washington and getting your finances in order. really making washington more efficient, having to run it the way the private sector would run their business in hard times. washington has not gone that million. >> representative libor less. >> serve. >> live on c-span2. senator joe mentioned, democrat of west virginia. senator, what, first of all, was your impression overall. >> encouraging comments encouraging points an encouraging message. there are some things that still very challenging to me in the state of west virginia on energy , and it looks like fossil or call. we have to get together. irrigation that embraces everything we have the have the balance between the economy in the environment to make sure we can produce the energy this country depends on and not rely on foreign oil or foreign energy

whatsoever. that was concerning. but the incentives to about rewarding people with tax incentives if you can create a job, and it's all about jobs. i think those incentives and tax reforms that really create jobs is what we need to look at. was encouraged. maybe we're looking it's something in corporate tax reform that could be productive. in the thought some of the tone that was used to have been done a little bit differently. now was a governor of the state. only the powers of the office. under the constitution of the state of west virginia. and the that i was responsible for day-to-day operations to run it effectively and efficiently as i could. i would use all the powers of the office. but i will not make it sound as if i was going to go beyond the powers or do it my way with the you. that could -- that term could have been a little bit conciliatory which to "the

president and you touched on this a minute ago, climate changes affect. what does that say to western junior? >> climate changes affect. 7 billion people. we don't deny that. not at all. the what we have been able to produce for this country for 100 more years, we have given the country the life that has to be eliminated the superpower that it yesterday. we have given people -- we brought them out of disparity into prosperity. has been the energy is produced build the factories and defended the country, so we have done all of that. we should build of the credit. the department of energy says there will be using call for the next 30 years. they needed to produce most of the energy that this country will be consuming. of the other end, the president mentioned, so we are doing everything humanly possible. we just need a willing partner,

a helping hand every now and then. we are doing that and using 18 of the fossil, the other 7/8 to using different parts, the technology that we have developed in west virginia, other parts of this country and taken out and try to clean up the rest of the environment. >> speaking of the environment, the elk river in charleston. what is the current status of that? has the epa and the interior department and helpful? >> everybody has been extremely helpful. the president declared the emergency. we get all the help we need. it was a horrific situation that could happen anywhere. it was a non hazmat material, by being none as material it was a look at and being hazardous. you can see, think of we had no deaths attributed to this horrific tragedy, but again there has been a disruption of lives. the uncomfortable situation that we put people in and the loss of the economy and the jobs of the work that was lost because of

this attempt. of the uncertainty that people have with the contrast that again. our goal in west virginia, especially in that valley right now is to have the cleanest water in america. you have to come back better and bigger and stronger. you will have legislation, the federal government working with barbara boxer and republicans all across the board to give all the states a wake-up call to say listen, look at what you have a new waterways, look at the nun has best of the have not really been looking at and go and see what is there. >> and finally the president said that he would act regulatory on gun legislation with all without congress. >> again, i think he could have chosen his words better. when i was the governor and responsibilities. to do everything but the powers i had with in the office of governor to run this government as efficiently and effectively as a possibly could. but to make it sound like an going to go outside the

boundaries of the constitution and do what i think is best without approval of the legislature or without the approval of congress rose people wrong. is just not who we are as people. so maybe it just is his choice of words that could have been better. i know as a former governor and staunch defender of the constitution as said, listen, you can't regulate what has not been legislated outside the powers the you were given. you just can't do it. >> joe mention, senator, democrat, was virginia. >> they keep. appreciate. >> this is c-span2 live coverage from century hall. following the president's one hour 20 pasty of the union address, this was his fifth state of the union address. representative, republican of louisiana. gop study committee chair. was there anything in it he agreed with the president?

>> well, you know, the president talks about and all of the above energy strategy, something have agreed with our long time. unfortunately his actions had not met that promise that we appreciate in south louisiana with the drilling that we would like to do more of. unfortunately the federal policies of the president's post have close of more areas in the outer continental shelf, closed off a lot of federal land. the president is using the epa to go after the hydraulic fracturing revolution as created all this great new economic opportunity for natural gas which actually helps lower gas prices. so a lot of the things the president talks about energy he just has not followed up. he literally has had a war in the coal industry commissioned that industry them. it actually increased the cost of energy. elected the freezing temperatures your seeing across the country. we had snow in new orleans today as a lot of irony in that.

i wish his actions would mean a lot of awards. >> as a member of the republican study committee on a chair, considered conservative, did he talk about the deficit? >> in fact, the president laid out a lot of new spending ideas. a lot of the speech, a lot of new government spending, no real plan for where the money would come from all where the priorities are. in the way he criticized those of us who actually tried to push to control spending and force washington to live within its means. a lot of his policies have increased our debt in a exponential ways that no other president has done. if you look at the threat of of control spending in washington is never been greater. the challenges that it poses, and it poses a big threat to rao and children. and people their graduate or cause no, the president talked about the student loan debt. the problem most of those zero people have today is they can

get a job in this obama economy because of the policies of this president. if you really want to talk about something that would resonate with people he should have talked about ways he can work with republicans to create jobs. he talked a lot about using his pen. is that the cameras. will make a positive result. the president can't write laws of the pen. that's why you have an executive branch legislative branch to be a check in the balance. the president could do is sign the keystone pipeline to create 25,000 jobs to date divi-divi does not want to. a lot of time talking about the diseases that have the authority to do. we should talk more about the things he does have the authority to do. >> i think i saw fellow louisiana and running around here, another member of congress, but a lilly robertson, i think. >> willie robinson, a debt that is defame from west monroe, louisiana. get to visit with the religious right. somebody we're proud of, somebody represents the kind of values that make this country

great. he comes under attack for. he is proud of it. they prayed the end of every episode which is something they insisted upon. as a the kind of values they share. i think a lot of people feel those kinds of values are under attack. >> republican of louisiana, chair of the republican study committee. appreciate your time. the last time we talk to our next guest we were talking about a book. congresswoman, chair of the dnc to read author. from the dnc perspective, what the president did commit is it tough coming is easy for you to

raise money on what he had to say or is it tough to get dollars? >> first and foremost was here as a member of the united states has representatives. as their representative was proud of the president's speech because the of stresses and, made clear that he continues to be willing and wants to work with them to find common ground cannot do it on his way to live up to it all their weight. we have a lot of challenges that we need to continue to live for their work cut together. but as they continue to throw obstacles in his wake to be intransigent and did things like shutting the government kemp to bring this to the brink of economic disaster refusing to pay our nation's bills lay he would take the action that he stood to move our country forward. that is good policy and good politics. so it is helpful both for me as a member of congress and also as the chair of the dnc.

>> an issue that you have been in the press about recently. the president essentially said he is ready to negotiate. if not? >> we have an interim agreement that has been negotiated. there in the process of the interim agreement is in place of negotiating to see if they're is a possibility of a permanent agreement. but the president made it clear that we certainly don't trust. that is what the overwhelming majority of the sanctions remain in place. but there has been some minimal relief from sanctions with a good thing about the interim agreement is that it alters the iranian ability to continue to work toward a nuclear weapon. and, you know, we will see through the negotiation process over the six months whether it is possible. the we have sanctions that are there in place that will remain in place and hopefully have enough incentive to make sure

that the iranians are willing to stay at the table and completed deal. we will sequencer before you came over we were talking with chair of the republican study committee. you were talking about the word investment that the president used. he said that is money. we know the pay for it. >> well, unfortunately the reflexive reaction of almost all the republicans in their conference is that they don't want to pay for anything. they seem to think that we can halve the world-class education system that we need for the competitive global economy so that we can insure that we have an infrastructure that not only is not crumbling but that can sustain an economy that needs to be able to compete all across the world without paying for it. and that is ignorance is a harsh term, but leave, i mean, at the end of the day we cannot spend

