Skip to main content

tv   Donald Trump Campaign Event in Portsmouth New Hampshire  CSPAN  January 17, 2016 2:05pm-3:36pm EST

2:05 pm
that no nation dares attack us or our allies because they know that's the path to ruin. well, that's been true, and it's been true for a long time. unfortunately, that's changing. our committee has spent more time over the last year on the issue of our eroding technological superiority than it has spent on any other issue. as you know, deputy secretary work and vice chairman silva are advancing a focused push known as the third offset, to make sure that in the future no state is willing to take on america. i applaud their efforts, but no one should be under the illusion that a handful of technological breakthroughs, even if they come, are going to guarantee our dominant position for many years ahead.
2:06 pm
technology changes too quickly, information moves too fast, the threats are too diverse and that means bigger change is required. obviously, cyber is the new domain of warfare where technology is not the primary problem, but organizations, authorities, people are the most crucial things. this doesn't just affect the military, but we have to be able to fight and win in cyber space. so the committee will be pushing issues related to people, organizations, rules of engagement in that domain to try to make sure we close the gap between the threat and the policies we now have to employ. it may seem a little bit odd to put nuclear deterrent in some of those capabilities we need to think about for the future, but as the events over the last week have shown, nuclear know-how is spreading. our own nuclear deterrent is the
2:07 pm
foundation for all of our other defense efforts. unfortunately, our warheads and our delivery systems have all been neglected and are all aging out at about the same time. so we have to put the resources, which studies show will never be more than 5 percent of the total defense budget, but we have to put the resources as well as the focused effort and the willpower into making sure that we have a nuclear deterrent that will continue to protect this country in the future, not just a nuclear deterrent that was designed for a different age. the world, including our enemies, has gotten a pretty good look at the enormous capability that our special operations forces brings. i have no doubt that we will continue to rely on them very heavily in the future. but there's a temptation, and we've seen it in other nations, to use soft forces for everything.
2:08 pm
one description of it is kind of like taking a sharp knife and raking it across the concrete. you keep doing that and it's not so sharp anymore. so we will be both supportive but also protective of our soft capabilities because some of them are absolutely vital for the security of our nation. one of the areas where soft excels is in working with other security forces. and we're also going to be examining ways to help strengthen that capability because undoubtedly we're going to be doing more of that in the future. while u.s. has always needed a military strong enough to meet the threats of the day, the current situation is unlike anything we've ever faced, for we must have the military capability to protect us against this enormous array of threats that confront us, was well as the unexpected.
2:09 pm
in studying the anatomy of failure in war, elliott cohen says there's three kinds of failure; failure to learn, failure to anticipate, and failure to adapt. well, that means the united states has got to learn, anticipate and adapt faster than anybody else does. and that requires institutional agility. so, reforms to help promote that sort of agility is at the forefront of what our committee is focused on. i grouped these things into three different categories; people, acquisition, and organizations. the most important component of our defense is, of course, our people. we can never relax our efforts to make sure that our country continues to have the benefit of the very best people our nation can provide. last year, we followed the recommendations of the military retirement and compensation commission and instituted a new retirement system for the
2:10 pm
military. most people thought it could not be done. this year, under the able leadership of subcommittee chairman general doctor joe heck, we're going to be examining healthcare, which is a crucial part, of course, of all of our compensation as well as our well being. year after year, the administration has proposed raising tri-care fees and co pays on service members. but simply taking more money out of service member's pockets is not reform. joe and his subcommittee are examining the whole military healthcare system, taking into account the recommendations of the commission but also keeping in mind the primary purpose of military healthcare is to help make sure we can fight and win the nation's wars. as was mentioned, last year we made a pretty good start on
2:11 pm
improving the way the department acquires goods and services, focusing on the acquisition workforce, on acquisition strategies for each program, and on rebalancing the responsibilities between dod and the services. this year, we're going to build on those reforms. my plan is to again introduce a stand alone acquisition reform bill, solicit feedback and comments on it, adjust it as is appropriate, and then fold that into the annual defense authorization bill. one goal i have this year is to encourage more experimentation and prototyping. if you study the great military innovations of the past, the clear conclusion is that experimentation was at the heart of every success. it encourages innovative thinking, not just in developing the technology but in how you use it.
2:12 pm
it helps insure that there is mature technology before you start production so that you don't have those unexpected surprises. it reduces the odds that you're going to spend a lot of money on a program of record that you then have to cancel and have it all wasted. and if you couple that with open architectures, it helps you upgrade your systems as you go along at a lower cost. one of our nation's leading industrial design firms has as its motto, "fail often in order to succeed sooner." because they believe that enlightened trial and error is the key to success. i think that's right, and i think history bears that out when it comes to military innovation. today, it's hard to get money for experimentation without being attached to a program of record. and programs of record seem to be sacrosanct because once they get started, they hardly ever get stopped.
2:13 pm
i want to look for ways to foster experimentation and prototyping both in developing the technology and in their application and insure that only mature technology goes into production. to do that, a cultural shift is needed, not only at dod, but within the congress. we have to accept or even expect regular, small failures in order to have greater success. for if every experiment is a success, we're not learning very much. another key area of reform is organizational. we have to make sure that the organizational structure in the pentagon and around the world fit in today's world. while most everybody agrees that the goldwater nichols reforms of 30 years ago were a success, i think most people agree that it's time to take a new look at some of those reforms and not be afraid to make improvements where it seems appropriate.
2:14 pm
last year, we made a start at requiring the department to reduce the number of bureaucratic layers that not only cost money, but slow decision making. the first step in dealing with a sluggish bureaucracy is simplification. but i got to tell you, we have a long way to go. michele flournoy testified that the tyranny of consensus has come to dominate the pentagon, and if you look at the growth of staffs in the pentagon and at the commands, if you're trying to get everybody to consensus, it's going to take a long time to make a decision. the defense business board says that about half of all uniform personnel serve on staffs that spend most of their time going to meetings and responding to tasks from the hundreds of offices throughout dod including 17 independent agencies, 9 combatant commands, and 250 joint taskforces. needless to say, we've got a lot
2:15 pm
of simplifying to do. again, looking back over 500 years of military history, boot says that having an efficacy bureaucracy is the key determinant of whether a country manages to take advantage of a military revolution. i don't know about you all, but that makes me a little nervous. i think history tells us a couple other things as well. one is that necessary reforms have to come from congress. some change can come from within dod, but much of the change that's required has to be required by the legislative branch of government. secondly, we can't fix dod, personnel, acquisition, organizations in a single bill, or even in a single congress. and i don't think we should try. we should take measured steps, listening carefully to everybody involved in the system, especially to the end user, who
2:16 pm
are the war fighters, and then take further steps. we will not get everything done this year that needs to be done. but at the same time, we're not going to be sidetracked by all the voices who say, "oh, there's no use trying. it's just too hard. it's just too complicated, too big a mess. don't worry about it." we are going to fulfill our responsibilities under the constitution. if i may, let me just address a few more issues that have to do with our country's security. in addition to building our military, article 1, section 8 says it's congress's responsibility to declare war and use military force, authorize the use of military force. as you know, speaker ryan has -- wants to see if there are the votes in the house to pass an aumf against isis. and those sessions on both sides
2:17 pm
of the aisle, i think, are under way. i've always believed we should pass an aumf on isis while at the same time i understand the difficulties in doing so. one of those challenges, by the way, is that 75 percent of the house was not in office on the morning of 9/11. but those of us who were here will never forget that morning. another challenge is that many republicans are reluctant to authorize this president to use force when there is so little confidence around the country that he has a plan or the willingness to actually accomplish his stated goal to degrade and destroy isis. now, democrats seem to share that concern because they are asking for more restrictions on an aumf than republicans want. look, i do not want to tie our service member's hands when we send them into battle.
