tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 8, 2014 12:00am-2:01am EST
military force is the key to security. it is not and i think history confirms that. >> one word about the palestinians. >> so they can begin to live normal lives. i think with that, ladies and we will close out for tod today. of y, i think we are out taoeuim time. i appreciate your attendance today. coming.ou for and keep an eye out for us in the future. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]
>> on the next "washington ournal" "new york times" economics reporter talks about the role of the middle class in the u.s. economy. a "u.s.a. today" reporter reports on crime. with your calls, tweets and c-span.k comments on c-span we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you. uckett you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and onferences and offerings
complete coverage of the u.s. public service of private industry. we were created 35 years ago and by the local cable or satellite provider. us on s in hd, like facebook and follow us on twitter. >> defense secretary chuck hagel spoke to reporters today at the pentagon and discussed the ongoing investigation into by military trainees presence in afghanistan after this year. a half hour. >> good afternoon. for giving me some time
this afternoon. as of d to announce that about five minutes ago the announced that he's nominating robert work to serve next deputy secretary of defense. and who most of you know most of you have worked with when he was undersecretary of respected, ighly nationally recognized strategic practitioner and expert n national security as well as budgeting, technology, military affai affairs. corps officer he is an admired and tested leader as ng until recently served you know as the undersecretary of the navy. hose responsibilities included the day-to-day management of the departme department of the navy. held leadership positions with important defense policy think including currently as
.e.o. for the center of new american security. his career of public service, his ability and experience and d.o.d. make him uniquely qualified for this position. if confirmed he will bring to the deputy's role the essential required to help lead our national defense enterprise a very challenging time. the president and i both willingness to serve his country again and return to the department of defense. looking forward to bob getting here and working closely with him. we together and the team here intend to continue to strengthen department. our military and our national security. as you know, christine fox has een serving these past few months as acting secretary of defense. this department and i have her wise nefited from
counsel, vast knowledge and experience and innovative as we have moved forward with shaping d.o.d.'s future spending plans. i want to thank christine for her willingness to stay on in until bob is confirmed by the u.s. senate. want to mention three other important presidential nominees. wormeth was nominated of ext undersecretary defense for policy. most of you know her and work with her. mckeown under the defense for policy. most of you have worked with him at the white house or capitol hill. mike mccord who you all know d.o.d.'s to serve as next comptroller. all of these very experienced and capable garded individuals will bring tremendous expertise and leadership to the positions.
like bob they are exceptional professionals. four of the most experienced national security rofessionals that d.o.d. has had in these positions at any one time. experiencea depth of and knowledge and expertise that is as impressive as we have seen d.o.d.t i'm grateful that they have greed to serve in these positions and i'm proud to serve with them. in times of great change and challenge, our country must have the right kind of people in trusted positions of leadership. i appreciate the senate armed ervices committee's prompt action to schedule hearings for the nominees all this month. confirmed minees are and if the senate acts on other nominees, now nt before it, then most of the jobs confirmed pentagon will be filled. also have one additional
personnel announcement to make combatant ne of our commanders. nominated resident air force general paul selva to transportation command. he leads air mobility command commanded at the squadron, group, wing an headquarters levels. an onfirmed he will be outstanding successor to general frazier who has been an effective command are nd we will miss him and we appreciate his tremendous service to has country. allve high expectations for of these leaders. d.o.d. and our country will rely rely on nd they will their integrity and leadership. know this country is grateful to these men and women and i know our country is grateful for men and women who serve our nation with honor and diligence. of them, the president
is proud of them, and we are families.their i'm proud to serve with them. they have earned the respect and of the american people and allies and partners all over the world. ut some of our people are falling short of these high standards and expectations. ethics and character are values we can not take for granted. must be constantly reap forced. it is the responsibility of all ask for the trust and confidence of the american people to assure these values imbued in all of our people and we all live up to them. welcome with service secretaries chairman dempsey and joint chiefs. we addressed this problem. we will continue to address it it. fix confidence and character are not exclusive. they are woven together. they must be. culture ofmpromising
accountability must exist at every level of command. that must be practiced and suffi by leadership. it is starts at the top. ethics and character are the of an institution and society. hey must be constantly emphasized at every level of command in training, curriculum d.o.d. in bothof corps.ficer and enlisted the next few weeks chairman dempsey and i will announce services at all our are taking to deal with this problem. staff a sign my senior general officer who will report directly to me on issues related ethics, character and leadership. and i will work directly with service secretaries and service chiefs. this officer will coordinate the of the services on this issue, work every day with all we will meetes and
weekly so i can receive reports rom d.o.d. senior leadership including both officer and enlisted leadership on the making. we are his will be an slaugabsolute tp priority doctor the service secretaries, chiefs, general defendly and me. you and i will be glad it take your questions. secretary, just quick follow-up on what you just said ethics and then a question. do you think that all this time sort of at one of the root causes of some of this bad behavior or just jeff looked during the -- verlooked during the war and things are coming to light that were happening all along? my question on afghanistan you met with your top leaders from afghanistan this week. do you see a specific drawn of summer?for the
what goals do you think you want to get to for the number of afghanistan over the summer, and is it a fait ccompli that you think there will be no b.s.a. before the elections? first arding the question, i don't think there is answer to the issue , a lapse in lues some of those areas that we do know about. we're taking a hard look at this. find out, is d to ?here a deep wide problem if there is, then what is the scope of that problem? how did this occur? as it a constant focus of 12 wars on two long land
taking our emphasis off some of these other areas? i don't know. we intend to find out. issue an inner service that cuts across all lines and all commands. putting this as a number one priority for this institution. general dempsey feels the same. our leaders and service ecretaries, chiefs, feel the same way. that is what we will do. but i don't think it is as or two s one thing things, but we intend to find out. on afghanistan, as you noted we met with the president this week, a very good first assessment assessment. the president received that on on retrograde and all the other dimensions of what going on in afghanistan. it was an honest exchange commanders and
.imself about the future you know our position has not we have n that continued to encourage president the b.s.a.ign incidentally, a document that he negotiated in its finality and greed to, a document that was overwhelmingly supported by the jurga that he brought together. a document as far as we can tell of the ry measurement people of afghanistan supported by the people of afghanistan. so, we continue to hope and that will be signed. e will continue to plan and work with our nato and isaf a post-2014 r mission. you know we have identified that advised and counterterrorism.
