atomic energy act of 1954 as
enacted by section 2 of the review act has not begun. and c, pursuant to section 135-b-3 of the atomic energy act of 1954 as so enacted in the end of the congressional review period the president nay not waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions with respect to iran under any provision of law or refrain from applying any such sanctions pursuant to an agreement described in subsection a. five, instruct the speak every of the house of representatives on behalf of the whole house to return the agreement and related materials provided in the president's transmission of july 19, 2015, in order that the president may provide a full and complete transmission of all materials required by side luding the text of agreements. and six, instruct the speaker
to take such actions as may be necessary to provide an appropriate remedy to ensure the integrity of the legislative process is protected and to report his actions and recommendations to the house. mr. speaker, if you didn't announcer: as early on thursday, they can bring in discussing three separate measures, one which would express that the obama administration has not met deal bysight of the failing to give lawmakers text on the so-called secret side deals. the second measure would prevent the u.s. from lifting sanctions on iran, and the third would be a resolution to approve the iran nuclear agreement, and follow live house coverage when they gavel back in here on c-span. announcer: some live events to
tell you about on c-span3. a national security summit gets underway with a few capitol hill lawmakers, including senator dianne feinstein, the top democrat on the senate intelligence committee, and the 8:00 a.m. eastern. later at 10:00, the chairman will convene a hearing of his committee on global cyber threats. anddirector john brennan fbi director james comey are among the witnesses. iranhen as debate over the nuclear accord continues on capitol hill, we will have live coverage of a hearing on the implications for missile defense and nonproliferation, including visuals from the defense department and the administrator of the national nuclear security administration. that begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. more about the iran nuclear agreement. presidential
candidate and former secretary of state hillary clinton says she will not hesitate to use .uclear action if necessary from the brookings institution, this is about one hour and 15 minute. -- 15 minutes. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [applause] >> good morning, everybody. welcome to you all, and especially welcome to secretary clinton. she is, as you all know, here today to talk to us about the iran nuclear agreement, which i think is safe to say is one of the most if not the most contentious foreign policy issues that we have debated in this country since the decision to go to war in iraq a dozen
years ago. last evening, brookings hosted a mccain which senator took part in with three brookings scholars who were on different sides of the issue. , lively,substantive and civil debate. secretary clinton, of course, is deeply knowledgeable on the subject that we are devoting this morning too. as a senior member of the cabinet, she played a critical role in shaping america's strategy to combat and thwart iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, including having a very strong and instrumental role in setting up the international sanctions that were so important in bringing the iranian government to the table.
now, this issue is obviously going to reverberate this presidential campaign. posted declared and potential candidates from both parties, and they have been here on this stage to talk about both domestic and foreign policy matters, and we have invited several more to be with us in the future. after her opening comments, secretary clinton will have a ,onversation with my colleague the executive vice president of the brookings institution, and there will be time towards the end of the program for her to take a few questions from the invited guests here in the audience. secretary? welcome back. mrs. clinton: thank you very much. [applause]
mrs. clinton: thank you, and especially to you. has hosted many important conversations over the hiss, and i appreciate reference to the event last night and the continuing dialogue about urgent issues facing our nation and the world. brings me here today back to brookings, to talk about the question we are all grappling with. how to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and more broadly, how to protect ourselves and our allies from the full range of threats that iran poses. the stakes are high, and there are no simple or perfectly satisfying solutions, so these questions, and, in particular, the merits of the nuclear deal
recently reached with iran, cap goodwellpeople with and raised issues on both sides. see it.how i either we move forward on the path of diplomacy and sees this chance to block i ran a positive chance for a nuclear weapon, or we turned down a more dangerous path leading to a far less certain and riskier future. deal.s why i support this i support it as part of a larger strategy towards iran. by now, the outcome in congress is no longer in much doubt, so we have got to start looking ahead to what comes next, in forcing the deal, deterring iran and its proxies and strengthening our allies. these will be my goals as president, and today i want to talk about how i would achieve them. let me start by saying i
understand the skepticism so many feel about iran. i, too, am deeply concerned about iranian aggression and the need to confront it. it is a worthless, brutal regime that has the blood of americans and many others, including its own people, on its hands. it's political rallies resound with cries of death to america. its leaders talk about wiping israel off the face of the map, most recently just yesterday, and foment terror against it. there is absolutely no reason to trust iran. mightice president cheney hope that the american people will simply forget, but the truth is by the time president obama took office and i became secretary of state, iran was racing towards a nuclear capability. had mastered the nuclear
fuel cycle, meaning that they had the material, scientists, and technical know-how to create material for nuclear weapons. installedroduced and thousands of centrifuges, expanded their secret facilities, established a robust uranium enrichment program, and defied their international obligations under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, and they had not suffered many consequences. i voted for sanctions again and again as a senator from new york, but they were not having much effect. most of the world still did business with iran. up our game,step so president obama and i've pursued a two pronged strategy. pressure and engagement. we made it clear that the door to diplomacy was open if iran answered the concerns of the
international community in a serious and credible way. we simultaneously launched a comprehensive campaign to significantly raise the cost of iranian defiance. we systematically increased our military capabilities in the , deepening our cooperation with partners and sending more firepower and an additional aircraft carrier, battleship, strike aircraft, and the advanced radar and missile systems available. the world i traveled capital by capital, leader by leader, twisting arms to help build the global coalition that produced some of the most effective sanctions in history. with president obama's leadership, we worked with congress and the european union to cut iran off from its financial and economic system, and one by one, we convinced energy hungry consumers of iranian oil to cut back.