too much money. we have to make sound investments command that is what the president talks about the we have to and spend money, spends more money that will move the economy forward. >> you have a guest with the? >> i do. i do. a constituent of mine for florida. he was my guest this evening because he actually sent me an e-mail talking to me about his experiences onion for the affordable care act. let him share that with you. >> what was that experience? >> i went on to the affordable website. no expectations of what i was going to find. even before that i was kind of a naysayer in the whole experience and what i found on there was many different rates, many different plants that enabled my business, which is a small business status of florida to save about 40% over the premiums

of we would have ended up paying. so basically when you take a look get everything, including the deductible, the amount of the premium and the other spences, it took us back to where roughly paying in about 2004. so was a very different experience than i encountered without having any anticipation of what i would actually find on there. >> what did you think when you get an e-mail or call back from debbie wasser results asking if you want to come to washington. >> you know, it was quite thrilling. was not quite as fast as that because the coverage will ask me to do a local press conference which i'd never done before. and then there were a couple, but a weaker so, we can have the woodpile. living at the very unusual call from the congress will in personally inviting me to come up here. it was a tremendous honor. i accepted straightaway because, you know, to be visiting friend of the president to save the union is a remarkable thing to

happen. so very, very thrilled. >> i think he just wanted to experience 15 degrees rather than florida weather. think you very much. there's a woman, up the next we meet its in miami and. if you're interested in hearing him talk about her book, booktv.org, you can watch it on line. it was live last november at the miami book fair. thank you for your time. >> a great story. danny hoyer is the minority whip, democratic whip for the house of representatives. >> hi. >> the president said three times he may act without the congress. >> he said we want to work together. but if you don't work and not going to be immobilized to forget that i have been elected by all the people to do things to men and going to do things to try to create jobs, grow our economy, invest in the education of our kids in the job training

of our workers. and going to do things. and i think that is what the american people expect all of us to do. his message was, let's do it together. let's work together to make america better. and that the debt is a mess is the american public will respond to and say, yes, that's well what to do. and they also don't want -- of the congress won't help, of the congress will participate, for the president to just sit there will the kutcher does not make the progress the people milanese. >> where do you see common ground between the democrats and republicans in the house? >> i think there is common ground in that everybody says they want to grow the economy. the president said he wanted to see taxes reduced on businesses that were doing in going jobs here in america. and did not want to the advantage those who were taking jobs overseas and what a to make sure that people could bring

profits home. so from that standpoint i think we can reach common ground. think we ought to be able to reach common ground and cumbria's of immigration reform. 70 percent of the american people think that makes sense. the chamber of commerce this that makes sense. the afl-cio optics that makes sense. for motorists think it makes sense. farmworkers think it makes sense. angelico's think it makes sense. certainly the congress of the united states ought to agree with the overwhelming majority of the american people and interest groups sunnyside that it makes sense to do. those jobs grow our economy and it is the right thing to do from a moral standpoint in any event. so i would hope we can reach common ground and, frankly, the speaker is taking steps to address immigration. the majority leader says the immigration system is broken. so we certainly have a consensus

that it needs change. we certainly ought to be able to reach consensus on how to do that. >> yet been around here for a while, heard a lot of the state of the union addresses. this is the fifth from this president. give us the kind of running commentary on the state of the union addresses. >> most of the addresses i of persia follow pretty good. the president, republican, democrat, and been here since ronald reagan. so ronald reagan, george bush the first, but the oakland fifth, george bush the second domino barack obama. at the most of the speeches i never did give are good. it's interesting. the party's line of. that's a good speech. if you're a republican, that stops a lot. democrats ought to do the same. that is not the key. the key is, how does the public respond.

we are, after all, representatives of the public. he is really speaking to them. speaking to their aspirations and hopes and concerns there will reflect that. if we're listening, as representatives have a responsibility to do. their response to the president's vision to get out to be reflected in the congress cannot perfectly are absolutely, but that is what presidents are trying to do, not so much appeal to the members. but once the with the american public in the eye and say this is where we've come. this is what we need to do. this is what i want to do. >> democratic whip in the house of representatives. >> you're watching c-span2, live coverage following the state of the union of statuary hall where

members of congress and the media and no. this chamber of the house representatives for 50 years. by the way, the first time devastated union address was delivered over the radio was 1923. calvin coolidge. first time it was on tv, 1947. the last president not to deliver a state of the union address pfft was jimmy carter. joining yes to a michigan republican. give us your assessment. >> and me to disagree with the minority leader did. you're the president say he would go round congress. he felt that -- he wants to work with congress. i take him at his word. he is ready to go around congress for those big things that he was to get done. that's a huge mistake. most of the speech was a lot of stuff that we ever before.

fifth this is no live their fourth time that have are a lot of that. indian the really big stuff seven like he was just praying to god alone. at think that's a huge mistake. >> if you have part of his old congressional district. yes. reading a book right now, right it would have gone, which is sort of his off the record discussion. it is interesting. i love history. it is interesting hearing began reading his perspective and what it was like in his responsibilities and how he handle the presidency in and he served as minority leader for the republicans in a very tumultuous game. in comparing and contrasting that right now. it's an interesting comparison. >> congressman, when you think of michigan and what the president had to say, was there

any areas of agreement in there? >> certainly the ending, talking about i'm the son of a disabled world war ii veteran. when the station can come together in support especially our wounded warriors, our troops that are coming back from combat , that is a very unifying thing. again, some of the smaller things talking about what might happen with my ira from a retirement program, we ought to see some of those details. up until the very end with the sergeant, the largest and most unifying applause line was america going to the olympics in getting gold. that is a pre lobar if that's going to be a level of success. help this president will work together. as to it is but two weeks. serve and financial-services. had to do with mergers and acquisitions. it's hard work. it's hard work reaching

consensus. and you are doing things that make sense that streamline the effectiveness of government when it comes to job creation here in the united states and think we can be consensus. fortune in the president has not worked toward that. talk about it but has not worked toward that in terms. >> will redo part coming to congress? >> i've done a couple of things. i was a state legislator. had been in district director. also a background in real estate and construction. a small sand and gravel operation. a foot into worlds. public policy as well as a private sector. >> spending a few minutes with us. we are about to talk to a fellow michigander. sander levin, the ranking member of the chairman of the ways and means committee. congressman, let's start on the opposite side. what did the president say they you just did not sit well with? >> i can't think of any.

the casey cover so many critical issues. they needed to be addressed. as think his message is very clear. let's put our shoulder to the wheel of collective action. but with that won't happen now will try to do my best as president. >> one of the issues that did not hear him talk about or see in his speech, tax reform, something that the ways and means committee has been talking about for the past year. >> he did refer to it. and he talked about the need to essentially straight knelt or call to make sure that people use the polls, that they'd use them to shift jobs overseas. at the same time we needed to make sure that we lowered

corporate rates but it away that work for everybody. so he did touch on tax reform. >> the same question. a second termer, republican from britain's. when you heard his speech, what did you think about? he also talked about other issues. he personalized the unemployment insurance. he said, quoting someone who was up in the gallery, where she said, give us a chance. don't throw them the cold. that is a statement from michigan for the entire country

those who thought he would come here feeling like he was somewhat handcuffed by this organization, i think he made it clear that we need to take the handcuffs off, work together, and indeed is what have handcuffs on. he will use the executive powers where appropriate. we have to get busy and act on all of these issues, health care , immigration, a private insurance, job training. i thought it was a stellar address in terms of what is really relevant to the people of this country. >> after this year there will only be one levin brother in congress. you're running for reelection? >> i am. >> what about your brother leaving? >> it is an emotional subject. we have been together 34 years.