2:18 pm
what congress does or does not do will have consequences that last beyond this administration, so we need to find a way to do the right thing even if it's not politically easy. speaking of tying people's hands, i've served on the house intelligence committee for more than ten years, and continue to sit in on their briefings, as well as the briefings that our committee receives. i have no doubt that at exactly the time we face more diverse terrorist and other kinds of threats than at any time in our history, we know less about what our adversaries are up to. we certainly know less than we did at the beginning of the obama administration. now, part of the reason is the evolution of technology. part of the reason is the leaks that have told everybody, including our adversaries what we do and how we do it.
2:19 pm
but part of the reason is because of the ways we tie our own hands at collecting the information we need for the country's security. for example, ppd 28, presidential decision 28, gives foreign intelligence targets basically the same rights that american citizens have, overriding the instructions that the ic has gotten from every other president since ronald reagan. now, we are asking more of our intelligence professionals than we have ever asked of them before, and yet we ask them to operate with one hand tied behind their back. that makes the country more vulnerable. finally, i mentioned earlier that it's unlikely, in my opinion, that the obama administration will do anything over this coming year that will significantly improve the perilous situation we find around the world. i do not mean to disparage the many good people in the
2:20 pm
administration who are doing their best every day to try to keep the country protected. and i would include secretary carter and deputy secretary work among them. but the direction comes out of the white house. the white house imposes rules of engagement upon our men and women fighting in iraq, now syria, and in afghanistan and those rules of engagement make it harder for them to accomplish their mission. and in some cases, it increases the danger to their lives. in addition to that, there is an unprecedented degree of micro management from national security council staffers not only of the top management at dod, but of the men and women who are serving out in the field. and i'd refer you to the books and comments of the last three secretaries of defense, and others who have left the obama administration just to get a feel for how pervasive and
2:21 pm
detrimental this practice is. too often, decisions are driven by political considerations, not security considerations. this unprecedented overreach endangers our people, complicates their mission and compromises our national security and i think it must end with this administration. congress chartered the national security council in 1947. and from time to time over the years, it has adjusted it. well, it may be time to look at it again. i said earlier that the united states is a unique force for good in the world. if we do not have the ability to continue to be that force for good, or if we're unwilling to play that role, somebody else will fill the vacuum. that seems to be part of what's happening around the world today. i suggested that we live in historic times, but we don't yet know whether it's historic in a good way or historic in a bad way.
2:22 pm
i think we take for granted the world which the united states helped build after world war ii and the benefits that that has provided to us and to mankind. too many of us assume that human progress just inevitably marches forward. but as robert kagan argues in the world america made, the current liberal order will last only as long as those who built it retain the capacity to defend it. in the end, he says, the decision is in the hands of the americans. decline is a choice. i think that's right. it is in our hands. it depends on the choices we make. and for the sake of ourselves, our children and those around the world, i pray that we are
2:23 pm
able to answer history's call in fulfilling the obligations that it has placed on the united states of america, and do so in a way that will make us proud. thank you. mr. hughes: thank you, mr. chairman. on behalf of the national press club, i apologize for that earlier interruption. as i was escorting the protester out of the room, she did not show her national press club membership card, so i don't think she's a member of the club, either. have several questions about russia. could you comment on the russian navy's growing presence in the mediterranean and over flights around our coasts and can we expect any provisions in the national defense act for 2017 in
2:24 pm
response to perceptions of the russian threat? chairman thornberry: well, two things are happening. one is despite the economic concerns that people have about russia, and some of them are clearly real. but despite their economic problems, they are putting a priority on defense. and so they are building significant new capability that, as i mentioned, erodes the technological superiority we have enjoyed. some of the stuff they're building is designed for us. so that's one thing that's happening. the other thing that's happening is they are being much more aggressive about its use. and there are those who believe that they sense a u.s. retreat from the world and they want to step forward to take advantage of it and to reoccupy
2:25 pm
the place that they believe they have enjoyed in the past. so, the tactical use of where you fly your ships and planes, obviously that's up to the military and the commander in chief. the capability to deal with what russia is doing, that's on our shoulders. so, we will have provisions in the ndaa as far as developing capabilities not necessarily to match them eye for eye, but to have the capability that is needed to deal with the threats that putin presents. and just one brief example, every year russia continues to crank out new nuclear weapons with different characteristics. meanwhile, we haven't cranked out a new nuclear weapon since 1989, roughly. so, that's just one example of the difference. mr. hughes: on isis, do you support sending u.s. ground combat troops to iraq and syria?
2:26 pm
and would you like to see an isis-specific authorization for the use of military force? and do you think congress should pass one in 2016? chairman thornberry: well, as i mentioned, i think we should vote and pass an authorization for the use of military force against isis. as you all know, what we are doing is relying on the aumf that passed a few days after 9/11 and that specifically is tied to those who committed the attacks of september 11, 2001, and those that harbored them. well, isis didn't exist then, and so what the administration has to do is try to draw a link that this is a successor regime. the problem is in afghanistan today, isis is fighting the taliban and al-qaeda, so it's a
2:27 pm
little hard to see how they're the same thing that we authorized the use of military force. i think we have to have a new aumf, and i mentioned some of the challenges, however, in doing so especially on our side of the aisle, but on both sides. on both sides of the aisle. i do not think that it makes sense to send 100,000 ground troops in to iraq or syria as -- or anything like the invasion force we had in iraq before. but, i don't know if you all saw yesterday, we had three former officials from the obama administration, including the acting director of the cia, undersecretary of defense for intelligence, and ambassador to syria all testify. all said isis is a strategic and lethal threat to the united
2:28 pm
states, not hot air, and we need to be doing much more, especially to reduce their caliphate. because towns will come and go in iraq and syria, but they are growing in other countries, libya, afghanistan among them. so we do have to have special operations people much more restrictive -- i mean, much more vigorous air campaign. one note came out in our testimony yesterday. the early days of the afghanistan campaign after 9/11 had roughly eight times the number of aircraft sorties that we have in iraq and syria now, just to kind of give you a feel for the different level of effort. so we need to clearly be more serious about it. all of the rules of engagement that i mentioned are handicapping the efforts we are making, and as a result of that, many of our allies who want to do more, who are able to do more, don't trust that the u.s.
