>> >> just does you indicated did your question mr. chairman, if iran news that a slower pace club facilities that we don't know about, it could continue down that path to nuclear weapons in ways that normal iaea procedures would not be able to detect. >> would they be able to put together without being

detected subject to zero the protocol five bombs in the five years after this agreement is eclipsed? >> go back to testimony director clapper gave before the hill where he said the fundamental constraining element or the fundamental point is what decision and iran will make stannic the decision would be to develop a nuclear capacity and don't get caught. work hard does anybody have an answer choose the question? >> in the timeframe? >> yes. five bombs in five years? >> yes. >> i just take that number to a better estimate of what they could do subject to

additional protocol assuming they don't want to be caught ? >> but with the strengths and the weaknesses with the nuclear facilities something that is and declared so it needs the federal analysis how it is set up.

>> that is why with the additional protocol. >> you don't agree? >> with the additional protocol it is the possibility because you still made unfettered access >> i agree but i have a slightly different concern. not how a quickly or effectively to break out or sneak out but if they choose to become a nuclear weapon state radio to have nuclear weapons if they can do that today and maybe two with three nuclear weapons if they have the vastly robust infrastructure after the expiration of a comprehensive solution and then decide we will abandon the nuclear weapons state what will they have? it is not two or three but dozens what they will have

upon breaking out with the much larger infrastructure. >> my time is expired but i think they will seek out than break out because if they have five nuclear weapons our response to their announcement and breakout will be considerably more similar to how we treated number three as they and gadaffi or some of his save. i yield back. >> i yield back with this extraordinarily time the hearing for our distinguished witnesses. last week to forth we recognize the 25th anniversary of tiananmen square. bill clinton on may 261994 dealing human-rights with trade newspaper as her

phyllis adjoint talking point no real consequence but i am concerned fast-forward to the plan of action that when iran looks into the eyes to get major concessions and they have already achieved that and how we put that back together this could be analogous to the infamous'' meeting with the germans. these are gave changing days and i am very concerned your services have been extraordinary reminding as iran has a history of deception and clandestine facilities acknowledged only when exposed with day catch me when you can mentality of reminding me of traveling around iraq looking for a

mass destruction we know what has six binding resolutions to expand trade and enrichment it has now changed of what we have demanded and they persuaded the united states and others to set aside its policy of no rights in richmond also the biggest concessions the ill-defined time period and at that point if you elaborated that a few times dangerous statement a moment ago. my questions is human rights are the canary in though coal mine with conversations of the foreign minister says you can do a stroke to release the political prisoners then to say they may be in business with a

sense of sincerity it is almost laughable in the preamble witnesses of members 24th iran reaffirm said under no circumstances will it ever developed in a nuclear weapons. if you believe that i will sell you the brooklyn bridge. trust and verify their all required but we are setting ourselves up to fail and russia is the friend or colleague your partner or what kind of friend will they be? the whole idea of the generation if you could elaborate that further 25 years ought to be forever that iran could be construed to be japan and to make a very good point about the whole idea of argentina that

matriculated to south africa , the examples are very well taken and you also said something that you need to anticipate that executive branch will be deeply invested in the success like the mission accomplished mentality with the threats to the region and the world that that to kill every if you could respond. >> i am happy to respond. it is conceptual. space insists in a changing and government or your guiding philosophy but just looking at your behavior for a set period of time.