i can't imagine not sitting with him. in the emotional subject. give me some time to adjust. >> sander levin, brother of carl levin, democrat of michigan. sander levin is the ranking member of the ways and means committee. >> best to be with you. >> the key. >> from orange county, california. >> look at this. a haven't had the month for 20 years. >> twenty-first got elected to congress he was known as the serving congressman, huntington beach area of california. congressman, five pages of this 20 page speech spent on foreign policy. and know it is an area that you are often involved. >> yes. i think that the president by

focusing on a run, i think that he was mistaken to compare it to the reagan years. i mean, there was substance and there was give-and-take on both sides when ronald reagan signed an agreement. in fact, he turns them a lot of agree with that were just fluff and basically pr oriented treaties. and so tonight when he started talking about that agreement with the regime in a room of a sword of winced when he tried to compare it to what ronald reagan did. after all, in this agreement we are giving up something that we put in place for years. economic sanctions. giving that up, dismantling that. they're giving up nothing. they're going to refrain from doing something in the future if we give up something no. no, they should be dismantling some of their nuclear facilities rendell, some of the equipment that they need, the centrifuges

now if we're going to dismantle our economic sections. added that think that was -- that did not endear me to the president's and give me confidence. >> someone they used to write speeches ronald reagan, what did you think of the overall text? >> the president's speech, and he condemned in the think i just happened to be sitting there. he shook my hand. i said to my good job is to present. it was a good job in his delivery and tone. unfortunately the substance was about as arrogant and belligerent as any speech that i have ever given by president to congress. he's basically saying either do it or i will do it on my own. it is my way of the highway does the president really have a party without congress to do all these things? raise the minimum wage. though we live in a society where there was a fathers wrote

the constitution and give the power to legislative and executive branch, not just the executive branch. i was -- i thought that the tone , wild a good delivery soared of massed the belligerent message that was under -- that was right there in the substance of his speech. >> republican of california. >> one more thing, look, we republicans are always portrayed as heartless or whenever. the president spends half of his time trying to it further that stereotype of republicans. ..

talk about how much he cared about the up employed he's advocating so strongly the amnesty that not only add the 10 to 20 million illegal here but likely bring in so many millions more. you talked about the republican's reputation. have they been ineffective in their messages? >> i think that the republicans are ineffective in messaging. ronald reagan -- i was a speech writer for seven years, and reagan didn't have a problem with this. when reagan was president, we sort of broke through these barriers because he was a good communicator. i find the republicans have trouble in vocalizing and to --

and -- how do you say projecting their fashion for the things they believe in their and love in their heart for the fellow americans. it's sort of a -- they're sort of businessmen and business-like. they find it hard to protect those things. democrats, they don't have any problem with this. and half of their message is vote for me because i care about you, and that may not be reflected at all on whether the policies actually help the american people or not. >> reporter: once again, thank you very much, sir. and from california to minnesota. >> minnesota! >> reporter: senator from minnesota. the senior senator from minnesota. amy klobuchar. >> the president mentioned tonight. >> that's right. did you have a chance to meet with the president's guest from minneapolis? punch pizza? >> i certainly did. we had the ceo, john, in my office along with a cook that the president mentioned, nick.

they were excited to be here. i think it was a great example of a small company with a number of pizza places in minnesota that just on their own decided they can compete better if they increase the minimum wage. i will say i may have been the only one cheering in the chamber when the pizza place was mentioned. it was a great example. i thought the president's speech, not only touched on that frame of the economic opportunity, how important it is, but the work force training and also, i think, the most surprising moment was probably the reaction when he said we're not living in a "mad men" episode. and got the entire chamber, as far as i could see, i'm sure a few were -- most of the people most republicans stood when he said women, if they do the same amount of work, should be paid the same. what i'm hoping is we'll have a groundswell of support for the paycheck fairness act which is a bill that basically says that was. it was a great only it reflects not only women in the workplace, but also, not just numbers, but

power of women in congress. >> reporter: senator klobuchar, does it feel like a "mad men" episode sometimes in the senate? >> no. that's a different kind of madmen. i thought, actually, today, i'm not saying people were boisterous, republicans about the president's speech in any enthusiastic way. i will say there was a stability and respect. and several moments where everyone united or cheered. it wasn't just the olympics. they were cheering on immigration reform, work force training. given that the farm bill just got done, given that speaker boehner has signified some interest on immigration reform, like the senate has done. i think we could have action in the year of action. that's what the president was referring to at the end. if this soldier after what he went through and bonded in afghanistan, roadside bomb and ends up in a coma and teaches himself to talk again and

standing there. when the president said, you know, it's not easy. it's never easy. he was talking about that soldier. he was also talking about people struggling to put food on the table, he was talking about america. most specifically to congress, he was talking about our own democracy. it's in our hands. it's never been easy, we have to get some things done. >> reporter: how does the farm bill agreed to effect minnesota? >> we are a big agricultural state. one of the biggest. we're happy with the bill. not only does it provide the safety net, it produces the -- reduces the debt by over $20 billion by switching over from direct subsidies to crop insurance, it has strong conservation numbers in there. that's why all the conservation groups, including the hunting groups, were supportive of the bill. then it makes a much-needed funding changes to the energy title which was dormant without being funded. we're pleased with the bill, and we think it's a good thing. >> reporter: every couple of weeks when people play the

parlor game who runs for president in 2016. your name pops up. >> there you go. i love my job now, there's a lot of work to be done. thank you. >> reporter: senator amy klobuchar, democrat of minnesota. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. guys, finally i can get off -- someone took a picture of me holding my shoe. [laughter] >> reporter: and this is c-span live coverage. the hall is starting to empty out following the president's speech for the last hour or so we have been talking with members of congress about their views on the president's speech. an hour-long speech about 20 pages of type. one fifth of it dedicated to foreign policy. he in three different occasions said he would act with or withcongress. the speech will be online at white house.gov. you'll be able to watch it again. several times in the overnight

on c span and c-span.org as well. [inaudible conversations] as you can see, the room is almost emptied out. craig kaplan, our producer, has been wrangling the member of congress. we have john kelly on the camera where you see the wide shot. bob i are lee down here. set has been working with us, al porter on audio. this chamber we're in, 50 years it's been used as the house of representatives. 1870 to 1857. five presidents were inaugurated in this chamber. miller fill more, john quincyed a -- adams. james monroe. 1790 george washington delivered

the first president's address to the congress. that was up in new york. that was in 1790. woodrow wilson revived the habit of bringing the speech up here to congress. and ever since woodrow wilson, every president has delivered his state of the union in person. some presidents have delivered it on some years in written form. jimmy carter in 1981, as he was leaving the white house was the last president to deliver it in written form. the first time the speech was televised 1947, harry truman. the first time it was on radio 1923, calvin coolage. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

as you can see, crews are starting to pick up the equipment now as the room empties out. that was going wrap up our coverage from hall this even. president obama's fifth state of the union. you can rewatch the speech on c-span and at c-span.org. thank you for being with us. [inaudible conversations] combing up on c-span2 tonight, house foreign affair subcommittee exam the iran nuclear deal negotiations. and later consumer financial protection bureau director, richard cordray delivers his semiannual report to congress. on the next "washington journal," we'll discuss president obama's state of the union speech with republican representative tom price of

georgia. a member of the ways & means budget committee will outline the g.o.p.'s legislative priorities. we'll hear about the democrat's legislative agenda from representative john larson of connecticut. also a member of the ways & means committee. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. and you join the conversation on facebook and twitter. congressional members from both sides of the aisle will give their reaction to the president's state of the union wednesday at the event hosted by "politico." live coverage started at 8:05 a.m. eastern on c-span2. bringing attention to what women do or how women have contributed always returns to the question of the body. so for one thing, many people object to bringing women's studies or women's history in to a middle school, high school classroom because there's an assumption that women's studies

is only about sex, birth control, abortion, and actually it's also about women in politics, women in law, women working on farms, queens, prime ministers, -- [laughter] , and my job is to break down the fear many people have. what goes on in a women's study classroom. sunday women's history feminist movements and the antifeminist backlash. women study professor will take your questions in-depth live for three hours starting at noon eastern. booktv's in-depth on c-span2. an online you have a few days to weigh in on this month's booktv book club. join the conversation. go to booktv.org and click on book club to enter the chatroom. the next round of talks on iran's nuclear program are

expected to resume in mid february in new york. tuesday two house foreign affair subcommittees held a hearing to discuss the negotiations and the deal. this is two hours ten minutes. [inaudible conversations] timing is everything in life. thank you very much. so the joint subcommittee will come to order. after recognizing myself, ranking member, and we hear from the foreign affair committee chairman. ranking member sherman, for five minutes each for our opening statements. and then due to time limitation, we will go directly to the witness' testimony and without objection, the witnesses' prepared statements will be made a part of the record and members may have five days to insert statements and questions for the

record subject to the length limitation in the rules. the chair now recognizes herself for five minutes. on november 2, 2013 secretary kerry announced that an interim negotiated settlement had been reached between the p5+1 and iran on its nuclear program. the announcement contained the broad stroke but short on the details. the picture that was painted was that iran would agree to modest limits on its enrichment capabilities increased international atomic energy agency monitoring, the manufacturing center fiewj, and not fuel the iraq arak heavy water reactor. in exchange they would receive an easing of sanction on the oil sales and the suspension of certain on the import of precious metal and export from the auto and pet to chemical sector.