to brussels in two or three weeks, which be on the his will agenda. if we could ary, stay in afghanistan we were told millithere are 385,000 afghan troops and police fighting season they did quite well. the taliban gained no ground. know the president in the state of the union said if the .s.a. is signed there could be u.s. troops there after 2014. i wonder if you can explain, the afghans are doing, why does there have to be afghanistan ps in after 2014? most americans are against this. they all leave at the end of the year? the mission.ine the president has stated clearly, and we are proceeding as you know first the
our role in n of afghanistan has changed. lady -- lead combat mission has been turned other to the afghans. presentation of the united states and isaf partners to train, continue assist and advise. we do that all over the world partners and allies as well as continue our counterterrorism i think most everyone supports. interest.arly in our the mission with change as it is .hanging now dramatically because that mission would be changing and would be different, you don't need near as many need some. you you need force protection and suppo training, assist,
advise. >> what would happen to that u.s. y if there were no troops going into 2015, 2016? i'm not going to speculate except as you noted the afghan pretty well ormed the last it years, imperfect, problems, still need help. in the process of institution building. remember, 12 years ago there any institutions in afghanistan. continuation of investing and helping them invest in their own give and institutions to them the capability, which we're diagnose all over the world in examines building with partners allies. different in different places. it is not too far out of the we have been t trying to do, the pointing, if we are work where invited in by the afghan people b.s.a. is signed as the president made clear, i think there is an appropriate to 10 to help the afghan
people build their own self-government, elf-defense and capabilities they have already made tremendous progress on. >> you are going to continue counterterrorism you will need drone with the possibility of no after 2014 and where in the region would you base adrenaline program if those come to pass? are you considering halting tkr on pakistan? >> i don't get into the specifics of what our plans are intelligence and drone strikes and other issues like that. say this. we are constantly assessing to the united states in word terests all over the with partners and we have threats coming from different of the word and we address
those threats. assessinge constantly your assets and what is required. planning, as i said, in a post-2014 role afghanist afghanistan. barbara. sorry, i didn't -- >> i was going to follow. would you consider if you don't option of a drone base in afghanistan, if you don't b.s.a.oops, don't have a would you consider basing drones in india for instance? we have to consider everything. that is my point. you are constantly updating and and looking at possibilities, strategic nterestses where you posture those assets, where the threats are and where did you have llies that are willing to work with you, capacity building with allies. you are in a constant review on all those things. the case, would be
we would have to be -- and we optionsing at different for everything. that is not unique to afghanistan. back it to take you ethics. you quoted the number one priority -- priority.a number one a high priority i think is what i said. priorities.ot of officersard it general and generals and admirals you the cases of drinking on job, gambling, assault, multiple friends. you have been in the military. how hard is it for these people, small number though it may be -- how hard is it to do the right thing? and what are your concerns that as the enlisted ranks look at and look at scandals in their own ranks people are going unsettled, lose confidence. what should the american people hink when they hear you
speaking about concerns whether has the u.s. military moral courage and is ethical? it sounds pretty serious. i don't believe a question whether the u.s. ilitary has moral courage or ethical. in fact if you will recall what i said in my statement i of the nted most all people in this institution because they do have integrity and hey live by that character and courage. there are some where we have some problems. we know that. but you know there is only one way it deal with an issue and it on. is you take you don't apologize for it or othert, you don't run the way. you say it straight up. i don't know of an institution that world that does better than this institution. it is this department of defense that puts the problems up in front with the press when we a problem e somewhere. we open it up. you know about it.
we know the american people need to know about it. the congress. afraid of that. the issue is then how do you fix it, what did you do about it? i said, i don't know all of the depth or width of this. issues.we have you all report on them. we are not trying to back away that. so, let's go figure it out. whether it is sexual assault or it is but we are going to fix it and be honest and transparent about it. institution tremendous credit in that. to whatever we need to get to in order to assure as as we can -- you said it, i sed it in my language -- trust and confidence, complete trust and confidence the american in this institution. i think most people have that tod said and as i have you heard me say often there is o margin of error in a lot of
this. if you choose this profession there's an expectation that goes standard.and but that is your choice. ut you must live with that expectation and standard. >> let me ask you a budget mr. work's qualifications. s you prepare and roll out the 2015 pwufrgt to cut about $-- $41get you have to cut about billion from last year and the bipartisan agreement cap calls for. going in the area of cutting capability, cutting capacity, those two baskets from the skimmer that you discussed in july? that you all heard me address this in some detail and will be addressing it in more detail as we get closer to budget time. you have to come at all of these thin hings, not unlike the conversation we had on ethics nd standards, from a holistic
point of view. certainly you do your budget. about o heard me talk readiness, modernization, capability. are priorities that we focus on. o, as you assess the resources and match your resources to mission, those are three that always must be in front of everything else. now, will there be cuts across board? of course there will. you can't do it any other way. there be adjustments across the board? of course. readiness t preserve and modernization and the capacity in order to do the job of protecting this within the framework of have. sources you we will do that. i think the plan we lay out in the budget, the narrative that numbers, do that. into the t getting
specifics of the numbers or rojects or what is in that, i think i would just once again holistic that it is a approach. then you have to also not think fiscal year 2015, that budget that we will present five-year plan and on out 10 years. you think about the commitment ty of a to large weapon systems whether ships or planes or anything else. sustain those and all that goes with that? amount of mense thinking and strategic planning ithin the scope of your resources. i'm satisfied that we have done effectively. i think it is a very good plan. i think it is an effective plan. forward to presenting it to the congress after the president rolls his budget out 4. march and i look very much forward to it but goingaining
into some detail on why we think this makes sense. to need the congress as a partner. you seem toets that suggest it will come across all portions of the operations and maintenance, force structure and modernization. don't take $41 billion out of one basket. that is my point. you assess the strategic interests and guidance in the defend your country. what it will take to do that, working through that. you examine -- you mentioned the skimmer. asked to doreason i the skimmer so we have an inventory of what we have. and what ur resources are we obligated for? o you assess every weapon system and every force posture. of assess every component this institution. guide that along the
path of what are your strategic nterests and how you fulfill those. it isn't a simple take $41 pocket. out of this it is a balancing. that is the word, balance. balance your budget, ot just ledger-wise but it has to be balanced in the interest of our country to defend this country. back to your senior ethics officer you are you tell what can about that person, rank or name? and also on afghanistan just for moment, i know that you said that the united states wants an possible, as soon as but was there a consensus or feeling at the meeting with the a meeting -- you may go to brussels without the .s.a. and may wait for the election, probably wait for the lection it pass without a b.s.a. was there an acceptance of that? >> we are dealing with the with, so re dealing
plan, you in mind, you think through. one of the reasons the president commanders in is was to talk through this face to face. he spent a huge amount of time on this. every time general dempsey and i him tuesday we talked about this. we talk about it with him on occasions. he's been putting a lot of his own time into this thinking it through, our commanders have. do ral dempsey and i exhibits with other generals sometimes two or three times a week. we are assessing all of this as nato ministerial b.s.a. without a signed or n't know what well have won't have but we have to plan for the future, make decisions. decisions are based on all
of the factors that you are , commitments, and that planning is not easy. it takes time. one of our thaeut t -- nato and isaf partners, i listened to a number of them, with here the met last two months, have said the same thing. budgets, planning. -- we st can't wait to can't wait it hear on an indefinite basis what we are either. do all of these factors are part of it. all ve to plan for possibilities here. ethics officer, i don't have a name to give you. will give you that name short shortly. we are not going to let there go very long. this will be very soon. as i said in my remarks it will officer.ral
it will be a very senior level. an individual who is not just this but i want someone who understands the outside, who derstand understands the pressures of ombat, the pressures of curriculums and testing, and who as a good well-rounded background if -- in command. some ideas, but i will make that decision shortly. we have another meeting this week coming up and as i ave said we will have weekly meetings. this position will be in place very soon and i will let you know. thanks, everybody. appreciate it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]
iran and six world purse will continue talks about a long-term curb the country's fukudome program february 18 in vienna. two former u.s. diplomats with the george w. bush and theiradministrations give view on the negotiations. partnership for secure america this is just under an hour. >> let me start from the beginning. good morning, everyone. thanks for the contained introduction. i want to support with the partnership for a secure america to do.ng that is to build a better sense bipartisanship in washington
and on capitol hill. for nd i have worked republican and democratic stations. i was the career foreign service as aen and started intern in the jimmy carter went through and to the george w. bush administration. while politics is important, when it comes to the national the united states we americans have to unite and there is no reason why the two parties can't be in support of even other and of our most important issues and the iran nuclear issue i think is the number one of american foreign policy in 2014 because we are in a very critical, the is in a critical juncture. let me start by saying i strongly support what president and secretary of state kerry are trying to do. when i served in the george w. for administration working secretary of state condoleezza rice we tried to negotiate with ran and we offered negotiations, the p-5 plus one the one.eing
britain, france, united states, russia and china. we offered in 2006 and 2007 publicly for the iran i don't knows to negotiate and they us down. we formed this group of a and ity council members germany because we thought it was important to have a global conversation with the iranians. us down away ed turned toward sanctions and the to administration helped pass three chapter 7 resolutions and obama administration led by bob einhorn took the baton from the bush carried it on and forward. i have always seen this policy to be highly bipartisan. don't discern many differences 2010 president obama and president bush on this issue.ular i think we can take some comfort in that because it is a key issue for our country. support what the president is trying to do. ndy mentioned until the negotiations over the last six onths that have been so ably
handled by undersecretary of a te sherman we have not had consistent sustained strategic dialogue with the iranian overnment since the jimmy carter administration. f there is a probability that the united states at some point could theoretically have to consider the use of force it does make sense to exhaust diplomacy first and the type of negotiations that the president has committed himself to. idea of port the negotiations. it is entirely consistent in my the bush what administration was trying to do. i also believe that the president was right to negotiate interim deal. bob can speak with far greater authority on that than i because he was part of the team that led the obama administration's efforts the first four years. but that deal essentially freezed in place the major of iran's nuclear program and provides the time or diplomacy to act and
operate. this problem will not be ov overcome simply or quickly. the eed the time that president has given us to negotiate. that the next round of talks for the final agreement, which begin next week in geneva, will be infin fitly more difficult because now the going to be on iran and the spotlight will be on the .ranian government because they are going to have a agree, in my judgment, to significant roll back of their urrent civil nuclear program, the nuclear, uranium enrichment program, excuse me. idea they would have 19,000 isn't industry fuselages -- industry fuselages spinning is something the united states can't tolerate. see ll have to dismantlement of part of that. i would think the negotiators european side nd would want to see some significant transformation of heavy water reactor.
