tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN September 9, 2015 7:00pm-9:01pm EDT
i don't know that it's something that the united states can lead, but it's ertainly we can try to catalyze and encourage. and i think there is potential there. 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 care 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 -- the israelis 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. turkey's interests for stability are not so different than they were even though some of the leadership, attitudes eemed 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. 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 ave 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 forthwith 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] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]
host: hillary clinton speaking this morning before the house came in to take up the iran disapproval resolution. actions stalled in the house. the g.o.p. conference met on that and it now appears that the chamber plans to hold three separate votes related to the iran agreement tomorrow and friday. one would express a sense of congress, a sense of the house on the so-called side deals of text not given to lawmakers, apparently not given to lawmakers. another would prevent the lifting of iran sanctions and, finally, a measure to approving the iranian nuclear agreement. the rules committee is said to meet in about a half an hour, 7:35 eastern, to consider floor
debate rules for the measures. we'll keep you posted on that. follow live house coverage when they gavel back in here on c-span. earlier today in washington we heard remarks from the director of national intelligence, james clapper, on the state of u.s. intelligence. hosted by the national security allowance -- security alliance, rather, and it's just about an hour. >> i can remember back a long way. my dad was in a business in world war ii. as a consequence of traveling around the globe with him, i grew up on intelligent sites and in antenna farms all over the world. of course back then we didn't
talk about intelligence publicly. five decades later, that's of course changed. in fact, that's changed a lot just over the past three years. i admit, because of my experience growing up in the business, and my five decades or so in intel, that the kind of transparency we're engaged genetically an tiggetcal to me. as i think back, which i'm want to do these days, air force second lieutenant jim clapper in 1963 would be shocked by the level of detail that we talk about, specifically in intelligence activities in general in 2015. that's been one of my major takeaways the past few years. yes, we have to protect our secrets, our sources and methods, our trade craft. but we have to be more transparent about the things that we can talk about.
because now the american public expects us to talk about how we're using the power of u.s. intelligence responsibly. and again with great power comes great responsibility. that's a lesson i personally believe we didn't learn quickly enough and that we certainly include mess. so that's why more and more we're discussing our work, to correct misunderstandings and to help -- try to help people grass whap we do -- grasp what we do. to show that we're worthy of america's trust. and to prove that we make worthwhile contributions to the security of americans and our friends and allies around the world. it's why over the past two years the community has declassified more than 5,000 pages of documents about our work and importantly about the oversight of our work, that which is conducted by all three
branches of the government. and by publishing these declassified governments on our tumbr site, i see on the record, and pushing them out on facebook and twitter, they've reached millions of people in the u.s. and around the world. that includes of course our adversaries who also have learned a lot from our transparency. but i think we've come down on the side of transparency is worth that cost. we declassified these documents to show that we follow the law and when we do make mistakes, we do our best to live up to that line stan lee wrote just a few months before i joined the intelligence business, with great power comes great responsibility. we understand the truth in that line, it's why the president challenged us in his speech? january of last year -- speech of january last year to formalize privacy protections for our signals intelligence efforts at home and abroad.
and to be more transparent about how we implement those protections. this past january we published a comprehensive report answering the challenges the president publicly gave us in 2014. we also supported the u.s.a. freedom act, which authorizes increased reporting of how the i.c. exercises some of its authorities. this past february, we published the principles of intelligence transparency, and we stood up an i.c. transparency working group with senior representatives from all over the united states -- i.c. and their purpose is to -- i meet with these great people -- to transform these principles into action. want to talk about those four transparency principles just for a moment. they're fairly simple. one, provide appropriate transparency to enhance public understanding of the
intelligence community. that principle says, what we ought to be transparent about and why. two, be proactive and clear in making information publicly available. of course, when we can. and that gets into how we should be transparent. three, protect information about intelligence sources methods and activities. and, four, align i.c. roles, resources, processes and policies to support transparency implementation. so, the tenants three and four essentially say that protecting our trade craft, our sources, methods and activities is an individual responsibility. for each person who holds a security clearance. well, transparency is an institutional responsibility for the i.c. as a -- as an interprice. if a member of the intelligence community, blue badge or green badge, comes across information she thinks we should make public, we have processes in
place already to review it for declassification. and if someone comes across something she thinks we're doing wrong, we have lots of avenues to report that activity. including legitimate avenues for whistleblowing. to make sure our work force knows their rights and responsibilities on these issues, we've been publicizing how to recommend something for declassification, how to properly blow a whistle, and what their protections are if they do so. we're also increasingly reaching out to the american public. as our transparency principle two says, we need to be proactive and clear with transparency. because we're trying to help the public understand what we o in their name. it's why we've declassified and published so many significant documents. site has a review.
that's a big reason why this spring we sent our national intelligence counsel to the south by southwest festival to engage the diverse group of people there and get them to help us identify themes to include in our next global trends report. it's also why this summer we published a huge traverage of documents we'd collected during a raid, probably later than we should, but we got to it. by the way, our publication of bin laden's book shelf gave us about as much web traffic in just two days, 750,000 site visits, and two million page views, as our website received in all of 2013 and 2014 put together. and if you rent a google search for -- ran a google search for bin laden, di.gov was the number two search behind only wikipedia. tomorrow i'll be on the hill once again in an open hearing testifying on cyberthreats and cyberintelligence. of course transparency can help
us with mission two, particularly when we're able to use imagery publicly. in 2013 we showed how syria had used chemical weapons on its own people. in 2014 we helped make public a diplomatic case against russia for obfuscating what happened to malaysian airlines flight 17. we also shared imagery to help people in need. as we pass the anniversary of hurricane katrina a couple of weeks ago, i found myself thinking about the work n.g.a. did back when i was director. in the aftermath of the hurricane, admiral allen reached out to n.g.a. for help. in figuring out what precisely the storm had done to new orleans and to the state of louisiana and the state of mississippi. it had decimated so much property and rerouted the waterways and blocked the ports. the general helping him with situational awareness in managing the response to this
disaster. the coast guard and n.g.a. ended up working very closely together. and in the process, i got to know him pretty well. i consider him both a personal hero and a close friend. this spring my wife, sue, and i had dinner with thad and his wife, pam. and as old war horses are want to do, we reminisced and told war stories. i found out that among the few momentos that thad and pam displayed in their home is a top graphical three dimensional map of new orleans given to him by n.g.a. when he retired. and he recalled fondly the superb work n.g.a. did after hurricane rita and katrina, as well as in the aftermath of the b.p. oil spill. that was all work that mattered. that directly made a difference to american citizens. and to people who were on the ground and remember it. as we push forward,
transparaphernalia is initiatives, we've been able to help with tragedies and natural disasters around the world. last summer and fall, the i.c. and n.g.a. had a huge and largely unsung impact on the control and containment of ebola in west africa. by providing open data on human geographies to the countries and n.g.a.o.'s thavevorped. and for the first time ever, setting up a publicly available website for disaster support. this spring, n.g.a. a and the i.c. put the lessons we learned into action after the earthquake in nepal. producing damage asementses, reporting on the operating -- assessment, reporting on the perating status of air fields, providing estimates on internally displaced people and displaying studies of transportation routes. we save lives and set a
community on the other side of the world on the road to recovery. those are things the intelligence community has done that i'm pretty proud of. once we made a commitment to be transparent, doing these things, helping people in need, were easy decisions, easy commitments to make. i think going forward we're going to have to be more transparent in talking about hard decisions and difficult choices. because we're in a difficult business, in a challenging time. so this morning i started my speech with a comparison of superphysical similarities between the i.c. and spiredman. i think there's one other thing that the intelligence community has in common with speidi and more directly and more distinctly with peter parker. this gets to the heart of why speeder-man has been one of marvel's most popular characters since the first issue of the amazing spider-man. 52 years ago, the same year i started in intel, before
spidey, most comic books depicketed the external struggle between the superhero and the supervillain. it was superman versus lex luther with cist night. with peter parker for the first time, comic readers saw a hero's inner struggles. they shared his experiences of trying to keep the job and earn enough to survive. of trying to talk to girls. and watching helplessly as a loved one, his uncle ben, dies. and more than anything else, peter's struggles with deciding what to do when his principles, his personal values, came in conflict with each other. that's what made spider-man such an interesting character to follow. people always related to his inner struggle with decisions. peter found that sometimes he couldn't keep a promise to a friend and at the same time as spider-man help someone in need. the intelligence community is composed of people who similarly face tough choices.