soon, iranian tankers sat rusting in sports. its economy was collapsing. these new measures were ineffective because we made them global. american sanctions provided the foundation, but i ranted not really feel the heat until we turned this into an international campaign. so iran had no choice but to negotiate. a could no longer play off one country against another. hide, sono place to they started looking for a way out. i first as it did to speak with the sultan of oman in january 2011. i went back later that year. he helped to up a secret back channel. aides one of my closest to begin talks with the iranians in secret negotiations began in
earnest after the iranian election in 2013. first, the bilateral talks led by the deputy secretary and jake sullivan that led to the interim agreement, then the multilateral talks, led by secretary john kerry, and undersecretary wendy sherman and others. now, there is a comprehensive agreement on iran's nuclear program. is it good? well, of course not. is,greement like this ever what is it a strong agreement? yes, it is, and we absolutely should not turn it down. -- the merits of the deal happen will discussed, so i will not go through them here. the bottom line is it accomplishes the solid goals we wanted to achieve. it cuts off every pathway for giveso get a bomb, and it
us better tools for verification and inspection and to compel rigorous compliance. up aut a deal, i ran serious breakout time, how long they need to produce material for a nuclear weapon, would shrink to a couple of months. deal, that breakout time stretches to a year, which means that if iran cheats, we will know it, and we will have time to respond decisively. without a deal, we would have no credible inspections of i ran up us as nuclear facilities. with a deal, we will have unprecedented access. we will be able to monitor every aspect of their nuclear program. now, some have expressed concern that certain nuclear restrictions expire after 15 years, and we need to be vigilant about that, which i will talk more about in a moment, but other parts are permanent, including iran's
obligations under the nonproliferation treaty and their commitment to enhance inspections under the additional protocol. others have expressed concern that it would take up to 24 days to gain access to some of iran's --ilities when we ask suspect cheating. i would be the first to say that this part of the deal is not perfect. although the deal does allow for daily access to enrichment facilities and monitoring of the entire nuclear fuel cycle. to focus on that because being able to monitor the supply chain is critical to what we will find out and how we will be able to respond. but our experts tell us that even with delayed access to some places, this deal does the job. nuclear particles
remain for years and years. they are impossible to hide. secretary, ahe nuclear physicist, is confident in this plan, and some have since jested that we just go back to the negotiating table and get a better, unspecified deal. whyn certainly understand that may sound appealing, but as someone who started these talks in the first place and has built our global coalition piece by piece, i can assure you it is not realistic. if we walk away now, our capacity to sustain and enforce the sanctions will be severely diminished. we will be blamed, not the iranians. so if we were to reject this agreement, i ran will be poised to get nearly everything it wants without giving up a thing. no restrictions on their nuclear program. no real warning if tehran suddenly rushes towards a bomb,
and the international sanctions regime would fall apart. no more economic consequences for iran either. those of us who have been out there on the diplomatic front is notnow that diplomacy the pursuit of perfection. it is the balancing of risks, and on balance, the far riskier course right now would be to walk away. just expect cannot the rest of the world to go along with us. be reasonable and consistent, and we need to keep our word, especially when we are trying to lead a coalition. that is how we will make this and future deals work. but it is not enough to just say yes to this deal. of course, it isn't. , yes ando say yes and we will enforce it with vigor and vigilance. embed it in al
broader strategy to confront iran's bad behavior in the region. yes, and we will begin from day one to set the conditions so iran knows it will never be able to get a nuclear weapon, not during the term of the agreement, not after, not ever. clear, and i think we need to make that very clear to iran about what we expect from them. this is not the start of some larger diplomatic opening. and we should not expect that this deal will lead to broader changes in their behavior. a promise weot be are proceeding. instead, we need to be prepared for three scenarios. first, iran tries to cheat, something it has been quite willing to do in the past. second, i ran tries to wait us
out, for 15 years when some but not all of the restrictions ramps upnd third, iran its dangerous behavior in the region, including its support or terror groups like hamas and hezbollah. i believe the success of this deal has a lot to do with how the next president grapples with these challenges, so let me tell you what i would do. ofstarting point will be one distant trust. you remember president reagan's line about the soviets. trust but verify. distrustch would be and verified. we should anticipate that iran will test the next president area they will want to see how far they can bend the rules. that will not work if i'm in the white house. i will hold the line against iranian noncompliance. that means penalties even for small violations.
keeping our allies on board and being willing to snap back sanctions into place unilaterally if we have to. working with congress to close any gaps in the sanctions. right now, members in congress are offering proposals to that effect, and i think the current administration should work with them to see whether there are additional steps that could be taken. finally, it means ensuring that the iaea has the resources it needs from finances to personnel ran'sipment to hold i feet to the fire, but the most important thing we can do to keep iran from cheating or trying to wait us out is to shape iranian expectations right from the start. the iranians and the world need to understand that we will act decisively if we need to. so here is my message to iran's
leaders. the united states will never allow you to acquire a nuclear weapon. president, i will take whatever actions are necessary to protect the united states and our allies. i will not hesitate to take military action if iran attempts weapon, andnuclear i will set up my successor to be to credibly make that same pledge. we will make clear to iran that our national commitment to prevention will not waiver depending on who is in office. it is permanent. and should it become necessary in the future, having exhausted peaceful alternatives to turn to military force, we will have preserved and in some cases act,ced our capacity to and because we have proven our commitment to diplomacy first, the world will more likely join us. then there is the broader issue
of countering iran's bad behavior across the region. taking nuclear weapons out of the equation is crucial. because an iran with nuclear weapons is so much more dangerous than an iran without them. but even without nuclear weapons, we still see i ran a positive fingerprints on nearly every conflict across the middle east. they support bad actors from syria to lebanon to yemen. destroy israel, and that is worth saying again. they vowed to destroy israel. we cannot ever take that lightly, particularly when i ran ships advanced missiles to ayatollah and the outlines an actual strategy for eliminating israel. are talking about how israel will not exist in 25 years, just like he did today, and in
addition to all of the malicious activity they already underwrite, we have got to anticipate that iran could use some of the economic relief they get from this deal to pay for even more. so as president i will raise the costs for their actions and confront them across the board. my strategy will be based on five strong pillars. first, i will deepen america's unshakable commitment to israel's security. including our long-standing tradition of guaranteeing israel's qualitative military edge. i'll increase support for israeli rocket and missile defenses and for intelligence sharing. i'll sell israel the most sophisticated fire aircraft ever
developed, the f-35. we'll work together to develop and implement better tunnel detection technology to prevent arms smuggling and kidnapping. as well as the strongest possible missile defense system for northern israel which has been subjected to hezbollah attacks for years. second, i will reaffirm that the persian gulf is a region of vital interest to the united states. we don't want any of iran's acquires to develop or a nuclear weapons program either. we want them to feel and be secure. i will sustain a robust military presence in the region, especially our air and naval forces. we'll keep the strait of hormuz open. we'll increase security cooperation with our gulf allies, including against intelligence sharing, military support, and missile defense. to ensure they can defend against iranian aggression. even if that takes the form of cyberattacks or other nontraditional threats. iran should understand that the united states and i as president
will not stand by as our gulf allies and partners are threatened. we will act. third, i will build a coalition to counter iran's proxies, particularly hezbollah. that means enforcing and strengthening the rules prohibiting the transfer of weapons to hezbollah. looking at new ways to choke off their funding and pressing our partners to treat hezbollah as a terrorist organization it is . it's time to eliminate the false distinction that some still make between the supposed political and military wings. if you're part of hezbollah, you're part of a terrorist organization, plain and several. simple. and beyond hezbollah i'll crack down on the shipment of weapons to hamas and push turkey and qatar to end their financial support. i'll press our partners in the region to prevent aircraft and ships owned by companies linked to iran's revolutionary guard from entering their territories
and urge our partners to block iranian planes from entering their airspace on their way to yemen and syria. across the board, i will vigorously enforce and strengthen, if necessary, the american sanctions on iran and its revolutionary guard for its sponsorship of terrorism, its ballistic missile program, and other destabilizing activities. i'll enforce and strengthen if necessary our restrictions on sending arms to iran and from iran to bad actors like syria. and i'll impose these sanctions on everyone involved in these activities, whether they are in iran or overseas. this will be a special imperative as some of the u.n. sanctions lapse. so the u.s. and our partners have to step up. fourth, i'll stand as i always have against iran's abuses at home from its detention of political prisoners to its crackdown on freedom of expression, including online.
its inhumane policies hold back talented and spirited people. our quarrel is not and never has been with the iranian people. they have a bright future. a hopeful future. if they weren't held back by their leaders. as i said before, i think we were too restrained in our support of the protests in june, 2009, and in our condemnation of the government crackdown that followed. that won't happen again. we will enforce and if need be broaden our human rights sanctions, and i will not rest until every single american detained or missing in iran is home. fifth, just as the nuclear agreement needs to be embedded in a broader iran policy, our broader iran policy needs to be embedded in a comprehensive regional strategy that promotes stability and counters extremism.