2:29 pm
is going to lead and so they're holding back. as you know, king abdullah has been in town the past few days, met with our committee yesterday for a very good session on where things stand in this fight. so, it is -- i believe it's serious, it is lethal significant, and i believe the u.s. must do more. it is not a choice between 100,000 troops or tying our military's hands. there are many options in between, and i'd invite you to go look at the testimony we received yesterday from obama, former obama administration officials to kind of give you the outline of some of that. mr. hughes: have a couple questions on iran. can you tell us anything beyond the limited information we've received so far about the iranian sailors? and also, do you see any-- i'm sorry, the u.s. sailors that were detained in iran-- and do you see any benefit in the nuclear deal that
2:30 pm
was negotiated between iran and the united states? any benefit at all? chairman thornberry: well, i don't know any more details at this point about the sailors who were taken. obviously, it's something we have asked the pentagon to brief us on and we will, of course, follow up with that. any benefit at all to the iran nuclear deal? well, of course if iran gives up nuclear material that's a benefit. the question has always been what is the cost? so do the costs outweigh whatever benefit there is? so part of the question is, have they done this for good? or is this a temporary measure to get sanctions relieved? has this affected any of their other activities? they've had two missile tests directly in violation of their agreement with the u.n. since the agreement was reached and we haven't done anything about it. you see this aggressive action
2:31 pm
in the persian gulf, continuing their activities in yemen, hezbollah, all the things they are doing around the world. none of that has showed up at all. so as you may know, just before i came here, i voted on a further sanctions measure in the house which passed. related to the missile tests in violation of their agreements. and i think one of the big frustrations that many people on both sides of the aisle had is for the administration this has been get the nuclear agreement at all costs. and that's not the way this works. are there benefits? sure. there are also costs. and you have to see the whole picture, not just focus on one treaty that you hope become yours legacy. >> questions on the new island bases in the south china sea by china. does the navy have what it needs to counter the threat in the
2:32 pm
south china sea? how far should the united states go in protecting allies in that region? mr. thornberry: we do not have what we need because we don't have enough ships. that's part of what i was talking about. you can't be -- we don't have enough ships to be everywhere we need to be. there's portions of the year we were not able to have a carrier, for example, in the persian gulf. pacific is huge. we don't -- we have lots of things to pay attention to. we do not enough ships. i think it's very important to continue to have on a more aggress i schedule ships and planes to re-emphasize the point that these are international waters, these are not owned by the chinese. but the other key point for me is that lots of countries in that region, gentlewoman -- some allies of ours, some not so sure, are looking to see what we
2:33 pm
do. they're trying to decide, how is this going to go? is the u.s. going to step back and let china do what it wants to? they may -- these allies or potential allies may be very interested in working with us to help push back on china all around. -- all around their borders. but they need leadership from the united states. i think if there's a big question in the world today it's whether the united states can lead. or will lead. >> the additional resources for the military, questioner wants to know where are those resources going to come from? how do you take on the budget restrictions involved in building a larger military and one questioner says you were dismissive in your remarks about president obama's statements about the current strength of the u.s. military in the state of the union speech last night. was the president wrong when he
2:34 pm
said that the u.s. spends more on defense than the next eight nations spending on defense combined? how do you get the additional money for defense and also responding to president obama's comments that it's already so robust. mr. thornberry: the president is not wrong to say we spend more than anybody else. of course we pay our people. not everybody pays their people system of we have costs that other countries do not have. we also have responsibilities that other countries do not have. and so we have to, if we're to fulfill our responsibilities, spend more. i'm not dismissive of the president's comment that we have the best military in the world. my point is that our superiority is eroding. and we've got lots of testimony and evidence to support that. i will tell you the one comment that got groans across the chamber last night was when he
2:35 pm
said these -- this notion that our enemies are not growing stronger is hot air. and that provoked a lot of groans. i think that is empirically not true. that is certainly not true. our enemies have grown stronger. again, i refer to the testimony we received yesterday on isis as an example. russia is stronger militarily and in the world. china, we talked about, just go down the -- north korea, iran, etc. they are stronger. and the president seems to want to dismiss all that. you know. don't pay attention to that stuff that's happen, it's not real. it is real. that's the world. where do we get more money? there's only one way really to, in the long-term, in the bigger picture, to deal with the budget issues that face the country and that is reform of entitlements. that's roughly 2/3 of the
2:36 pm
federal budget is spent on mandatory spending programs. we are down to about 15%, 16% of the federal budget is spent on defense today. that's all it is. it was 50% in kennedy's administration. now about 15% is spent on defense. meanwhile, 2/3 of the money is spent on mandatory spending policemans -- programs. so that's where it has to happen. i just want to emphasize a lot of people thought, oh, a new retirement system in the military, that's never going to work. you shouldn't try. you're just going to make people mad. we did -- what we did was grandfathered people in who we made promises to. there's a group in middle that can make a choice, you can, if you're in the military under -- for fewer number of years, i think it's under 12rks you can choose to go to the new system or stay in the old system. it's up to you. if you sign up tomorrow, you have to be in the new system. so that's the way we did it. make sure we keep our promises.
2:37 pm
now why would some sort of template like that not be appropriate for other sorts of entitlement reform? we've got to. we simply have to. or else the 2/3 of the budget that is mandatory spending and interest is just going to gobble everything else up. and so not only to adequately fund the military but to deem with budget deficits and so forth, that's what is required. one last point. i think the first job of the federal government is to defend the country. so i think the first dollar that comes out of your pocket ought to be for defense. and everything else, mandatory spending and everything else, is after that. and in the dangerous world we live in today, defense of our homeland, protecting our lives and our liberties is more essential than ever.