if you behave as you promised it is york get out of jail free cards. you can go for word essay fully excepted legitimate member of the nuclear club. and making that promise up front all they have to do is comply with whatever is in that agreement. nothing more. but to me the american people don't know who is the leader of firebrand we don't know what they will be doing to promote a terrorism or medellin syria or iraq we just don't know but we make this commitment you be hated here are the benefits that you get. i would suggest the judgment whether considered rehabilitated that is

premature to make today may be to be made much closer to the event we make a judgment today if they behaved for 10 years or whatever then they will be deemed rehabilitated? congress will have an important role because i believe you will need to enact legislation to waive some of the sanctions in place. legislatively you will address this and in that context you ought to be thinking to what extent can we except the concept of extraordinary verification ends they become subject only to the verification others are subject? that trust but verify that is the wrong concept floor

iran it is verify but verify at a know how trust is a part of the equation with their track record. >> mr. chairman think you for this important hearing. after a long time i haven't worried about iran getting a nuclear weapon. one thing everybody on this committee and to hear the president say also it is unacceptable for iran to have a nuclear weapon. and i was just thinking of your statements that concerned me that on your

return here we're still talking 25 years later from the threat to in 1982 about iran getting nuclear weapons and unfortunately here we are today 2014 with the same concerns. and i would believe various administrations democratic and republican and have had different strategies to make sure we can assure ourselves i ran not having a nuclear weapon. here we are still at this juncture and this president has proposed trying to see what we can do to talk with every and not only by ourselves but of unprecedented lovell's with our allies because you have to have every bet the there

with the p5 + 1. as a year the dialogue go back and forth the question i asked sometimes when we were successful is when it became all bilateral not just unilateral. if we want to make sure we contained iran to not have a nuclear weapon and if they violate or don't allow the iaea to get did then if we have to ramp up sanctions we would want to do that's with other nations because it seems that is when it is successful.

so given iran's history from what i have heard that so far that makes sense to me that they will lot of follow-through we need to make sure we have unity to make sure those sanctions are not just done by the united states but also done by the p5 + 1 countries with is very important. i am going back and forth but the effort to at least initially that is made to have negotiations with the p5 + 1 to make sure the iaea has access to whatever they're doing seems to be tremendously important because we have not been there before but to verify what they're doing or not doing.

i am trying to get a sense that the effort made thus far in regards to the conversations taking place we don't know the end results to make sure we have them successful should've make the effort to buy the administration? to anyone? >> that is why the of monitoring and verification protocol is so point -- important unfettered access because we're concerned on whether the station absolutely. u.s. security council resolution speaks to this that they should cooperate fully on all else to the issues that give rise to military dimensions of the

nuclear program. so the u.n. security council comes forth with the resolution to say this. it is a very robust meaningful regime. >> anybody else? >> i have said some critical things but you should not infer from that that i oppose the idea to negotiate with iran and the nuclear weapons program to the risk of proliferation to iran. as opposed to continue rain with 6 inches with a continuous nuclear development? that is not a good solution so that a negotiated solution is ideal if you can get it but it has always

been possible to negotiate an agreement with ivory and we just have to agree to their demands and we have a deal. obviously that is not acceptable. >> you want to get a deal. >> we know it is not easy if it was we would have done a net. we know it is hard. this is hard stuff. that is why the hearing is stood and listening to you with this dialogue is good to hear sides from other countries because this is not easy. thank you for your testimony about a time -- i am out of time. >> thank you for calling today's hearing and one of

the great foreign policy challenges we face are preventing a nuclear armed dictatorship in their ran one of the things that has been lacking in this discussion so far today is the fact that we would not care as a fundamental difference if this was brazil, ireland's with the nuclear facilities that could result in a nuclear bomb. we have one of the world's worst human rights abusers and the dictatorship has jails filled with people who want to get along with the rest of the world. perhaps the only way to

succeed imagine permitting the dictatorship from having a nuclear weapon but frankly the only way we will succeed is to get rid of the blood dictatorship iran. if we cannot convince them we will not be able but just take their word for it with the new capability, i don't believe we can convince them through coulter of compliance they will change their ways. [laughter] because they want to fit into the culture. when they have the bomb they are fanatics session we be supporting instead of

relying on negotiations shouldn't we support those elements to over throat to establish a real democracy? anyone want to go on record? [laughter] i guess not. >> but if i could i use that phrase culture of compliance as aspirational coal in the sense ultimately what we are trying to do through negotiated measures or sanctions is to do bring about a more open and modern iran the inspection and process itself just to the soviet union. >> but i don't believe the

mullah want to be cool to go along with the culture i have two minutes left are the russians still engaged in the technologies going on the centrifuge to make weapons possible? are they engaged in this? >> actually the iaea knows very little about the iran nuclear program correctly because of the limitations therefore it cannot fully investigate. >> for the russian and engineers still engaged in this project?