iran, like isis, benefits from chaos and strife. it exploits other countries' weaknesses and the best defense against iran are the countries and governments being strong so that they can provide security and economic opportunity to their own people, and they must have the tools to push back on radicalization and extremism. helping countries get there will take time and strategic discipline, but it's crucial that the united states leads this effort. i will push for renewed diplomacy to solve the destructive regional conflicts that iran fuels. we have to bring sufficient pressure on assad to force a political solution in syria. including a meaningful increase in our efforts to train and equip the moderate syrian opposition, something i called for early in the conflict. and the united states must lead in assisting those who have been uprooted by conflict, especially the millions of syrian refugees
now beseeching the world to help them. as pope francis reminded us, this is an international problem that demands an international response. and the united states must help lead that response. that's who we are, and that's what we do. so our strategy needs to cover all these bases. iran's nuclear ambitions and its support of terrorism. its hatred of israel and its cruelty toward its citizens. its military resources and its economic strengths and weaknesses. we need to be creative, committed, and vigilant. and on every front, we need to keep working closely with our friends and partners. on that note, let me just spend a minute speaking about the serious concerns that israel leaders have about this deal. israel has every reason to be alarmed by a regime that both denies its existence and seeks its destruction.
i would not support this agreement for one second if i thought it put israel in greater danger. i believe in my core that israel and america must stand side by side, and i will always stand by israel's right to defend itself as i always have. i believe this deal and a joint strategy for enforcing it makes israel safer. i say that with humility. i am not israeli. i don't know what it's like to live under constant threat from your neighbors in a country where the margin for error is so thin. i know that my saying this deal makes you safer won't alleviate the very real fears of the israeli people, but i have stood for israeli security for a very long time. it was one of my bedrock principles as secretary of state. it's why i supported stronger defense systems like the iron
dome anti-rocket defense system which proved so effective in protecting israeli lives during the conflicts of 2012 and last summer. it's why i worked closely with israel to advance the two-state vision of a jewish and democratic israel with secure and recognized borders, and it's why i believe we should expedited negotiations with israel. let's not wait until 2016 until the -- when the current deal expires. let's get it done this year. i would invite the prime minister of israel during my first month in office to talk about all of these issues and to set us on a course of close, frequent consultation right from the start. because we both rely on each other for support as partners, allies and friends. this isn't just about policy for me. it is personal.
as president, i'm committed to shoring up and strengthening the relationship between our countries. we have had honest disagreements about this deal. now is the time to come together. now is the time to remember what unites us and build upon it it. and so, i know well that the same forces that threaten israel, threatens the united states, and the people of israel, let me say you'll never have to question whether we're with you. the united states will always be with you. there have also been honest disagreements about the nuclear deal here at home. smart, serious people can see issues like these differently. like my friend, chuck shumer, who is going to be an excellent leader in the senate. i respect the skepticism that he and others feel, and i respect differences of opinion and people who advocate vigorously for their beliefs. but i have a harder time
respecting those who approach an issue as serious as this with unserious talk, especially anyone running to be president of the united states. several republican candidates boast they'll tear up this agreement in 2017, more than a year after it's been implemented. that's not leadership. that's recklessness. it would set us right down the very dangerous path we've worked so hard to avoid. i'm looking forward to a robust debate about foreign policy in this campaign. where we have disagreements we should lay them out. like american ground forces in iraq should engage in direct combat, as scott walker wants. or if we should keep cuba closed, as marco rubio and jeb bush wants. let's debate these issues but let's debate them on facts, not fear.
let's resist denigrating the patriotism or loyalty of those who disagree with us, and let's avoid at all costs undermining america's credibility abroad. that only makes us weaker, and i'm going to call it out whenever i see it. i spent four years representing america abroad as america's secretary of state. it was one of the greatest privileges of my life, and knowing that my fellow americans were counting on me and rooting for me, not as democrats, not as republicans but as americans, meant a great deal. we are all one team. the american team. and that doesn't change no matter how much we might disagree. and i can tell you from personal experience we are stronger overseas when we are united at home. so we simply have to find a way to work together better than we have been doing.
there's a lot that democrats and republicans can and should agree on. the united states should lead in the middle east. we can agree on that. we should stand by our friends against iranian aggression. we can agree on that too. i believe that the plan i've laid out today is one that all americans could endorse, and i hope they will. the next president will face threats from many corridors. from those we see today like terrorism from isis, aggressiveness from putin, pandemics like ebola to all those we can't predict yet. we need a leader who has a strong vision for the future and skill and determination to get us there. we can't stop the world from changing, but we can help to shape those changes, and we can do that by leading with strength, smarts and unyielding commitment to our values. you know, i saw that when i was first lady, senator, secretary of state that when america leads
with principle and purpose, other people and governments are eager to join us. no country comes close to matching our advantages, the strength of our economy, the skill of our work force, our tradition of innovation, our unmatched net worth of alliances and partnerships. so we are poised to remain the world's most admired and powerful nation for a long time if we make the smart choices and , practice smart leadership. that's what i will try to do as your president, and i believe as strongly as ever that our best days are ahead of us and that america's greatest contributions to the world are yet to come. thank you, all, very much. [applause]
martin: well, thank you very much, madam secretary. i was wondering what we could call this speech. it occurred to me at the end, from hard choices to smart choices. or the yes and speech. ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this second part of the event with secretary clinton which is a little conversation that i'll have with her and then we'll take questions from the audience. martin: i wanted to start by saying number one, it's very clear, very strong speech and if i had to summarize the basic elements of it, it's a message to iran is we will enforce, we will confront you when you try
to destabilize the region and we will deter you if you try to go for a nuclear weapon sometime down the line. and i wonder how you navigate what is a certain -- unspoken tension between the effect that you are going to be taking a very hard line against some of the destabilizing and nefarious activities of the iranians and at the same time this agreement puts the united states into a partnership with iran in terms of implementing it. so how do you deal with that tension? the iranians may feel like, hey, we are giving up all these things to deal with our nuclear program and this is what we're going to get into return is a very tough american response. secretary clinton: i believe
that iran is the subject of the agreement. that it now faces obligations that frankly in many instances it faced before the agreement and that they have a -- signed an agreement where they are committing themselves to fulfill the terms of the agreement. the agreement will be enforced, not by iran. the agreement will be enforced by the rest of the negotiators, the other countries plus the iaea and it will be and is intended to be quite burdensome and intrusive into iran. now, maybe they believe that having signed the agreement they can somehow avoid the consequences of the inspections and the other requirements, but i think they understand very well they're at the starting line.
there are these demands that they are supposed to fulfill. there is a sequencing of lifting of sanctions and other kinds of benefits that they receive in return for their having taken the action required. i think if they are counting on the world led by the united states being distracted, getting diverted, getting tired, not having the staying power to consistently enforce the agreement and hold iran accountable and i for one want to make clear to them that that is not going to happen, that we will take seriously every aspect of this agreement and we will expect them to comply and there will be consequences if they do not. martin: when you called for a regional strategy and outlined the elements of it, it really seems to come down to when you -- what happens in syria where iran is very invested in the assad regime.