2:38 pm
>> will congress heed the pentagon's call to revisit the base realignment and closure process? why or why not? mr. thornberry: we'll see. i put -- we had a provision in last year's bill that asked for data from the pentagon about where they think they have excess bases and in what sort of categories do they have them? because what's been happening since 2005, which was the last time we had a brac round, there was a study before that that said we have 25% excess infrastructure. well they'd been trotting out that figure based on that 10-year-old study ever since. so i'm not saying we won't do another another brac, but i'm saying if we're going to do it, we'll do it on better data than a 10-year-old estimate that
2:39 pm
obviously is outdated in a number of ways, not only in what our bases are but what our threats are. secondly, the 2005 -- i have to check with g.a.o., yeah, g.a.o., but last time i checked last year, the 2005 round of brac had not yet broken even. in other words, 10 years later, it's still cost -- it still costs the taxpayer more money than it saved. people say that was an unusual situation. it was more of a realignment, etc., etc. my point is, we don't have any extra money laying around. we've got to be darn careful. we know we have something that we don't need because once we give it away, especially if it's a training range or flying rain or something, we'll never get it back so we better be darn sure that we have more than we need based on good data.
2:40 pm
if so, we'll look at it. >> cyber becoming such a major threat this questioner wants to know how you'll seek to build out cyber personnel via legislation. mr. thornberry: when we go through our people reforms, as part of the reform effort i mentioned, one of the key questions that i and other members ask is, ok, what if we want to get somebody from silicon valley in to cybercommand and can we do that? do we have the authorities to do it? we're not going to match them on pay. but at least is it not an embarrassment? can we take somebody from silicon valley for a while and then they go back into the private sector and then can they come back? those are the kinds of questions we have to ask ourselves in order to attract and retain as best we can the kind of cyber talent we need to help defend
2:41 pm
the country. now i've got to tell you. the professionals at cyber command and n.s.a. are the best in the world. i have no doubt about it. but i also worry when i see the scale of what the chinese are doing and these terrorism people trying to deal with it on our side, there's a mismatch there. so we're going to have to amp up significantly our cyberefforts and the key to doing that as i mentioned, it's not the technology, it's the people as well as the policies and the organizations on how we fight and win in cyberspace. so that's -- a lot of that responsibility is on our shoulders, we have a lot of work to do in that area. >> before i ask the final question or two, i have some housekeeping. the national press club is the
2:42 pm
world's leading professional organization for journalists and we fight for a free press worldwide. to learn more about the club visit our website, and to learn about our nonprofit programs or to make a donation, visit the website of the journalist institute, that's i'd also like to remind you about some upcoming programs, the american association of university women will release an analysis of federal data about sexual violence on college campuses at a national press club newsmaker tomorrow, january 14, at 10:00 a.m. former senators tom daschle and trent lott will discuss their new book, crisis -- their new book "why we must and how we can overcome our broken politics in washington and across america," next tuesday, january 19, at 6:00 p.m. and on saturday, january 23, at
2:43 pm
6:30 p.m., the national press club will inaugurate its 109th president, thomas burr of the "salt lake tribune," this is the final lunch i am moderating as president. i want to thank all the members and staff for their support over the past year and i want to thank the listeners and viewers for their interest in these events this past year. it's been a true privilege being the president of the national press club. thank you very much. \[applause] i would now like to present you with the official mug of the national press club, very much cherished, special, and you will enjoy that for years to come. mr. thornberry: thank you. \[applause] >> so final question, mr. chairman, got some political
2:44 pm
2016 type questions, i know you're dying to talk about politics and the presidential race. one questioner says, do you support fellow texan senator cruz's bid for the nomination? and if he is unsuccessful is donald trump your second choice? mr. thornberry: i told my staff they could not put any questions in but i think they did. i have not decided who i am going to support. i have two criteria, one who has -- which republican has the best chance to when. number two, who would be the best commander in chief. because as i mentioned, i think they're going to inherit a whale of a mess on the first day in office. so i don't know for sure who that's going to be. but like a lot of the rest of the country, i think things are now just starting to get a little more serious and we'll see as the voters begin to
2:45 pm
actually go to the polls rather than talk to pollsters how that shakes out. \[applause] >> one more question, mr. chairman. on the democratic side, if it was a president clinton coming in to succeed president obama, would there be a different dynamic on defense and other issues between congress and the white house? or do you think the dynamic would remain much the same as it is now? mr. thornberry: i think there would be some difference. i think secretary clinton over her career has shown herself to be for stronger positions when it comes to national security and i think she has the benefit of seeing all the chaos that the obama administration is leaving us with. so i think it would be somewhat different.
2:46 pm
the other thing is, i think there would be better relations between the administration and congress, quite frankly. talk to democrats and the obama administration approach to congress has been very dismissive. it was much better during president bill clinton's day and surely ms. clinton would learn from that. so it would be different. how big that difference would be, we can talk about that later. >> how about a round of applause for our speaker. \[applause] i'd also like to thank our national press club staff including the journalism institute and broadcast center for organizing today's event and if you'd like to copy of today's program, or to learn more about the press club, go to that website, thank you, we are adjourned. \[captioning performed by national captioning institute]
2:47 pm
\[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> president obama spoke to the nation this morning concerning americans held prisoner in iran and the implementation of a new nuclear report. the americans imprisoned by iran began their flight to germany where they will undergo a medical examination before returning to the u.s. the president's remarks are just under 15 minutes. pres. obama: this is a good day, because, once again, we're seeing what's possible with strong american diplomacy. as i said in my state of the union address, ensuring the security of the united states and the safety of our people demands a smart, patient and disciplined approach to the world. that includes our diplomacy with the islamic republic of iran.
2:48 pm
for decades, our differences with iran meant that our governments almost never spoke to each other. ultimately, that did not advance america's interests. over the years, iran moved closer and closer to having the ability to build a nuclear weapon. but from presidents franklin roosevelt to john f. kennedy to ronald reagan, the united states has never been afraid to pursue diplomacy with our adversaries. and as president, i decided that a strong, confident america could advance our national security by engaging directly with the iranian government. we've seen the results. under the nuclear deal that we, our allies and partners reached with iran last year, iran will not get its hands on a nuclear bomb. the region, the united states, and the world will be more secure. as i've said many times, the nuclear deal was never intended to resolve all of our differences with iran.