either a dismantlement of that some kindltogether or of transition for that facility so we can be assured it doesn't another root through plutonium to a nuclear weapon. i heard that -- i know the oreign minister said last week that he had not committed to dismantlement. thatect and i have to hope was for domestic purposes in iran. complicated ery political scene in tehran. the iranian and government understands dismantlement has to be part of government, iranian which is seated before the international community and because they misrepresented or lied about , and program in the past because they have gone far beyond what the international theynity wants them to do, are going to have to prove to us not just through inspections but dismantlement that they
are ready to become a peaceful civil nuclear power around not a country intent on developing nuclear weapons. them.s the test for i think the pressure has shifted to them in these negotiations. support the president and what he's trying to do. think he's brought us very skillfully to the present day but the negotiations now will be tougher. more points because we wanted to speak quickly to get to your questions. congress has been considering the merits of iran andl sanctions on my own view on that is that the has to decide and execute american foreign policy. to do that and the constitution gives him great authority in foreign policy. is reasonable t to think we can have 535 people iran.iating with the president has to represent the united states and he has in his said
administration that the further sanctions at this time would not be helpful. the negotiator thinks, i would think we should honor the wishes of a negotiator him on a bipartisan basis. should y come a time negotiations break done where further sanctions by the congress would be helpful but we see again in my judgment an integration between legislative and branches on this. this is the number one issue facing our country overseas. i hope that the report that likely stand down on the current sanctions. i hope those reports are give te and congress will the president the time and space and room that he needs to be our diplomat, which is what he is, and our chief negotiate torn secretary kerry. finally, i do think it is important that we have leverage our side. diplomacy often cannot succeed leverage.is helped by
what i mean by that is i hope hat the european countries and other countries that used to trade with iran will now not to dos they are appearing to open up business as usual with the iranians. delegations lots of from european and asian countries in tehran trying to scene for a reopening of commercial ties if sanctions are lifted. the major sanctions are in place. make the wrong message to them think they are 90% of the way there. they have not made the compromises. i think secretary kerry was absolutely right the other day, ago, when he criticized this and said we have to y and say it is not usual commercially until they earn it. they have not yet earned it. trying to you are assess probability and the president has donta publicly done that publicly
calling in a 50-50 probability whether the united states can be think that i would the complicated politics in iran at some point are going to a major part of the story. of n't doubt the sincerity the president or the foreign genuinely hey appear interested in a new relationship with the united states and general.d in reform in but if they do negotiate an agreement and bring it back it it is at least an open question how the revolutionary uard and national security council and supreme leader are going to react. o, our job, the job of our government, is to defend our country at the negotiating table possible ate the best and toughest-minded deal. t will be up to the iranian government to make sure they are fully on board in terror and -- in tehran and that is an open question. we have yet to hear in a way from the more
reaction tphaur elements but i upport the president and wish the president success. happy to be here with my friend bob einhorn. >> andy, thank you. partnership for a secure america for inviting me. t is a special pleasure to be here with nick burns, who is one foreign service officers, one of the best diplomats i have had the work with over these decades. the geneva joint plan of action was agreed in there's been a kind of dynamic at work between tehran washington. it goes luike there. critics in each capital attack administration for having gotten the short under of
the stick in negotiations. what happens then is the administration administrations understandably defend themselves. benefits to he their country of the interim critics reassure their that in the final negotiations very re going to be very, tough. turn hese defenses in become ammunition for critics on taeattack the deal. example, u.s. critics interim deal the o not dismantle iran's nuclear infrastructure. that is correct, it does not do that. administration, the obama administration, naturally to say that in the final deal there's going to dismantlement, a
major reduction of nuclear infrastructure. critics say you see, we told you the americans gutting interested in our enrichment program. hani says we are not going to reduce any centrifuges deal.inal so you are off and running. another example, the iranian deal say that the anctions relief in the interim agreement are peanuts, are insignificant. the rahani administration at that point feels kpeltd to say -- dale was the first big crack in the war of and the sanctions are
inevitably going to unravel. so the u.s. critics say look the is happening to sanctions regime. it is falling apart. the administration then has to well, no, they are not falling apart. the main sanctions remain in absolutely true, we are going to enforce the existing sanctions. going to impose additional sanctions measures the existing sanctions regime as they did yesterday. iranian critics look at that and say you see, the american administration is not the negotiations, they are undermining the talks, regime only after change. they are operating in bad faith. i was and i remain a supporter approach no ep negotiati negotiation, getting an interim and space ying time for negotiations on a .omprehensive deal
it gives us six months to test implement ingness to conscientiously and halts further progress in iran's program. not in a situation where iran is making major program while you are negotiating. that would be politically and unacceptable. but one of the down sides of you two-step approach is open yourself up to early criticism and maybe you make it to get to the end game. this e with nick that first step deal, the joint achiplan of action is a very good deal. but, of course, the test of the track will be what happens in the comprehensive at least and that is six months down the road. he joint plan of action does
halt further progress in iran's nuclear program and in some respects it reverses progress, the requirement that neutralize its stocks of near 20% enriched uranium. it is important to remember that in the absence of this interim could make major progress over the next six months in its program. could shorten quite the breakout time to go he toime it takes from a decision to build nuclear eapons to have enough material to produce a single nuclear weapon. that would be shortened ubstantially if iran would continue its program. that.t is unable to do it is true the interim deal single dismantle a centrifuge. it permits some continuation of development
activities. that is absolutely the case. objectives, these are items for the comprehensive deal. on the sanctions relief, i think there is a wide appreciation of the specific measures sanctions relief are in fact quit modest. the concern is that there will be a kind of shift, a shift in opentations, and this will the floodgates to new business iran and ith unraveling of the sanctions regime. this concern is fed by a number developments. the rahani government has been public in pursuing a diplomacy campaign. you saw it at at davos world forum.c iran is open for business inviting businessmen to come to and cut new deals.