i think this often gets lost in the public discussion. we as an institution and as a work force have principles and values that sometimes come into conflict. things like our need to keep sources and methods secret and our desire to be more open and transparent with what we do. things like pursuing terrorists and others who want to do us harm and protecting the privacy and civil liberties of the typical citizens, not just of this country, but of the world. who are rarely but sometimes caught up in our collection efforts against the bad guys. solutions for these conflicts are not always obvious. i've been in meetings in which we literally pulled out our copies of the constitution and bill of rights to get to the ground truth of what our principles and obligations are. wrestling with constitutional issues to make difficult decisions is part of our daily base -- our daily bills.
it is just a fragment of what make -- business. it is just a fragment of what make our i.c. career so unique. this is a difficult business. i've been in this job, as john mentioned, a little over five years. and every day i realize that fact a little more. i've been pondering a lot about how to best express my feelings on my career and this job. and just last week, i came across an email that captured them and expressed them better than i could ever have done. it was something an f.b.i. director, one of our great leaders in all of government, sent out to his staff. i want to share his thoughts. he wrote, i've been thinking about humility lately. one of my weaknesses has long been overconfidence. i don't know whether it was the product of nature or nurture. but from an early age, i had a tendency to reach a conclusion quickly, hold to it firmly and
argue about it until the sun went down. fortunately a whole lot of life experience has helped beat that out of me. in fact, the older i get, the less i know for absolute certain. and the more i realize my own ability to see clearly and to reason well is limited. that's one of the reasons it is so important to have people around me who see the world differently. and who will tell me what they see and conclusion so that together we can make better -- conclude so that together we can make better decisions. his email absolutely nail what is i had been thinking about and pondering of late. there is a human aspect to intelligence work that gets lost in the public discussionment. we're human -- discussion. we're human. and when we forget that, when we're utterly certain about everything, when we stop questioning and stop listening to the people around us who see the world differently, we're more likely to make mistakes and poor decisions.
and that's what it means to be human. fans of the amazing spider-man love peter parker because we can relate to his humanity. he struggles, he tries his best. he makes mistakes. he learns from them. and he keeps going. he constantly tries to live up to the line that became his crede. with great power comes great responsibility. that line so describe what is the people of the intelligence community try to live up to every day. to show that we're worthy of america's trust and that we're worthwhile because, spoiler alert, we're not comic book characters. we're americans working to protect our nation and at the same time striving to live up to our nation's values. so, thanks again, mojo, for inviting me to kick off the summit and thanks to everyone here this morning for listening. and for being here in the
spirit of integration, to map out where our community goes next. so thank you very much. [applause] >> thanks very much, jim. goes mail from the c.i.a. back to socrates, doesn't it? all i know is that i know nothing. i guess that's the ultimate wisdom. efore i go to questions from the participants, i had a couple of my own. that i'd like to ask. just two. i don't think they're curveballs in any way. the first, because i know it's a subject of great interest to everybody here, is the intelligence budget.
i know you're not -- you don't have a cist ball -- crystal ball. but i think we'd be very interested in hearing what you might have to say, what observations you might have to say about the status of the intelligence budget and what the prospects are for it in the months or years, years is perhaps saying much, but as far out as you feel you can omfortably see in that regard. what's your view on that? james: i guess if i had to pick one word to characterize the budget environment, the budget situation for intelligence, which is a microcosm of the rest of the government, i would characterize it as one of uncertainty. we are potentially facing the specter in 2016, depending on
what happens on the hill, of another year of sequestration. this afternoon coincidentally i'll be meeting with what we call the small excom which are essentially the big six on teeing up 2017. we're having to worry now about that budget year. once again, as we look forward to 2017, we are again going to be confronted with putting together a budget with great uncertainty about its fate in he congress. the budget caps, budget control act, still apply. that law still runs until the year 2021. so we're going to be in this mode of making -- of not knowing what our funding level's ultimate going to be and living from year to year --
ultimately going to be and living from year to year in this uncertain context, which makes planning very, very difficult. we have 30 or so major systems acquisitions to manage across the i.c. row. f those in the inner it plays havoc when you don't know what the budget situation is going to be and of course it has huge impact on our most valuable asset, which is our work force and that uncertainty, the lingering uncertainty, now stretching into four years, is having impacts on the work force and that is evidenced in our latest i.c. climate survey. , so it is very daunting thing, challenging thing, to manage in this kind of environment.
i will say that i believe the office -- my office, odni, has kind of been put to thely the miss it test during the last four years of uncertainty and reduction. in the decade or so after 9/11, every year the tension community got more money and more people -- intelligence community got more money and more people, which wasn't hard to manage. we're in a much different mode now. i'd like to think odni has an d its keep by managing environment, where we invest and where we take cuts. of course through all of that one has been the number precept that i've stuck to, the first priority is to try to protect the work force. john: thank you for that. my second question goes to the iran agreement. basically to ask you if you
care to offer some comments on the verifiably -- never fiblet of the agreement -- never fiblet of the agreement. james: that is pretty much the lane i've tried to stick to. our ability to monitor compliance with this agreement, assuming it comes off. and we were required within five days after the agreement was struck to submit to the congress very detailed assessment of our capabilities, what we could do and what we had lesser capabilities to monitor the agreement. so i come away with pretty confident, i won't say 100%, should never say, that but pretty confident that we can in own erify, through our sources, what the international
community will be able to, through the mechanism, the iaea, and its very intrusive, in fact unprecedented access and ability to observe and monitor what the iranians are doing. i'm pretty confident in that. we are fielding some independent capabilities, which i can't obviously go into, despite my -- all my protestations about transparency. that len able us to be able to have -- that will enable us to have good insight into the nuclear enterprise of iran, if i can call it that. if you ask me, given a choice between a state sponsor of terrorism with a nuclear capability or a state sponsor of terrorism without it, i'd probably pick the latter. john: yes, sir.