2:49 pm
but still, engaging directly with the iranian government on a sustained basis, for the first time in decades, has created a unique opportunity -- a window -- to try to resolve important issues. and today, i can report progress on a number of fronts. first, yesterday marked a milestone in preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. iran has now fulfilled key commitments under the nuclear deal. and i want to take a moment to explain why this is so important. over more than a decade, iran had moved ahead with its nuclear program, and, before the deal, it had installed nearly 20,000 centrifuges that can enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb. today, iran has removed two-thirds of those machines. before the deal, iran was steadily increasing its stockpile of enriched uranium -- enough for up to 10 nuclear bombs. today, more than 98% of that stockpile has been shipped out of iran -- meaning iran now
2:50 pm
doesn't have enough material for even one bomb. before, iran was nearing completion of a new reactor capable of producing plutonium for a bomb. today, the core of that reactor has been pulled out and filled with concrete so it cannot be used again. before the deal, the world had relatively little visibility into iran's nuclear program. today, international inspectors are on the ground, and iran is being subjected to the most comprehensive, intrusive inspection regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program. inspectors will monitor iran's key nuclear facilities 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. for decades to come, inspectors will have access to iran's entire nuclear supply chain. in other words, if iran tries to cheat -- if they try to build a bomb covertly -- we will catch them. so the bottom line is this. whereas iran was steadily
2:51 pm
expanding its nuclear program, we have now cut off every single path that iran could have used to build a bomb. whereas it would have taken iran two to three months to break out with enough material to rush to a bomb, we've now extended that breakout time to a year -- and with the world's unprecedented inspections and access to iran's program, we'll know if iran ever tries to break out. now that iran's actions have been verified, it can begin to receive relief from certain nuclear sanctions and gain access to its own money that had been frozen. and perhaps most important of all, we've achieved this historic progress through diplomacy, without resorting to another war in the middle east. i want to also point out that by working with iran on this nuclear deal, we were better able to address other issues. when our sailors in the persian gulf accidentally strayed into
2:52 pm
iranian waters that could have sparked a major international incident. some folks here in washington rushed to declare that it was the start of another hostage crisis. instead, we worked directly with the iranian government and secured the release of our sailors in less than 24 hours. this brings me to a second major development -- several americans unjustly detained by iran are finally coming home. in some cases, these americans faced years of continued detention. and i've met with some of their families. i've seen their anguish, how they ache for their sons and husbands. i gave these families my word -- i made a vow -- that we would do everything in our power to win the release of their loved ones. and we have been tireless. on the sidelines of the nuclear negotiations, our diplomats at the highest level, including secretary kerry, used every meeting to push iran to release our americans. i did so myself, in my
2:53 pm
conversation with president rouhani. after the nuclear deal was completed, the discussions between our governments accelerated. yesterday, these families finally got the news that they have been waiting for. jason rezaian is coming home. a courageous journalist for "the washington post," who wrote about the daily lives and hopes of the iranian people, he's been held for a year and a half. he embodies the brave spirit that gives life to the freedom of the press. jason has already been reunited with his wife and mom. pastor saeed abedini is coming home. held for three and half years, his unyielding faith has inspired people around the world in the global fight to uphold freedom of religion. now, pastor abedini will return to his church and community in idaho. amir hekmati is coming home. a former sergeant in the marine
2:54 pm
corps, he's been held for four and a half years. today, his parents and sisters are giving thanks in michigan. two other americans unjustly detained by iran have also been released -- nosratollah khosravi-roodsari and matthew trevithick, an iranian -- who was in iran as a student. their cases were largely unknown to the world. but when americans are freed and reunited with their families, that's something that we can all celebrate. so i want to thank my national security team -- especially secretary kerry. susan rice, my national security advisor. brett mcgurk. avril haines. ben rhodes -- our whole team worked tirelessly to bring our americans home, to get this work done. and i want to thank the swiss government, which represents our interests in iran, for their critical assistance. and meanwhile, iran has agreed
2:55 pm
to deepen our coordination as we work to locate robert levinson -- missing from iran for more than eight years. even as we rejoice in the safe return of others, we will never forget about bob. each and every day, but especially today, our hearts are with the levinson family, and we will not rest until their family is whole again. in a reciprocal humanitarian gesture, six iranianamericans and one iranian serving sentences or awaiting trial in the united states are being granted clemency. these individuals were not charged with terrorism or any violent offenses. they're civilians, and their release is a one-time gesture to iran given the unique opportunity offered by this moment and the larger circumstances at play. and it reflects our willingness to engage with iran to advance our mutual interests, even as we ensure the national security of the united states. so, nuclear deal implemented. american families reunited.
2:56 pm
the third piece of this work that we got done this weekend involved the united states and iran resolving a financial dispute that dated back more than three decades. since 1981, after our nations severed diplomatic relations, we've worked through a international tribunal to resolve various claims between our countries. the united states and iran are now settling a longstanding iranian government claim against the united states government. iran will be returned its own funds, including appropriate interest, but much less than the amount iran sought. for the united states, this settlement could save us billions of dollars that could have been pursued by iran. so there was no benefit to the united states in dragging this out. with the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well. of course, even as we implement the nuclear deal and welcome our americans home, we recognize
2:57 pm
that there remain profound differences between the united states and iran. we remain steadfast in opposing iran's destabilizing behavior elsewhere, including its threats against israel and our gulf partners, and its support for violent proxies in places like syria and yemen. we still have sanctions on iran for its violations of human rights, for its support of terrorism, and for its ballistic missile program. and we will continue to enforce these sanctions, vigorously. iran's recent missile test, for example, was a violation of its international obligations. and as a result, the united states is imposing sanctions on individuals and companies working to advance iran's ballistic missile program. and we are going to remain vigilant about it. we're not going to waver in the defense of our security or that of our allies and partners.
2:58 pm
but i do want to once again speak directly to the iranian people. yours is a great civilization, with a vibrant culture that has so much to contribute to the world -- in commerce, and in science and the arts. for decades, your government's threats and actions to destabilize your region have isolated iran from much of the world. and now our governments are talking with one another. following the nuclear deal, you -- especially young iranians -- have the opportunity to begin building new ties with the world. we have a rare chance to pursue a new path -- a different, better future that delivers progress for both our peoples and the wider world. that's the opportunity before the iranian people. we need to take advantage of that. and to my fellow americans, today, we're united in welcoming home sons and husbands and brothers who, in lonely prison cells, have endured an absolute nightmare. but they never gave in and they never gave up. at long last, they can stand
2:59 pm
tall and breathe deep the fresh air of freedom. as a nation, we face real challenges, around the world and here at home. many of them will not be resolved quickly or easily. but today's progress -- americans coming home, an iran that has rolled back its nuclear program and accepted unprecedented monitoring of that program -- these things are a reminder of what we can achieve when we lead with strength and with wisdom. with courage and resolve and patience. america can do -- and has done -- big things when we work together. we can leave this world and make it safer and more secure for our children and our grandchildren for generations to come. i want to thank once again secretary kerry. our entire national security team, led by susan rice. i'm grateful for all the assistance that we received from
3:00 pm
our allies and partners. and i am hopeful that this signals the opportunity at least for iran to work more cooperatively with nations around the world to advance their interests and the interests of people who are looking for peace and security for their families. thank you so much. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. >> cnn reports the plane carrying three of the four americans freed by iran as part of that prisoner swap has landed in switzerland. family membersh and a state department official tweeted the news this afternoon. this was plane carrying the washington post journalist, a u.s. marine veteran, and a passenger has landed.