does a regional strategy on your watch mean taking down the assad regime? secretary clinton: well, you know, martin, it's not iran that we're invested, it's now becoming public, we're learning about russian investment, russian troops on the ground. it may very well be opening the door to greater russian involvement. there's no doubt that russia has been a principal funder and supplier throughout this entire terrible episode. so we are facing the collapse of syria, the survival thus far of the assad regime, although it clearly has much less to govern than it did when this started. the open, ungoverned areas that are hosting terrorist groups and the continuing commitment from
iran and russia to propping up assad. so i was the principal negotiator on the geneva 2012 agreement which russia signed onto, which laid out a pathway to a political solution. it wasn't very long until russia reneged on what they had signed, but i think it still provides a very credible framework for us to keep doing everything we can to, you know, try to push the iranians and the russians in that direction. now, what i do believe is this. you know, the potential threat from the terrorist groups and the chaos in syria can destabilize the region in ways that are bad for iran, and therefore, the higher the pressure is for some kind of
reaction to what is going on inside syria and certainly the efforts that isis is making to take even more and hold territory in iraq directly against what iran sees as its interests, the continued destabilization along the lebanese border, there are all kinds of reasons why iran is going to have to confront this instability. so i think my view on this is we have to be, you know, talking and pushing on and raising the costs for iran and for russia all the time. now, if putin were sitting here, which it's sort of hard to imagine, but if he were -- i should ask strobe. strobe is the expert. he would say, we're fighting terrorism, that's what we're doing. so we may find a way to begin to join those -- martin: so the -- i remember
well a speech you gave when you were secretary of state in the gulf in which you warned the gulf leaders about policies that were based on sand. and president obama in talking about the concerns of iran's destabilizing activity in the region said, look, we can help protect our allies from external threats. the problem is it's hard to protect them from internal threats. and you've been clear again that you will do that in terms of protecting them from the external threats. but i wonder how you deal with that continuing challenge. secretary clinton: well, you know very well it's a difficult one. i apologize for my voice. suffering under massive allergy assault.
yes republican histamines are , everywhere. [laughter] you know, martin, this someone of the biggest problems we face. no one can deny much of the extremism in the world is the direct result of policies and funding undertaken by the saudi government and individuals. we would be foolish not to recognize that. i think increasingly they would be mistaken not to recognize that. you can never be more extreme than the next extremist, and i think they face some very serious internal problems, as do the other regimes. i'm not sure they're yet convinced of that. i'm not sure they yet believe that they have to figure out different ways of dealing with their own population and
cooperating with each other. and cutting off funding and exporting, you know, troublesome imams to elsewhere, but i think you need to be constantly beating that drum with them. and maybe now given the rise of isis and the very clear threat they feel from iranian activities in the gulf that maybe there's an openness there. i know that the king was here last week, had a chance to meet with the president, so perhaps there's more of an opportunity for a dialogue than we've had in the past. however, having said that, i think we need to do to defend them because the alternatives are hardly more promising. martin: israel. you made a very clear effort in
your speech to say it's time for healing, it's time to come together. when you're president that you would have the prime minister there in your first month. and that's very consistent, as i think you said in your speech, with your approach which has always been to put your arm around prime minister netanyahu rather than -- secretary clinton: or any prime minister. [laughter] martin: and as you know, that's a policy that i support too, but some of my friends in israel recently have said that's not the way to deal with us. we need tough love, which is the alternative. instead of rewarding bad behavior, you should be really speaking tough -- more toughly to us. well how do you respond to that? , secretary clinton: well, i think there is a lot of room for tough love, particularly in private and behind, you know, closed doors.
as i write in my book, certainly prime minister netanyahu and i had very vigorous conversations that have gone on in person and over the phone. but i just don't think it's a particularly productive approach for the united states to take because in large measure it opens the door to everybody else to delegitimize israel, to pile on in ways that are not good for the strength and stability, not just of israel, obviously, but of the region. and so in the absence of, you know, some kind of greater goal that we were trying to achieve by doing that, i just don't think that is the smartest approach. martin: let's go to your questions. i would ask you please to
identify yourself and make sure there's a question mark at the end of your question. robin: robin wright, former brookings scholar. u.s. institute of peace. madam secretary, you talked about how you would use american muscle to contain iran. can you tell us how you might use the new diplomatic channel to engage iran on issues, whether it's support for extremist groups or specifically dealing with the crisis in syria? would you be unwilling to use that diplomatic channel to engage iran? secretary clinton: yes, i would, robin. because i think we have to attempt to do that. when i first went to oman in january of 2011, we didn't know whether any effort at some kind of secret channel would pay off.
we still have the p-5 plus 1 that was going on. and we knew that eventually whatever the united states did would have to merge into the international approach. but we had to begin to explore if and we did. and we explored it over that summer. that's when we had the first, you know, visit to discuss whether anything could be possible. it takes a while, as you know so well, being such an expert in this region, to figure out who's at the table, what the conversation's about, how seriously you'll be taken, who's backing you up. so when the talks actually started just in the iranian-american channel with bill byrnes and jake sullivan and bob einhorn, it was exploratory and laid down the
ground rules we were looking for and then eventually was launched into the p-5 plus 1 once there was a change of government in iran and there was serious effort. so with respect to the other issues, i have very clearly in the public arena seen the iranians at the highest levels reject any such discussion. they don't want to talk about yemen. they don't want to talk about anything other than the nuclear agreement. now, that was a strategic decision we made back then. you know, number one, it appeared to us in the early discussions with them trying to figure out how to proceed, they wanted to talk about everything as a way to get some items on the table to trade off for the nuclear agreements so they would not have to make perhaps as many concessions as we were expecting them to make. that's why we kept very focus on just the nuclear program. we also had the continuing
challenge, and it would be, even in this instance, of our friends in the gulf not wanting us to talk about anything that affected them in a bilateral channel with the iranians. and you can understand why. if they weren't going to be at the table, they didn't want the united states to be talking about yemen or talking about anything else of vital interest in their views to them. so if there were a way to construct such a channel, i would be open to it but i'm just laying out some of the difficulties of us being able to to do that on this sweet of other issues that touches many of the regions of vital interest. and i think when it comes to syria, we have historically not wanted to talk to iran about syria because we knew iran was basically the principal
supporter, propper up, if you will, of assad and we wanted to get the rest of the international community in harness to have a set of expectations and demands before we brought iran in. so we have to readjust this all the time. just as i said diplomacy is a balancing of risk, it's also the constant evaluation of where the opportunities are, where the openings are, what possibly could happen now that didn't happen before. so i'm open but i am very sober about how it would have to be constructed and what it would actually cover and who would have to be either at the table or, you know, in the first chair behind so they didn't feel that they were being left out or negotiated over.