so if we could perhaps go to some of the questions that have been submitted from the audience. the first one reads, and this really goes to the human resource issue of the i.c. as a whole. what will the i.c. work force of the future look like in your view? how are we thinking about policies and processes for recruiting, retention, etc., just a ld just add, parenthesis to that which is, are we getting -- how's recruitment going? are we getting the people we want? james: i will tell you that in -- since 9/11 we have brought n a tremendous caddying ray of people in the intelligence community. just got back from a 10-day, seven-stop death march in north africa and east africa and
wherever i went it is literally eye-watering to see what our intelligence community people are doing. and the vast majority of these men and women have come on since 9/11. for me it's a rather profound sociological change in the community. in that thousands of civilian employees in the intelligence community have deployed to war zones multiple times since 9/11. that has had a huge impact on indemnification of mission in our work force and it attracts young people to the intelligence community. i went to southeast asia, vietnam in 1965, you hardly ever saw a civilian. a civilian employee or
contractor. they just weren't there. and that is very, very different today. that's had a huge impact on the community. i remember when i left n.g.a. in 2006, i was there almost five years, one statistic i recall that was quoted to me was 60% of the work force had been hired during the five years i was there. and that's not unusual. that is across the board. e had last fall 31 vacancies and got 6,000 applicants. so we do continue to attract. i will also tell you that our attrition rate is pretty low. it runs around 4% and has plus or minus a .1%. at least in the five years i've been d.n.i. what's the uestion, work force going to be like, i
think one thing that i've noticed is what the work force desires is, particularly the younger people, is mobility. and we need to be able to facilitate the ability of our young people to come to the community and then go to industry, get refreshed, technologically, and then come back to the community. we need to figure out a way to facilitate that. so i think what i find is what they're interested in, what's the technological challenge, where can i go to broaden my professional horizons? they're not too concerned with sticking with one institution for a 30-year lifetime career. that's a big difference from my day, when i first got into this business. john: thank you for that. somewhat related question. many have suggested that the
intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act and the odni are like goldwater-nichols was for the d.o.d. so how do you think the i.c.'s journey is going 10 years into this reform? -- s: i think, again, being i think we operate better as an enterprise, as a community, han we did 10 years ago. we had 9/11, so let's reorganize. we can argue until the cows come over whether that was really necessary or needed, but it doesn't matter. it's the law. it's what the 9/11 commission decided was needed and that's on its way into the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act. we have a unique arrangement in this country for an
intelligence community that's really not -- although many countries i find now are trying to emulate it, it's not quite like ours. it's not like goldwater-nichols because goldwater-nichols applied to one cabinet department and the i.c. is 17 organizations that cut across six cabinet departments and two independent agencies. perhaps the spirit of goldwater-nichols applies and we've tried to do that, particularly with joint duty. we're approaching somewhere in the neighborhood of 12,000 employees that have qualified for joint duty. many of them in deployed status. so i think we've made progress. we operate better as an enterprise, as a community. that's not to say there aren't issues and problems that we still wrestle with and we'll continue to do that and i suspect my successor will
. ntinue to promote innovation certainly in the spirit of goldwater-nichols, if not the exact letter of it. john: if i could just add a comment of my own on that. i was not involved in the reform process. i was serving as ambassador to iraq at the time. and actually the first time i read the legislation was when the president asked me to be the first director it. seems to me, whatever the merits or demerits, one has to accept things as they are. hat legislation was passed and i think the idea of trying to reform the intelligence community again, the least in any significant way, would be opening up a can of worms. so i think that that's the best, to make what we have
work. vice president cheney used to talk to me about maybe at some point you might have some perfecting amendments, he called, to suggest. but i'm not even sure that we want to do that. perhaps what is we want to do is make sure that we make the improvements we can within existing legal authorities. here's a question about the snowden affair. can you give a cappsual summary of how the snowden issue has affected our i.c. operations? i guess not to mention our diplomacy. james: on the one hand, obviously it forced some needed transparency. particularly on those programs liberties ed civil and privacy in this country. and had that been all he had
done, i probably could have understood it better or maybe even tolerated it. but he exposed so many other things that had nothing to do with so-called domestic surveillance or privacy in this country. he's done untold damage to our foreign collection and analysis capabilities. terrorists particularly have gone to school on the revelations caused by snowden. particular program in afghanistan that he exposed and the day after it was written about, the program was shut down by the government of afghanistan which was the single most important source of force protection warning for our people in afghanistan. so he's done huge damage to our collections capabilities, make
no mistake about it. john: very, very interesting. and troubling, of course. here's a question i had wanted to ask you. as a leader who has uniquely observed major world events and the effects of those world events over the past years, what are your concerns with the mass syrian refugee situation on the different countries throughout europe? economically, national security-wise, culturally, etc. i guess i just would -- to add something to that, would be, how do we know what kind of people are going to europe in this refugee flow? james: well, it is, you know, etting to be -- in its totality a disaster of biblical
proportions. just look at syria alone. where there are in excess of four million people that have left syria and another 11 million that have been internally displaced. and of course humanitarian situation internal to syria is a disaster. and so what this has caused viously is this urge to go somewhere, anywhere, where there's some hope of their life improving. of course as they descend on europe, one of the obvious issues that we worry about, in turn as we bring refugees in this country, is exactly what their background is. i don't obviously put it past the likes of isil to infiltrate
operatives among these refugees. so that is a huge concern of ours. we do have a pretty aggressive program for those coming to this country for screening their background. i'm not as uniformly confident about each european country that is going to be faced with welcoming or allowing refugees into their country. so this is a huge issue for all kinds of reasons. the security implications are just one small part of it. the economic, the social impacts are huge. john: it's really captured global attention. it's on the front page every single day. i suspect it will be for quite a wlile to come. -- while to come. here's a question about russia. the resurgence of russian military power is not just
playing out in eastern europe, but also in places such as the arctic, with one quarter of the world's oil reserves future transpolar shipping and concern on climate change, do we have a greater need to balance our national interests above the arctic circle? james: well, the first one i think is a general statement about russia. it's very aggressive and to me very concerning military modernization. is of great concern. in some ways it's almost a throwback to the era of the old war. we do not have nearly the resources that we did in the
hay day of the cold war to allocate against watching what is becoming a very formidable adversary. manifestation of that of course is their aggressiveness in the arctic and they have, which of course underlying that is the -- are their own concerns and interests and claims for oil resources in the arctic shelf. so they have set about a very aggressive campaign to either reactvate and refurbish bases in the arctic region or build new ones. and it's very clear they are quite serious about a stake in he arctic. i think the president's visit to alaska was intended to, i
think, attract attention to this, why the arctic is important to the united states. speaking of climate change, as controversial as that is with some people, the impacts of climate change are having and will continue to have huge national security implications around the world. it already is. with changes in -- the changes in climate, changes in weather and how that affects crops and the availability of water, which is getting to be, in many cases, a great point of friction between and among certain countries. john: here's a perennial. background investigation and security clearance process and system. these are pretty strong words coming here. inefficient, wasteful and
obsolete. with the revelations about the o.p.m. data breach, we now know that the system is corrupt. therefore untrustworthy. what are you doing to reform and reshape the background investigation and clearance process to bring it into the 21st century? james: what we're attempting to do, which of course now is because of all the challenges breach, . before the but what we're trying to do is go to a system of continuous evaluation. , ch would mean monitoring employees who have -- once they're granted the clearance, to detect abehavior in the workplace or outside the workplace that could then ompt or stimulate a deeper investigation, as opposed to
the system we've had which was back in the cold war era of an initial clearance and allegedly every five years you get a periodic re-investigation. a system which is broken. ade all the more so by the challenges that o.p.m. had with its contractor before the revelation of the breaches. so the combination of what we're doing, that we've been told to do, mandated to do, both by the hill and the white house, to enchance insider threat detection, and as we morph to a system of continuous evaluation, i think that will change the system. what that will hopefully do is allow more mobility between and among i.c. components and between i.c. components and contractors.