ou see it in a succession sessiof trade delegations. there was the french delegation the turk iish delegation led erred dough ter wan. deal that hasn't materialized. the administration has strongly it with the russians at the highest levels. so talk of that kind of activity raises concerns about whether he sanctions are really evaporating. while there's a lot of smoke, so of fire.e no evidence busine businessmen, governments, are cautious been gauging at engaging at about this point. they know the major sanctions on area g and in the energy are still in place. they know that the going to be n is
imposing sanctions during this under new sanctions existing authorities if attempts are detected. sense is that this sanctions regime, will remain intact for the period, there will be some benefits for iran. benefits there will be for iran or otherwise iran wouldn't have joined the interim deal. the existing sanctions will foride plenty of incentives iran to negotiate a final deal. a concern has been that there will be so much sanctions erosion during the six months will be no incentives left for iran to negotiate. that's the case. i think they understand that if to get on track
it will require a lifting of the easing ot just of a few measures. so there will be plenty of -- incentive to negotiate. he talks on the final deal begin february 18, coming up soon. there are nted out big differences between the sides. i will mention a few of them. robably the biggest is about the size of the enrich mement-i program that iran will be able to retain under the agreement. u.s. goal is to lengthen his breakout time line, the amount of time it would take to enriched h highly uranium for a single nuclear time nd to lengthen that line i'm sure the u.s. and partners in negotiation will a significant reduction in the number of
centrifuges, constraints on the that can betrifuges used, tight constraints on the enriched uranium that at various levels that iran will on its territory and so forth. indication en every that it is going to resist deep nuclear ts infrastructure. it will want to retain as much installed already has and perhaps even expand what it already deployed. a will claim that it has robust nuclear energy program expand its to enrichment capacity in order to support that program. perhaps a way forward is to focus on the practical needs of iranian civil nuclear progr
program. fact, the joint plan of final indicates that the agreement will provide for a enrichment ined program based on practical needs. practical e iran's needs? they are quite limited. a research reactor and have produced enough fuel to fuel it. by have a power reactor russia but russia is supplying the fuel for that reactor. small s to build some research reactors to produce medical isotopes. fine.is we support that. but those small reactors don't as much enriched uranium fuel. in fact, iran's real needs, ractical needs, are very limited. think that can be a basis for agreement on the enrichment question. the heavy lked about
in iraq.ctor i have no doubt that this to produce designed plutonium for a nuclear weapons program. of s precisely the kind reactor that, the size reactor used number of countries to embark on nuclear weapons programs. that was the initial intention of the iranians. produce it is to medical isotopes but it is not the best type of reactor for the production of medical isotopes. and better for that purpose a much poorer producer of would be a reactor oderated by heavy water -- i'm sorry, light water -- research reactor. atomic energy organization of iran a few days that they me hints
would be prepared to accept some design modifications of that in order to reduce the plutonium production threat. he means byear what th that. one way to modify it is for it be fueled by lightly enriched natural-in, r than which would be somewhat better than fueling it with natural uranium. that would be fine. ut it was not nearly as useful a step as converting it to a light water research reactor. that is the solution difficult solve this issue. there is also the question of enrichment ound facili facility. facility, itsecret was outed by western 2009.igence agencies in my guess is that it was designed covert component of a
nuclear weapons program. at a facility that was reviously used as a military ase it is pwruis buried deep underground. less vulnerable to preemactive attack. logical role to play in a future iranian civil program. dismantled altogether. but if that is too difficult, a loss of face, then erhaps it can be repurposed, converted into a research and development facility with all of its centrifuge cascades removed. and verification will be difficult. the nk it is possible that iranians have agreed it ratify protocol under a comprehensive deal. that is good but the additional enough. is not
given iran's track record, which track record of ompliance with the safeguards obligations, it is important at the agree to go well beyond the protocol. the joint plan of action is a direction withat access to centrifuge production facilities, uranium mines and mills. these are things that could give that they areence not pursuing covert nuclear programs but in a comprehensive they have to go even further. issue will be one called the p.m.d., possible of iran's mensions nuclear program. 2011 the iaei director will a report itemizing areas in which it believes iran past engaged in research
activities related to nuclear development. iran o years the iaea and tried to get to the bottom of iran ut stonewalling by made it impossible to clear up iaea's concerns. snub issue remains and without a understanding of these past activities it is not going to be issue e to resolve this in any fundamental way. is made harder by the fact of iran keepsdent saying not only does iran, is it weapons but nuclear never pursued nuclear weapons. leader that, the supreme talks about a fatwa saying with be against islam. o it becomes very difficult to
confess that iran was engaged in nuclear weapons related given all of this. so, i think that negotiators are oing to have to be very resour esourceful in finding a way to resolve this. i think the key will be to frame such a way that ran doesn't have to admit past guilt but provides sufficient us that on to satisfy the activities engaged in past do not have implications for a covert program in the that. will be hard but it will be essential. the final thing i will mention is duration. you look at the joint plan of action, it only says at the end comprehensive agreement will be of long-term duration. couldn't reach agreement on a precise number of years. important very
because another element of the joint plan of action is once comprehensive agreement expires then iran will be as any in the same way non nucle nonnuclear weapons state party n.p.t. that means perhaps some of the pecial restrictions on an enrelationsh enrichment program and some of restrictions will no longer apply. -- the hrpbgts of that phrepbgt r length of the comprehensive agreement becomes important. it should be 20 years or greater. i think the iranians have in low single digits and the sides are very far apart. what is the outlook? resident obama had mentioned his view that it could be about probability. in the state of the union he won't ed that perhaps it
be possible to reach a deal. 50-50 may be optimistic. the issues are very wide. differences are very wide. but i think it is possible with creativity on some of agreement.es to reach i don't see agreement being reached in the first six months. plan of action talks about the possibility of extending the deal by mutual consent. at the same time, it indicates to be final agreement has completed within one year. -- those are the parameters, between six months and 12 months. longer than 12 months you think there will be strong domestic pressures both tehran and washington that his is taken enough time and you have to complete it. i will end it there, andy.
>> thanks very much. on.re's a lot to chew jot down your questions and get them p here so i can pose for our two speakers. here was one question that was asked there was one question that was asked me and written down before we actually started, and i will pose that question at the outset. it was touched upon by bob in your final comments, and this pertains to verification. the question is, the questioner says she wonders whether you could comment on a large role that is foreseen for the international atomic agency under the interim agreement. and for example, the question is, and i think the location is, will the agency be granted the necessary access that they need to answer some of the outstanding issues, the outstanding questions that have been lingering there for a number of years?
you mentioned particularly access to the military facilities where there is suspected possible pmd activity taking place. if you could talk about the iaea? >> under the joint plan of action, the iaea plays a major role. there will be a joint commission involving iran and the p5 plus one countries that will look at implementation of both the nuclear side and the sanction side. so it will play a role. but the parties recognize that the iaea is the organization with the expertise to do the job dared so i would look to the iaea as the principal actor on verification. on those issues, those are going to be hard. recently the iaea in iran agreed
to a kind of program of action, six steps, that are useful, but they do not get the military to mention aspects of the past. so this will be very hard. but i think everyone has to understand that it has to address iaea concerns or there will not be a final deal. >> i would add what bob said and i agree what he said. when president reagan was negotiating limitations with the soviet union in 1987, he said famously "trust, but verify." the verification in this case with iran comes from the iaea. a lot of people have modified what president reagan has said for the iranian nuclearization. do not trust, but verify. you need verification, and we trust the iaea if it is fully powered to be the eyes and the ears the world to assure ourselves that the iranians are not cheating. but given the past record of the iranian government that bob and
i have both spoken to, they have not been credible or honest. they have hidden these facilities, fordow being one example, and president obama exposed it in his press conference in september 2009. we cannot trust the government of iran. we must verify. another final point -- others on the iranian side had really put a spotlight on verification and said we will go the extra mile on verification. that is not going to be enough, because what is being verified is the critical issue. and we do not want to have a fully empowered and constructed centrifuge program to be verified. we want that program to be rolled back. we do not want the heavy-water reactor to be verified.