to the microphone. >> you said that you would press the assad regime. how do you increase the cost for russia, a russia that has [indiscernible] . secretary clinton: well, it's an important question. i don't know if you could hear the question but it was, you know, aimed at what you could do to up the cost on russia, for example, to be a more productive partner in seeking a solution and how would we do more to, as i understood what you said, you know, work with our european partners on the security issues that are challenging europe and we see that every day with the and we see that every day with the refugees because it's
humanitarian but it's also a security challenge as well. well, i have been, i remain convinced that we need a concerted effort to really up the cost on russia and in particular on putin. i think we have not done enough. i am in the category of people who wanted us to do more in response to the annexation of crimea and the continuing destabilization of ukraine. i understand the hesitation, not only in our country, but most importantly in europe. the sanctions came out of all of the discussions and, you know, maybe to some extent they have had, you know, some impact. i think the falling oil prices have had more impact and we got to figure out how we combine both in looking at ways to put more -- to up the cost, to put more pressure on putin.
i think it's one of the long-term security challenges that the united states, europe, especially nato, face. and i don't think we can dance around it very much longer. i mean, we all wish it wasn't the case. we all wish it would go away. we all wish that putin would choose to modernize his country and move west instead of sinking himself into historical roots of czar-like behavior and intimidation along borders and projecting russian power in places like russia and elsewhere. i think the jury is in. i think he continues to do what he's doing and go as far as he can get away with. and i believe we got to regroup and we got to regroup quickly because i worry very much about what's happening in syria right now. troops on the ground to allegedly protect, you know, military supplies.
what is russia's real objective? you know, the stated objective, the public objective to fight terrorism has always been their rationale. why did they support assad? because after assad there would be terrorism. now, obviously if we had a different approach from the beginning working together we might have avoided that. we might have actually, you know, helped to a political transition. so i think we got to spend a lot more time. all the russian experts that, you know, thought that their work was done off the fall of the berlin wall, i hope they will be dusting off their materials. and i'm looking right at you, strobe talbott, and get back in the game with us because i think russia's objectives are to stymie and to confront and to undermine american power whenever and wherever they can. and i don't think there's much
to be surprised about that. so where we can work with them, you know, that's one of the criticisms that sometimes comes from the right, the republicans. what did the reset ever accomplish? well, actually quite a lot. we did the new start agreement. we got cooperation on iran because when we got the security council to pass the sanctions that we had been working so hard on, that was under medved he in 2010, we got support to ship lethal material and equipment across russia to resupply our troops we got a lot. now, that all changed once putin announced he was going to be president again. i don't admire very much about mr. putin but the idea you can stand up and say i will be your next president, that does have a certain attraction to it. [laughter] so i think we got -- we are not spending the time, we're not
thinking, we're not digging deep into what are we going to do. so to answer the question of the woman who asked, we have to do more to get back talking about how we try to confine, contain, deter russian aggression in europe and beyond and try to figure out what are the best tools for doing that. and don't lose sight because we are going to have a lot of issues up there as well. i was always of that opinion, expressed it vocally within the administration and nothing that has happened since in any way persuaded me otherwise. martin: just a quick follow-up on that which is more generally. you got a take on the russians and putin. you got to deal with a very comprehensive strategy for a very complicated power called the middle east. how do you do the rebalancing to asia on top of all of this?
secretary clinton: well, i do think we're capable of doing more than one thing. although sometimes it appears difficult. and i think we've got to be much more global in our thinking and globally present. the rebalancing to asia, otherwise known as the pivot, was in response to the very real sense of abandonment that asian leaders expressed to me and my phone calls to them before i ever went to the region in february of 2009, you know, they believed that because we were so focused in afghanistan and we were so focused in iraq and obviously had to be given all that we had invested there that we were just not paying attention to the developments in asia. i think we've come some ways in trying to rebalance, but we have
a long way to go. there's much at stake in how we deal with all the players in asia. i'm hoping that upcoming trip with president ping produces positive outcomes. i thought the climate agreement was quite consequential, having been in copenhagen in 2009 when we had to literally break into a meeting where the chinese were consolidating india, south africa, brazil against any kind of movement toward the non-advanced economies taking responsibility. so i think we got some good stakes in the ground but we don't have a strategy yet that will be consistent. the last thing i will say, martin, and i eluded in my remarks, one of our real , you know, problems right now is we don't have a consistent foreign policy that is bipartisan.
let alone nonpartisan. and i think that's a problem. i was appalled when those republican senators wrote to the ayatollah. i thought it was incredibly, you know, short-sighted and just wrong-headed. and i don't think -- i don't know how we rebuild a consistent foreign policy from administration to administration regardless of republican or democrat. you know, it was a lot easier in a bipolar world us against the soviet union. we can't work at it if we don't have a set of strategic pillars and organizing principles that we can present to our own people and present to the congress and present to the world. so i think we have work to do. martin: andrea. andrea: madam secretary, when you talk about the policies with syria and putin, was it in retrospect a mistake for the
administration when you left office to pull back on labor day a couple years ago, make the deal with russia on the chemical weapons? yes, the weapons were disposed of, but that created a different partnership, if you will, on diplomacy. and secondly, with reference to our colleague from germany, what should america do to step up to the crisis of migration even if it's not on our front door, it is a moral issue, is it not, for the world? thank you. secretary clinton: well, as to the first one, it's always difficult in hindsight to say what could have happened if something different had been done. if we remember back to that time, prime minister cameron had lost the vote in the parliament. he wanted to show support for the president's policy of taking some limited military action in light of syria's use of chemical
weapons. so it became clearer there was going to be a difficult vote in the congress. not clear at all that it would be successful which would have left the president with authority, certainly, with executive authority to act but since it had become a public debate it would have been a much more difficult decision for him to make. i do think that not being able to follow through on it cost us. i am certain of that. that still comes back in conversations that people have with me, both here at home and people from other countries. but i do think it was a net positive to get as much of the chemical weapons out as we could and there was no way we could have done that without russian cooperation. i think there was hope after that kind of cooperation produced positive results that then we could go back to talking
more broadly with the russians about what needed to be done in syria and what needed to be done with assad. they did not reciprocate on that. so i think it's like much in international relations. it's a mixed picture. some positive. you know some negative. , with respect to the refugees, i have said i think we're coming up on the u.n. general assembly, i think there should be an emergency global gathering where the u.n. literally drives to get commitments. we did that with haiti. after the haiti earthquake, we had a huge gathering at the u.n. where literally it was like a pledging conference where we said, what are you going to do? what can you contribute? and little countries to big countries all stepped up, and it was a great show of support in
the face of a terrible natural disaster. we need to do something similar, and i publicly called on the u.n. to convene such a gathering. do it again today in front of all of you. the united states has to be at the table. has to be leading. we were in a strong position to do that on haiti. even though it's not on our doorstep, we have a real interest in working, not just with our european friends -- i believe this is a global responsibility, and if you're too far away or for whatever reason you don't think you can take refugees, then you have to contribute money. you should be supporting, not only those refugees fleeing but the incredible work that jordan and lebanon and turkey have been doing and they have not gotten the financial support they need. in fact, the last i checked the u.n. appeal had only reached 37%. so there is both financial work and contributions that need to
be forthcoming and countries need to be more open and willing to take refugees. i obviously want the united states to do our part, but i also want this to be a global response and so i hope with all these leaders gathered, with pope francis addressing the united nations general assembly in just about two weeks, we can see something visible with people making their commitments nation by nation or in the case of the e.u. or other organizations as well. martin: i think we're going to have to close it up. but i see two hands going up. do you mind taking two together? susie and then joe. susie: madam secretary, i also want to add my thanks for a very forceful, unequivocal and clear speech, laying out a position that seems imminently
defensible. one of the silver linings of the iran deal is an alignment of interest in the region between israel and the moderate arab countries -- egypt, saudi arabia, jordan, etc., the gulf states. if you agree with that, how would you see capitalizing on those shared interests, the concerns about iran going forward, how would you promote the shared interests as a way of bringing more peace to the region? martin: joe, quick question. joe: sure. ploughshares fund, joe. thank you for your measured and fact-based approach to this. let me bring you to the politics of the issue. what explains we don't have a single republican senator in
support of this? is this an ideological divide between the parties or raw partisan politics? secretary clinton: well, i'll restrain myself and answer the first question first. i think there is an opportunity here, sissy. i really do. i don't think it's easy, but let's go back a few years. not so long ago israel and turkey were working very closely together on a number of issues. then came the flotilla and then came the response by the israeli military. then came many years of, you know, real hard feelings that got harder and harder, and we lost what was a -- not just working relationship but a real bridge. similarly, there have been a number of instances where in the past israel has worked in common concert with a number of the gulf countries. israel is now back in a very productive relationship with egypt.