>> there has not been direct engineers involved there is some with the weaponization part. >> so the actual building of this facility was a russian project? >> no. it was up power plant. >> that is what i am talking about was it built by the russians? >> yes. >> does this review should not make a difference if they have the nuclear power plant? >> did indeed the centrifuge to start. >> i and a stand that but the point is when the russians came on board i remember going to the ambassador 1999 the american ambassador suggested we give

the russians an alternative place to build several nuclear power plants because it would lead to this moment and nothing happened i said the same thing to condoleezza rice would year later and nothing happened. when they first started building the power plant we were leading up to this day and i would hope i'm sorry it looks like the cooperation level has gone down since this moment and perhaps it'll show a side of good faith on their part if they would cooperate with us to do with the iranians indulge me for one more question. to any of you know, of an offer of the rusher and -- russian government to

withdraw from the project early before the nuclear power plant was done? any offer made that could have prevented us from this point? >> i was told there was an offer we did not pay attention to its under george w. bush administration. think you very much. >> mr. rademaker you referred back to the two decades ago and and looking at the panel with a comprehensive agreement so

how confident were weighed there was not a facility? but certainly that there were not other enrichment facilities beyond that time? let's start with that. >> the answer to your question we have never been confident that there is a secret facility then for a long period of time that is all that we knew of even more secretive underground facilities so is there a third underground facility somewhere? i don't take anybody could say we are confident there

is not that is why the question is critically important in does near-term and the of a comprehensive solution betty van after words because when that comprehensive solution it will go way down. >> anyone know some of the panel confident these are the of the enrichment facilities? >> one of the reasons why all of us has been strong proponents of additional monetary measures that are comprehensive to go beyond certain facilities is to reduce the uncertainty about what is the wing on elsewhere -- going on elsewhere that is why it is important to get the precise and detailed accounting

about past activities to be a part of the agreement. >> that troubles me the of most. no a little more away from the exploration and we have been talking for how long? and when was the first report? >> the first time was during 2004. >> so we negotiate during the interim period to get to the comprehensive agreement for a decade. a decade we have worried about possible military dimensions that is striving congressional action and why we have been engaged in the deliberations over several

decades but for 10 years we have 480 and known about this but yet what access have we been given during this initial period and what have we been given to the a other areas to richer iran has come clean on those military dimensions? >> bet is one of the robust regime as we go for it knowing what you just said. >> i appreciate that but it is the chicken and egg situation a. how do we agree to the comprehensive agreement with a adequate lovell of verification if to date the

most concerning issue the iranians have not been willing to provide any access at all? . . that talks about the history and it doesn't use the term military

dimension but that is what they are talking about. let me read you the sentence. this is how this critically important questions addressed in the jpa. it says they create a joint commission of the two sides the p5+1 and the iranians. it will work with the iaea to facilitate resolution of past and present issues of concern. that's all it says so there's a mechanism that's going to work with the iaea to figure this out nothing in the jpa depends on it actually being worked out. in other words if this mechanism utterly fails to achieve satisfaction for the iaea that's unfortunate but it doesn't stand in the way of the rest of the jpa. what's going on here? i have to say i think regrettably what happened was our negotiators found this to be a very hard issue because i think the iranians have a lot to hide. there's a lot of history that i want to talk about so this became a sticking point in initial discussions and the