than has been in the case in the past. the other thing that i've been kind of on the warpath about is just reducing the number of clearances that are granted. because you have a clearance and no one -- there's hundreds of thousands of cases of this, where people have clearances that is don't need or have the access. that imposes a huge burden on the system, the investigatetory system. one way we can help ourselves, and this is primarily through the efforts of d.o.d., is to reduce the need for clearances. the d.o.d.'s reduced somewhere in the neighborhood of 600,000 or 700,000 clearance requirements. which in turn lightens the load somewhat on the whole system. but you're right. the system we have now doesn't work. d i think the only hope here
is, which is where we're going, a system of continuous evaluation which would depend heavily on auto mation, particularly at the secret level. we're probably going to do all of that on an automated basis unless something kicks up that cues us that we need to go look at this person in a little more depth. john: interesting. trusted traveler sort of approach. what is your advice to recent graduates, ex-military, students and young professionals seeking to enter the field of intelligence, with cutbacks in government? and the prerequisite of active security clearances, here we are again, in the private sector? james: now that i've -- in my geeser era, i guess, i've spent a good bit of time engaging individually with young people in college and coming out of college.
a couple of things i tell them is, many of them will set their goal or their target on, i want to go to work for agency x. and my advice to them is, apply to all of them. there's interesting, challenging work in any one of the intelligence components, if you can get on with one of them, then worry about where you're going to end up later. you may find your second-choice is not there. if you cannot get on with the government, then seek employment with contractors who work for the intelligence community. there are many avenues. at the same time, as i indicated earlier, attrition te not all that high and people do stay and the prospect it's, frankly, -- prospects, frankly, given our budget situation and the life of the budget control act through 2021
, there are there aren't going to be -- there aren't going to be a whole lot of openings. that's not to say there won't be some. there are. but -- so the one thing i try to import to people, young people, many of them are not good at that, is patience. e patient and persevere. john: here it is. the audience in front of you today is about 75% private sector. and the private sector builds capabilities for the i.c., it provides critical services and is the source of critical innovation. how would you assess the state of the i.c.'s public-private artnership and how could it be improved? james: i think it's pretty good
. still think it can always be better. i think one of the challenges, something i've tried to work when i was n.g.a. director, after i'd spent six years in the industry, was to come up with a mechanism or mechanisms whereby we, i'm speaking we as n.g.a., would be more open to contractors, particularly those facilities or clearances, just for the sake of getting their technology. one of the things i've pushed as odni is to try to lay out our technology -- a technology road map, what are the needs and requirements of the intelligence community, and, you know, present that as best we can to industry, to engauge in helping us.
industry is absolutely crucial to the continued viability and success of the intelligence community. we have to have what you make, what you -- the tools that you give us and the technology. and so it's never nirvana. it's not what everyone would like, just because of the certain extent, you know, the nature of our business, it's classified, it's secret and all that. and the nature of the rules that we have to live with. my, at least t, philosophically, fiff solcal bent, is to try to enup the lines of communication and be as open with industry as we can be. james: so perhaps two more questions, if that's ok.
with you. the first would be, how can we actively encourage innovation, y, across the i.c.? without using infrastructure or organizational reshuffle as a pla seenow for change, i guess. james: one way, i guess there are many, but in the interest of brevity, i'll say one thing that helps that is facilitating moving people around within the i.c. i think where you bring the ideas of your home organization to another organization. i've found, just in my own experience, just at odni, 40% of the work force are detailees from the rest of the community, that that constant infusion of
is deas from other places hope. -- hopeful. i also think that, this of course applies to the parts of the i.c. that have heavy military populations, like n.s.a., for example, that the fusion of military people, who served other places, particularly in the war zone, and they come to the agencies and i've found that these young, particularly young soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, are tremendous drivers for change and innovation. particularly if they have served in the war zones. james: with due respect, there are still a number of questions here that i have. i'm sore rewhich weren't able to get to all -- sorry we weren't able to get to all of them. but maybe one final question.
we face a plethora of threats, most of us never imagined. an evolving, ambitious china, a resurgent russia, a daily cyber catastrophes. and some of them do seem like catastrophes to me. disintegrating middle east. to name a few. how prepared are we to understand these threats and what initiatives or innovations do we need to be under-- undertake to be better prepared? james: i think the line i've used in testimony on the hill every year i've been in this job is that, and i just repeat it and add a year, is to say that in my x number of years i don't recall a time when we've been befit by more challenges a crises than -- and greater dweverts of them than -- diversity of them than we do
today. and so what i've tried to protect in terms of our capability is global coverage, which means a couple of things, at least to me. one is sustaining or bases and stations around the world that , what is is host for increasingly become i.c. cells. by the way, we here in the beltway like to agonize and hyperventilate over whether we're integrated or not. with when you go out to the field, i just had a reminder of that on my last trip, there's no question about integration and operating as a team. because it's just good business. when i first started traveling in this job, i thought, when i had had i.c. town halls, embassies around the world, i
needed to -- [inaudible] -- i stopped doing that because it's just not necessary anymore. in fact, i would submit that what c.i.a. is doing in its reorganization is saluting what already goes on in the field, internally. as they are integrating into a series of mission centers. so i think that's -- that global coverage around the world is one very important dimension. so that we cannot possibly predict every single crisis and challenge we're going to have. o we have to be positioned where we can observe, collect and understand what's going on. the other piece of global coverage in my mind is the -- is to sustain a robust overhead collection architecture.