obviously with jordan. so there are the pieces of national and regional interests that i think very diligently and probably frustratingly could be pulled back together. i don't know that it's something that the united states can lead, but it's certainly we can try to catalyze and encourage. and i think there is potential there. because as i said in my speech, i'll do everything to tell turkey and qatar it's not in their interests. it's not in egypt's interest. they both care deeply about what happens in egypt for somewhat different reasons than others but they care. and so i think we have to build the case, and i think american diplomats could help build that
case and then look for ways. i spent, you know, literally years trying to get the israel is to finally apologize to the turks on the flotilla. there was one memorable day during one of my vacations where i was literally talking to the israelis. i was talking to henry kinsinger to make the strategic argument which we all believed that the sooner that israel did that the sooner they could get back to some kind of discussion perhaps. finally that happened when president obama went to israel, and i was very happy that, you know, now we have a different turkey with a different kind of set of challenges. but interests remain the same. you know turkey's interests for , stability are not so different than they were even though some of the leadership, attitudes seemed to have altered. so i would like to see us do everything we can. i would make a high priority of that.
this administration in the last, you know, year and a half or so of its term will be similarly doing that because let's start seeing what we can do. it kind of goes back to robin's question. you don't know what you can achieve until you try to put the pieces together. i think the more we can try to put those pieces together, the more we'll know whether or not something can come of it. with respect to the lack of support for the agreement. honestly, i think it's in some instances genuine. just as i said in my remarks, i think that there are people who i deeply respect on the democratic side certainly, and i would respect them on the republican side as well who just have concerns that they don't feel have been answered. but i think the driving force behind it is, you know, to close ranks against the president,
against this kind of diplomacy but without offering an alternative and that's what i find -- i don't mind debating alternatives. i mean when we did the new start , treaty, it was really hard to get the votes for that. i remember, you know, going up and making the case but we got some republican votes. but we're living in a very partisan atmosphere right now, and i think we do have to do more, just as we -- i'll end with this by saying, just as we have to in diplomacy to reach out to people constantly if not to persuade them, to join with us to eliminate an argument that they have, that they won't join because they have been consulted, they have been brought along, they have been briefed. we have to do that with the congress as well. and it's not easy if they don't even have open minds, but we
still have to do it so we can be in the position of saying, you know, we told you this. we offered you this. we briefed you this. we gave you this information and you haven't come forth with any kind of, you know, rational or rationale to oppose us. you're just opposing us. it's very political. after discounting those who i think are genuinely skeptical. martin: madam secretary hillary, thank you very much for a very powerful, serious and clear-headed position on iran and the middle east and broader. this is precisely what we expect from you and precisely we at brookings want to promote in this presidential debate, so we're very grateful to you. please join me in thanking hillary. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the
national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [indiscernible] secretary clinton: hey, how are you? >> the house is expected coming shortly to file the rule on three majors in dealing with iran nuclear agreement. it is a nonbinding resolution to say that president obama failed to deliver all of the agreement
documents. the second, a blow that prevents the president from lifting sanctions on iran. after approving the major record. we will have live coverage, when house comes back. the nuclearate on agreement got underway, a roadblock in the u.s. house. christina marcos covering the story, what happened to the anticipated 11 hours on the disapproval resolution? christina: originally, we were expecting three days worth of debate on a resolution disapproval of the deal. once again, house republican leadership found themselves pulled in a completely different direction. because the right flank of the conference had different ideas. and multiple conservative members are -- including members of the freedom caucus -- led by the congressman from illinois
suspended a vote on the iran deal until the obama administration reduced the tax of the so-called side deals between iran and the nuclear inspectors. and congress has not received the text of those so-called side deals, there were arguing that lawmakers do not have enough information at their disposal to make an informed decision about the deal. >> the headline mentions conservative revolt. how do republican leaderships not see some disappointment on the conservative side in the house? how do they not anticipate some of his coming? christina: the reality was this sort of came out of nowhere. he is a former member of the leadership team, the majority whip race last year, he introduced the resolution yesterday. the moment the house came back from its long recess, that it
would prevent a vote on the iran deal until the so-called side deals were given to congress. but the freedom caucus had her usual weekly dinner. at a popular next and restaurant on capitol hill last night, they got around to talking about this amongst themselves, we should just band together around us. we should call attention to the not know they do everything about these side deals with iran. and the international atomic energy agency. >> you quote peter from illinois, saying he defends the last effort. this is the first time we are here. it is the first time i can make a privileged resolution of rejection. getting a voice and how the house will proceed in a three-pronged approach to the deal. tells about what they're going to vote on.
announced the house late this afternoon that it will be a three-pronged approach. the house willat vote on an approval of the iran deal, which is intended as a way of making it a tougher vote for democrats and highlight some of those who will split with the party. the second part is that it will attach a bill that will present president obama, and only president obama, that the bill would expire a new day the president is sworn into office. from waiving any of the iran sanctions. and the third part is essentially that the house says the violating of the deal earlier this year, it requires the ministration to provide all documents related to the deal to be process. >> so, lots of changes in the procedure. but in the senate, pretty much
as expected. a long day of debate. and majority leader mitch mcconnell introducing two closure motions. what is expected in terms of timetable votes on the deal? any possibility of a democratic filibuster? christina: mitch mcconnell, as you expected, under the rules that were set up -- >> the house is coming in to file the rules on three nuclear arrangements. >> a consideration of house resolution 411, the president has not complied with section two of the iran nuclear agreement. providing for consideration of the bill to approve the joint conference a plan of action, relating toly 14, the consideration of the bill hr
3460, suspending until january 21, 2016, the authority of the president to waive, suspend, or provide relief from or otherwise limit the application of sanctions -- pursuant to an agreement related to iran. >> the word printed. mr. speaker, i move the house now adjourned. a mission to adjourn? untiluse stands adjourned 10 a.m. for morning our debate.
