Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20150328

Nothing compared to some of the bruises i got when i was fighting in the ring. When i was a boy, i dreamed of being an athlete. I listened to those games on the radio, baseball games, and i envisioned me as a man out in center field in Yankee Stadium or fenway park in boston, but the joy ive gotten with the work that ive done to the people of the state of nevada have been just as the filling as if i had played center field at Yankee Stadium. The job of minority leader, and the United States senate and is just a support as being majority just as important as being majority leader. It gives you so much opportunity to good things for this country and thats what i am focused on. But this accident has caused us for the first time to have a little downtime. I have had time to ponder and to think. Weve got to be more concerned about the country, the senate, the state of nevada, then us. And as a result of that, i am not going to run for reelection. My friend senator mcconnell, dont be too elated. I am going to be here for 22 months, and you know what im going to be doing . The same thing ive done since i first came to the senate. We have to make sure that the democrats take control of the senate again. And i feel it is inappropriate for me to soak up all those werent resources on me when i can be devoting those resources to the caucus, and thats what i intend to do. The decision that ive made has absolute nothing to do with my injury. It has nothing to do with my being minority leader, and it certainly has nothing to do with my ability to be reelected because the path to reelection is much easier than it probably has been for anytime i have run for reelection. Mrs. Reid i get a little upset sometimes when i hear politicians say that theyre going to go and spend time with their family after they decide that they are not going to be in politics anymore. Hes a wonderful husband and a wonderful father. So thats been more important than the other things that hes done with his life. Senator reid someone with my background, my upbringing, to have the experience ive had is really a miracle, i want people in the state of nevada to know that i am so grateful, and i have done my best. I havent been perfect but it i really tried my hardest to represent the people of the state of nevada. With two years left, senator reid and said that he will support senator Charles Schumer to take his position. In a statement, senator schumer said, iem honored and humbled to have the support of so many of my colleagues and look forward to our senate to my credit caucus president obama said, during my time in office, harry has a become not only an ally, but a friend. I am proud of all we have accomplished Mitch Mcconnell also commented. Here are some of our featured programs. On look tv book tv, Peter Wallace and wallison speaks. And then speaking on the economy. And on American History tv, cspan3, a discussion on the last major speeches of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther king jr. And then sunday afternoon, on a real america the 1965 meet the press with Martin Luther king jr. Find our complete Television Schedule on cspan. Org. Tell us about the programs that you are watching. You can email comments to cspan. Org. Like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. Next the discussion about the negotiations on Irans Nuclear program. Then dr. Margaret hamburg talking about her tenure. Barbara bush, daughter of george w bush, joined other young adults on saturday to discuss issues that motivate their generation. Explored new ways that men up millennials are helping their communities. Here is a portion of their remarks. Hi, i am jacob, the editor of the National Interest magazine and i am moderating today on behalf of the center of National Interest which is invited that hasnt invited to guess to speak about iran and american politics. On my right is David Rothkopf the ceo and editor of Foreign Policy magazine and managing director of Kissinger Associates and has held several highlevel positions in the clinton and administration and is also the author of several books on international relations. To my left, dov zakheim, a longtime friend and also the Vice President of the center of National Interest vice chairman. He is also the comptroller at the pentagon during the george w. Bush administration and is the author of a quite provocative memoir about his ears at the pentagon, called, v ulcans tale. And today, we will talk about iran, it could hardly be more timely. The middle east is always in ferment. Today, it Defense Department officials were quoted in the wall street journal asking, who is going to be the person who shoots the archduke of the middle east, igniting a new world war one. With negotiations in geneva and the events in yemen, i think it is hardly a better time to discuss the role that the middle east and iran are playing in american politics. I will go to david first. David rothkopf thank you, it is a pleasure to be here. The observation i have heard most frequently since i arrived that the center of National Interest has the best lunch of any place in town. I have to agree with that. I do also want to make a brief side, before i dive in. Several weeks ago, i made a pledge not to appear on any panels that did not include women. Unfortunately, i see that there is not one woman at this table. But, good, i think we can do a lot to enrich well, yes. It is true. Move closer to the table. I hope you are not diminishing my point, which is, i think there must be more women out there interested in this subject to enrich the conversation. In any event, you know, i think it is apposite in a discussion of the middle east that we focus on iran, because it is central to the situation. Before we get into the iranian fax facts, we should jump off of jacobs point a moment ago, there has never been a situation in our lifetime, such as that that we see and the middle east right now. Every single country in the region is involved in a military conflict with the exception of one. Every single country. The analogy to the balkans is not over the top. It may not turn into world war iii, but we already see a fueling unrest in africa and parts of asia. We already know it has potential conflict or consequences for extremism and in terror attacks in europe and north america. Clearly has global consequences economically. It is clear, we cannot afford to walk away from it and i think that our impulse and the impulses of some administrations to do that is a contributing factor to problems we have here. But since the topic is iran and american politics, i want to zero in on that and then we can open it back to the rest of the region. During the 2008 president ial election when a barack obama was trying to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton, in a debate when he said the approach ought to be engagement the questioner he faced said, with him would you engage . His first reaction was iran. In fact, Hillary Clinton responded with some skepticism. I do not believe that our interaction with iran over the course of the ensuing six years is therefore an accident. If you look at the chaos that followed in the wake of the air of spring and the changes that have come to the middle east one country has benefited. That is iran. Iran has benefited with greater influence in the yemen with greater influence in iraq, by very considerable amounts, it has benefited in syria, with its man assad now looking likely to outlast obama in office. It clearly looks to benefit from the upcoming nuclear deals, in some important ways in terms of sanctions relief and increased stature. At the same time, i think one cannot help but objectively conclude that u. S. Relations with virtually every key ally we have in the region have deteriorated and the only country with which there has been a substantial improvement or potential for improvement or fine thawing with our relations, is iran. Not only is it that the case, but our allies who feel shunned aside or neglected or distressful just trustful it distressful, feel that way for a reason. We did not respond to their concerns about growing problems in syria. They feel that way because they saw us embrace to quickly the more regime, not criticize it in egypt and embraced to slowly the possibility of the cc era in egypt and what it meant. While egypt is the anchor in the arab world. Our relationship with israel is at its worst, in terms of the leader to leader relationship. And our relationship with golf states who feel we have been in the midst of a slow with iran, even as they have had growing concerns, has also deteriorated. Although everyone is trying to put a brave face on it. This situation does not look like it will improve despite some optical sleight of hand this week that included general austin saying he would never have american troops coordinate with shia militias, which is preposterous. We are flying air support for the iranians in iraq and Everybody Knows it. If you do not collect coordination, come up with another word, but look it up in the dictionary and the word will mean coordination. We are playing telephone with the iraqis or doing it through back channels. But, that was sleight of hand, having the ship militias pull out. And our socalled support for the saudis going into yemen which creates the confusing situation of opposing an iranian backed group in yemen off fighting alongside them in iraq. Also that does not take away from this, particularly since the big looming issue on the horizon is an Iranian Nuclear deal. And that nuclear deal looks very likely not to be anything like the nuclear deal we thought in yemen. We sought in yemen. The primary purpose of the deal has to be, are we going to reduce the risk of proliferation in the region . Secondary, are we going to reduce the risk of threat from iran . The reason i put them in the order, if iran is it going to have this firepower offshore the deterred effect would work. The concern is that Iran Gets Nuclear weapons and other countries seek to counter that and that increases the risk that weapons fall