no doubt president obama will tout the deal as the ultimately achievement for diplomacy and peace while excoriating those who have too marty to say, wait a minute, i don't trust the iran yain regime. let's have a backup plan to increase sanctions on iran if found to be acted unfaithfully as history has shown it's not out of the realm of possibility. it was made in november, it wasn't until one week ago on january 20th, the technical details were agreed upon and finally implemented. the most glaring deficiency with the deal is the lob sidedness. they got a sweet heart deal and the rest of the world is not any safer from iranian bomb than before. our closest ally and friend in the region, the democratic jewish state of israel has been concerned with what this deal means for its security from the get go. and other countries in the gulf region feel slighted by our approach to this issue. butlet set aside the dangers

precedent that it sets for the rest of the world, and the bridges that we have burned with allies to reach the agreement. remember, this agreement doesn't even live up to the obligations set forth by the u.n. security council resolutions on iran, and is a far and far from our policy of disarmament from only 10 years ago. and focus on what iran is allowed to do. iran is allowed to keep its nuclear weapons program infrastructure intact and still be allowed to enrich. sure there are caps of the enrichment and it will have to convert some of the uranium to oxide, but iran will maintain the ability, know how, and proficiency that if it decide to break the agreement, it can toward breakout capability with only a minor setback in any time table. it's a shame that we have seemingly the demand that it has some sort of right to enrich. iran had long ago abandoned all

claims to a right of enrichment when it decided to conduct a covert nuclear program and was in violation of its international obligations under the npt and other treaties. it is; therefore, must not be allowed to enrich, and i fear that by starting out where the p5+1 did hear, iran will never be pushed off this dance in a final comprehensive agreement. the interim deal focuses on the nuclear aspect and falls short on iran's weaponization of efforts and ballistic missile program which it now has more time to advance. and there is nothing in to interim agreement that allows for the international atomic energy agency access to the military sites. and for me, that's really at the crux of the issue here. time. from announcement to implementation, two months' time has passed. this gave the regime plenty of time to continue to make

advancements while the parties hashed out all the technical details. i don't believe this was done by mistake on their part, as they are an expert in delayed tactic and double talk. in the two months after secretary kerry's press conference, tehran announced it made avancement in the icbm technology, it has designed a new generation uranium centrifuge and ready to manufacture them. and continue construction at the heavy water reaction in iraq. i envision in a scenario in which iran may comply with this agreement for six months, but even if iran does violate the terms of the agreement, the joint commission that it established in the final document has murky authority at best to conduct oversight, enforce compliance, or impose strict consequence. there's no mechanism that allows

for adjudication of violations in this deal, and that is very troublesome. bottom line, as long as the infrastructure is in place for iran to continue its nuclear program, the threat that it can create a nuclear weapon will always be all too real. and that where p5+1 momentarily failed in this interim agreement, and with stating just last week that iran would not dismantle any part of a nuclear program under any circumstance it leaves me fearing that the administration will accept -- it has me fearing what the administration will accept in a final comprehensive agreement. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses' testimonies and those of my colleagues. i turn to my good friend, the ranking member of florida. >> thank you, madam chairman for holding this hearing to example the implementation of the first phase of the iran nuclear deal. thank you to our panel of

distinguished experts for appearing today. we welcome your expertise and insight as we determine the actions under the jpoa and the next step of reaching a final agreement to achieve our ultimate goal. let me be clear from the outset, there's no doubt that resolving the nuclear crisis through diplomacy has been the preferred track of the administration and of the congress. i think we all recognize the significant achievement of the u.s. effort to bring iran to the table. there are many members on both sides who feel it is appropriate for congress, the body that built the sanctions architecture, that brought iran to the table, to remind the iranians that full -- full sanctions relief will come only when a deal the p5+1 and the regional ally is reached. this relief can only come if congress acts so it also suggests it's appropriate to send iran a reminder as well as to remind the company lining up

to visit tehran. a message of what is at stake if iran violates the term of the joint plan of action. a deal is in place. if we're going to move forward with a final view we have focus on them fulfilling their obligation by beginning to parameter of the solution. we are eight days in to the implementation of the joint plan of action. a six-month deal to freeze iran's nuclear activity resulting in sensation of iran's 20% enrichment and the convention of the current stockpile wells open up the nuclear program. and while the caps on iran's current program are substantial, we know they cannot be the terms of a long-term deal. we must ultimately see serious, permanent rollback of the program, not just easily reversible freezes. we know that the joint plan of action sets the course for iran to maintain and mutually define renner itchment program. iran continues to claim a right to enrich for nuclear power but

we must understand that none of iran's current enrichment activities are useful for a civilian nuclear program. consider iran already has a nuclear -- that is running on imported russian fuel. in fact, the russian deal requires the use of fuel just as other offers from western nations to fill the power needs are contingent on the use of imported fuel from those nations. it would take iran years to build a technology necessary to turn its low and enriched uranium in to fuel for a power reactor. we must remember none of the stockpile of domestically enriched uranium can be used in the nuclear reactor. to that end, the majority of nations with nuclear power don't domestically enrich uranium and instead import it from other countries. so what does it mean? the iranian stockpile essentially useless for the program. 19 centrifuge in seven ton of

enriched uranium are highly useful when a nation is trying to build a nuclear weapon. we can agree nuclear science is complicated. even someone with a course i are knowledge understands the danger -- posed. despite the access granted to inspect centrifuge manufacturing facilities, can we be sure we're going to be able to see the manufacturing of all the various part that make up -- can we be sure that iran is not manufacturing more centrifuge at other location. can with we verify they -- it should not be lost on us to both the times constructed in secret until being exposed by the international community in 2009 -- 2002 and 2009 respectively and iran said it intends to have up to ten enrichment facilities. under the jpa they continue the research and development allowing them to continue work on centrifuge development.

you know it can also lead to breakthrough in material and methods would further strengthen a secret breakout effort. how concern should be we be? the continued rd allow iran to install highly advanced centrifuge in six months or year, or five years. these are the kind of difficult questions that have to be answered if the p5+1 reach a deal. perhaps most critically before any long-term deal is reached iran must come clean about all aspect of the program. including finally addressing all concerns with the possible military dimensions, the development of nuclear explosive devices, procurement of nuclear-related material by the irgy and mill -- military activities. they describe the site as a huge site dedicated to the research, development, and production of ammunition, rockets and high

explosive. iran must know at the outset that they will not be able to sweep these allegations under the rug. i look guard to discussing with our witnesses the path forward to halting the greatest threat to international security. >> thank you very much, chairman. i thank you. i thank mr. ted poe, and also mr. the well-laid out argument. and i think you laid out a compelling case as well. i think all of us are a little stunned. i think we're stunned that not only does iran continue to enrich uranium, but they're very, very vocal about the fact that they're going to continue the research and development on faster and faster spinning of centrifuges. and for them to be making this

pronouncement, in the middle of the interim agreement, on how they're reaching this capability to develop and spin these centrifuges at super sonic speeds setting new records implies a certain intent on undetectable nuclear breakout capability. i think this is what members worry about. we worry that as you try to workout an agreement here. you talk about the plutonium reactor, the heavy water reactor facility at iraq, they make the point they're going to continue performing work at that sight. i think that the large quantity of existing stockpile. when they make the comment they're going to draw down on the stockpile, all of this sends a message in terms of what their

intent is, and quite simply, these elements of a nuclear program, which we're talking about right now, will continue to operate as the factuals go on. so i think for the members of the house here on the foreign affairs committee, we're a little concerned thats unless iran is pressed to fully reveal iran's extensive activities to develop and test a nuclear device, unless we get that out on the table, as we hear today iran devoted much effort to this over the years. unless we have the details on that, i think we're left wondering about iran's clear intentions here, and i don't think we want them to cover up that extensive evidence either.