>> the rules committee tonight approved the guidelines for debate with three parts. one, a nonbinding resolution saying the president obama failed to deliver all of the agreement documents. the second, a bill that prevents the president from lifting sanctions. improvement major of the nuclear court. his is a change from earlier plans on the vote of disapproving the bill. we will have live coverage of the house tomorrow here on c-span. >> some light of institute you about on c-span3. the national security summit gets underway with a few capital lawmakers, including senator dianne feinstein, the top democrat on the delta's committee and chairman of the intelligence committee. that is at 8 a.m. eastern. the cyber threat committee. cia john brennan and fbi director james comey are among
the limited. and then, as debate over the accord continues on capitol hill, will have live coverage of the hearing on the deals and location for missile defense and not proliferation. including officials from the defense department and the admin a straight or national nuclear security administration. that begins at 2 p.m. eastern on c-span3. three. now we go to capitol hill for a hearing on planned parenthood. gop lawmakers ask questions whether the group is illegally harvesting and selling from aborted fetuses. planned parenthood denies the claim. we will hear from a reproduction justice advocate who says
planned parenthood did nothing illegal. this is about three hours and 45 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] these videos contain discussions with representatives of the abortion providing organization, planned parenthood, regarding the exchange of money for the body parts of unborn children to be used in research.
any discussion of abortion is inherently difficult, as it is unquestionably the taking of a human life. that question becomes even more difficult when it comes to the monetary value of the body parts children,oped, unborn and the process of exposing them to potentially more painful abortions, conducted in different ways, without the 'consent to preserve their more valuable body parts. this is a discussion this committee has been engaged in for some time now, which now days of public hearings. the question is if there should gaps in there are existing laws or if federal laws have been violated. the committee is aggressively seeking answers to these questions. there is no western that the videos heard disturbing on a
deep level. it is ethically very dangerous to change an abortion procedure because then you are starting to put the mother's health secondary. one of the unborn baby procurement companies caught on tape is -- has already claimed its relationship with planned parenthood. the director of planned parenthood herself has already said what is on the video is an acceptable and personally apologized for it. down interview, hillary clinton said i have seen pictures and i obviously find them disturbing. when the leading democrat for president says she finds the
videos disturbing, i think we can safely put to rest any allegation that the investigation is an -- is inappropriate. why we have focused on the conduct of planned parenthood and not on those who obtained the undercover footage. planned parenthood, unlike , receiver reporters huge amounts of federal funds. we must do what we can to ensure federal tax dollars are not contributing to this sorts of horrors uncovered by the video. to enactmay need better laws or see to it that current laws are better enforced. hashat end, the house already passed the unborn child protection act, which would
eliminate abortions with some exceptions when a woman is entering the sixth month of presidency. an overwhelming majority of just about every demographic group practice.is the senate should pass the bill immediately. should sign it, and in doing so, ensure that the body parts of aborted babies cannot be sold because late-term abortions would not be permitted. tothe meantime, we continue look into additional ways to preserve life and the conscience of america. helps tois hearing shed light on some of the nations darkest corners so that the atrocities some would like to dehumanize can be exposed for what they really are.
i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. pleasure to hear from mr. conyers for his opening statement. mr. conyers: thank you very much, mr. chairman. to the members of the judiciary and those here in the room, as this one-sided hearing itle suggests -- by the way, have a file on these unusual titles to come up from time to time. we will likely hear a series of allegations leveled against planned parenthood, one of the s forpopular organization almost 100 years that is based
solely on a series of deceptive, undercover videos. the entity that filmed the could answerch significant and troubling questions about their accuracy and harass the is not here today . in addition, the majority chose not to invite planned parenthood, the target of two attacks. we should keep in mind the following points. to begin, there is no evidence the planned parenthood violated the law. implies that planned parenthood sells fetal tissue and organs for profit. that is not the case.
law governing fetal tissue research, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support provides in part that no one can knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise any type of fetal tissue for valuable consideration. sales of for-profit fetal tissue are in illegal. similarly, federal law prohibits fetal tissueles of and organs. for profit. the center for medical progress's. dirty videos -- doctored videos do not support
the allegation that planned parenthood profited from fetal tissue or organ donations. rather, they show, among other things, discussion overpayments for costs associated with fetal tissue or organ donation, payments to law clearly allows. the videos also wrongly suggest the doctors at planned parenthood violated the law by altering the procedures used to asform abortions such reserves of fetal tissue or organs. there is no evidence that has alterednthood methods. moreover, the statutory prohibition on changing the method, or procedures of an abortion to preserve fetal tissue applies only to certain federally funded research, and
such research has not been funded since 2007. in other words, the legal prohibition did not apply to planned parenthood at the time -- at the time the center's undercover videos were found. evidence supports the suggestion that doctors may partial-birththe ban. intact fetal specimens in the video are immaterial. to violate the act, the physician must partially deliver a living fetus and have the intent to terminate that living fetus after the partial delivery. none of the videos shows any
planned parenthood official engaging in or suggesting the use of such a procedure. evidence no reliable demonstrates that planned law.thood violated federal what is troubling about the videos is the manner in which they were produced. the center for medical progress created a false tissue procurement company to use as a front and to create the , and may haveeo deceived any number of state and federal authorities to do so. the center heavily edited the videos to present a misleading picture of the surreptitiously recorded in order to suggest illegal conduct by planned parenthood, and to maximize the
videos shock value. a forensic analysis submitted to congress has concluded that thorough review of these videos in consultation with qualified experts found that they do not represent a complete or accurate record of the events they purport to depict. alleged footage includes,y the center and i quote, cuts, skips, changes ine, and camera angle, as well as more than 30 minutes of missing video, and took it out of to substantially and significantly alter the meeting of the dialogue. step back andst look at the context in which
this hearing itself is being held. of the videosse is to undermine one of the nation's leading providers of high-quality health care for women. planned parenthood serves 2.7 million americans a year, and one in three women have used planned parenthood services by the age of 45. the organization is nearly 100 abortion, and some opponents are attempting to use these videos as a pretext to end federal funding for planned parenthood. if successful, this effort would hurt those who rely on planned , and doings services so would not prevent abortions.
it is already the case that no federal funds may be used to pay , with certain limited exceptions. instead, federal funding pays for planned parenthood's many critical health services, such as annual wellness exams, cancer screenings, contraception, and to further the study of sexually transmitted diseases. , we in the congress have better things to do than to spend our time helping to undermine an organization that provides such a vital health services, and a thank you, chairman. chairman: the chair recognizes the chairman of the constitution league ofjustice arizona for his opening statements.