in the wrong hands. If you have a Nuclear Agreement i create possibility that iran could go from the day it ceases to comply with the agreement to having a Nuclear Weapon within a year or if you months, then every state that is concerned about Iranian Nuclear power gets put in the position of having to defend itself and thus the proliferation risk remains. That is what we went from. We went from seeking zero situation to seeking a oneyear buffer, from not wanting centrifuges to now accepting thousands of centrifuges, those placed in bunkers, we went from what i think was much more gradual expectations regarding sanctions to i think you will end up with us getting into some pressure for greater sanctions relief. And we are going to do this in a way that will improve iranians standing ultimately with a lot of countries that want to deal with them. Even if the u. S. Congress blocks list this, and places it has power to do so, setting sanctions that requires congressional involvement. And so, you will end up with a less a ban ideal arrangement that will survive, will get from an interim agreement to a permanent agreement. The congress will not be able to block the agreement. The president will veto efforts to block it. And it will go through the u. N. And iran will have additional cash. And as iran hasnt additional cash, that will give it additional opportunities. Malia has economic problems at home. Iraq has economic problems, they are broke and unable to operate oilfield properly in the southern part of the country. And the iranians have put themselves in a sponsorship position with the baghdad government that is it it is a shocking reversal of what was in the past. They have who is hailed throughout iraq as the leader of the who has pushed back against isis. And if they iranians have the ability to help iraqis and we are disinclined to do so, which we are imagine what that will mean in terms of further iranian influence. There, in syria, places like western afghanistan. I think it is highly likely that we will come into the 2016 election cycle with iran being the big middle east winner from the Obama Administration, with the middle east being in the most precarious shape it has ever been in. That the approaches of the Obama Administration to the middle east, being seen as egregious failures even among those who would argue that the bush and administration had more egregious failures in its term. And by that i mean significant parts of the democratic party. It is pretty dark. And perhaps in our ensuing discussion we will be able to find some rays of light. But i wanted, because i know that dovs frame of mind to provide you know, a useful counterpoint to that he can now assume his role, which is to defend it what the Obama Administration has done. [laughter] for viewers, i would like to say that these remarks are coming from someone who served in the Clinton Administration and may not be sympathetic, but the situation is very stark. I am extremely sympathetic ask any of my daughters. David rothkopf i will now turn to dov. Dov zakheim i am afraid i will disappoint people here and the viewers and i will not defend the Obama Administration, i will take a perspective that is pretty much the same as davids but expand on it in a variety of ways. First, this guy used to sit at the far corner of this room, named and he was a leading journalist analyst, a brilliant thinker, quite a character and we will miss him. I wanted to mention that because he really was a regular here. And he contributed tremendously to the conversations that we had. I wanted to give you context that goes beyond in some ways what david talked about. You have to begin not just with the debate with hillary, you have to begin with the fact that the president as a candidate and pretty consistently since then, wanted to focus on nation building at home. That was his priority. Do stuff at home and try to keep the world at a distance if at all possible. One of his big legacy items obamacare is one he hopes to preserve, he is still trying to do something on immigration, he clearly has a pet for pushing the envelope on environmental issues, even if it means alienating canada. You start from there and you look at, ok, what has been his approach to the world . It has been one, if i can keep out of it, i will keep out of it. Pull out of afghanistan camera afghanistan iraq, no Ground Troops in libya, even if the country falls apart. Withdraw brigades from europe, and not restore them even as mr. Putin flexes his muscles. It we sent a company to each baltic state, that is not a lot of people. Only on the kurds with baghdads approval, and without more forces in asia, and so you see a pattern. How does iran fit into this pattern what i see is an attempt to, on the one hand create sends nixons condominium more than that. He handed off to the shaw, and in some ways i think mr. Obama thinks the way to deal with this region is to let the iranians handle it. Part of that, and sort of an outcome of that, is it too downgrade the relationship of the israelis. Treat them as a secondary power revert back to the relationship israel had with the u. S. Prior to the mid1960s. I think that is where he is headed. If you look at all the things that have a gone on, they all hang together. For example in the case of afghanistan, everybody is noticing that donny had a terrific visit here and we are keeping troops in there until the end of the year. One thing it does is help the iranians. The last people they need back and kabul is the telegram. They almost went to taliban. They almost went to war with them. That favors the iranians. Not providing support for the kurds, that favors the iranians. Because if you give the kurds too much military equipment, and they really feel they can go independent, and they have talked about it in a way that they had as a long as two years ago, but because of the collapse in iraq, they are now talking about it. If you do that, everybody notices that well, the text the kurds will be upset, but so will the iranians. So they dont want a stronger critic stand occurred to stand. I was in kurdistan for a conference and i came away convinced that we are working hand in glove with the iranians. I had a panel that included the National Security adviser of iraq, the Vice President of iraq the who is our emissary to fighting isis and the advisor and chief of staff to the president of courtesy and critic stand. I asked the panel four times, talk to me about iran. Nobody wanted to. I can understand why the iraqis dont want to, because they want us to help and they want the iranians to help. I can understand why the kurds dont want to. But why didnt mcgurk say a word . Nothing, zero. That tells you something. So, it is true obama has a dilemma in yemen. No question. He is supporting the guys that are fighting the iranians. But by and large that is iran is the direction in which he is headed. Look at the deal. Everybody is arguing for ages over how many centrifuges we will allow the iranians. It turns out not a matter of centrifuges but allowing the iranians to have centrifuges to which they give nobody access. They were supposed to close them down. And close down iraq. They are not doing that. We are giving way on the whole question of what they have done until now. Which they have been pushing, we are giving away on that. And you know, for an ancient empire, what is 10 years, 15 years, a hundred years and the middle east. Nothing. And then what . And then david said, look at the reaction in a the rest of the region on the part of people who are supposed to be our friends . I am not as worried about an iranian strike on israel, because if the iranians try it, just work in the analysis, the missile half to go off, the target has to work. None of the four layers of the israeli Missile Defense works. And only then it might something come through. But if it comes through, of course you are destroying jordan, saudi arabia, other countries. Lebanon, syria, as well as israel. But guess what, with the percentage, the likely percentage that an Iranian Missile can make it through if you run the percentages less than a percent, the likelihood that they can retaliate and wipe moran off the map is 100 . If i am at if i am an iranian general, i will not recommend that. But if the iranians the capability, no one else is going to sit on their hands. If youre sitting in rehard, what are you seeing right now, you are seeing groups that want to overthrow the regime next door. The iranians are playing in the Eastern Province which is mostly shia dominated. You see the hutis saking over yemen. Its the nightmare being surrounded by iranian puppets and supporters. Add on top of that an iranian capability. There is no way the saudis wont go nuclear. One gulf minister told me a month ago, why do you think the saudis have been supporting the pakistanis all of these years. What do you think is the quid pro quo . The quid pro quo is theyll give the saudis the Nuclear Capability they need and give it to them very quickly. If you think the saudis go nuclear, the uae and the egyptians wont. The turks arent sitting quietly either, theyre nervous about the arabs Going Nuclear and the turks Going Nuclear. There you think of it. Everybody goes nuclear. You have a chain of Nuclear Powers running from the Pacific Ocean all the way to europe and all it takes is one mistake. One mistake and then you have got worse than world war i. So this is what the iranian deal is going to get us. Again, the way the administration is going about it its as if none of this matters. Now the one person who has actually helped the administration more than any other is mr. Netanyahu. Mr. Netanyahu should not have come to congress. He should not have turth ticked off the president of the United States. His behavior during the election made the president of the United States feel absolutely justified in ignoring everything he says. And his subsequent backtracking hasnt cut any ice with anybody. Now, what did he really do . If there is no override of an obama veto of new sanctions because of this deal, you can thank mr. Netanyahu for that because the democrats were