as bob said, it has got to be transformed into a light-water reactor or dismantled completely. so the core of the negotiations will not be verification. the core of the negotiations will be is the iranian government willing to dismantle parts of its program? then you verify. that is the proper order of thinking about verification's usefulness. >> ok, we will go to some of the questions now. here is a very straightforward one. i think, bob, maybe you mentioned this. what were the additional sanctions put in place yesterday? >> my understanding -- i have not been through the announcement -- but my understanding these were entities and a bunch of countries around the world, six, seven, eight, that were involved in the evasion of the existing sanctions. so they were not new sanctions under the jpa. under the jpa, the u.s. promises not to impose new sanctions.
these would involve the execution of existing sanctions, but there are sanctions against leaders of the sanctions regime. and these various entities in six or seven countries, including countries allied to the united states, were seen as deserving of this treatment. the iranians predictably reacted against this, but the u.s. administration has informed them several times that the current commitment is not to impose new sanctions, new legislation, new executive orders, and so forth, and that it will continue to implement existing sanctions. that was what was done. the iranians should have expected it. i think they are protesting in part to deal with their own domestic audience. >> an interesting question. do you think that analogies can
be drawn or lessons learned from north korea? that can be applied to iran or vice versa? >> bob and i have both been involved, in my case, in the clinton administration, with a bitter experience with the north koreans. i was not involved in the negotiations directly, but we have all the good intentions in the world, and in the clinton framework, 1994, as chris hill did back in 2007 with that negotiation. i do think there are differences here that make it difficult to equate the north korean situation with iran. north korea is a singe state run by a mafia family dictatorship. there's no other way to describe
it, really. and they are opaque and cut off from the rest of the world. they are cut off from the global financial system. and they seem to be willing to live isolated from the rest of the world for the glorification of the ruling family. the iranians are very different. iran is more of a civilization, very proud. it is a key country in the middle east. iran wants to be integrated with the economies of turkey and the gulf and europe and america. one of the aims of the government is to reenter the international system, and therefore i think -- and despite the fact that i disagree with almost every aspect of government behavior in tehran, it appears to be a highly rational regime. that is what it is important that after negotiating with china and russia and germany and france and britain and supporting south korea, iran
will have to answer to the entire world if it reneges on an agreement with the countries, and i think the chances if the agreement to be negotiated successfully are far higher with iran than with that completely mendacious regime in pyongyang. >> i would just add something to that. people often ask me is it easier to sanction north korea or iran? the reality is it is easier to sanction iran, for some very simple reasons. north korea has one big benefactor, china, that is not prepared to let it go under. it is prepared to provide whatever food, fuel, other support necessary to keep that regime afloat. iran does not have that. but iran has a crucial economic dependency, oil, the export of oil, which north korea does not
have. north korea only makes one thing -- trouble. [laughter] the iranians really are dependent on the export of crude oil, and it has been the ability to get countries around the world to cut back their purchases of iranian crude oil has led to a huge drop in oil revenues, close to 60%. that is what has made this nation's regime effective. and so that is what it is easier to put russia on iran, ironically, than it is to north korea. >> there have been a number of questions that have been submitted under your cards concerning the regional negotiations. let me read one of them. clearly israel feels very threatened by these negotiations. what is the real risk to israel
from these negotiations? can you shed light on the concerns? let me also add the saudi concerns, if you want to have that question as well. there seems to be a some of the navy of concerns by both the israelis and the saudis about the negotiations going on. let me stop at that point. >> i think as most americans come i am very sympathetic to the situation that israel finds itself as a result of the arab revolutions of the last two years. all of israel's borders have been stabilized, more dangerous today than they were three years ago with tahrir square in cairo. particularly the trends with jihadi troops attacking the egyptian government. the weakening of jordan, the weakening -- the civil war spilling from syria into lebanon.
if you are an israeli strategist, you have got to be concerned. you have this prospect that the iranian government that has never sufficiently answered the blatant, hostile rhetoric of the ahmadinejad regime. they face a country that appears to be a mortal enemy. i certainly believe that prime minister netanyahu can and should put his faith in president obama. israel has a great friendship with us, and we have been a very reliable partner to the israelis, defender of israel for 40 years since henry kissinger transform the politics of the middle east after the war of 1972, and i hope that israeli leadership would give obama the time and space to negotiate. it appears they will. the israelis will be in a tough position should these
negotiations fail. in a way, you know, as you build up leverage against the iranians, it is important the iranians know that israel will defend itself. israel cannot live and should not live with an iranian nuclear capacity, but neither should the united states. i hope the u.s. will take the lead here and israel will support the united states and diplomacy be given enough time. these negotiations might not succeed in the next six months, they might take longer. if iran is in possession of a nuclear weapon, i would hope israel would support continued negotiations, and i hope the saudis would, too. i'm a private citizen, so i can say this. i have been very disturbed by the public attacks by saudi officials on the united states
and on president obama and secretary kerry. i've been disturbed as i have been by many americans by members of the israeli cabinet criticizing in a very public, very open way secretary kerry over the last two weeks. these two countries have a great friend in the united states, these are tense times. i would hope the saudis and israeli governments will give the obama administration their support, because we need to be unified in facing iran. bob and i are both talking about this embarrassing spectacle of european politicians meeting trade allegations to tehran over the last four weeks. we need the iranians to hear united message. >> if you have more questions -- >> yes, i have more questions. here's a question directed to you, nick. would it be a good idea to ask the iranians to allow a few americans, staff people, to
staff the intersections in tehran -- a question of engagement. there is a sub-question that says, what happened in 2008 with the bush administration? why didn't they ask them? this is a question about more context, but also stepping the intersection in tehran on with americans. >> i take my advice from yitzhak rabin when he was prime minister, when he was explaining that in the early 1990's why he would shake arafat's hands on the lawn of the white house. as a former diplomat, and i teach diplomacy, i firmly believe we have to be talking to our adversaries and enemies, that the worst thing you can do from your own perspective, from your own national interest, is to shut yourself off. despite we agree the regime is odious, we have to have a
conversation with them, because it is a powerful regime, and i think the idea that the united states and iran would establish a consistent channel for our national interests, we do not do them a favor, , we do ourselves a favor by having the capacity to be more intelligent about the country, and that is part of what diplomats do. we live overseas. our foreign services officers are on point in difficult places, and we translate what is happening in that country for washington. when i entered the foreign service full-time in 1982, nobody in my generation went to iran, much less learned farsi. when i was the iran negotiator, there were no talks. i spent all my time sanctioning iran. the fact that wendy sherman, our undersecretary, has had this opportunity to engage the
iranians, the fact that secretary kerry has had the opportunity, it is good for us. it does not give us anything away. it makes us have smarter, better negotiations. i do want to give public advice to the administration. i do not know if the iranians will accept it. it is a paranoid regime. they do not tell the truth about us. that is why we need voice of america and cnn to be broadcasting in tehran, because the iranian government distorts who we are. i trust the obama administration to figure out when is the best time, but the idea that you have constant communications makes perfect sense to me. >> i completely agree with nick on that. interestingly, at this munich security conference last week, secretary kerry sat down with the iranian foreign minister. it hardly made the newspapers. this is a good thing because we need to have this dialogue. we need to understand what they
are thinking. even if we have serious differences, and i think it is good that americans and iranians sit down and talk. >> next question. since this is a congressional audience or largely so, one of the most -- an interesting question -- one of the most damaging and beneficial steps members of congress could take to help or hurt the negotiations over the next six months. i know you do not want to advise members of congress, but this is treated as a general question. >> i think it is a good thing that senators step back from a vote on the recently introduced sanctions bill. we all recognize the importance
of very strong sanctions to motivate iran to negotiate seriously and to reach agreement on acceptable deal. i agree with the administration that now is not the right time to impose additional sanctions, and in part because the particular sanctions that were introduced contained a number of poison pills in it. for example, it indicated that even in the next six months, if iran were to conduct a long-range ballistic missile test or to be seen as supporting directly or indirectly acts of terrorism, then we would be free
no longer to implement our pledge that we would not imposed the sanctions during the sixth-month -- six-month period. we do not want iran to conduct long-range missile tests, but we cannot renege on our end of the deal if iran engages in actions we do not like but are not covered by the deal. also, that bill specifies in great detail what the outcome of negotiations had to be, and this gets to the point of we i have only one administration negotiating here. if iran believes that the only way the president can suspend or lift sanctions, if he can certify he has achieved a deal that they have said is unacceptable, then they have little incentive to negotiate. so this bill has some poison pills in it. it is good, i think, that the senators step back.