you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the united states of america is a unique nation. it is premised on the foundation that all of us in the human family are created equal, and that each of us is endowed by our creator with an inalienable right to live. yet, this committee is convened here today in a hearing titled "planned parenthood exposed, examining the horrific abortion practices at the nations largest abortion provider" because numerous video recordings have been released that include doctors casually discussing ofir rampant practice harvesting and selling metal body parts from hundreds of thousands of little babies they are guilty of killing in their abortion clinics across the nation every year. these itty own -- video recordings irrefutably reveal
haggling over the price of these body parts,s and and casually describing ways of killing these little babies, often using more painful methods, like partial-birth abortion, to make sure the salable organs of these babies remain undamaged. one of these videos described an where a planned parenthood employee calls a younger employee over to witness something "kind of cool." that one of the babies hearts was still beating. read, -- employee then goodsaid, "ok, this is a fetus. it looks like we are going to procure a lot from it. we are going to procure a brain." scissors, the employees, starting at the
baby's chin, cut upward through the baby's face and pulled out the little babies brain and placed it in a container, so it .ould later be sold mr. chairman, i find it so crushingly sad that the only time this little baby was ever held by anyone in his whole life was by those who cut his face open and took his brain. have we forgotten -- it was not so long ago that authorities and found aclinic torture chamber for little defiesthat description within the constraints of the english language. the grand jury report has had the doctor had a simple solution unwanted babies. he killed them. he called it ensuring fetal demise. the way he in short it was by sticking scissors in the back of the baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord.
he called it snipping. over the years, there were hundreds of snipping's. ashley baldwin, one of his employees, said she saw babies breathing, and she described one as two feet long that no longer had eyes or mouth, but in her words was making a screeching noise, and it sounded like a little alien. and yet, the president of the united states of america, and many members of congress, have not uttered one single level -- syllable against these gut wrenching atrocities. for god sake, is this who we truly are? the fact is, mr. chairman, that , painhan 18,000 late-term capable babies were torturously killed without anesthesia in just the last
year. many of them screamed and cried, but because it was him the other fluid going over their vocal cords instead of air -- amniotic fluid going over their vocal cords instead of air, we cannot hear them. i know many of you on this committee will hold to the standard line and try to frame freedom in the name of of choice, but i beg you to open your hearts and ask yourselves, what is so liberating about brutally does member ring and maiming little, helpless, human maimingmbering and little, helpless, human babies? , this isll the noise not a republican issue or a democrat issue. it is a basic test of our humanity and who we are as a human family. , the sands of time
should blow over this capitol dome before we ever give planned parenthood another dime of federal money, and in the name of humanity, democrats should against thelibuster pain capable act. passing it would stop these evil acts by plan -- by planned parenthood that to these videos have now so clearly shown to the entire world. thehanks the chair gentleman and recognizes mr. co. in for his opening statements. cohen for his opening statements. representative: this is
an issue that has divided americans for many years and divides this committee. i respect my colleagues, but it is not my position. it is not the position of most of the women in this country, and that is the position that women should have the right to choose. roe v wade, a united states cream court decision, made that clear. it has been -- supreme court decision, made that clear. it has been the law of the land for many years. this is not about the videos. the videos have been doctored. its show business. this hearing is about a woman's right to choose, and many people, who for their honest , feel should be a litmus test of a politician's life and support for life and human beings. want to outlaw abortion, and they won't be happy until abortion is outlawed in the united states of america.
that's what this hearing is about. and if you will notice, the testimony has been about abortion. that issue is raised again. planned parenthood is simply a group that does 3% of its work abortion. 97% of its work is about health for poor women, health care, womenings, 2.7 million a year get that health care. that is so important. i district is a port district, and a lot of women in my district get their primary health care from planned parenthood. would off federal funding deny them that health care. i know that won't make a big difference to many on the other on the otherone side voted for the affordable care act. even though it is a growth from people like teddy roosevelt who spouted it.
none of them voted for it. side,n the extreme particularly in the south, legislatures, governors, have not expanded medicaid to women careeed medicare -- health . they have denied health care to women. this would further deny health care to women. you cannot get -- planned parenthood cannot use because the law has been on the books insist 70's, any federal funds for abortion. the 1970's, any federal funds for abortion. with the exceptions of interest, rate, life of the mother. , life of the mother. this is the government takeover of health care, the death panels, the benghazi of health care hearing. attention to get an issue these people want to highlight.
i don't doubt their sincerity and wanting to highlight it, but it is wrong in 2015. we should be going forward in a backward in this country. two people who say they want to take back their country, they mean they want the country of dwight eisenhower, a fine man who operated before civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, or people having opportunities independent of orsical characteristics sexual orientation. america has moved forward, and you are not going to get that america back. it's gone. it's a new america. this hearing is about eliminating and overruling roe v wade. about partial-birth abortions. there are 143 labor, civil rights, and civil liberties groups that say this hearing should not be held, and they
oppose efforts to defund planned parenthood, and i would like to enter that list into the record. chairman: without objection. representative: i value the republican's opinions. they are strongly felt, and i understand that. there is a big difference in this country. -- for me, land parenthood planned parenthood is one of the finest organizations in this country. it helps women, women of color, poor women, and it gives them choice. as the supreme court gave them choice. it's about upholding the law of the land. a lot of people here wouldn't want the law of the land held up in kentucky where some woman refused to do what the supreme court told her. they made her a hero. i say fund planned parenthood. it doesn't deliver abortions with federal funds. this hearing is about abortion.
and i support roe v wade. we welcome our distinguished witnesses today. if you will all please rise, i will begin by swearing you win. -- swearing you in. do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? thank you. be seated. all of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. servedes bob junior has as national right to life's general counsel since 1978. in 1987, he was appointed by the u.s. congress to the biomedical ethics advisory committee which advises congress on ethical
issues arising from delivery of health care and biomedical and behavioral research. in 1988, mr. bob served on the human feed all tissue transplantation research plane for the national institute of health. he has testified before numerous committees in hearings on pro-life issues and has argued before the united states supreme court. miss priscilla j smith is the program for the study of reproductive justice at the yell law school. prior to joining the isp -- yale law school. the isp, sheing served as the legal program director for the center for human reproductive rights and litigated cases nationwide. ms. melissa oden also survived
an abortion as a baby. she is the founder of the of does abortionors survivors network. all of your statements will be -- abortion survivors network. all of your statements will be theird into the record in entirety. you have a timing light on your table. when it switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. if it switches from yellow to red, your five minutes have expired. miss jepson, we begin with you. at want to push the button the bottom to make sure it is on. this jepson: good morning. would like to thank you so much for the opportunity to testify here today. my biological mother was evan and a half months pregnant when -- seven and a half months pregnant when she went to a planned parenthood and they
advised her to have a late-term salineg abortion -- abortion. this method suffocates the baby, who is usually born dead within 24 hours. there should be a photo. this is what i survived. after 18 hoursg, of being burned in my mother's alive inas delivered an abortion clinic in los angeles on april 6, 1977. as well of myhoto medical records. state "bornecords ine abortion,sal 6:00 a.m.." ha. victory. ambulance, andan
i was rushed to a hospital. doctors did not expect me to live. i did. i was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy, which was caused to my brain oxygen while surviving an abortion. i was never supposed to hold up my head or walk. i do. tremendouslsy is a gift to me. i was eventually placed in foster care, and later adopted. hear me clearly. i forgive my biological mother. year after myst birth, i was used as an expert where ann a case abortionist had been caught strangling a child to death after being born alive. , the founder of planned pareod