certainly going to override, but now theyre in a very tough position. The only reason an override may happen right now is more and more is coming out about this kind of fuzzy deal that gets fuzzier by the day but its going to be much harder thanks to mr. Netanyahu. Finally, i would point out that if iran were the number one concern of mr. Netanyahu, then by definition, a deal with the palestinians isnt the number one concern and if you want to worry about your number one concern, you offer something to the palestinians and tell mr. Obama, hey look, im giving you x, you give me y. He hasnt done that. So he hasnt helped his cause at all, in my view. But objectively, the deal is terrible. Its a pattern in the region and the pattern is simply some kind of couple condominium or offshoring american influence, prestige in the region and just simply handed it to tehran, ill stop there. A Quick Response and well take questions after that. David rothkopf i never said the word quick but ill make an effort to be brief. First of all, i think we need to look at the response of the saudis and the g. C. C. States to the huuti gains in yemen, not just in the political context of yemen nor in the traditional shiasunni terms. Its also a response to the sense that there are no other stabilizing forces in the region right now. Iran is gaining. It is a message from them that they are unwilling to tolerate or a further deterioration with regard to irans regional position. And, therefore its a broader consequence than its typically described to be. Now, so far dov and i havent disagreed on any point. I am about to Say Something he may disagree with, but i want to throw it out there if only to value did your assertion that i was in the Clinton Administration and that, in fact, im a democrat. I am not one of those people that believes that, you know, anything other than a good deal shouldnt be done. I think we should get the best possible deal we can. I think we should impress the gains that deal gives, but i think that for that to be effective, it needs to be in the context of a strategy. And the strategy needs to work with regional allies to allay their concerned and to rebuild a Regional Alliance that extends from the gulf to egypt and includes all of those who are concerned by the iranians and gives them the assurance that we are standing with them and we will tolerate no deviation from this. It requires a kind of balanced approach and a longterm view and a strategic framework that we have not seen. I think one bit of absence of a strategic framework is to the degree the iran deal itself has been overemphasized in the context of iran policy. Not only when were worried about iran gaining Nuclear Weapons is iran gaining ground in the middle east which is a greater threat to the stability of the middle east but in other areas there are other disturbing patterns. Were in the midst of ai cyber war with the iranians. There are, as snowden documents and others have demonstrated regularly attacking private sector targets in the United States. We are willing to negotiate a deal on the technologies of the 20th century and give them sanctions relief while we are exploring the risks associated with the technologies of 21st century conflict at the same time. So we may end up rewarding them even as they are attacking us in other ways, even as theyre attacking our allies in other ways even as theyre destabilizing the region in other ways. This does not suggest strategy. It suggests a very narrow gauge focus on deliverables, a campaignoriented approach to how to deal with geopolitics. Lets get a win. Lets get something out there that we can show for it without putting it into any kind of broader context. The final thing that i would like to say and this, again, may confirm your suspicions that im a democrat, is that i dont think its been all bad. During the first term of the Obama Administration when they were getting some good advice from Hillary Clinton, leon panetta, bob gates, they were pretty good at imposing tough sanctions on iran. They are squeezing iran. They were gaining benefit from iran from those sanctions. They were getting themselves in a position to negotiate a good deal. But whats happened since then . Not only have those people left, but i have talked to people inside the negotiating process who will say they reach an impasse and then there are more people more senior come into the conversation and they say things like, well, how do we solve this problem and they capitulate and they soften the deal. I spoke to a former senior National Security official democrat, who said to me just two days ago at this point in the negotiation, from the school of negotiation in which i was raised, i would be ordering everybody down into the lobby with their luggage and saying were leaving because only in showing that you dont need the deal do you actually have the leverage you need to achieve the deal that you want and that right now our body language and the iranians know it and our allies know it and grandmas in toledo, ohio, know it is that we want the deal more than the iranians want the deal. That is extremely dangerous and that is what gets you into a less than adequate deal and that is particularly dangerous when it exists outside the context of a coherent strategy for dealing with iran or the region. That was David Rothkopf, we will have a response briefly from dov zakheim. Dov zakheim one area they havent focused on is missiles. You cant destroy too many countries unless the bombs are carried in a suitcase, which no one has really tried yet. What you have to do is mate them to missiles. The iranians are moving right ahead and not saying anything about it. We have a problem that you cant resolve even with a halfway decent agreement and that is that nobody trusts us. If youre the saudis, for example, and your ambassador who was beloved by the previous king and highly trusted of the current king was the subject of an assassination attempt in washington by the iranians, you have a lot of trouble accepting that the iranians are good guys. Its just not going to happen. The problem is we havent been trusted for years. Yes, its true this administration accepted and i use the word accepted advisedly sanctions. Those sanctionses were pushed by the hill and every single time the administration tried to fight them until they couldnt fight them anymore and Everybody Knows that. What is most important is that the people in the region know that. Let me more blunt than david about this negotiation. Why do we have an end of march deadline anyway . Its an artificial deadline. We chose to have an end of march deadline. We chose to have an end of june deadline. So were fighting against ourselves the whole time anyway. And one other point and this isnt widely understood but, you know, most of the arabs, virtually all of them see us as israels closest ally. Watch how we treat the israelis. If we treat the israelis badly, were not going to treat them any better. Ifer undermining the israelis, they notice that. I was just at the munich conference last month and the iranian negotiator said in front of everybody, and i double checked with somebody that was there so i wasnt hearing things, that the israelis are responsible for the burning of the jordanan pilot and the killing of the two japanese. He said it with a straight face because he does things with a straight face. Nobody in this administration said a word about that. And so you have got a fundamental problem of trust here. The israelis we know dont trust them. The arabs dont trust them. Youre not going to turn around and cut some kind of deal on an artificial deadline that as you just heard, even democrats are worried about and then turn around and say, trust me, it will all work our first question will come from the head of the center for the National Interests. I think that your indictment both of the Obama Administration, i certainly would agree with both of you 100 . The best i can say to the administration is that its supposed to come to an end. The question is not however how flawed these policies and the way we have handled it as david as suggested. We perhaps would cover for a better deal. We are where we are. So my question to both of you, in particular to you dov, because you acknowledged that perhaps the threat two years ago coming from iran is somewhat overstated. My question to you is, what is the alternative you would articulate now in the current circumstances, would you suggest that we leave more or less start but perhaps like david has suggested, making the new strategic approach or would you contemplate an attack and you would be in favor of that or at least you think we can live with that, what do you think would happen to the price of oil . What do you think would happen to fortunes. Would they use this opportunity to create further mischief in ukraine, the ukraine and Russian Forces are allegedly are now and where the chinese will be. The question is simple, we are better off rejecting the agreement at this point . David rothkopf most of these questions were directed to me so ill start. Let me first say that i have written and i have spoken over and over again that i think not only would an Israeli Attack on iran be useless, but i think our attack on iran would be useless. There are too many targets it will take far too long. Its not a one shot deal. We dont have as great Battle Damage assessment as we say we do. The u. Y. Will tell us to stop in a few days. The job will not be done within a few days. Lets assume that we or the israelis or some combination could take every iranian target out. Fine, the iranians now say, were on our own and they get the bomb within a couple years anyway. So i dont think a military strike is the answer. What i do think is the answer is essentially to turn around to the iranians and say, look, this isnt good enough, we have to keep talking. Netanyahu said a year ago that the interim deal was a disaster. Its turned out not to be a disaster. In that respect, the administration it worked. The iranians havent moved anywhere as far as they otherwise would have moved and there is still a bunch