particularly for access to denied areas. so those two capabilities, and of course particularly in the latter case, trying to push innovation and stretching the technological nfl, if you will, -- envelope, if you will, are the areas where i'd put a lot of emphasis. john: thank you very much for resulted sion which from these questions. i understand, director clapper, that before we conclude this session, that you have announcement for -- james: thanks. it's more an issue of commercial. first, thanks for having me. kick this off. i did want to announce at 9:45 that bonita, who is the
national counterintelligence executive and also the now director of, as we call it, the national counterintelligence security center, will be here to roll out a counterintelligence seminar, awareness seminar. prompted at least in part by o.p.m. breaches. 9:45. thanks for that. john: let's give director clapper -- express our appreciation to him. [applause] that concludes the first session of our summit. we'll now have a coffee break in the exhibit hall and please enjoy the refreshments. the breakout sessions will start at 10:15 a.m. 10:15 on the lower level where you all came in. and then remember, director
clapper just mentioned the 9:45 event. thank you. >> about 8:00 on the east coast on this wednesday evening, the u.s. senate beginning debate on the resolution of disapproval of the iran nuclear deal. over in the house, things got stalled of it. the rules committee is meeting. there is a change in plans and the way the house is going to proceed with the resolutions, with the things they are taking up dealing with iran. they are taking a three-pronged approach. we will tell you about that in just a minute. we are opening up the phone lines again to give you a chance to weigh in on congresses debate over the iran nuclear debate.
you can also post on facebook. whether you support or oppose the iran nuclear agreement. facebook.com/c-span. a couple of tweets from reporters looking at the coverage, covering the rules committee as it is underway. one of the capitol hill restaurants. she said the republicans'new bill might as well be scribbled on the back of a cocktail napkin.
debate continues in the senate and you can follow that on c-span 2. here on c-span, getting your thoughts and comments. warren on the republican line. caller: i strongly disagree with this nuclear iran deal. we have gone completely soft on a nation that is a strong supporter of terrorism. it is just not a nation we can trust. i feel like we did not even negotiate from a point of strength at all. host: both were to take up the
resolution of disapproval. instead rules committee to consider three approaches. the deals that republicans allege were not made known to congress. they will have a deal preventing the president from lifting the iran sanctions. a measure of approval of the nuclear accord. i am in the minority in my own neighborhood. giving the benefit of the doubt to the negotiators because of the reports i heard that israeli officials looked at this thing very carefully. not because anyone finds this to be a perfect deal. what is the better alternative? it is not a matter of enthusiasm. it is just a matter of cold
realism. during the reagan and administration, we negotiated with people pointing thousands of nuclear missiles at us and there was no accusation that ronald reagan was being treasonous. i do not see why there is a different approach when obama is the president. texas.e go to dallas, robert is on the line. caller: [inaudible] i am opposing the steel totally. -- this deal totally host:? -- totally. host: are you on a speakerphone? caller: i oppose this deal. i think it is a bad deal. host: here is christopher,
democrats line. you are on the air. go ahead. caller: [inaudible] sue in colorado. caller: thank you. i am actually in utah right now. i am calling on vacation. i am against the iran deal. i think we can do a lot better than this deal. i am surprised we do not have any time-anywhere inspections. the lifting of the sanctions, i did not agree with. some of the sanctions should not be lifted at all. the economic sanctions.
disappointed. it seems like we are going the other way. i just wanted to say i am against voting for it. host: taking your calls as the house rules committee meets this evening. that looksq piece how this all came about. they write that john boehner's -- it may not portend well. he could emerge from a busy month even stronger. either way, the verdict is not likely to be clear until the conference settles on a path forward. the speaker will hold a news conference tomorrow and we will
cover that on the c-span networks. texas, republican line. caller: i want to vote -- voice my opposition to the iran deal. no verification, no validation. abelieve that if we as nation, if this gets passed, it it will be our downfall. we have had issues with not supporting israel. i am voting no. i have encouraged to democrats that i know and republicans via twitter to vote against this thing. host: here is syracuse, new york. , i heari want to say the republicans against this. i have been listening to that for six years. is sufficient to make me support it.
that obama is for, they are against and it is just absurd. host: some of the reporting about mike pompeo testifying before the rules committee. you may recall one of the reasons that prompted peter to come to the house floor yesterday and make a motion, a privilege resolution. it kind of got the whole ball rolling. we go to the nations capital. caller: i wanted to comment. it is amazing.
you have people in israeli, the cia army, saying it is a good deal. it is ridiculous people who have research.ny do some research, people. it is unbelievable. you have heads of the military looking at this and they agree with it. host: facebook poll, we are asking you to you support or oppose the iran nuclear deal? support, 651 opposed. it has been like that throughout the day. we go to arnie and lake mary, florida. caller: i just wanted to say that i have listened to different people alleging that
israeli military aunt israeli intelligence people approve the deal. i have been listening to c-span all day. deal. knows the complete there is no reason for us to be voting until everything is out there. this is just like obamacare. you cannot afford to do that with the underwriter of islamic terrorism across the world. i am totally opposed to any kind of transaction to which all of the information is not out there and to allege that israeli officials and military, etc., are in favor of the deal, former generals in favor of the deal, nothing but nonsense because nobody knows what the whole deal is. the senators do not know what the deal is. there are side agreements.
they should not have to vote and it should not be before the congress right now. host: a number of former military officials spoke earlier today at the rally on capitol hill opposing the deal. we will show you some of that. we will show you donald trump and ted cruz in just a minute. we go back to florida on the democrats line. jack in fort lauderdale. caller: i will let go the democratic position that this is the best deal they could negotiate. a lot of things we do not know about and we will not know about it because we are not privy to it. it all started with the obama administration and mitch mcconnell said, every proposal we will fight. bestappears to be the deal. money isthe
controlled by russia and china and germany. once they step out of the picture or we step out and the deal collapses, it is wide open. people better think this thing through. host: one of the pieces the rules considering tonight is the bill that would prevent the president from lifting any u.s. sanctions. our coverage continues over on c-span 2 with the senate debating the resolution of disapproval tomorrow. we will cover a hearing looking at the iran nuclear agreement. the implications for nuclear defense and nonproliferation, that gets underway at 2:00. one more call from connecticut. it is raymond on the republican line.