part is because we watch iran's actions. over 400 executions last year of political and of religious opposition in the country, estonia -- stoning is still going on in iran it's a capital offense for things such as adultery. as has been mentioned a number of times a regime that is stoning women in one hand, shouldn't be allowed, on the other hand, to get its grip on a nuclear weapon. i mean, this is just logical we be concerned about this. and if a comprehensive agreement is reached, the threat of a nuclear armed iran is not going to be over for a couple of other reasons. one of today's witnesses is estimated that even if we were to force iran to dismantle 80%

of the 19,000 centrifuges, and of course they say they'll -- they won't dismantle one of them. even if we were to force it to close the entire enrichment facility, even if we were to dismantle or convert its plan heavy water reactor to a light-water reactor, agree to a multidecade intrusive inspection regime, the fact is iran would be six months away from nuclear breakout. so if we're in a situation right now where they won't give ground on any of the points i just raised, i think we have shotgun -- something of a problem on our hands. even if the administration were to achieve this agreement, which increasingly many say might be a 50/50 proposition. i think it was the administration's assumption,

especially now we have let up on sanctions pressure. iran will likely still possess the capability of very quickly producing a nuclear weapon. why do i say that? because when you let up on sanctions pressure, you let up on the one thing you had that made it hard for them to get our currency that might make the eye tole will make the tough choice between comprising on the nuclear program or economic implosion. that's gone now. the message is out, you know, iran is open for business. you see the headlines, you know, the next day in the "the wall street journal," businesses rush to iran to cut business deals. you see their stock market and currency go back up in value. so we could end, if we're not careful, ending up on a track to have a face a permanent nuclear threat from iran because we rehabilitate their capabilities. and so that's i thank the chairwoman, and mr. poe for

their observations on this. i esspecially thank the panel of witnesses. our four witnesses today are true experts in the field. we look forward to the testimony. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we turn to the ranking member of the subcommittee. , mr. sherman. >> in november agreement was supposed to last six months but not until two months after it was signed. eight months extended for another six months. we're looking at 14 months. what happens during the 14 months. there are 20% stockpile half gets oxidized but still 20%. another half gets deluded in oxidized. more low and enriched uranium is stockpiled in the oxidized form. work on centrifuge technology continues, though certain centrifuges will not be used.

this delays only for a short time. when iran would have a nuclear weapon, because the 20% oxidized uranium can be converted back to a gas quickly. iran uses that same technology to convert yellow cake in to gas uranium, and at the end of the agreement, iran may be a little bit further than they were in november from their first bomb, but will be closer to a cash of five to ten bombs because they will have all of the additional low and enriched uranium they create during the dependency of the deal. the sanctions relief has been substantial because it has changed the business climate. it's not just the content of the relief. there are loopholes in the existing sanctions laws, companies have been reluctant to exploit those they figure the next sanction law was around the corner. now it's not. we see a rush to do business

with iran. the disagreement here in washington is actually rather modest. there seems to be agreement that we're not adopting new statute story sanctions until july or at least not letting them become effective until july. the administration significantly has agreed to enforce existing sanctions, and would do that even if the iranians threaten to walk out of the agreement. secretary kerry was in this room where you're sitting now, he agreed that he would continue enforcing the existing law. within a day they designated roughly a dozen entity. the iranians walked out. they came back. we agree to enforce existing laws, we agree no new laws will become effective until july. so the question is under what circumstances will new sanctions becoming effective in july be -- go in to effect who will make that decision. the president alone or the

president with congress? will we -- who will decide that iran is just engaged in a delay program or that we've reached sufficient progress. i don't congress should vunder the role. congress has been right and three administrations have been wrong. from 1996 to 2010 we had -- congress didn't enact major sanctions legislation. why? because three administrations sought so effectively usually in the senate to prevent the adoption of that legislation. congress was right. the house was more right than the senate, and congress was more right than three different administrations. now we're being asked, oh, just don't do anything. trust the president. he'll do the right thing. the fact is that we're told by the administration we can adopt new sanctions in a mechanic --

nano second should he decide if that is important. what the administration means is they can adopt it if the administration agrees with them. if they don't, the capacity for delay sanctions has been proven. it was proven effective in 2009, it was proven effective eight years priority of the administration. what are the choices? we can act now and adopt sanctions that go in to effect in july, but also schedule a vote in july where congress could decide by joint resolution to suspend or prevent from becoming effective. we would do so. we can have a comprise approach. right and conference on the sanctions. and schedule a vote affirmative vote of both houses of congress without delay, without full buster, further division between the committee and the houses as to what the content would be.

and past new legislation if warranted in july and soon enough to prevent any pocket veto since we go out in august. the final approach is the narc leep silicon valley approach. go to sleep until the information decide to wake us up. they say -- we'll get around to thinking about something in july. we'll notice the six months, which is eight months has passed. at that point you can be sure this administration, like the prior two administrations, will be for delay, dilution, and defeat. we will be in session only a few weeks between the end of july and the end of the year. so iran will get a full year of relief from sanctions and actually 14 months. i think the one thing for this hearing to establish is we are not going to adopt the narc leep -- go to sleep approach.

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman. now we go to the chairman of the at any time subcommittee. >> thank you, madam chair. the royal power vunders to the iranian nation will. those are the will of the iranian president it should not surprise any of us that the iranians view this agreement as a win for them, a loss for us, and a loss for a safer world. iran's foreign minister boasted we didn't agree to dismantle anything refer together enrichment activities. he's right. iran not only gets to keep the infrastructure intact, it gets to keep enriching. or it gets do keep the yellow cake and eat it too. the u.n. has voted on five occasions saying iran is cheated. in the nuclear capability.

and they should not be able to enrich at all. in one deal iran just walked away all the u.n. resolutions. when the united states negotiates a deal that makes the urn -- u.n. tough, we have a problem. just as bad none of the changes agreed to are permanent and vertification is difficult. hours after they signed it the top negotiator bragged on iranian tv, they can quote, return to the previous situation in one day. in reality estimates suggest the iranians could still achieve nuclear break out capability in six months. it forces them to stop the nuclear program. it's a snake hole salesmen. he sold poisoned medicine to us and the state department gave away the mineral right in exchange. the agreement bars iran from installing nuclear equipment at the heavy water reactor. but allows them to continue to construct its nuclear reactor.