answer of the negotiators the p5+1 altima we settled on was we are going to shift this issue to the iaea. it's going to become the iaea's problem to get to the bottom up. we held a joint commission to try to work with them but if we don't get to the bottom of it that's too bad. >> i might of time that mr. chairman i appreciate that and i just hope given that it's now more than a decade that we have worried about military dimensions of a rainy nuclear program. the iaea longer for the rest of us at a bare minimum congress should be informed of the very detailed nature of whatever talks have taken place surrounding that issue before we should be asked to budge an inch on any sanctions and in fact whether to extend beyond six months. mr. deutsch a thank you and i should talk after this hearing on that very subject. let's go now to mr. steve chabot

of chicago. >> thank you mr. chairman. last year the asia subcommittee which i chair and the middle east subcommittee chaired by iliana ros-lehtinen held a joint hearing to discuss the linkages between covert and illicit activities in i ran and north korea and syria. it's been reported for some time that north korea has been assisting in supplying iran's missile program. given the history of north korea and the failure of the u.s. in the international community to stop pyongyang from acquiring nuclear weapons what lesson should be applied to the situation with i ran moving forward? and what provisions of any in the agreement prevent i ran from outsourcing their nuclear program to another country as was the case with north korea. icu nodding so i will go to you first. c. i'm sure mr. detrani will have something to add to this point as well. one of the reasons i read in my

statement that it's very important to have an effective means of monitoring iranian procurement particulaparticula rly if they are going to be allowed to have a peaceful nuclear program as part of whatever agreement emerges is to make sure that in the noise of those procurement efforts that i ran is not able to outsource significant parts of its nuclear weapons development program to other states or to nonstate actors the a.q. khan's of the world and are north korea and to get a good handle on the procurement they are taking because there has been this long track record of i ran looking for various sources throughout the world that could aid its nuclear developments. the ambassador. let me in note in north korea we have a real example of how

important verification and monitoring is. in 2008 when we were proceeding with the dismantlement programs to dismantle yongbyon there was a bare negation particle that they agree to orally. when we asked for them to put it in writing because that was a very robust verification protocol it required if you will unfettered access anywhere anytime samples taken out of the country and they refuse to put it in writing. since then they have not come back to the table so it shows how important verification piece of the equation is with north korea. i would think the same with iran with a very robust meaningful protocol that insists on a unfettered access and samples and so forth. i will be critical as we move forward in this example we got from north korea. >> thank you. let a shift gears for just a moment.

where does israel fit into all of this and their views on iran compliant issues and just what attention is being paid in that area? mr. rademaker? >> israel is obviously concerned about the iranian nuclear program and with good reason. iran and iranian need leaders have made comments about how israel should be wiped from the face of the earth or wiped off the map of the earth. so for a country like israel that's obviously alarming that you have those kinds of statements coupled with technological activity that seems aimed at producing a nuclear weapon which would enable them to do precisely what they are saying they would like to see happen. so the united states has a lot

to be worried about and iran's other neighbors in the persian gulf region have a lot to be worried about. israel has a lot to be worried about. israel is paying a lot of attention to this problem. my understanding is there's a great deal of apprehension and israel about the current course of the diplomacy. as i said earlier its eyes been possible to negotiate a deal with iran just agree with what they're asking for and we can have a deal. i think the israelis are concerned that the deal that was struck last year leans too far in that direction of iran's negotiating objectives. they are allowed to continue enriching. they get sanctions relief momentum in the direction of tightening sanctions has all been reversed and then they are promised this get out of jail free card and they can continue

to enrich at a level that is being negotiated right now and when that period expires they can do all the enrichment they want. they can do other reprocessing they want and none of that will be limited. the israelis are deeply concerned about that and my sense is that is going to rise to some tension in the bilateral relationship between united states and israel. >> my time has expired. >> we will go to karen bass of california. >> thank you mr. chairman. b-52 on the administration has intimated that a final agreement that leaves iran with the breakout time of six months to a year may be acceptable. i wanted to know from the panelists whoever chooses to answer what you think of the idea if a six-month breakout window would be a sufficient period of time to detect and counteract and iranian breakout. go ahead.