caller: i support this deal. someone who has lied about weapons of mass destruction, supporting the know nothing republicans. that is my take. thank you very much. host: the rules committee still in session considering rules for debate for the moving forward in the house with the iranian nuclear agreement. we will keep you posted on what comes out of the session. possible final votes on friday. on capitol hill today, a big rally was held by the tea party patriots opposing the nuclear agreement. two of the main speakers were ted cruz and donald trump. patriotsa party decided we would do an event in
september back in may. had ay, a special senator coalition meeting with 60 different groups. he invited me to speak at that meeting and i told him and the others that we would be doing this event and wanted everyone to participate. senator cruz has been leading the effort on this. friend to the tea party patriots. he stands for freedom in america and it is my pleasure to welcome senator ted cruz. ♪
god bless the united states of america. what an incredible gathering here today. speak to three groups of people. i want to start by speaking to the american people. this iranian nuclear deal is catastrophic. it is the single greatest national security threat facing america. if it goes through, there will be three consequences. number one, the obama administration will become quite literally the world's leading financier of radical islamic terrorism. through, over $100
billion will flow directly to and billions of those dollars will go directly to ha mas, to radical islamic terrorists across the world and those jihadists will use those billions to murder americans, israelis, and europeans. consequence of this catastrophic deal is that it abandons four american hostages in an iranian hellhole. including an american citizen, a christian pastor, sentenced to eight years in prison for the crime of preaching the gospel. marine,g former including washington post reporter, and including bob
levinson. it is a disgrace for this administration to abandon americans in iranian hellhole. consequence of this deal going through is that it will facilitate and accelerate the nation of iran acquiring nuclear weapons. there is no greater threat to the safety and security of america. there is no greater threat to the safety and security of israel. then a nuclear iran. i agree with prime minister netanyahu. iran poses annex essential threat to the -- ask threatal -- existential to the nation of israel. he means literally go into the
very existence of israel. when he addressed a joint session of congress, a joint session that president obama boycotted, that vice president widen boycotted -- vice president biden boycotted. never again means never again. [applause] the second group i want to address our democratic senators and members of congress. [crowd boos] 42 senate democrats have come out in support of this deal.
hope and prayer that every one of those senate democrats reconsiders. they go home and they fall to their knees and they pray tonight. i agree with joe lieberman that this vote is quite likely the most important vote that any member of congress will cast in their entire career. there was a time when there was a tradition of scoop jackson democrats, of jfk democrats, of joe lieberman democrats, democrats willing to defend national security. sadly, that is becoming rarer and river. -- andrarer. do you value the safety and security of standing with our ally the nation of israel?
do you value the lives of millions of americans? or do you value more party loyalty to the obama white house? to every democratic senator who said he or she will support this deal, i ask you to consider, how will you look in the eyes of the mothers and fathers of our soldiers, the hundreds of soldiers who were murdered in iraq with a rainy and ied's -- iranian ied's. this deal list sanctions -- lifts sanctions on the general. beyond that, when we talk about terrorism, it is worth remembering that if this deal goes through, we know people will die.
americans will die. israelis will die. europeans will die. osama bin laden never had $100 billion. he was filled with hatred and using rudimentary tools and ondered early 3000 americans september 11, 2001. we are talking about giving the $100 billion.eini plan.ry out his murderous i want to ask every senate democrat, how will you look in the eye of the mother or father or son's or daughter's of those who are murdered by jihadists? those americans who were blown up or shot or killed, those israelis who were murdered. if you vote to send billions of
dollars to jihadists who have pledged to murder america, you bear direct responsibility for the murders carry out with a dollars you have given them. you cannot wash your hands of that blood. to republican leadership -- booing] forward. give a path there are two men who can defeat this deal, mitch mcconnell and john boehner. the clock does not begin t
icking until the president hands over the entire deal. he has not handed over the side agreements. to happen is for mitch mcconnell and john boehner to say the congressional period has not started. it is illegal for obama to lift sanctions under federal law. this is a lawless president. the odds are significant even if congress did that, this president would ignore the law. i want to speak to the ceo and board of director of every financial institution, every bank holding frozen iranian money. if this president behaves illegally, let me tell you now that does not exempt you from the legal obligation to follow
the law. releases billions to an international terrorist will face billions of dollars in civil liability and litigation. and there will, president -- come a president who is not named barack obama. mitch mcconnell and john boehner can stop this deal if they simply enforce, if they simply enforce federal law. gets a nuclear weapon, the single greatest risk is they would take that nuclear weapon, they would put it on a ship in the atlantic and they were fire
it into the atmosphere and set -- an electric monadic electric magnetic pulse and it would take down the electronic grid on the entire eastern seaboard. we can stop that. democrats decide that party loyalty matters more than national security and republican leadership decides a showboat is more important than stopping this deal, the single most important issue in 2016 will be stopping iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. commander-in-chief worthy of defending this nation should be on january stand up 20, 2017, and ripped to shreds this catastrophic deal.
any commander-in-chief worthy of defending this nation should be prepared in january 2017 to look in the eyes of the ayatollah khomeini and say, under no -- willances does iran iran be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. if iran will not stop its nuclear program, we will stop it for you. [applause] thank everyone here for this rally. i want to thank tea party patriots.
i want to thank the pro-israel groups. i want to thank my friend donald trump for joining us today. i want to thank the leaders of congress who are here and i want .o thank the american people let's rise up and tell every elected official in washington, no more talk. get it done. stop this deal. thank you and god bless you. cruz.nk you, senator before i introduce our next guest, i want to thank all of the tea party patriots who are here today, watching on our live stream, the response to our e-mails and help make this event possible. thank you for all that you do to make these event possible. thank you, tea party patriots.
really does not need much of an introduction. ♪ it's the end of the world as we know it ♪ it's the end of the world as we know it ♪ much,ump: thank you very everybody. i was called by senator cruz a few days ago and he said, do you think we can get a really good crowd out here to protest this incompetent deal? look what shows up and i want to thank you. i have been doing deals for a long time. i have been making lots of wonderful deals. that is what i do. never, ever, ever in my life have i seen any transaction so
incompetently negotiated as our deal with iran. i mean never. pat and everybody else have gone -- ted and everybody else have gone through the details and we can talk about the 24 days, which is ridiculous. we can talk about the $150 billion. isy get it even if the deal not approved. we can talk about the fact that we have four wonderful people over there. frankly, if i win the presidency, i guarantee you that those four prisoners are back in our country before i ever take office. i guarantee that. everwill be back before i take office. they know that is what has to
happen, ok? if they don't know it, i am telling them right now. so i had a story that came out a little while ago, and as president obama calls him routinely, he calls him the supreme leader. our president is calling the person who is really the boss in iran supreme leader, and i am looking at people shaking their heads. they cannot believe it, but it just came out a little while ago. he said, "israel will not exist in 25 years." think of this. he just said this. he also said very strongly, very, very strongly that this is the end of our dealings with the united states. we want nothing more to do with them.
this deal. it is a phenomenal deal. we are not going to deal with the united states anymore, and this was a very short period of time ago. so they rip us off. they take our money. they make us look like fools, and now they are back to being who they really are. they do not want israel to survive. they will not let israel survive. with the incompetent leadership we have right now, israel will not survive, and when they think it is all done, they come out with these unbelievably nasty statements, that israel will not be around in 25 years and that we have no dealings and will have no further dealings with the united states. now, the people we were negotiating with and working on the sanctions with, including as an example russia who is selling tremendous missiles to iran. you know that it ballistic missiles being sold.