it is there, it sends a message, but i do not think that message has to be brought to a vote. >> i agree with bob, and i want to add, we are here on capitol hill and there are many staffers here from republican and democratic sides. congress has already played an important role. iran is at the table in large part because of the sanctions voted by the congress and by the european union. congress has done a very effective job of sending that signal and enhancing our leverage. we might look to history to just recall how america has dealt with different crises in the past, with the president out in front and congress in support. president jefferson out with the barbary powers at the beginning of the 19th century or theodore roosevelt when he mediated that russo-japanese war in 1905, president franklin roosevelt in trying to negotiate before the second world war, jfk and the cuban missile crisis -- these are examples when we entrusted
the president to lead. congress also has the final say. president wilson found that out after the versailles peace conference in 1920. congress, if the president is able to negotiate an agreement, it will need to come back to the congress because some of the sanctions cannot be lifted without congress agreeing. congress will play its historic constitutional role, but at the table, one american, and we have him and he is a very fine job of positioning us at the table. >> because we're running out of time, i wondered as to more questions. i will ask them together and then get the responses. the first is more of a technical question. it is simple -- should we recognize an iranian right to
enrichment? that has been controversial. in the second question is, what should iran do to avoid military action while it is still an option on the table? >> on the right to enrich, the administration has not recognized any right to enrichment. it does not believe there is such a right. the nonproliferation treaty in its article four protects the right of compliant npt parties to engage in nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. it does not talk about enrichment per se. enrichment is a dual-use technology that can be used for nuclear weapons technology. clearly, iran, because of its infractions regarding its safeguards obligations, has at least temporarily forfeited even the npt article four right to pursue civil nuclear energy in
these particularly sensitive areas like enrichment and reprocessing. even in the joint plan of action, there is no recognition of a right to enrich. but there is a kind of understanding that in the context of an otherwise acceptable final deal, there can be a mutually defined enrichment program in iran, but not as a question of legal right. as a question of a successful negotiating outcome. >> second question? >> i cannot improve on bob's answer. he knows that subject backwards and forwards. i want to take a swing at the last question. what should iran do to avoid the use of military force? it is obvious to everybody that iran is facing a fateful choice. if they want to relieve them of the threat of force and sanctions they have to own up to what they have done in constructing a nuclear weapons
apparatus, an apparatus to support a program. it is our job of the administration to help to convince them to dismantle it. that is the key issue for the next six months in these negotiations. i think a lot of people -- myself included -- have been very impressed by president rouhani and the foreign minister. they are different than any other iranian leaders we have seen since the revolution of 1978, 1979. it has been very helpful to see americans sit down with them and talk. and think of the possibilities for our security, israel's security, arab security, saudi security, if iran can be a peaceful nation. it is a natural leader, always has been. it now needs to demonstrate it will live easily.
we cannot rely on words and we cannot rely just on verification. he got to rely on actual deeds dismember and dismantle their program. that is the challenge that they face. the question is how can they avoid the use of force by doing the right thing, of becoming a peaceful state, by acting like almost every state in the world. we are transparent, we tell the truth about our national security apparatus in the way koreans have not done. if they can do that, you have seen the president and secretary of state are willing to meet them halfway. and so i really hope that all of us can get behind the president support him, and let's hope the iranians can meet the challenge. >> on behalf of the partnership for a secure america, let me thank both nick and bob for sharing their expertise with us this morning. it was an extremely good seminar on the iran nuclear issue. could you all join me in addressing our appreciation. [applause]
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] senate,out of the u.s. john wash will be filling in the seat that will be vacated. lieutenant governor john walsh was elected in 2012 and serve as a brigadier general montana national guard. he graduated in 1990 with his undergraduate agree before getting his masters degree in 1997. watch the senate when they are in session on c-span 2. and rand paul is our guest on "newsmakers." he discusses his potential run for president in 2016, kentucky al politics.
here is a brief look. cannot say wets are the great defenders of women's place and that workplace nnd we will defend you from a abusive boss who takes advantage of a woman when the leader and clintonuntry was bill who was a perpetrator of that kind of sexual harassment. they cannot have it both ways. money who was to take from bill clinton or have a fundraiser has a lot of explaining to do. they should give the money back. if they want to take a position on women's rights, by all means, do. you cannot take it from a guy who is using his position of authority to take advantage of young women in the workplace. for goodness sakes, there is a fine for sexual harassment. can watch senator rand
paul on "newsmakers" here on c-span. next, homeland security secretary jeh johnson's first major adjustment his confirmation last december. he outlines his department agenda on preventing terrorist attacks, cyber security, and legislation. he spoke at the wilson center in washington, d.c. this is an hour and 10 minutes. [applause] >> good morning and welcome to the wilson center. you are just some of the folks who are about to listen to this. there is a worldwide audience. there are overflow rooms. you are here for the right reasons.