the problem is that the reactor side is too big for a peaceful reactor. experts say it's more closely resembles a nuclear weapons facility. no kidding. when asked if he thought it could be used for peaceful purposes former state department nonproliferation official said, yes, it could. a 12 inch hunting knife could be used so spread jam on the toast in the morning inspect this deal they get a $6 billion in cash payment over six months. iran also gets billions more as companies who are sitting on the sideline out of fear of the sanctions now say it is okay to do business as urinal. it could inject about $20 billion in the economy according to sanctions expert. the iranian know there's no enforcement mechanism once a final agreement is reached. all sageses will -- sanctions will be lifted. despite what the white house

said it will brought the committee to the knees. by the sanctions we blunted the sharpest tool to get a peaceful solution. we have made it really peace less likely. this is a flaw deal that gave away too much to iran. they are free to nuclear enrichment. they must dismantle the nuclear

weapon program. not just freeze it. the iranians supreme leader hasn't changed his goal. he said he wanted to destroy his rule. destroy the imriets. i think we should believe him when he says he wants to get rid of us. so congress cannot wait. we should pass tougher sanctions not let up on sanctions at this time. that's just the way it is. >> thank you very much. and the bells have rung. i'm going to introdpiews our witnesses and i think we'll have time to listen to our first witness, ambassador wallace before we break. first we welcome ambassador mark wallace.

terrorist organizations and regimes attempting to acquire nuclear technology. welcome, sir. third we welcome mr. -- i'm sorry if i don't say it right. close enough? close! senior fellow at the harvard kennedy school of government. prior to this position, he served for 27 years at the international atomic energy education including deputy director general. he lead the agency's efforts to identify and dismantle nuclear proliferation networks including overseeing the efforts to monitor and contain iran's nuclear program.

weapon program throughout the world and coauthored several books on the subject. your statements in full will be knead a part of the record. and please feel free to summarize them. we'll start with you, mr. ambassador. i think you need to -- i don't know the mic is on. >> there we go. thank you, chairman. thank you for the opportunity to testify before you, once again. i'm honored to sit here on the panel with group of distinguished and committed colleagues. it's a true honor.

we hope that a comprehensive agreement that rolls back iran's nuclear program is reached in six months. but the prospect appear small and we must confront the difficulties with candor and bipartisan debate. the joint plan is provided disproportionate sanction relief to iron. allowed them to develop dangerous nuclear program. under the agreement tran will not dismantle a single centrifuge or the heavy water reactor. today iran retains the ability to produce enough weapons uranium for a bomb as little as two months and iran not indicated it would end the development of the ir40. at the same time the sanctions architecture developed over decades has been significantly rolled back and enforcement has fallen to a trickle. what is the acceptable scope and size of the enrichment program. will we permit them to operate the ir040. if they only sought a truly

peaceful energy program. there would be no need for any enrichment. the international community seems to have forgotten there are multiple u.n. security counsel resolutions calling for iran to suspend all enrichment. would look and the dangers of iran's operation of the i are 40 we should all agree that effects tending the breakout time from the current 30 to 60 days to beyond is the imperative. sanctions have become important to the matter. unfortunately the white house ascribed the sanction relief provided in the agreement as economically insignificant.

we disagree. iran's economy is blossoming. some hard data. the increased in value by more than 25%. the tehran stock exchange increased by nearly 100%. dozen of multinational corporations are returning to iran. iran's oil experts have increased by nearly 60%. iran's oil exports have risen to 1.2 million barrel per day. under the joint plan iran's oil export will increase further and oil sanctions don't alter it would have continued to drop to as little as 500,000 barrels per day by the end of 2014. importantingly, the administration has curtailed the enforcement efforts. in 2013, the united states treasury department designated 183 entities for iran's sanctions violations.

the obama administration must hold to the pledge to enforce sanctions. the white house estimates iran stands to receive $6 billion to $7 billion in sanctions relief. the true value of sanction relief is well more than $20 billion. just calculating the increase in the oil sales if there by in doubt. now we believe there is less pressure for iran to make material concession on the nuclear program. the congress must take part in the process and make the position known. we must agree that iran will not be permitted to retain an industrial scale nuclear program. this would entail 20,000 currently possesses or more appropriately none at all. they must be kept well over a year away from breakout. in six months time and no final cord is reached. the congress should pass and the president should sign in to law the nuclear weapons free iran

act. with north korea the greed programwork. it became the can kicked down the road. no final agreement was struck and the dprk surprised the world. this time congress must make clear if there is no final agreement after the joint plan initial six months congress will adopt more robust sanctions. we must learn the lessons of this. not repeat the mistakes. thank you, for the opportunity. >> thank you very much, mr. ambassador. and the subcommittees will recess while we vote and we will come right back to hear the rest of our panelists and to have members question them. subcommittee is in recess. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible] we'll have another set of votes at 4:00. we hope that we can almost wrap it up. mr. jones, you are welcome to make your statement, and your prepared remarks, as we said, will be made a part of the record. >> thank you. >> in early november sex tear -- secretary of state said on the ongoing negotiations with iran, quote, we need to get the right deal. no deal is better than a bad

deal. unquote. unfortunately the november 24th joint plan of action is a bad deal. this fact has been on secured by both mischaracterization of the deal benefit and the denial of the deal great flaw. president obama has said the deal has, quote, cut off iran's most likely past. unquote. this is not true. before the current nuclear deal, iran could produce the highly enriched uranium. which is the key starting material for any iranian effort. the stockpile of the material continue to grow during the course of the nuclear deal, several white house statements as well as secretary kerry have incorrectly claimed otherwise as

the stockpile of enriched uranium grow the number it can produce will grow as well. in the form of uranium fluoride is not supposed to grow. it is supposed to convert the access to an oxide form but can convert it back once it begins to produce nuclear weapon. it's well known to u.s. technical expert but the input was not sought or heated. centrifuge technology puts any country within an arm's reach of the nuclear weapons. the joint plan of abs has already stated when the follow on so called comprehensive solution expired iran, quote,

will be treated in the same manner as that of any nonnuclear weapon state party to the npt. unquote. this means that in se five or ten years, iran's nuclear program will be under no special restriction. if the p5+1 member allow it to keep the centrifuge program only could it build as many as it want. can import them as part of normal nuclear trade. iran could have a larger, more robust centrifuge. what is worse the joint plan of action will be setting a precedent for other nuclear countries. after all if iran is to be treated in the same manner as that of any nonnuclear weapon state party to the npt. the reverse would be true as well. if iran violated his safe guards by conducting centrifuge enrichment and defied many

resolutions to the allowed to retain the capability on what basis can any country that is abided by the safe guards obligation be denied centrifuge enrich. the joint plan of action is setting the stage for many countries to acquire centrifuge in-- enrichment. unfortunately there are no good options to head off nuclear armed iron. any negotiated settlement would require major reduction iran's centrifuge enrichment program. reductions that iran already said it will not agree to. further sanctions are unlikely to be effective since countries such a russia and china will probably undercut them. military strikes could easily thread an ill-advised major war with iran.

key to be the effort will be stop country from use not only peaceful activity to acquire the play tome yum needed. the they need urge them to clarify which material and facility can effectively i safe guards and which cannot. an negotiated agreement with iran that legitimize the program will be a step in the wrong direction. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. jones. mr., help me out. >> thank you very much. distinguished member of the committee. thank you very much for inviting me to address the hearing. on the act expect of the deal. highlight some of the implications from --

and make some minor proposal for the way forward. the agreement is a small we important step forward. the delay finally -- good -- 20th of january. under this deal iran continues to produce the uranium 5 and 20% uranium on soil. including the skill and r&d and testing. iran will produce centrifuge for -- [inaudible] only to replace broken one in the production of other component. no new will be installed or will be built. some of the 5 percent is converted to oxide. in term of --

iron is able to produce single nuclear explosive it will move from to three weeks to three months as a result of the deal. in other words, iran maintains the capabilities. permitted at the reactor. and the retack or it component manufacturing proceeds elsewhere. the production of heavy -- continues the fuel production and prohibiting of the lesson on nuclear component delay are preactor 2016. in november of 2003 -- [inaudible] and the u.k. and iran agreed to suspend uranium reprocessing programs. in iran implementing probably -- political and providing the complete picture on the past nuclear program.