of sanctions squeezing them. I would keep talking until there is a new president. I dont trust this president. I think he will grab the first opportunity to cut a deal. If i had my druthers, we would keep on talking. Keep the sanctions that currently exist and do nothing more at this stage. David. David rothkopf well, first of all, i agree. I dont think there is any benefit to us from attacking iran and i think in the current situation, the middle east, it would be ca lamb to us. Building off of my prior point, my sense is that were going to end up with an interim deal that will turn into a final deal. That final deal will reduce the threat from iran somewhat and provide for inspection and other kinds of oversight that can enshyer that the risks from iran are somewhat blessed. On the nuclear front. The primary threats posed by iran are not nuclear. The primary threats posed by iran are regional. Its in terms of instability, the actions of hezbollah, the actions of hamas the actions associated with their support of the huttis, theyre meddling in iraq, theyre support for asaad which runs into the tens of billions of dollars. Unless you realize and treat those things as the primary threat youre missing the point. And therefore take the deal, enforce the deal and then do two things. Repair the alliance with the gulf states, with the jordanans, with the egyptians recognize that they have the responsibility for stabilizing in the region first, that we need to support them that we need to work with them for movements that can be stabilizing in western iraq. We need to work with them to find a solution that will work in syria. We need to work with them to ultimately get a negotiated settlement thats the best settlement you can get with yemen and primarily that we need to work with them to counter act the two pernicious forces in the region, one of which is sunni extremism which manifests itself in everything from isis to the brotherhood and the other is iran. One of the big mistakes one can make is cut a deal with iran say everything is fine and move into the mode as if this solved the problem when it only deals with a fraction as dov said, raising the point of missiles properly with a fraction of a fraction of problem. So use it. Have your eyes wide open and dont think that this is producing a strategic realignment in this region because its not, our allies dont want it to and its not going to help, its going to put us as greater risk. Our next question is from ambassador bremer. Ambassador i want to first agree with david. The problem that iran poses is strategic and geopolitical. Effectively what he is talking about with the administration explicitly and Hillary Clinton rejected was a policy of containment of iran. That may be where we wind up, but there are some very important lessons from the containment of the soviet union. First of all it was a policy that was carried out by 10 president s of both Political Parties for a half a century. During that half century we spent an average of 6 of g. D. P. On defense. We Forward Deployed hundreds of thousands of troops around the ring of the soviet union, our allies although they never spent up to 6 , spent 3 of g. D. T. We had tactical Nuclear Weapons up against the soviet border. Containment is not cheap and its not easy. And it was bipartisan. I dont see how this administration which has got itself into a very partisan situation on this particular issue of the Nuclear Agreement is going to have the ability to produce a strong bipartisan support for containing iran, which is basically what david is calling for. He may be right, thats where we end up, but nobody should be under any illusions that that is going to be easy. Its going to be expensive. We have to put american troops on the ground in the middle east, were going to have to probably put new cheer weapons on the ground in the middle east. Were certainly going to have put Nuclear Weapons there if we want the host countries not to get their own Nuclear Weapons. David. David rothkopf first of all, im not explicitly calling for containment, im calling for counterbalances. If the iranians make real progress, adhere to this agreement, stop doing the other things that theyre doing behave in a more constructive way that they could, you know, grow in International Standing in ways that wouldnt be bad provided we were counterbalancing them. So i use counterbalance rather than contain, but its all conditional on them actually doing those things. They have shown no inclination to do those things thus far. I think we need to be very beady eyed and very results and evidenceoriented in this regard and youre right, its become political. Having said that, i cant help but point out that to a large degree the political problems that were having well, the political problems were having in washington cannot be blamed on one party or the other. Both parties have played a role in creating the most politsized Foreign Policy atmosphere that we have seen in a long, long time. Thats not helpful and regardless of who is elected in 2016 one can only hope that as a centerpiece of their Foreign Policy will be a willingness to commit the effort at home to rebuild the kind of across the aisle alliances that are essential to have credibility overseas. The current experience with netanyahu illustrates it as well. If we are seen as dysfunctionally polarized, we are not seen as a reliable power in the world. Thats a threat to us. We need to find a way around that threat. Ambassador let me jump in briefly. If you want to contain iran, you have to spend money. This administration does not want to spend money on defense. What they have done just now shows that to you, they came in with a request for more defense spending than the sequester and the budget control act will allow. The congress turned around and said were not going to bust the sequester, you know the administration know you dont want to bust the sequester. What were going to do is take the additional money and put it contingency account. The administration is opposed to it. So it shows you where theyre really coming from. They dont want to spend any more money on defense. Containment is a nonstarter for these folks. There is another fundamental problem. The way david puts it is essentially tell our allies in the region, well cut a deal with the iranians and then well fix it with you. Thats exactly putting the cart before the horse. If you want support for a deal thats questionable, the first thing you have to do is shore up your allies. You have got to convince them that you are reliable, that you have a certain understanding of their concerns and that youre going to act on them because not only after a deal is cut, but before a deal is cut. So when you have a spat with israel that goes well beyond just mr. Netanyahus behavior, when you have friction with the saudis, that has nothing to do with the israelis. When you have a cutoff of support for the bahrainies which we have done. We have cut off any kind of military support for them and the bahrainies, of course, are kind of younger brothers to the saudis. Theyre just across the causeway for those of you who know the region. If you operate in that way, you are certainly not giving them the comfort factor that they would need prior to a deal being signed. Were doing it exactly the opposite way. David rothkopf let me say one thing in response to that. I agree that the right way to have done this would be to maintain and then build credibility, listen to our allies, understand where they need assurance, not undercut our credibility with them at every turn, not offer the iranians a deal on enrichment we wouldnt offer them, not do the things that we have done. We are where we are. My view on that is if you want to make the best of the situation youre in now, you have to look at those represents and restore them by actions, not words. And, by the way, you cant restore relationships in a region like this unless you empower your state department to go out and do the work. If everything is done by the white house, you cannot do the daytoday blocking and tackling of diplomatic relationships that this required. So there are operational issues involved here that are serious problems. The final point i want to make is we didnt address part of dmitris question. He raised the point of mr. Putin. There are broader geopolitical ramifications of this. When Vladmir Putin sees our behaving effectlessly or being distracted by situations like this every single time he takes advantage of it. It is no accident, also, that when he takes advantage of it, people in the region see him as a little bit stronger. And the israels have turned to the russians more closely and they have better relations with the russians. Others in the region have done the same. As i was saying to jerry we got here there is an ironic twist going on. You may recall a discussion of pivot to asia. Well, we didnt really follow through on the pivot to asia. You know who is historying to asia everybody in the middle east, the people we were supposed to be pivoting away from, the saudis, the israelis, the gulf states, the iranians, theyre looking to china as a consumer of last resort. Theyre looking to india as a big buyer of their energy products. They are looking in a different direction for major power involvement in the region because they dont trust that they can count on u. S. Major power involvement in the region and i might add, that is compounded by the fact that the notion of e. U. Foreign policy is a fantasy because the e. U. Hasnt gotten its act together yet to actually have a Foreign Policy. The Atlantic Alliance and the deterioration that has taken place in context of that alliance, has contributed to this weakening in the middle east and the weakening in the face of putin. And that need to be addressed in you are going to dress this pivot and the issues in this region as well. Ambassador the reason i said we should continue talking is precisely so we can do the kinds of things david talked about, shore up the alliances, restore some credibility. There is no reason for us to say as we have been saying if we cant get