let me recognize a few of our special guests in the front row. dr. susan demarco johnson is secretary. she is right in front of me. some of the dhs leadership, including alejandro mallorcas. is julia pearson here? the forced director of the u.s. -- first director of the u.s. secret service, who happens to be a woman. the fema director -- you should applaud for that. [applause] the director, craig fugate. and thomas michalski. he spoke here recently on strategy. a number of ambassadors and members of two groups, the aspen institute homeland security group is in the front rows, and
the homeland security advisory council. these are folks who in various ways, including me -- i am a cochair and i am on the other group, are trying to give our best advice. leading dhs is a tough job. some of us were the founding mothers and fathers. blending the culture of 22 agencies reporting to more than 100 different congressional committees and subcommittees -- dod only reports to 36 -- and keeping americans safe is daunting. security is my bag, as i said. as a nine term member of
congress who chaired the intelligence information sharing and risk assessment subcommittees, and who represented some of our most vulnerable infrastructure, including lax and the port of los angeles, i can tell you that one decade after its establishment, the department remains a work in progress. but, significant progress has been made. lots of it has been showcased here at the wilson center. in the past year, we have welcomed former secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, to discuss the efforts to include the private sector in our cyber security efforts. a washington post columnist on government capacity against terror threats in a borderless world. and we hosted an event on the
vince in north america. over the past three years, we have hosted the winter meeting of the aspen institute homeland security group. that is cochaired by former secretary michael chertoff and me. we met with the secretary this morning about a report we have produced to recommend some action he might take. we hope to be useful in the future. so, today, i am pleased to welcome secretary jeh johnson for his first major policy address since taking office on december 23. as a former assistant u.s. attorney, general counsel of the air force, and later dod, he has been on the frontlines of counterterrorism policy, from desperately needed reform at guantánamo bay to our u.s. drone policy. more said later. in a major speech at the oxford union in 2012, he said "we must be able to say to ourselves that our efforts should no longer be considered an armed conflict against al qaeda, rather, a counterterrorism effort against
individuals who are scattered remnants -- who are part of groups unaffiliated, for which the law enforcement and intelligence resources of our government are principally responsible in cooperation with the international community." that was his tryout speech for secretary. he is thoughtful and courageous and he will need be skills as he confronts the threats of today and those of the future. he will outline those threats in his speech, so i am skipping the stuff that i have put here. i want to say that 2014 will be a pivotal year. it surely is as we speak. in sochi, in syria, and in other places. the secretary is here to help us understand what is on his agenda. these welcome secretary jeh johnson. [applause]
>> thank you, jane. before i begin with my remarks, i want to acknowledge to other people in the audience here today. the first is fema administrator craig fugate, who everyone agrees has done a wonderful job in leadership of that agency. i would like to acknowledge the commandant of the coast guard. he is a strong, solid leader. i know that a number of people are very proud of his leadership. he is retiring in may. after a distinguished career in public service in the defense of our nation. i begin by thanking the woodrow wilson center and the aspen homeland security group for
inviting me to speak here today. i also want to thank jane harman for your leadership and continued service to our country. your willingness to be a supporter, mentor, an adviser to me, and to numerous others around this town. when jane harman advises, i listen. as many of you have heard me say before, september 11 is my birthday. on september 11, 2001, i was in the private practice of law in new york city. like millions of others, i was an eyewitness to the events of that day. i watched in shock as the beautiful, serene, and ordinary work day was transformed in an instant to one of the worst days
in american history. while thousands of people, and ultimately the nation, hosted a tragedy that theretofore was unimaginable. the department of homeland security was born. it was out of that day that my personal commitment to the mission of homeland security was born. for the next several minutes, i would've to take the opportunity that jane has provided me to spell out my vision for the department i am privileged to lead. a cliché too often used is that we are in a time of transition. the department of homeland security must always be in a time of transition. we must be agile and vigilant in continually adapting to evolving threats and hazards. we must stay one step ahead of the next terror attack, the next cyber attack, and the next
natural disaster. the most important part of my day as secretary is the morning intel brief which ranges in scope from the latest terrorist plot to a weather map. we monitor world events in real time and take action when necessary to confront and respond to these threats. in support of russian authorities, we are keeping a close eye on the sochi olympics. they are beginning pretty much as i speak. within the last 48 hours, we have, out of an abundance of caution, issued advisories to air carriers and others based on what we have learned. we have adjusted tsa security measures and are continually evaluating whether more is necessary. also, within the last 48 hours, in response to a very different type of hazard, fema has issued 95 generators to the state of pennsylvania. several hundred thousand people are without power due to the snow and cold weather. in the homeland security world, no news is good news. no news is often the result of the hard work, vigilance, and
dedication of people within our government. we prevent bad things that you never hear about, or at least help the public protect itself and recover from the storms we do not prevent. our overall challenge within the department of homeland security and within the homeland security community is to learn from and adapt the changing character of the evolving threats and hazards we face. 9/11, hurricane katrina in 2005, the underwear bomber in 2009, the deepwater horizon oil spill in 2010, hurricane sandy in 2012, the boston marathon bombing in 2013 -- they illustrate these evolving threats and hazards. the terrorist threat that we face is increasingly decentralized.
it is self-motivated and may be harder to detect. the cyber threat we face is growing and poses a greater concern to a critical infrastructure that is becoming increasingly interdependent. natural disasters are becoming more severe and causing significant economic loss. there are more variable consequences driven by climate change and aging infrastructure. the basic missions of the department of homeland security are and should be and should continue to be preventing terrorism and enhancing security, securing and managing our borders, and forcing and administering our laws, safeguarding cyberspace, safeguarding critical infrastructure, and preparing for natural disasters. as we all know, at the time dhs was created in 2003, it was the most substantial reorganization of our government since 1947. in my opinion, the creation of the department of homeland
security in 2003 was long overdue. many other nations face threats similar to ours. they have ministries of the interior or home office with the same basic mission of bridging national and domestic security, counterterrorism, and border security. perhaps because our nation was protected by two big oceans from many of the world hotspots, we thought that one department devoted to the mission of homeland security was unnecessary. that thinking obviously changed on 9/11. further, consider where all of the 22 components of homeland security existed before the creation of the department in 2003.
scattered across the department of agriculture, energy, justice, treasury, transportation, defense, health and human services, and the general services administration, including departments that do not have national security or law-enforcement as their core mission. in just seven weeks, i have already seen the wisdom of combining a number of these capabilities within one department of government. when i convene a meeting to discuss how the latest terrorist threat might penetrate homeland, the participants include dhs's intelligence and analysis office, border protection, tsa, immigration and customs enforcement, citizenship and immigration services, the coast guard, and the national
protection program director. put another way, with the creation of dhs, a terrorist searches for weaknesses along our air, land, and sea borders or ports of entry. they are met with one of federal response. for me, preventing terrorist attacks on the homeland is and should remain the cornerstone of homeland security. through our counterterrorism effort in both the bush and obama administrations, we have put al qaeda's core leadership on the path to defeat. the threat has evolved. since 2009, we saw the rise of al qaeda affiliates, such as al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. they have made repeated efforts to export terrorism to our homeland. working with others, we must deny them a safe haven, a place to hide, training to launch attacks. we're focused on foreign fighters heading to syria right now. based on our work and the work of our international partners,
we know individuals from the u.s., canada, and europe are traveling to syria to fight in the conflict. at the same time, extremists are actively trying to recruit westerners and indoctrinate them and see them return to their home countries with an extremist mission. last night, i returned from poland, where the attorney general and i met with my counterpart from the u.k., france, italy, and poland. syria was the number one topic of conversation for them and for us. syria has become a matter of homeland security. dhs, the fbi, and the intelligence community to continue to work closely to identify those foreign fighters that represent a threat to the homeland. we face threats from those who
self radicalized, to violence of so-called lone wolves. they did not train overseas or became part of an enemy force. they may be inspired by radical ideology to do harm to americans. in many respects, this is the terrorist threat to the homeland. it was illustrated last year by the boston marathon bombing. i worry about this the most. it may be the hardest to detect. it involves independent actors living within our midst, with easy access to things that, in the wrong hands, become tools of mass violence. we must remain vigilant in encountering all of these threats. at the department of defense, i was witness to the extraordinary efforts of our military and the other national security and
intelligence components of our government encountering terrorist threats overseas. here at home, given the evolving threat, i believe it is critical over the next several years that dhs continue to build relationships with state and local governments and the first responders in those governments. we must also continue to encourage public participation in our efforts on their behalf through the nationwide suspicious activity reporting initiatives and campaigns such as if you see something, say something. that was on prominent display at airports and even at the super bowl five days ago. homeland security is a team effort. border and port security is indispensable to homeland security. good border security is a barrier to terrorist threats, drug traffickers, transnational criminal organizations, and other threats to national security and public safety. in my first month in office, i visited our southwest borders. smuggling organizations are responsible for almost all of those who cross the border illegally. i saw the south texas border on
the rio grande. the shallow places on that river where someone could walk about 200 feet across without getting their knees wet -- by helicopter, i saw the arizona border. there's the fort isabel detention center near brownsville. i saw detainees, only 18% of whom were mexican. the rest represent over 30 different nationalities who migrated to mexico in an effort to get to the united states. in arizona, i visited the ranchers who live and work on the border, frustrated by damage to their properties caused by those who cross the border illegally. i have met a number of groups and individuals who represent a wide range of views about the border. i will make it a practice to continue to do so. with the recent addition of funding for staffing and surveillance, we have made great progress in border and port security.