the details in 2003 agreement by the -- iran similarly provided a wider access agreement. the 2003 undertaking included access to the nuclear not involving nuclear material. an example [inaudible] and centrifuge man or iting facilities and to keep raw material as high strength or -- [inaudible] one the thing they are facing is -- the actual material centrifuge manufactured by iran. iran commit itself not to umm my indication reconvert uranium back and it will not construct any --

with the access provided currency by iran and the jpa. they remain limited in the capabilityies for the statements made to iran the centrifuge enrichment later enrichment process. the preamble of the -- [inaudible] final step include addressing the u.s. political resolution. those include outstanding issues such as relay as a possible military -- iran yum nuclear program. in other words, needs according to the resolution to explain the question related to the outlet study and -- [inaudible] it has to explain why it met the document which was forced to cowith the manufacturing of a nuclear head. it has to clarify the

procurement and rd activity so military-related institutes and companies and has to explain the production and nuclear equipment and -- [inaudible] by companies related to the military establishment. without us addressing these, the secretary will not be able to come to any conclusion that all nuclear in iran is in peaceful use which is essence in building in the international community over the iran's nuclear program. to this end, i give you my written statement, some proposals how to spread on this way -- proceed on this way. and build the confidence above the peaceful nature of the program. the the end i would like to say the agreement serves an states. it should not be either an end by itself or [inaudible]

on the time period without up to one year without end game in sight. further may run the risk of proliferation consequence in the region. when the state see iran not only maintaining the current capabilities but slowly advancing them in particular the areas which remain nonassessable to the sectors. thank you. >> thank you very much for your expertise. mr. albright? >> it's a pleasure to be here. push the button. >> thank you very much for inviting me today. i appreciate the work you're doing to try to sort through the oversight rule of congress with which i personally believe is extremely important in the situation. i think we have discussed the interim deal of the joint plan of action quite a bit. i think strength and weaknesses have been identified. i think the real test of the joint plan of action is going to lie in the negotiating the long-term arrangements.

that's the process that many are not giving a high probably of success. but none the less, this long-term comprehensive solution have to create meaningful limit on the iran nuclear program. sufficient to ensure that any attempt by iran to build nuclear weapons would be detected in a timely manner and provide adequate time for international response. now the interim deal from my point of view an important confidence building measure but it's certainly has the weaknesses. many of which have been talked about. and we yesterday published an article on problems and loophole involving centrifuge r&d. which we think rather than criticizing the interim deal. i argue it has to be fixed in any comp hence i have solution. that iran's ability to make advanced centrifuge has been curtailed and process they

involved in with centrifuge has to be tran parent and particularly deal with the problems confronted. also, i want to agree with what he said. this is an interim deal should not continue past the planned lifetime. it's by i.t. no means sufficient. if you can't get a comprehensive deal. it's not a substitute in any manner. also, i want to say that the test of iran's intention in the -- i would say in the short to medium firm how it treat them on the issues involving the allegationses of the past work on past weapons and other military weapon. they delayed the meeting. it was supposed to happen in january until february 8th. is it going to delay again.

my tom of our study what we see as a model and certain things have been talked about certainly we want to see greater breakout time. we think the break outtimes should be measured in six to 12 months. to allow detection time and response time. that's going to require them to remove over 14,000 centrifuges.

we would argue it has to be additional protocol plus. there has to be another set of vertification conditions in this deal that are going to provide greater tran parent silicon valley of the program. the other thing important to remember that how long these conditions would last. the administration is talking about 20 years. iran's talking about three to five. one the joint plan of action

doesn't deal with. how do they come out of prohibition that it is right now implied the conditions end from one day to the next or whatever the length is probably some work needs to be done to make sure the conditions are removed only if iran satisfied certain criteria. i think i talked enough about the verification. i want to reemphasize that iran has been very tough on this it resisted all kinds of verification. it's resisting it today. and that i think another test is going to be whether iran is fully cooperative and with the effort to get to the bottom of all the outstanding issues. which require much more intrusive verification and that would be played out over the next several months. if the comprehensive solution is going to be negotiated by the end of the six-month period.

let me just end there i'm sorry i realized i'm over time. >> thank you very much to excellent panel lists. we begin with our set of questions. my first question is why is the deal in secret. why is that member of congress have to go to a super secret secure location. get smart kind of place to look at the deal? our subcommittee staff director andy that. we went to the room it's easy to read document one doesn't have to be as an expert as one of our panelists is to bhawns is there. it's eye opening. e encourage all the members to go there and read the document. you can't take notes or take it out. but why is this -- is this such a great deal it is so good for peace and diplomacy in our time. why is it held in secret and are

you -- do you worry about the details in the plan. what you may be or may not be in it. what kind of mechanism are in place to relief funds and can we follow the money once it is released? so the secret to nature of the deal, why doesn't the public have it. why can't we have it in open setting. your greatest worry and can we follow the money. whoever wants to get at that.

ambassador? thank you. my biggest worry about the deal is we have significantly rolled back the sanction architecture, which all of you, both sides have carefully destructed and -- over a long time. mr. sherman said it well. on the complexity of the nuclear physic can show a single centrifuge has been dismantled. whatever the range of opinions here, if you believe in no enrichment if means iran can only have something like zero to

maybe 4,000ir one the most primitive center feeing. it's the range of opinion at the table. i don't want to speak for my colleague. i would say none. my worry is that the interim agreement become the permanent agreement. >> thank you. any other panelists? >> can i just say with regard to the terms being somewhat secret, it does bother me and not necessarily for the reason you think. it appears to me the administration has negotiated an agreement it doesn't fully understand. and i don't understand how that can happen. because obviously there are technical experts in the national labs who can know as much as i if not more. it's clear there are various places. one is 3.5% enriched uranium stockpile. which is not correct.

another is the disconnecting the cascades would prevent iran from producing 20%. where we know they originally produced it with single which is what they would be left with. i'm left with the impression the administration doesn't understand what it is negotiated. i find more worrisome. >> thank you, sir. >> yes. aunt the document the secret agreement. it's very unusual in this. i think a similar understanding at the time of the agreed framework. there might be some of the -- i just don't know. i have seen not seen the document and how big it is.

i think it would clarify a lot of area that is made public. and the second thing, my worry i think i mentioned my worries in my opening statement and particularly it becomes really title -- [inaudible] treatment with a long life expectancy. we don't get the insight of the content of the iran yum nuclear program. it's better than a year or two ago the situation. it's not the final solution. and i still want to -- thank you very much. we'll have to wait for your statement maybe in the another set of questions.

i hear his older brother is in the front row. he told me he's the younger. >> thank you very much. thank you, madam chairman. that's one i adopt believe i'll lev down. ranking member sherman points out he has more hair. >> not that i would know. >> so i am -- i wanted to just follow up with mr. albright. it if i understand correctly the quote that i have referred to in my opening statement about what

do we have to see there. how likely is it -- is it possible for the iranians to have completely swept clean, and when we talk about iran coming clean on the possible military dimensions what is it they have to provide. are there examples of other

regimes in similar circumstances who have face the question. what have we expected from them? there's a sight there that is alleged to have been edge gauged in high explosive work related to nuclear weapon development. they have evidence of it. it has to go for over 18 months and denied. in that time it significantly modified the sight fop the point it may not be possible for them to take environmental sampling and find something. e they will come and dow thing. and have to give access to the people involved based on the ia information, at least and answer the basic question. do they do the work. when was the previous nmtions? >> they have never been to this building. or this particular complex. they have been there.

we can talk about that. i think the focus on the particular -- you asked there are other site to. workshops alleged to have made reentry vehicles. prior to 2004. they have to go there in the past and not been allowed. i think in cases where it worked. libya, south africa, the country cooperates. in that cooperation you can see it can work out and they can cothe job. iran has not shown the level of cooperation. one of the first things to look for if iran is going to settle this. is it cooperating so they are able to get to people, get the information it needs, and then able to have have questions to get to the bottom of this. we're not operating in the dark here.

we have a list, presumably. they know the people that need to be spoken to; correct. they know some but not the complete list. it's not possible. there's in the case of south africa, there were people that you wouldn't have expected enprovided important information. you don't get the other names until you start with the one you have. >> that's right. tell us about the discussion taken place thus far. please. >> discuss reflect in the reports in 2008 and then again in june of 2008. at that point in time when we

come to this so called or possible military dimension we have an opportunity to discuss with the first direct -- that so-called iran that more than ten years. have we prepared list and present to the iranians and the talk so far and there is an acknowledgment that, yes those are appropriate questions.

and we'll make sure that these individuals will respond. >> well, when you go to the university process you don't keep the whole list. your staff and the keepers and you -- [inaudible] way from there. i don't think they have prepared a long list at this stage. only the stopping point. and then go from there. but it only exists. >> and were those names included in the last report? >> the names have only -- only one name, i think, has been in the report. that's another reason they doesn't want to disclose for a number of reasons. the names. >> that name has been disclosed? >> yeah. one name has been disclosed. >> and have -- has since that was certainly would be a good place to start. he has been identified in the report. does he agree to engage in the discussions? >> yes. we met him, i think, twice. at one point of time the process got stopped and we never got to the suck us iser.