3:01 pm
government officials will not confirm who was aboard. they will board another plane headed to a u.s. base in germany . the statement was released on the prisoner swap with iran a disturbing pattern is emerging where the obama administration is willing to negotiate the release of spies, terrorists and criminals. i fail to see how this will help the long-term security of the united states and its systems. some of the presidential candidates were guests on the sunday morning news shows and offer their reactions to the 's sanctions.e iran we begin with hillary clinton. ms. clinton: if the implementation of the agreement being done today is to be successful in the way i expected, we are going to watch iran like the proverbial hawk. to iran, they are
3:02 pm
under security council sanctions and if they are violating it, they should be held accountable. they need to know this is a good step forward with respect to the nuclear weapons program, but there are other areas of their behavior we are continued to be focused on. >> do you consider iran a national security threat to the united states? ms. clinton: we have lowered that threat because of the nuclear agreement but we have -- they have continued to destabilize government in the middle east and continue to support proxies and terrorist groups like hezbollah and continue to threaten israel. what i have said for some time now is i would rather have the nuclear weapons program off to one side and work to make sure they abide by the agreement and turn our attention to some of these other behaviors that
3:03 pm
are threatening in the region and therefore cause concern for us. >> is iran still an enemy of the united states? mr. sanders: if you think back to 2007 during the campaign in which secretary clinton ran against barack obama -- she was critical of him. would you sit down and talk to the iranians and he said yes, i would. point being you talk to your adversaries. you'd don't run away from them. secretary clinton called him naive but it turns out obama was right. clearly, we have many issues with iran, but we want to improve our relationship with this powerful country. the agreement to make certain iran does not get a nuclear weapon was a huge step forward. the fact we had this prisoner release was a good step forward.
3:04 pm
i hope we can continue to go forward in our relationship with iran. >> phrase god the americans are coming home and millions of levers across the world have been lifting them up in prayer. home.ebrate their coming wife,e yesterday to his who have gotten to know very well and we are all grateful he is coming but this deal is a problematic deal and it reflects a pattern we have seen in the obama administration over and over again of negotiating with terrorists and making deals and danger this has a lot in common with the bowe bergdahl deal. ,n exchange for bowe bergdahl
3:05 pm
we released five senior taliban .nd terrorist in this instance this deal to bring back americans who were wrongly imprisoned, we released seven terrorists who helped iran with their nuclear program and we agreed not to prosecute another 14 terrorists are doing the same thing. of texasll see more senator ted cruz this evening when our road to the white house coverage continues with a campaign event in milford, new hampshire. that is life at 5:00 eastern on c-span. republican presidential hopeful, donald trump, brought his campaign to new hampshire where he talked to supporters at a rally and talk about the announcement of the iranian prisoner swap and criticized ted cruz for his remarks about new york values. that was part of a series of forums featuring republican presidential candidate posted by scott around. new hampshire was the first
3:06 pm
residential primary on february 9. this is just under one hour. >> i thought this would be good to have a candidates come through and you would have your chance to ask the questions. we have a very exciting candidate and a very important game. i hope you all enjoy and i will turn it over to scott. .> thank you very much obviously a very exciting time. for participating in
3:07 pm
the democratic process and learning and growing and understanding the issue. who is aomeone supporter of mine and a dear friend and business leader, philanthropist and real estate mogul. he understands the issues and is talking about things people are talking about in their living rooms and dining rooms. they are talking about the debt and deficit, taxing and spending at all of the things you and i are talking about. he is somebody who has gotten america's attention. to thewelcome you business leader, real estate leader, father, husband, the next president of the united states, donald trump. [applause] mr. trump: wow, that's great. that is a lot of people.
3:08 pm
that's a lot of beautiful people. now, the only thing i told scott, you have to do me one favor. i'll do it, but if we have the biggest crowd you have ever had even though we are in the middle of the worst snowstorm. we don't have snow like this in new york. this is one beautiful -- i don't think i will be out of here. i do not think the airplane will be lifting off soon. i said you have to announce it is the biggest crowd you've ever had. i said, is it? he said yes. scott: i think they will actually shovel your plan so you can get off. mr. trump: lick it all the people up there. wow. that is amazing. this is a great facility with a
3:09 pm
great owner. thank you very much. really nice. first thing i have to do because he is a friend of mine, an amazing guy, and amazing champion, and a really nice person. on, tom. you have to win, tom. he is a fantastic guy. as good as he is is a player, he is like that is a person to. he is a little injured, but he is still better than anybody. you have the best coach, the best owner, a special group. i was thinking about, to see if you are really trump fans, i was gone he you here beyond 4:00. no, we'll be out of your very quick. if i don't make a quick, i definitely won't be able to lift off. this journey began in june. nobody had any idea it was going to be like this. i've been on the cover of time magazine so many times over the last few months it has been incredible.
3:10 pm
last week's time cover, i loved the story. i thought it was well written, professionally written, without any barbs. usually, even when we get the right stories, the people in the back have to take a shot. you will have 2 paragraphs, and a kill. three good ones, and a kill. and in the end the story is lousy because the kills are bigger than the good ones. this described what it happened with the campaign. the wall street journal has an incredible article about the debate. the debate, myself and the debate. a lot of people have the articles and have put out really nice things as to what happened in the debate, and are happy with the end result. i have had someone following me a long and being very nice no matter what i said. i kept saying "i am a professional," i said when his ted cruz going to say something bad? i kept saying good, good, good.
3:11 pm
i am waiting. a lot of people do not like ted, to put it mildly. i said, mib only person that thinks he is a nice guy? it turns out he finally went off the wagon and went a little crazy. he is a hypocrite. his talking about protecting, then he pounds out -- found out on his personal disclosure of fund he did not disclose he was borrowing money from goldman sachs and said he forgot. then there is another story where he forgot citibank. how do you control citibank and -- and fairly -- and write fairly about goldman sachs, citibank, and yet you all the money with a personal guarantee. he obviously did not want voters
3:12 pm
to know he is controlled, lock stock and barrel, by citibank and goldman sachs. i think that is hypocritical, to be honest with you. i think it is very hypocritical. [applause] then he spoke badly about the people of new york. cities are cities, but they are basically people. brick and mortar and people. he spoke disparagingly about the people of new york. when the world trade center came down i watched these incredible people rebuild from the day he came down, literally. they were there. when other buildings in the surrounding area they thought were going to fall, and you had people working, trying to help. the most terrific site you've ever seen -- trying to help, doing what they could.