something done by the end of march, were going to walk away. Thats exactly the wrong thing to say. The right thing to say is, if we cant get something done by the end of march, well just keep on talking. The longer we talk, the more time we have to restore our relationships with the saudis, with the israelis, the rest of them to prevent the pivot to asia that david just talked about, to have some kind of credibility with our adversaries as well and our potential adversaries. Its not just putin who sees us as week. Its the chinese who who are weak. We need time to restore that. You dont cut a deal, and then try to restore it. All you will do then is further undermine yourself. You will have proof for how weak you are. That was the dove exact time dov zakheim please identify yourself richard solomon. Richard as the jacob you just said, the subject is iran and the american politics. The terrible message that i am hearing in this discussion is very fundamental to american politics. The question is, are we capable as a country, a country with presumably the most resources economic, military of any country, are we capable of conducting a meaningful Foreign Policy. And david, you began with pointing out the various ways that iran has been the beneficiary you have to take that back to bush. When we eliminated the iraq, Saddam Hussein challenge we basically stabilized the balance. Was anyone thinking about that issue we went to. I see a fundamental, structural question, it is partially related to a generational change occurring in our politics. The last american president who served in the war was jerked George Herbert walker bush. Since then, we have had a new generation with a different view of the world and how we should deal with it. We have been cranking through the lack of strategic thinking. The fact that people in the world do not trust us, you used the word week, i would say people do not look at us as weak, but as not knowing what we are about. What are we trying to achieve. That undermines the kind of trust that is reinforced by the kind of domestic, political dysfunction. [indiscernible] under george schultz, one of the great secretaries of state. My point is, i think the situation calls not probably in this room, we have people who devoted their lives to security. But as a country. Look at the people coming up as potential president s for the next cycle. Almost none have foreignpolicy experience. In a world in chaos, or as Henry Kissinger put it, a. Of disorder, i think we have some serious self reflection. I dont know if david will agree, i think a point to david made previously, goes to the heart of your concern. Our foreignpolicy is being run by a small group of people in the white house, most of whom have minimal foreignpolicy experience. Theyve been doing it for six years, but it is if it has been six days. Regardless of who is elected the real etch issue is, does the White House Run for up run foreignpolicy, or do we leave it to the professionals. People like your self and others who serve in treasury, state commerce, we have a lot of international agencies, and young people are more interconnected with the world than any other generation. There is no inherent reason why we should be operating the way we are today. The key is, do we rely on her executive agencies to do what the law tells them to do, to the extent that a new administration, regardless of party will default back to executive agencies, i think youll see a very different american image around the world. And a lot more credibility. There are two groups that make the same points. The roads have become centralized. It makes it impossible to do the job the agencies need to do. It also makes it impossible for the white house to do the Strategic Planning and implementation for all of it. That needs to be fixed and there are a variety of ways to do that including cutting down the size of the nsc from 400 to 200. Henry kissinger nsc had 30. We are over 10 times that. But you guys were special. [laughter] having said that, that is not the full answer. There are two other issues. One is foreignpolicy is made in the executive branch primarily by the president of the United States, at the behest of the president. There is no. In which there is no area in which the old maxim of a single man or woman is true. Five out of six of the last president s have had no foreign experience. The American People continue to live under the delusion that foreignpolicy is something you could pick up. Is that has been demonstrated to not be the case, certainly the past few years have driven that message home, or should have. You have to elect people who understand this who understand how the agencys work, who understand the issues, who are not going to do on the job training, and are effective leaders. People who are effective of managing big organizations. The on state this the largest most complicated organization on earth. The skill set least valued is management skill. This is the one city in the world where people tend to believe if you can articulate, that is the same as being able to get something done. That is not true. We need leaders who are also managers who have clear ideas and they have to be able to go and do the retail politics of foreignpolicy as well as they do the global to diplomacy and statement ship statesmanship. They have to go to the hill. They cannot maintain campaign mode. They have to engage. They have to have willing partners. It is not a small thing. The congress of the United States is obstructionist. Many of the people in congress do not have passports. They do not engage in these issues. They think penalizing be president on foreignpolicy when it weakens us, it happens. They do not believe in the principles of collaboration and compromise that are essential to functioning democracy. That has to be fixed as well. You cannot fix it all at once. The place you can start to fix it is in the president ial election. You have to pick the right woman or man to be president in order to be able to be in this process of change. If you want someone who is a manager, and my last in car nation and government i was on management side. I saw the price we pay for people who did not know how to manage being in management positions. The managers out there are not senators, they are ceos. Ceos who are in politics are called governors. Sometimes you will get a senator who knows nothing about foreignpolicy and is still pretty good. Harry truman. You can have a governor who is pretty good, Ronald Reagan or bill clinton. It is a function of the individual. If the individual can listen, has a good staff recognizes his or her shortcomings, you will be fine. If the individual has a management background, you will be better. If the individual is convinced hey, i am president and you are not. Therefore i know it all and you do not. It does not want matter what their background is. Running a large agency like the u. S. State department, i figured that was coming. Two more questions. One for mike from cbs news hour. Mike politics was in the title of this talk. First of all, an Election Campaign is usually not the best way to articulate complicated issues. You gentlemen have advised president ial campaign candidates. On the democratic side, and it seems like the candidate is going to have to distance themselves from the Current Administration without repudiating it. On the republican side, how to run a effective critique, without turning it into a rancid criticism. I believe that it is highly likely regardless who the candidate is in 2016, they will both in some degree run against the foreignpolicy records of the last two president s. Both will seek to identify themselves as something different. As far as Democratic Candidates i think they will be able to split the difference that you described their because they will be able to embrace the lot of the president s domestic policies. They will be a list saying there was recoveries, progress made in climate. They will be able to say that there was a variety of gains made. They can embrace that wholeheartedly. I think foreignpolicy, they may talk about some of the progress that gets made in climate. They may talk about the progress that might be made. There may be some victories to look at. They will make a mistake if they get too bogged down in the details of defending the obama and ministration foreignpolicy. Instead of focusing on the future, i believe that what the American People will look for is someone who will say, i have a different vision as to where we are going to go. I can provide a different character leadership. I can demonstrate that i can deliver that character of leadership and i can give you a few key ideas of how i will restore america to the traditional leadership role expected of the country both here and overseas. My final point, i think whoever is in elected, will see as one of their central jobs, restoring americas leadership role in the world. In that respect you will see a lot of similarity in some of the rhetoric that is going to come out of both d both the democratic and republican candidates. Zakheim the Obama Administration is going to be a target rich environment both on or in an policy. I agree that will not be enough, there will have to be a positive vision. I think it will be harder for the democratic candidate to fight the bush election again because it will be a14 years before. It will be difficult. Mr. Obama has been fighting mr. Bush from day one. The reaction gets more and more negative with the passage of time. I think the sense in the country that things are going wrong overseas means that unlike in the 2012 election when generally, mr. Romney to not focus much on foreignpolicy here you will see National Security as a major issue. Probably as major as the 1980 election. Who knows what will happen in the next 18 months, but i do not think it will be good. That will be a major issue. The question will be what do we do. Either candidate, republican or democrat will have to come up with a viable answer. I dont think claiming credit for Climate Change as a security issue, which by the way is a major element of the current