>> chairman before i yield back. i hope later in his responses, he might be able to speak to the elaborate on the comment he made in the opening statement in 2003 there was greater access provided than there is today. >> can i add one thing to add to. >> go ahead. >> one is the research center. there's list of names made public. and i don't think any of them have talked about anything to do with the military dimension. he talked about work he did as a professor at the university. >> thatch. thank you very much. and we appreciate the younger brother being here to get you here on time after it. now we know the weapon when the mrs. is not available. judge, it is the way it is. >> thank you.

i want to say amen to your comments about the deal being public. not only for member of congress but american people as well. i'm perplexed why it's not. i still don't know why it is not. iran is the mischief maker in the middle east. they have the military -- their military is involved in syria. they support terrorism throughout the world. they have sending rockets so they can be fired in to israel. nay are responsible for the attack on the iranian -- they are building intercontinent ballistic mis. they are expanding their war

capabilities. what in the world are we thinking that they want to deal with us? and cut back on their nuclear weapon development. what incentive? , i mean, they may just not be telling the truth they will cut back. i don't think we should believe anything they same. deals with made on both sides agree and there are inspections and people act in good faith. they're not acting in good faith. i don't see any evidence over the last few years they they have ever acted in good faith. sanctions have worked. we're now backing off the sanctions. they have to be forced not want to to be able to build nuclear weapons. long-term we have to do that. we don't want to be involved in

the military action. we have to prevent it from happening. long-term you talked about long-term situation. we look down the road it doesn't look too good for the free world for the nuclear weapons go. i mean,icbm are not built israel but the west europe and the united. so ambassador, i'll let all of you comment on this. long-term, how are we going resolve the problem that iran is determined to have nuclear weapons?

require the enrichment and clarification on the military dimension. and in the agreement it said iron will have a mutually defined enrichment in program in the final deal. i thought it was an unfortunate step. i don't think it goes a long way to answer your question. i want to allow my colleagues time. ambassador, let me ask you this, is it correct that iran is developing icbms? is that correct.

>> we have seen a variety of evidence they're looking at the other aspect of obtaining a nuclear weapon, which is the delivery capacity, the ignition capacity, and the like. we are seen a lot of evidence of this. there's a really important of the agreement that hasn't been focused on, i think, which is of an agreement which is clarifying the other military aspect of the program. we haven't heard from iran about this. they haven't clarified that. those reports are does tushing. >> mr. eurozone. give us the long rage capabilities. >> unfortunately i'm the party pooper at these things. i believe the ship has sailed. it's too late to stop iran. >> you think iran is going it get nuclear weapons. >> that's correct. it depresses anyone. i don't see how the cammings undercutting them are going to do any good. as you have correctly pointed out, i'm not in favor of getting

it to yet another in the middle east. >> the saudi and the israelis working together. who would thought of this? the saudis are worried about the nuclear weapon caimentability of iran or israel is. and they're working together. and certainly announcing this deal. >> i'm sorry. >> it shows level the threat and the concern of the region. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, judge. >> thank you, mr. sherman is recognized. >> thank you. first, if iran has nuclear weapons, americans shouldn't feel they're safe even if missile defense worked. because you can smuggle a nuclear weapon inside a bail of marijuana. second, the best argument for this agreement remaining secret is it must contain wonderful pro-american provisions that hardliners in iran are unaware of. unfortunately i know they look to me for advice and information. we have seen it.

it doesn't. it's peanut call -- peculiar the agreement is not disclosed. nobody has one just one bomb. in july nay will have a stockpile. it will have about half the 20% enriched with that being an oxide form. it'll have its low enriched uranium fluoride it has today and it'll have an additional supply of low enriched uranium oxide. they siewming they don't anything with the yellow cape. looking what they'll have in july. how many bombs is that enough uranium for once they enrich it to weapons grade? mr. jones? >> i would estimate around four weapons. >> four? okay. and how long it would take them

knowing they can spend the next six months doing experiments and engineering on their advance centrifuge but are not making anymore centrifuges, as i understand the agreement. but they've got what they've got. they're learning how to use it better. how long will it take for them to use this stockpile of enrich riched uranium. >> assuming breakout. >> assuming what they've got. they will get the first in two months. the four weapons i don't know probably four or five months. >> four to five months. down the panel. everybody agree with mr. jones? you do agree. >> i would like to add to the -- the unknown. it's the talk what we see. but the most important thing is to [inaudible] a. unknown.

the centrifuge if there are. [inaudible] and i think this is where the -- >> what we know and advantage of the agreement is we're inspecting a few things we hadn't been inspecting before. but answering the question, mr. jones, do you agree with him, you know, basically for weapons and four months? >> ting will take longer than four months. but first -- [inaudible] two or three months. >> okay. >> it's in term of the first one in two months, you know, iran that. but i think to get to four or five, probably multiply that number by four or five. so you're talking about a -- eight months. >> okay. and there may be -- >> take -- fourth weapon in four to eight. i mount out if we lose the game, it's not because of who was calling the plays in the final quarter. we didn't feel the team for the first three quarters. from 1996 to 2010, although this

committee did everything possible to pass no sanctions. they were stopped by three successive administrations. we are effective sageses in iran against 2010. the program began ten years sooner. we are committed to the goalline stand just a few yards from the goalline. it's not clear which play we could possibly call. we have three. we have the voluntary sanctions. which is what we have now. that is to say we have the sanctions we can get other countries to agree to. then there's secondary sanctions where you basically threaten a cutoff of world trade if they don't radically change their law. we have the iran sanctions act call for that. but we don't do it. and finally there's a prospect of military action. if we took military action would we be able to turn in to rubble the centrifuge at the time?

do i have an answer? mr. jones? >> i discussed that in my written testimony. unfortunately the centrifuges are quite resistant to bombardment. because you have it 96 parallel cascades that can run. so you certainly take out some -- we saw this in world war world war for, you knock out the utility, the plant goes down. how quickly can it get back? >> it turns out. >> one other thing. the final possibility we threaten to hit every oil field and industrial and strategic target in iran if they don't allow mr. wallace to go in with 400 experts along -- the entire panel and clean out everything. >> thank you. >> and i don't think i have time to ask for your comment on that. you can respond in writing. >> thank you. we'll hold that thought. thank you.

>> thank you, ma'am chair. thank you, mr. sherman. thank you to the panel for being here. i'm having a hard time figuring out what the united states got out of this. i mean, you know, we got the iranians got a lot. they basically got a right to enrich uraniums. we have allies that are begging us in three, two, one agreement to be able to enrich uranium. we say no allies but enemies we give them the right as a reward for doing it the wrong way. i mean, i guess i'm really having a hard time figuring out anything the united states gave besides being able, i guess for the next year to go in front of the american people and say we won something. it will only be proven wrong by history. this, to me, is like the equivalent of a police officer pulling somebody over for the dui and the person saying mr. officer, i'll be happy to