3:13 pm
i was there when we thought the u.s. steel building was coming down. these two massive wonderful firemen. we heard a screech -- steel on steel. there's a couple of days after the building -- we had a crew of people to help. they needed a lot of help. i've never seen anything like i saw. they heard a screech. everyone thought the u.s. steel building was coming down. it was not so far from us. these two workers, massive guys -- they were massive. i'm a big guy. they grabbed me. i never knew i could run that fast. they were running just as fast. they had my arms, and we were running. they are incredible people. when you think, firemen coming in from long island and other parts of new york -- you are insulting 25 million people if you talk about the area. they heard about it.
3:14 pm
firemen driving in the had nothing to do with it from long island and other parts. driving in from iowa and all over the country. we had fire departments from iowa coming in. it was incredible to see and witness. people coming in from all over. firemen coming entering the blaze new the building was in serious trouble. they got there through the tunnels, up, stop, and run. they run into the buildings, they run up the stairs. they knew it could collapse. everyone knew it could collapse. the building coming down. first building, second building. you have people running up the stairs as that is happening. and ted cruz criticizes new york, the people of new york -- it is a disgrace. a total disgrace. [applause] a total disgrace. i have to say, it is a good.
3:15 pm
i thought what he said was very sad. even during the debate, he said -- the phone numbers. -- the poll numbers. don't forget, they kept using the word "plateau." first i was at 6, they said he had plateaued. next i was at 12, 14, 18, or whatever the numbers may have been. then i hit 17, 20. every week it was, he has plateaued. then i got up around 20 or were 25, they said, this is an good. then a couple of polls had me at 42. 42%. 30 good, right? -- pretty good, right. now they are dropping out. after iowa or new hampshire a lot of people will leave. when you have 42 and 15 or 14
3:16 pm
people they are talking about, that is a tremendous percentage. i would take that if we have three, but we certainly take it if we have 50 people. it has been an amazing run. i have really enjoyed it. people say to me, what have you learned? one of the things i learned -- scott, and you probably learned this too -- i have been written about very falsely, and the public gets it. they really understand. some guy said on television -- they will say things that are not believable. i supported john mccain, he lost. i supported mitt romney, he lost. it's ok. mitt romney, i thought he should have won.
3:17 pm
we had a failing president. i supported these two guys. i supported very heavily john mccain. i raised a lot of money for him, was on his campaign, and everything else. bill o'reilly -- great guy. this dopey guy -- glenn beck. he is like a dope. i watch them cry on television all the time. he is doing very badly. his thing is falling apart. i see him on television. i called bill o'reilly, and said, bill, white you have a guy like that on television. fox fired him. the thing that bothers me. he said, donald trump voted for barack obama. me! here is the problem. the thing about having a big microphone is we can at least explain to people that these people lied. they lie so much.
3:18 pm
the reason he did not like me is because i did not do his show. he asked me so many times, do my show -- i did not do it because i don't respect him. i'm so busy. i couldn't do his show. timewise. all of a sudden, another time goes by. i understand that. he started hating me. the guy goes on television last night and says i voted for barack obama, and i raised a tremendous amount of money for john mccain, had dinner with john mccain and his wife right before the election, and i had to listen to glenn beck saying i voted for obama. most people would not bring it up, but it is sort of a good thing to bring up, if you can -- if you can have the experience of talking to people. some people see something like that, and they believe in. there's no one to review them. do you agree with that? you agree? all you do is make him a little bit bigger. he is a fellow guy -- failed guy.
3:19 pm
it is so dishonest there with the media. so dishonest. the things that i have learned, more than anything else, is how smart the public is, how caring the public is, and when i flip stadiums, i philip places -- it's incredible, like today, so many people and the snowstorm. they're doing it because my theme is, "make america great again." very simple. [applause] mr. trump: it is make america great.
3:20 pm
very simple. very factual. that is what we are going to do. we will make it great. i go to dallas -- we have 21,000 people. mobile, alabama, 35,000 people. oklahoma, 20,000 people. in new hampshire, in lowell, we had to send away 7000 people. still, we will go back and take care of those 7000 people. i felt badly. that big arena, we not only filled it up, we had to send away 7000 people. whether it is new hampshire, iowa, south carolina, we are doing so well. the reason is because people really want hope. there is no hope with these people we have running for office, except for him, of course -- he is a good man, by the way. are you going to do it again? i hope. we have to get him back. we are losing our good ones. the right thing will happen, and we will be behind him 100%. vice president? hey -- [applause] mr. trump: look at that guy -- great guy.
3:21 pm
beautiful, great wife and family. what i have seen is the level of enthusiasm and brilliance of the people. the people, as a unit. the people are so smart. they really get it. if they did not get it, they would not be showing up in mass numbers. it is like a movement. i got a call from a top writer -- a liberal writer, it's ok, we take those calls, not too many of them. summer had ended, we were doing well, they called it the "summer of trump," he asked a question, "how does it feel?" he said, you have dominated everything, how does it feel? i said, it does not feel any different.
3:22 pm
i said, unless i win, what difference does it make? he said, you have changed politics as we know it. i said, if i don't win, it doesn't matter. all of these things -- the strength of the border, or any of the other things, the trade deals, putting the right people in place -- china is making 500 -- you look, we have a trade deficit with china, $500 billion. it is not going to happen if i'm running. [applause] mr. trump: so, essentially, i said -- i respect him, summer of trump, now he said, it is the " autumn of trump." it does not matter unless i win. i can look at all these headlines, "the wall street
3:23 pm
journal" was very nice today, they talked about the debate -- it all doesn't matter because unless we win, we cannot put the right things think year. idea with the politicians. they are all talk, no action. when i say build the wall, they don't know. it'll have a clue. -- they don't have a clue. when i say the different elements that i say, and say it strongly -- for example, who will pay for the wall? mexico will pay for the ball. remember? i said it. the politicians come up to me -- a couple of them, nice people, i get along with most of them -- they say, mexico will not pay for the wall. sure they will. every business person in this room gets it. you get a?