National Security strategy. Climate change and the environment. That will resonate with the American People when you see what is going on in the middle east and elsewhere. It just wont wash. I hope a democrat will okas on that. The next question is from wayne mary. Wayne i am struck with the Panel Discussion on i run an american politics that there has been no mention of a collective letter from the u. S. Senators to the uranian government. There has been only passing reference to the israeli prime minister. The focus of your criticism has been almost exclusively on one end of pennsylvania avenue, which i would be happy to join. If you are talking about alliances, i have rarely seen in my professional life, a set of actions by the congress which have attracted such overt public criticism from senior figures of our allies. I wonder if you would talk a little bit about a positive contribution a role that you could approve of from the other end of pennsylvania avenue. I have been critical in writing, i thought i was critical now. Zakheim i think congress made a mistake. He could have retreated by the way. Senators feinstein and durban had offered to speak separately to the democrats. He could have turned around and said i will do that. And all of branch. He hasnt offered no all of branch. He has offered no olive branch. I think it is a reflection of frustration. Massive and frustration. He goes to the point of david made. This president has no relationship with the hill on any issue. He is not a favorite of the democrats either. Those who knew you him when he was on the hill, knew him as a loner who did not ever become part of the club. If you know the hill, and i know you do, if people like you, you can get away with a lot. People do not like you, they will fall to for everything. The classic example of that is Ronald Reagan and tip oneill. Reagan and oneill clearly did not see the world the same way. They play golf together, they related, and when things had to get done, they somehow work it out. This president does not know how to do that. Maybe he doesnt want to do that. I dont know. You have a degree of frustration. Obviously the democrats will be more restrained than republicans. This letter was like a gut that burst. Perhaps a different way to handle congress, stroking people, being nice to people giving them the time of day could have resulted in something else. Could have resulted in the president calling and cotton and saying look, this is not the right way to go. If you had a relationship, he couldve done that. I think i was explicit. I said they were obstructionist, i said they were blocking things. David they are part of the problem. Very few things illustrate this as clearly as cosmic. Does is rationalizing it. I dont think it is rationalizing ball. I think the letter was ill considered and unconstructive. The kind of thing that ought to be repudiated by both sides. It wasnt. It was embraced by virtually all with a couple of expression exceptions. In that respect i think it is a symptom of a disease that needs to be cured. The way to cure it is not lehman on the president. Who is leaving on the republican side looking for solutions . Who is leaving, being constructive . I mean genuinely. Who is taking the initiative on the hill to do that. Most of the leadership has expressed one way or another they see their job as to stop the president. To obstruct grand to undermine. Certainly the net and yahoo invitation was another grotesque example of the abuse of the traditional role. I couldnt agree more with the sentiment of the question. Much has to be done on capitol hill. One hopes in the 2016 cycle what you will get from some candidates, is a return to the traditional values that leaders in both parties have had particularly with foreignpolicy. Placing National Interest first, and placing politics on the back burner. [indiscernible] no to think when you have the president of the United States, and the bipartisan politics, and consistently ignore the republicans. If you look at his medical reform, immigration reform, the way he dealt with rations, the ignoring of the new republican majority of congress. He took a position dealing with congress that everything that is not outright illegal is fair game. Dont you think under the circumstances, the republicans are not just entitled to frustration, but they should not continue. If you ignore a branch what is wrong with this approach . Zakheim i think it is grotesquely unconstructive. David i think it is grotesquely unconstructive. We have reduced our self to be schoolyard, somehow saying two wrongs make a right. Is obama embracing other democrats, no. Is he good at embracing the rest of his administration, no. Is he isolated. Is he combative yes. I think he is doing all of those things. You are conflating a bunch of things. Health care reform, there was a big battle, people voted, he got his way. That was not forcing it down their throats. That was the legislative process working. There were other cases where he achieved victory. He used executive authority. Republican president s use executive authority. There is always a cry from the other side saying, oh my gosh, imperial presidency. That is how washington works. Just as obama has done wrong in terms of not reaching out, Mitch Mcconnell said my job is to stop obama. He did not say, my job is to make america stronger. He did not say my job is to help the American People through more trade. He took the opposite side. He certainly has not been terribly constructive. Some of the party has been worse. They talk about idiocy like in peach meant. Look, we all have to get a great the republicans have eight done a lousy job. The Obama Administration has screwed up a lot of foreignpolicy. We can either point fingers for the next 10 years and it can get worse, or we can try to reach out across the aisle, find areas of aden great agreement acknowledged its function is not the way to go. I wheel i will tell you, i have said this before, dysfunction in washington is a much greater threat to american National Security than isis and every terrorist threat. Unless we treat it that way, we will not be able to do the things that make the country strong trade whether it is producing Defense Budgets or producing coherent foreignpolicy. That was a strong statement. Zakheim talk is talk, but i think the first thing Mitch Mcconnell said as he is not going to close down the government. He said that in the face of a lot of people who want to do that. I thought to know reciprocation from the white house, none. At the end of the day, look who made the offer to play golf. It was not to oneill. These things have to come from the president. It is just the way it works. It is exactly the same part of the system youre talking about david rated you are not seeing that you are talking about david, you are not seeing that. The question is, who is supposed to start this process . I do not see that happening. You could argue that mcconnell try to do that, and got nowhere. I dont see that happening until the next president comes around. I do hope that whoever the next president is, will recognize that you need to work with congress, rather than work against them. David im going to take the last question the codes we may not in the late the council on Foreign Relations in many ways here. We are going to end on time. My question to both of our distinguished speakers is i will pull away from domestic strife, and assume all the way back to the middle east and asked we can talk about netanyahu and obama engaging and that seems like an abstract tool right now. Negotiations are inflamed. Lets put aside these arms talks. Lets talk about right now and get back to be first question how close are we to an august 19 1914 moment in the middle east. Forget the iran deal, whether they sign it or not, this region is in a people is in a people upheaval. How close are we to the big countries, like saudi arabia, we know that these wars get triggered by proxy wars. You can get dragged into your proxy, how close are we really. What would trigger a wider, war of complete a people in the middle east, david . David david first of all, i dont know how i could get wider. Egypt, israel, syria iraq, jordan all of the gulf states, iran and afghanistan are all involved in conflict right now. The turks have some role to play in all of that too. It is as white as it can get. Can it get worse and deeper . Sure. Libya is going to get worse. Libya is going to become likely yemen as. The egyptians will leave a force into libya. The reason egyptians signed up for this force was to get the license. That is going to make work. I think those countries are coming to the conclusion that the United States and its reluctance to put any boots on the ground is going to leave it up to them to put things up. We can breathe a sigh of relief and say, oh that is great. Except we lose influence. They may not approach this anyway we think it ought to be approached for it. They may not approach it in ways that we think it is in the reasons of interests. I think we need to be careful into falling into the temptation of saying, let them handle it. Is it 1914 . No its 2015. In other words, it will not become world war i. Could it last for 10 years . Could it decimate the region . Could it cause havoc . Could it have influence where it didnt have influence before . Could visit resources so these places can never find jobs for these young men and women and thus produce a half century of unrest from the region . Could it spread toe africa with boko haram signing up with isis . Could it spread to other parts of the world including, for example, pack pakistan . I think it could. First of all, we ought not to comfort ourselfs that were in a comfortable position. Were not in a conferable situation. This situation is like toy d deteriorate before it gets better. We need to have a longterm strategy. This hasnt come up at any point in the discussion. There is no strategy where the United States does not have boots on the ground in system of these situations. The reason that iran has gained in iraq is precisely because they do and we dont. Im not