all of these countries, all of these countries are going to do business with iran. they are going to make lots of money and lots of other things with iran, and we are going to do, and we are going to get nothing, nothing. we are led by very, very stupid people. very, very stupid people. we cannot let it continue. we are a country that owes $19 trillion it we lose everywhere. we lose militarily. we cannot beat isis. give me a break. we cannot beat anybody. our vets are being treated horribly. it will change. we will have so much winning if i get elected that you may get bored with winning. believe me. i agree, you will never get bored with winning. we never get bored.
we are going to turn this country around. we are going to start winning big on trade, militarily. we are going to build up our military. a are going to have such military that nobody, nobody is going to mess with us. we are not going to have to use it. i really, really appreciate this tremendous crowd. we are going to make america great again. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. ♪ >> thank you, donald trump. announcer: and that was just part of a three-hour-plus rally it's, by tea party petri
and this was 3:15 a.m. eastern you canday morning, and see pieces of it on c-span.org. at this hour on capitol hill, the house rules committee is meeting, considering legislation that will be the vehicle for debate of the iranian nuclear agreement. your screen.n remember, the rules committee is underway now live. they are considering three pieces, and one is a sense of side dealsed alleged made between iran and the iaea, and the other would be a bill preventing the president from lifting the i ran sanctions, and then the iran nuclear agreement, under consideration by house rules. them to finish their work tonight. it is likely that the house will gavel back in. the briefly if it passes committee, and that is likely, they will file the world on the house floor and then gavel out
later, and all of that ahead. this will be on c-span. we are going to open up our phones again and hear your thoughts on the iran nuclear agreement. 202-748-8 920, if you are democrats, and if you are a republican, 202-748-8921. also find us on facebook, or send us a tweet at c-span. tennessee, the first up your on the democrats line. >> yes, good evening. see disgusted with what i on television. giving away the farm, so to speak. is allf my frustration , theese politicians
president, the republicans just as bad. i do not know what they are thinking. ofy are not the statesman president roosevelt, for instance. what are you not hearing from leaders and members of the president's administration that you want to hear? immediately, when this agreement was announced, the statements. what have we accomplished? very much a supporter of israel. i have many jewish friends. i am a protestant. but living like this for lack of a better word.
my parents were depression era looks to and everyone us for leadership. i put my vote for some people of leadership. my father was a world war ii vet. things i thought we stood for are just changing, and we have done more in the world than probably any other nation. but it is just very disappointing. we can vote independent in our state. we do not have to register
necessarily. all sides. it is kind of disappointing. announcer: thank you. we next go to fairview, new jersey. good evening. caller: good evening. entirewatched almost the listening to madame hillary clinton, where she explained what that deal is all about, and there is not any suspicion at all about the nuclear weapon. it will be found out, and it will not happen. i am told without a doubt. but i suppose this agreement made with president obama who already thoughtfully, carefully, and strategically decided to it
-- so i am in agreement with the deal. thank you. announcer: and the former secretary of state clinton, current presidential candidate, spoke today at the brookings institute, and we will show that to you on our evening schedule on c-span, and next up is maryland and janice on our republican line. : first of all, i would like hillary clinton to bow in and i amchnology thing truly against this iran deal. i am tired of this nation bending down to everybody. it is just time for us to stand up as a nation, united in god. in god we trust, and if you do not like it, that the hell out.
that is the way i feel. announcer: some video on your screen of the rules committee meeting underway. and we are taking your calls. texas, caroline, good evening. deal, thefore this continues to let us know exactly how they feel they have no intention of changing their attitudes, of changing their mind. and allied america and israel. under no circumstance. they are such a threat. i just do not see it. they have never abided by the agreements.
the sanctions that have been agreed to. and it is just against america. another step towards the destruction of our country. thank you. comments, some strong as well, on twitter. this one is from joe taylor who says -- and another says -- and monica says, yes, i am for the iran deal. worked as hard for the people as they do against this, the country would be a better place. and michael, hello? >> hi, yes.
i watched the senate foreign withions committee hearing the presentation to the senate foreign relations committee, and in my opinion, it sounded like it was a very, very strong case to support the iranian nuclear agreement. i think it provides the best opportunity for us to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon now or in the foreseeable future, and those who are railing against it should come up with an alternative which is something other than military action, because if we reject , i don't see how we can do anything else to prevent it with the rest of the world, to imposingoing sanctions against it announcer: michael, you mentioned you watched the senate foreign relations committee, the one from earlier this summer.
you were sort of on the fence. was that a seminal moment of you supporting the deal? caller: i was certainly leaning toward supporting it, and the presentation that they made, there were some republican senators who did not listen to anything when they tried to answer questions. i think they made a very strong presentation, which, as i said, gives the best opportunity to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and also, they made a strong pitch for the strongest inspection regime ever , in any country, so if i ran were to cheat, and i think it is not in their best interest to cheat, but if they were to cheat, we would know about it, and then they would face some dire consequences, including the possibility of military action, and at that point, we, of
course, would have not only the support of our allies but probably the entire world, because iran would have broken the agreement that they said they would follow. announcer: thank you for your call. he house armed services committee will meet tomorrow, and they will consider the impact, the implications of the deal on missile defense and nuclear nonproliferation, that hearing getting underway at 2:00 p.m. eastern over on c-span three. let's hear from winston-salem, north carolina, david on our republican line. david? david from north carolina. are you with us? how are you doing, sir? announcer: fine, sir, you? caller: -- announcer: david, you're breaking up a bit, and sorry. we will move over to john from richmond, vermont. >> hi.