3:24 pm
i bet this guy does. if you are making and billions more than the rest of the world, you will pay. ford moving to mexico -- many companies moving to mexico. they will pay 100%. not like 99 -- 100%. you have to have flexibility, maybe they don't want to do it one way, another way. we will get along with a better than we do right now. right now, they're taking advantage of us. i know mexico very well. i have thousands of people from mexico and hispanic employees -- tens of thousands over the years. fantastic people. unbelievable people. the leaders are too smart for our leaders, and too cunning. what is happening at the border is a disgrace. the whole thing is a total
3:25 pm
disgrace. in mexico, it is probably the hardest, but one of the hardest -- if scott and his beautiful family want to become citizens of mexico, which is unlikely -- i think they are very happy in new hampshire -- it would be impossible for that to happen. impossible. here, we have people that go through, walk-through, and they might as well be citizens because the illegal immigrants are treated better than our vets. i'm telling you. treated better than our vets. scott knows. i have a friend of went to mexico, he was there for like a week. he was there with his family, and extra day or two days because they had a problem with transportation, and they got called by the guards, when are you leaving? by the way, it is not wrong for them. here, when are you leaving? "i will leave when i want." border patrol called me, they wanted to talk with me.
3:26 pm
i met with them of the -- in laredo, texas. stand back. we have a great country, but we will make it so much better. so much sharper. we're not going to have leaders that are incompetent. i guarantee you. i talked so much with the prisoners, the iran deal -- did anyone get sick watching that? and you would have gotten totally sick. i would not have wanted to call you then. sick and angry. people were saying the other day, trump is angry. of course i'm angry. who would not be angry? the country is a mess.
3:27 pm
i am angry. i will be angry for long because when i fix it, i will be very happy. [applause] mr. trump: thank you. right now, i am angry. think of the scene. you have these 10 sailors, i don't know what happened -- i guess they took a shortcut through a big body of water. big deal. they get locked in. they are dropped to their knees in a begging position, hands up, guns to their heads. this is supposed to be our ally? trust me, folks. one of the stupidest deals ever made -- by the way, double not do anything with nuclear, besides proliferate. we have made interrogation of very rich nation. more importantly, we have given them iraq.
3:28 pm
they have been trying to get iraq forever. as far back as you can go in time, they have wanted iraq. iraq has, by the way, the second-largest oil reserves in the world. not only did i ran get this deal, but they got iraq, courtesy of the united states. now they are taking over yemen. it is a long, beautiful border with saudi arabia because they want to go get that oil too. what iran has done is incredible. $150 million. i guarantee you that the united states has been putting so much pressure -- please give us our prisoners back -- this should have been done for years ago. they should've said, we want our prisoners back. the reason, and what is happening, the reason they let the sailors go is because in today's they were getting $150 billion. these are smart people. they had to get the money.
3:29 pm
they let them go. i guarantee you, if that money was not play, they would have kept the sailors. 100%. somebody said they are getting seven people back. essentially, they get $150 billion plus seven. we get four. it does not sound too good. we have to see. i just heard about this an hour ago. i happy they are coming back. i will tell you, it is a disgrace they have been there so long. a total disgrace. [applause] when we started, just to finish, then scott and i will talk for a few minutes, but when we started, it really works. it really started off as trade, border, then we had pairs, and it started looking like this whole situation was taking a very deep and dark -- becoming a very deep and dark picture.
3:30 pm
all of a sudden, cnn did the first poll -- i don't want to give them any unnecessary treatment because they don't treat me great, but i guess they are legit with the polls because trump is always winning the polls. who wins on the economy? i don't mean he gets double, triple, quadruple. much more than any mouse. who wins on isis? a military? trump come a trump, trump. this started happening pretty much since paris then you had that horrible situation in california with the couple. she comes in on the fiance permit which is radicalized and the other guy is probably radicalized and he became radicalized. people give them a wedding reception.
3:31 pm
something's going wrong. we have to figure it out, folks. even today i'm leaving and i see what was happening today. a hotel blown up. many people dead. just blown up, innocent people blown up. , talking trade center about the world trade center. flying airplanes into the pentagon. the third plane? who knows where it was going. they say the white house, but who knows. great people on that plane. brave people. something's going on. i have been talking much more about the military. they have much more confidence from me than they do in these politicians that don't know anything. they don't, believe me. everything is -- you know the word, unpredictable. sometimes it's very tough for me. they say -- what do you do about this? what do you do about this? i don't want to tell you what am
3:32 pm
going to do with the military. i never wanted to say it. i wanted to surprise them, right? [laughter] it got to the point where i had to tell them. they say that she doesn't really know. finally, i had to do it. you have to win. i hated to tell them that take the oil. the government said -- you can't take the oil. general macarthur couldn't do it , they would have had the oil four years ago. [applause] he would have had the oil before he stepped out of his airplane to claim victory, right? it's one of those things. a couple of weeks ago right after paris they started thinking oil finally, finally. i said -- take the oil, keep the oil. they just take the oil. they just on the oil. you buy it, you keep it, right? you distribute it. you give some to the veterans,
3:33 pm
to the wounded warriors in the families who lost people and you give some to the families that have had death and horror in their lives. what did we get out of iraq? at cost.r trillion thousands of lives. wounded warriors that we love all over the place, nothing and they won't even lives -- won't even listen to us. i said -- keep the oil. we will give some to the people that were really affected. you have families that lost sons and daughters and i have nothing . they have nothing. going to run the country properly. we will be respected again. it's great that you are here and if i don't get the hell out of your i will never be able to get out of. >> -- out of here. hear it for donald trump, everybody. [cheers and applause] you already talked about at
3:34 pm
great length right now about the border in your position on that issue. 35 yearsne who served in the military. i've had many people come up to me who are probably going to raise their hands but i will ask questions for veterans. you are right, the v.a. is screwed up. you have people hurting, dying while waiting in line. they pass a bill after people dying and they still have not done anything. the question from the crowd is -- what will you do to help our veterans? trump: the v.a. is one of the in therrupt enterprises country. it's so poorly run. with that being said, by the way, i have met some people who are great doctors and some of them are saying they are fantastic that the administration is largely corrupt and it is a disgrace what's going on with them. i hear somebody scratching up there. who's back there?
3:35 pm
the v.a. is absolutely disgraceful and we are going to run it professionally and one of the things we will do, one of the biggest problems with it, or sevene waiting six days trying to get a pill or a minor procedure and many people are dying while waiting and we are going to work a system -- i put out a policy which i think has of you have seen and it been really praised, when you have six and five day weights where the doctors cannot see you, you will go to the local hospital, a local doctor, you will pay the bill and get taken care of properly and quickly. that's the way it is. in the end it's going to be a lot cheaper. [applause] we will do that, among other things. >> think you for that has come up as i have been walking around -- a lot of folks are deeply concerned about that $19 chilean and rising national debt.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on