saying that that means oots 200,000 troops. Im saying advisors and special forces and the kind of things that send a message to others that youre serious. And you look at what we call or foilition in iraq and syria and youve got a lot of country that effectively committing brigades theyre not doing anything serious because they dont think were doing enough thats serious. Leadership requires actually getting other people to follow and it requires an example and were a long way from that. So i i dont worry about a world war. But i do worry about a pro tracted period of time that could destabilize a big chunk of the world and negatively impact u. S. Interest and allied interest for decades. My bottom line up front is pretty much the same. I dont think we can hope to have any influence unless we have some boots on the ground. I think that the president s reduck tans to keep troops in afghanistan. Now hes staying up to 2015, thank if you look at the timelines in iraq. Mr. Maliki becomes a real dictator after december 2010 when we pull out. Its arguable that had he not behaved the way he had, the sunnis would not be behaving the way they are. And so having that presence there and its not a massive presence. I totally agree is very important. Were not in 1914. Were in probably 1912 to 1913, the ball can wars, these kind of wars that preceeded the big one. Or you might say its the spanish civil war where you have a proxy war between nazis and stallen. And its not going to be a world war but it will be a middle east world war. And it will be like the 30 years war. The 30 years war was a religious war. And however you want to dismiss it, it is between sunnis and shiah. The iranians arent shiah. Theyre persian who is look down on arabs and always have. So its an ethnic thing and its a religious thing and those things just dont go away quickly. So the real issue becomes how do you keep a lid on this . And you cannot keep a lid on it a, if you simply are only thinking about withdrawing and b, if you set redlines not for anybody else but for yourself by saying, hey im not going to send any boots on the ground that is so unbelievably selfdefeating. And what is amazing is that were slowly being sucked in anyway. Now were providing support over toity crit. What happens when one of our pilots is shot down if god forbid that happens. Then what . Im hearing this middle east sucking sound all over. I mean its a briar patch. You get in, you just dont get out. Im grateful to aur our speakers. That is dov zezakheim and david. Thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] next, outgoing f. D. A. Commissioner Margaret Hamburg outlining the agencys accomplishments. Then another chance to see the discussion about Irans Nuclear program. After that a senate hee hearing on the latest treatment and research for alzheimers disease. Barbara bush, daughter of george w. Bush joins other young adults saturday to discuss the issue that motivate their generation. They explore new ways, socalled millenials are engaging the communities. Heres a portion of her remarks. I guess whats the one issue that you think will be most important for young people in 2016 . My goodness. So many. Well, i think lets get back to the millenial. Ok. This is not a oneword answer. But i mean, we all have issues that are important to us and important to our communities and porn to where we live. Not saying that theres one issue thats important because every issue is connected and figuring out how to have a bigger lens and my last thing to copy your question to her is i never really understood why older people say i dont understand millenials. You can ask people what theyre interested in. You can ask them how they want to communicate and how they would want to partner with you. Instead of categorizing one group as this Elusive Group we all have the power to make relationships with people. That new America Foundation with young adults concerning the issues that motivate their generation is saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. This sunday on q a eric larsson on his new book dead wake. The story gets complicated when the question when the question arises as to what ultimately happened to the lucetania. Why was it allowed to enter the iris sea without escort, without the kind of detailed warning that could have been provided that captain William Thomas was not. And this has led to some very interesting speculation about was the ship essentially set up for attack by churchhill or some one in the admiralcy. I found a nosmobing memo and i would have found a smoking memo. But there was nothing in churchhill and the admiral saying lets let the lucetania get into the iris sea because nothing like that exists. Sunday night at 8 00 eastern and pacific on cspans q a. Now food and Drug Administration commissioner Margaret Hamburg at the National Press club. She discusses regulatory science and the impact on drug products and food supply. Dr. Hamburg announced her retirement from the agency and is expected to step down at the end of this month. F. D. A. Dr. Steven us a tra will ack as the acting commissioner until one is named. This is an hour. John hughes good afternoon, and welcome. My name is john hughes, an editor for bloomberg first word, our breaking news desk in washington, and i am the president of the National Press club. The club is the worlds leading professional organization for journalists. We are committed to our professions future through programs like this, an we work for a free press worldwide. For more information about the club, visit our website, press. Org. To donate to programs offer to our clubs journalism institute, visit press. Org institute. On behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker and those of you attending todays event. Our head table includes guests of the speaker as well as working journalists who are club members. Members of the public attend our lunches, so applause you hear is not necessarily evidence that journalistic objectivity is lacking. I would also like to welcome our cspan and public radio audiences. You can follow the action on twitter using npclunch. After our guests speech, we will have a questionandanswer period. I will ask as many questions as time permits. Now it is time to introduce our head table. I would ask you to write guests to stand briefly as names are announced. The audiences right, dr. Charles schneiderman, a health and science correspondent for audio and visual news. Alfa rook Health Reporter for the gray sheet. Paula delow, president of paula delow and associates an former executive of nasw press. Varoon news editor at fierce medicaldevices. Com. Matthew perrone, a Health Reporter for associated press. Dr. Beatrix hamburg, guest and mother of our speaker. Gerard sims i can, chair of the npc Speakers Committee and buffalo news and a former National Press club president. Skipping over our speaker for a moment, doris margolis, president of Editorial Associates health and Science Communications and the npc who arranged todays program. Thank you, doris. Dr. David hamburg, guest and father of our speaker. Susan hevy, correspondent for reuters news. Sarah riordan, Biomedical Research and policy reporter for nature magazine. Anthony schopp, a member of the National Press board of governors and sheep Strategy Officer and cofounder of social driver. Keeping consumers safe when they take prescription drugs or eat food or use medical devices or consume Tobacco Products or wear cosmetics or get vaccinated, these are not small tasks, and these tasks fall to the food and Drug Administration. These products are important to consumers and to companies and economy, so there can be controversy when the fda plays the role of referee. For instance, we have heard questions such as, our products afe snuff is the f. D. A. Taking too long to approve a new drug or device . For nearly six years, dr. Margaret hamburg has led the fda as its 21st commissioner. No surprise, the agency has been the target of both criticism and commendation as it has touched a broad range of issues during dr. Hamburgs leadership. For example, three years ago, an outbreak of fungal meningitis traced to a Compounding Pharmacy resulted in criticism that the fda had not provided adequate oversight. On the other hand, the agencys accelerated vetting process, which has sped drugs to the market faster, has been welcomed by patients and their families as well as the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Hamburg is a graduate of harvard medical school. She has a background in Infectious Disease bioterrorism, neuroscience neural pharmacology, and health policy. Before her appointment as fda commissioner, she was the Senior Scientist at the Nuclear Threat initiative, a nonprofit dedicated to reducing the risk of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Hamburg will retire next week as one of the longestserving commissioners in fda history. Please give a warm National Press club welcome to dr. Margaret hamburg. [applause] dr. Hamburg well, thank you very much. Im very pleased to be here and really delighted to be joined by my parents as you heard and also by many of my friends and colleagues. This is probably my last formal address as f. D. A. Commissioner. So i thought it would be a nice opportunity for me to reflect a bid on what ive learned about this agency and what i really want to communicate with you is how firmly i believe now more than ever that this is an agency that is absolutely essential to the lives and health of every american every day. And its hard to overstate, really the unique and vital importance of this agency for all oufs. But ill confess that i really didnt arrive at the f. D. A. With a fully formed perspective. I guess i said yes to the job a little bit early. I department appreciate the vast scope of f. D. A. Until i was ensconsed in the job. The job that we regulate accounts for 25 cents that consumers spend on prescriptions in this country. Theyre responsible to insure the safety, eff cassy and human and veterinary drugs, medical devices the safety of most of the food supply, the blood supply and other tissue products, cosmetics