this iran deal is the worst possible thing that could happen in the world. in hands over the world to the iranians who are hell-bent on blowing up everyone who is against them, including america and israel, and it is a doomsday out,that will sell us all and obviously i am against it. announcer: ok, john, appreciate your comments. more of them later tomorrow morning on "washington journal," 7:00 eastern.at and opposition to the procedural going forward on the iranian nuclear agreement. the plant debate -- the planned was scuttled earlier
today, a new plan being developed and approved by the rules committee, and that meeting is still under way up on capital hill, and looking at the front page of politico, house republicans were polled against iran, and it all got started with peter's resolution being introduced on the house floor yesterday morning. here is a look. two, a 1, i rise, in the form of my resolution is as follows be it whereas rule nine of the house of representatives states that the questions of the privileges of the house shall be first those affecting the rights of the house collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings, and second those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of members, delegates, or the resident commissioner
individually in their respective resident capacity only, and whereas the iran nuclear act review of 2015, the review act was passed by the senate on may 7, 2015 by a vote of 98 to one. whereas the house of representatives passed this by a vote of 400 to 25. whereas the review act was signed by president barack obama on may 20 2, 2015, becoming 17.ic law 114 -- whereas section 135 of the atomic energy act of 1950 four as enacted by section two of the thanw act dates not later five calendar days after reaching an agreement with iran relating to the nuclear program of iran, the president shall submit and transmit to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership the agreement as defined in ofsection h1, including all
the related materials and h1 ofs, where section 135 the atomic energy act states, the term agreement means an agreement related to the nuclear program of iran that includes the united states, commits the united states to take action, or pursuant to which the united states commits or otherwise agrees to take action regardless of the form it takes, whether a political commitment or otherwise, regardless of whether it is legally binding or not, including any joint, comprehensive plan entered into or made between iran and any parties and any materials related thereto including annexes, appendixes, codicils, includingeements, technical or other understandings and any related agreements whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future, thewhereas on july 1320 14
director general of the international atomic energy referred this preamble to as the iaea, and the president of the atomic energy organization of iran side a roadmap for the clarification of path and present issues outstanding regarding i ran a positive nuclear program, which refers to two w separate agreements between the iaea and iran, and where is the first of these agreements seeks to clarify and resolve long-standing questions about the possible military dimensions of i' of military programs, including those identified in the iaea director general report , and whereas section 38 of that since 2002, the iaea has become increasingly concerned about the audible existence in iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military organizations including activities related to
the development of a nuclear about whichissile, the iaea has regularly received new information, whereas the roadmap describes a second of the second arrangement as an effort to resolve outstanding issues regarding the military thisity, and whereas in november 20 9, 2012 report to the board of governors the director general of the iaea stated that you will recall the iaea has information indicating that iran constructed a large explosives containment vessel at a site in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments. requests, irand has still not granted the iaea access to the sites. satellite imagery shows that extensive activities including the removal and replacement of considerable amounts of earth have taken place at this location. i am concerned these efforts will have seriously undermine the iaea ability to have verification. i reiterate my west that iran
without delay provide access to that location and substantive questions the iaea regarding that site. whereas on august 20, 2015, the report by the associated press includes a draft of the separate agreement which details a process by which iran will provide photographs, videos, soil samples, and other materials in new of getting the iaea access to that right, and whereas a 27-year-old veteran of the iaea and the former deputy directory general stated much of fromurrent concerns arise the report and arrangements worked out between the iaea and i ran in the side documents to which the possible military issues are, and if the reporting is accurate, these procedures appear to be risky, departing safewell-established factors, and a verification
standard that has been diluted for there or elsewhere and limits imposed, the ramification is significant, as it will affect the iaea ability to draw definitive conclusions with the requisite level of assurances and without undue tampering of the verification process. self inspection and verification by iran of its own nuclear weapons related activity military at the facility are in adequate and incapable of demonstrating iran's compliance with safeguards against nuclear weapons development and as established by the iaea or the international nuclear agreement with iran. on july 14, 20 15, the p5 plus one, the united states, the united kingdom, france, the people's republic of china, the russian federation, and germany and i ran all announced that the parties had agreed to a joint comprehensive plan of action. requires theon c13
iranian parliament and present to implement the protocols to the iran safeguard agreement with the iaea. 4 with thection c1 plan requires iran to fully implement the roadmap for clarification of past and present outstanding issues regarding iran's nuclear program, which was a greet to with the iaea, whereas the joint comprehensive plan of action is necessarily predicated on an interdependent with two side agreements between the iaea and iran, all of which are usually reinforcing and indivisible, whereas the state department onued a public statement july 19, 2015, stating that today the state department transmitted to congress the joint comprehensive plan of annexes, and related maturing. these documents include the unclassified documentation of reports on the intelligence community about to be as
classified annex of the verification and assessment report as required under the law. therefore, day one of the 60-day tomorrow,iod begins monday, may 20. whereas another section of the atomic energy act of 1954 as enacted by section two of the review act dates it is critically important that congress have the opportunity in an orderly and lucrative manner to consider and as appropriate take action for steps to a sanctions regime in post by congress, therefore providing the right to the house collectively and two members of the house individually in the representative capacities to review the iran nuclear agreement as defined in section 130i've h1 of the atomic energy act. h1 as enacted by section two of the review act civilly requires the president
to have it text of side agreements and related agreement , including those agreements between iran and any other parties. and whereas the state department of austria's congress did not include the text or materials related to the two sides agreements between the iaea and i ran and was there or incomplete as a matter of law, whereas the senate foreign relations committee chairman corker and ranking member cardin sends a letter to the state department requesting the actual text of the two separate agreements, and wears on july 20 2, 2015, senator tom cotton and others along with the speak of the house and the majority leader of the senate sent a letter to the president requesting the text of the two assets separate agreements between the iaea and iran, and whereas on august 4, 2015, a congressman sent a letter to the president, cosigned by the house
and 92 other members of the house, requesting the president to provide the text of the two separate agreements between the iaea and iran, whereas contrary to the law and these requests, the president did not provide the text to the separate agreements to congress or any of its members. 2015, state department spokesman john kirby stated, there's no side deals. there is no secret deals between iran and the iaea that the p-5 plus one has not been briefed on in detail. whereas on august 5, 2015, letter to the -- to members of congress assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, julia fryfield contradicted that claim saying the road map refers to two separate agreements between the iaea and iran. and within the iaea system, such arrangements related to safeguards, procedures and inspection activities are confidential and are not released to other member states. whereas on july 28, 2015,
secretary of state john kerry told the house foreign affairs committee in responding to the statement that national security advisor susan rice has seen the actual text of the two side agreements said, i don't believe susan rice, the national security advisor, has seen it. whereas responding further to whether he has seen the actual text, secretary kerry said, no, i haven't seen it. i've been briefed on it. and whereas on july 29, 2015, secretary of energy earnest moniz stated, i personally have not seen those documents. whereas on july 31, 2015, white house press secretary josh earnest stated, our negotiators were briefed on the context of that agreement, a reference to the side agreements. whereas being briefed second or thirdhand, including by obama administration officials, who themselves have not read the actual text of the side agreement, is akin to a game of
telephone and is not letting the members of congress to read the actual text of the agreements. and whereas the congressional review period described in section 135-b of the atomic energy act of 1954 as enacted by section 2 of the review act to review the iran nuclear agreement begins only if an agreement, including all materials required to be transmissioned to congress -- transmitted to congress pursuant to subsection 1-a is transmitted by the president to the congress for revufmente whereas on july 14 -- review. whereas on july 14, 2015, president obama stated, this deal is not built on trust. it is built on verification. whereas it is impossible for the president, congress and the american people to consider and determine whether to support or oppose an iran nuclear agreement without reviewing key inspection and verification details contained in the text of the two side agreements between the iaea and iran. whereas the determination by the parliamentarian by the house of representatives, acting as an officer of the
house and that the president -- that the president has transmitted to congress the agreement and related materials as required by law. and therefore to become counting the lapsing of the congressional review period beginning july 20, 2015, deprives the house collectively and members of the house individually in their representative capacities of the right to review the nuclear deal with iran. and whereas the congressional record for the legislative day july 27, 2015, is incorrect, listing the under the heading executive communications the following entry -- a letter from the assistant secretary legislative affairs, department of state, transmitting a letter and attachment saving all requirements of section 135-a of the atomic energy act of 1954, as amended by the iran nuclear agreement review act of 2015, public law 114-17, as received july 19, 2015, jointly to the committees of foreign
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,
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on