there is now more manpower, technology, and infrastructure on our borders than ever before. we must remain vigilant. the answer is not simply to build longer or taller fences. as my predecessor used to say, show me a 50 foot fence and i will show you a 51 foot ladder. border patrol experts preach an intelligence driven, risk-based approach that focuses resources on the places where our surveillance and intelligence tells us the threat exists. we must be prepared to move. i believe in this approach. it is a smart, effective, efficient use of resources. i also believe in smart and effective use of our resources when it comes to removals. we must prioritize our resources on those who represent threats to national security, public safety, and border security. in the senate confirmation process, i pledged to continually evaluate our priorities to ensure that we get this right.
i have already begun this process. we must also continually review conditions that test at our detention facilities to ensure that they are safe and humane. we are gratified by the support that congress has provided to our border and port security efforts. we need the additional border and port security resources that immigration reform, such as legislation, would provide. in this regard, the republican'' recent statement of principles on immigration is a serious step forward on reform and contains recognition that immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. this should not be an issue used in one way or another for political advantage. rather, we must define common sense solutions to a problem that we all know we have.
the president, the business and labor communities, people of both parties and others, all recognize the immigration reform is a matter of economic growth. immigration reform is also a matter of homeland security. there are an estimated 11.5 million undocumented immigrants living in this country. they are not going away. they're not going to self deport. most have been here for years. many have come here as children. as a matter of homeland security, we should encourage these people to come out of the shadows of american society. pay taxes and fines. the held accountable and be given the opportunity to get on a path to citizenship like others. this is not a special path to citizenship. it is an opportunity to get online behind those who were here legally.
this is not rewarding people for breaking the law. it is giving people the opportunity to get right with the loss and it is preferable to what we have now. when reform legislation is enacted, dhs must be prepared to implement reform. to prepare for this potential outcome, i have already directed the deputy secretary of homeland security to coordinate the process to ensure that we are ready to implement the law. next, dhs must continue efforts to address the growing cyber threat. it is illustrated the real, pervasive, ongoing series of attacks on things like stores, banks, e-mail services, power substations, and the public that defends on it. the key to the government efforts is to build trust with the private sector. we must attract the best and thebrightness to come and work for us. people like our deputy undersecretary of cyber security, who came to us six months ago from the position of
chief technology officer at mcafee. i'm going on a talent search. next week, we are traveling to georgia tech where phyllis received her phd. we will recruit more like her. we're a big fan of cyber student volunteer initiatives, which allows volunteers to come and work for dhs in support of cyber security. it allows us to educate them for our mission. through the president's executive order, 1636, on cyber security, and presidential policy on strengthening security and resilience of critical infrastructure, both issued a year ago, we are making good progress furthering our partnerships with the private sector. there is more to do. many have expressed a willingness to help in cyber
security. we appreciate those efforts. our basic legislative goals are one, new hiring. two, modernizing the federal affirmation managing act to reflect new technology. three, additional clarity and codification of dhs responsibility to protect the federal government civilian networks. four, legal clarity that dhs can provide assistance to the private sector when requested. five legal clarity that the private sector may exchange security information with the federal government. six, enhanced criminal penalties for cyber crimes. we can also support some form of limitation on potential solo liabilities for private sector entities, provided it is narrow and targeted and necessary to protect networks. we must continue to be vigilant in preparing for and responding to disasters, including floods,
wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, and, most recently, chemical leaks like the one in west virginia that threatened the water supply of thousands of people. fema has come along way since the days of katrina. we have improved disaster planning for public and private sector. nonprofit organizations and the american people -- we have learned how to pre-position a greater number of resources. we have strengthened the nation's ability to respond to disasters and a quick and robust fashion. we are helping communities and cities recover and rebuild faster. we will continue this progress. finally, we must be mindful of the environment in which we pursue these missions. we operate in a time of severe budget constraints. the days when those of us in national and homeland security can expect more and more each year to our topline budgets are
over. i am therefore obligated to identify and eliminate inefficiencies, waste, and unnecessary duplications of efforts and expenditures while pursuing important missions, such as recapitalization of the coast guard fleet. dhs also operates at a time when the public's confidence in the government's ability to function and work for them is low. dhs is unique among federal agencies for their long daily engagement with the public in airports, seaports and land ports of interest. the attitude toward the entire federal government can be shaped by the department of homeland security. we must be mindful of this as we seek public support.
this is why i am pleased to announce that the commissioner of border protection will soon make the use of force policy public. we must do a better job of highlighting the good you do a half -- we do on behalf of the american. a new tsa rechecked application center at dulles airport. it illustrates the risk-based approach to homeland security that i talked about earlier. it is smart, effective, as an efficient use of resources and taxpayer dollars. in december we extend the benefits to all military including those serving in the coast guard, reserves, national guard during by permitting travelers to provide information about themselves ahead of time, we expedite the process for them in airports. with better focus resources to the pool of people we know less about. this advances aviation security and should be popular with the republic. -- with the public.
lastly, i am mindful of surveys that reflect the morale within various components of dhs. our greatest asset is our people. each and every day the men and women work hard to fulfill our critical and noble mission. they dedicate themselves to the security and advancement of our nation. i will be a champion for those men and women of dhs and will advocate on their behalf. morale also depends on good leaders in place of each of our components. we must inject a new energy. the leadership starts with recruiting new leaders to help run the organization. with the help of the white house and congress, we're bringing in some terrific people to bring in the large number of senior management vacancies that exist. i spent a part of almost every day on this. i am pleased that in december, congress conference arnie deputy
secretary and in october our new general counsel. we look forward to the confirmation of suzanne spaulding to be the under secretary for national programming -- national rejection of programs directory. leon rodriguez to be the next threat of u.s. citizenship and immigration services and dr. ritchie brothers between next undersecretary for science and technology. we are actively recruiting telik -- talented people to be undersecretary for intelligence and analysis, director for immigration enforcement. the next chief financial officer and other key positions. finally, we will also continually reinforce among all the men and women of the department the common unifying mission of homeland security that binds us together. homeland security security is
the most important mission in the government can provide for its people. i told you i was in new york city on 9/11. for years, my secretary at the law firm i was with in manhattan was a woman named gina tichiari. she works about 50 hours a week, raises two weeks, the wife of a retired new york city police officer, plays by the rules and never makes wages. in 2000 love and she was walking into the world trade center with her three-year-old daughter -- in 2011 she was walking into the world trade center with earth real daughter when the plane plowed into the building above her. gina picked up her daughter and either walked or ran with her in her arms all the way to 14th street.
anyone who knows manhattan knows that is a long way even to walk empty-handed. the image of a 5'3" mother running for the life with her mother -- with her daughter in her arms, thousands of displaced americans at the louisiana superdome during katrina, the image of the finish line at the boston marathon turning in an instant to a blast zone, the should be constant reminders of the urgency and the importance of our homeland security mission. i am aware that there is another component to my job. in the name of homeland security, we cannot sacrifice our values as a nation. we can build more walls, install we can build more walls, install more screening devices, ask more questions, expect more answers, and make people suspicious of each other but not
at the cost of who we are as a nation of people who cherished privacy and freedom, celebrate diversity, carry our flag at the olympics and are not afraid. thank you very much. thank you for listening to me. [applause] >> i got teared up as i think others did by the close of your speech, mr. secretary. let's remember that most of this room, everyone in this room are sons and daughters, spouses, many are parents. on that day on 9/11, many of us knew people who perished of people who were at risk and suffered with a scar that in