and products that emmit radiation. And most recently theyre responsible for regulating, marketing and distribution of Tobacco Products. And it ranges from bionic eyes and replacement body parts that are made by 3d printers, to the use of medicinal leaches. That was one that surprised me. We oversee the safety of the food at government events like the state of the union. And i just learned last week that we are responsible for regulating the waste that is discarded from moving trains. So you can see that wherever you are, the fda is working for you. But its not just the diversity of the products that some might find surprising, its how we bring the enormous expertise aware. In the day and age it is easy to imagine f. D. A. Regulator as bureaucrats focused on a set of responsibilities yet that could not be farther frer the truth. They are committed to helping people get the products that they need and count on. And im so happy that some of those f. D. A. Employees are here with us today. I also was really very struck by the fact that f. D. A. Employees do far more than just use their knowledge and expertise to review applications or investigate safety concerns but they also undertake research to advance medical products and improve food safety. For example we made a crucial commission to the me anyone jites vaccine by developing a needed Conjugation Technology and this vaccine has protected 217,000 people from what was a deadly killer across the socalled meningitis belt in the sub saharan africa. Scientists have helped the ge gnome Sequence Technology to identify and stop foodborn outbreaks and during the golf oil spill i was surprised but very grateful when another team of f. D. A. Scientists developed a new Laboratory Technique that significantly accelerated the Testing Process that was necessary for detecting certain oilrelated chemicals in the seafood itself and the f. D. A. To open it to the open wears of fishing and the delegation stopped calling me on the time. So that was really a worthy undertaking. It was also a surprise to me as f. D. A. Commissioner that during that period i was othered by the white house twice to go to new orleans and eat seafood to show that it was safe. So there are some hardship duties in this job. Obviously there are a lot of things that we could talk about but i want to focus on a few key issues today issues that i really been intent to work on since i began and that i believe have really made an important difference in strengthening and reaffirming fdds Critical Role in american society. I think that most would probably agree that i came to f. D. A. At a time when the agency faced considerable difficulties and uncertainty. A series of foodborn outbreaks had discorruptions. Several crises had eroded public confidence. At the same time budgets were tightening but chronic underfunding had already stressed the agency thin in many critical areas and jeopardized our ability to keep up with product review, product demands and with evolving science and bio medical products at the very time that sciences an technological discovers revolutions the f. D. A. Products. They were exacerbated by the Global Market play place product. And there was a serious effort with adult rated products coming from overseas most notably the heparin from china and the pet foods that caused death and serious illness. These effects and a constant negative drum beat from our friends in the media combined with the congressional criticism took a toll. Public trust was lagging yet, it was clear there was so much good work going on. Indeed as i took stock of the agency its vast responsibility and talented workforce, it was clear that the f. D. A. Was at a cross road and decisions made then would matter in fundamental ways and for a very long time. The f. D. A. Was truly to fulfill itself mission this is a critical time to reposition in several fairly fundamental ways. To do this, i focused on three priority areas. Increasing public engagement, accountability and partnership reinvigorated our scientific base by advancing regulatory science and underscoring the need for sciencebased decisionmaking and scientific integrity as the foundation for all that we do. And lastly, addressing the challenges of globalization and its huge implications for health, safety and security of the products we regulate. Six years later thanks to an extraordinary leadership fda, i this weve seen enormous progress and advanced. We renewed expanded our activities in important and powerful ways. Notably as well congress has given us important new authority to regulate cigarettes and other Tobacco Products, to transform our nations food Safety System with a new focus on prevention and to use more flexibility and streamlined approaches to bring exciting new medical products to patients in record time. To be effective, f. D. A. Must do its vital work with input from steak holders and with the trust and confidence of the public. Thats why it was imperative to increase transparency, enhance steak holder engagements and strengthen partnership across sectors, disciplines and components of government and i really think we have. We launched an agencywide effort to make useful, understandable information about the f. D. A. More readily available to our steak holders. The Transparency Initiative brought greater clarity and understanding as to what we do, how we do it, and why for the general public, for industry, for patient and consumer groups and for other key stakeholders. We work to increase clabity active efforts including many public, private partnerships. We enhanced our community including listening sessions seeking ideas and feedback as well as a focus on patientcentered medicine which involves Holding Dozens of Public Meetings where Patient Advocacy groups for input on specific diseases. Theres been much better sharing more predictability and Better Process and pickup trucks for the people we products for the people we serve. Science really buildings on the everies just mentioned. As a signbased Regulatory Agency our credibility and success depends on us to deliver to smart datadriven decision to patients and consumers. Smart regulation also requires the ability to respond to changing situations new information and new challenges. We cannot have a onesizefitsall approach. But we always must bring the best science to bear. It requires that we advance regulatory science. The knowledge and tools necessary for the meaningful and timely review of products for safety eff cassy, quality and performance and to inform a more Efficient Product Development process as well. Building on greater understanding at the underlying mechanism of disease and technology a robust field of regulatory science can help us to bridge the gap twenal scientific discovery and the real world product that will make a difference in peoples lives some of advancing it has been a huge priority not just within the walls of f. D. A. But as an active, dynamic field of scientific research. Were continuing working to find new and better ways of doing things to seize new opportunitys that exist in science and technology and to work with industry and our scientific partner in academia and government in a collaborative way to discover and apply new regulatory tools. But what what does this really mean . In the foods area using regulatory science weve taken critical action that improves the safety of the food consumed for years to come. Importantly the development of science based standards focused on preventing foodborn illness has been key thanks to the food safety modization modernization act. Weve also taken several significant steps to help americans make more informed and helpful food choices. These include working to reduce trans fat and processed food when baked goods and other pastas can be labeled glue tenfree. Based on current Nutrition Science and most recently finalizing the rules to make calorie Information Available on chain restaurant menus and vending machines. Some of you may be asking wheres the science there . But believe me and our deputy for foods knows these areas are based on sound and current Nutrition Science and involves some very complicated and cease. Tushing now to the medical product domain were pursuing such things as enhancing bio markers, clinical studies to be smaller and more adaptive. Using more strategies to effectly mine data bases to learn more about issues of both safety and eff cassy. As well as such things as how can we identify sub populations of responders to a given treatment based on certain indicators. These efforts matter in our ability to swiftly review apply cases that come before us and theyre essential for reducing the time and cost and increasing the likelihood of success in the Product Development process itself. In the ecosystem for bio medical Product Development, f. D. A. Plays a Critical Role because we more fully understand what it takes to translate a good idea into a product with demonstrated safety eff cassy and quality. With a product that can be scaled up in reality manufacture. Simply waiting until we see what comes through our doors cannot be the going motto. F. D. A. Is uniquely sitch waited to examine important unmet medical and Public Health needs and how they matchup with whats actualfully the Development Pipeline and indeed a growing part of our focus has been to try to develop whats in the pipeline and to fostter kind of invasion that will make a to address gaps and to accelerate progress, and to foster the kind of innovation that will make a real difference for patients. Also, weve seen how early in continuing engagement between the fda and researchers in the Product Development plan makes a huge difference in streamlining the process and making sure that the right questions get asked and answered from the very beginning. As you may know, we have now in place a number of expedited review programs that help to speed the development and availability of medical products that treat serious diseases. For prescription drugs, we have fasttrack, priority review, accelerated approval, and now thanks to recent legislation, we have the breakthrough therapy