>> certainly six months as a short period of time with diplomacy and it depends how iran will deviate from the agreement. there are several options available there and if it goes for example in such a way that the only evidence the iaea has on the results it normally takes about three months to get it. six months is much too short a time because you need to take examples and you can perhaps analyze them but it has a lot of vulnerabilities and it's also very difficult to estimate the unknowns what kind of perimeter you have there are and how long it will take to find out. you need to prove it etc. so six months is a very short and.

see if i could just add i think some of us feel that there may be too much emphasis on a timeline because it's hard to say for sure iran is six months away from a weapon or its 5.5 months away from a weapon or even react to that time and i think that's why several of us have been advocating that the really important thing to get right in this agreement is to layer on sufficient monitoring system so you have the sense of what that attack status of iraq's -- iran's program because everything else falls from a. >> forgive me if i sound like a broken record but that six-month breakout time is fine but let's bear in mind that six-month period will only apply during the. period of a comprehensive solution. when the conference of solution and some that will be in five or 10 years than all of the things

that give us that six-month window go away. they will no longer be limited in the centrifuges and the amount of enrichment so the moment that solution expires it won't be six months. it will be six weeks. >> i heard you say that earlier so what do you think it should be? it shouldn't be five years it should be 10 or 15 years? what are your thoughts about that? >> on the comprehensive solution? >> right. >> i think the enhanced verification requirements, the restrictions -- given the history don't think iran should we permitted to enrich at all. i think they should not be permitted to enrich but the restrictions on what they can do and the enhanced verification that applies to that should be indefinite until the international community can

reach a judgment that it is satisfied that iran is not like south africa. they have turned a corner and they are no longer a nuclear proliferation. i think it's going to take more than good behavior before i will feel comfortable. >> you and several of the other panelists mentioned several countries south africa and brazil. are there any other examples internationally where it's been without a specific timeline? you know what i mean? in other words we continue --. >> i think they also gave up their program. >> thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. now we go to adam kinzinger of alumni. >> thank you chairman and thank you all for being here and helping to educate us and talking about these important issues.

as i look around the world and i look around especially at the middle east i guess i'm excited the administration is so giddy about the prospect of negotiations with iran. i think a lot of the pending negotiations we heard yesterday from the administration about how they are hopeful that the situation going on with the release of five taliban will help lead to a reinvigorated taliban to come negotiate with the united states. i reminded some folks in the administration that in fact pakistan is in negotiations with the taliban right now and a day or two ago 18 people were killed in an airport in the fight with the taliban. we look at the situation in israel the israel-palestine negotiations and all the effort that the administration is put into that which while we would all of love that to be solved this questionably regional conflict in the smaller conflict on the basis of conflicts that surround the developing middle east.

in negotiations with russia and how well some of those of don and syria and the situation we find ourselves in there. i don't have a lot of hope in the future of negotiations from this administration. and i would ask and i will assess rhetorically and feel free to comment later if you can think of any success we have had with negotiations with an enemy of the united states under this administration. we had her boot on the throat of iranians at a time when we really could have i think ended the question of nuclear arms in iran. it's always interesting to me how the iranians feel they they can be in any position at all to have any bargaining power the table or have any demands from the beginning. we determined they should not have the right to an air weapons program and i think that pretty much says it. but that said i want to go an issue that has been touched on it very briefly. i can asks for the level of your expertise. can you talk about the iranian

ballistic missile program? they are developing the ability to deliver nuclear weapons through the ballistic program. i'm curious whoever wants to go first talking about the situation where iran finds itself with ballistic missiles. mr. lauder? >> there are raining ballistic mullahs -- missile program is a capability that is of concern and in fact if it would be difficult to negotiate at this stage given what has transpired already but i would think it would be very important to begin to find a way to add additional constraints on that program and to add additional monitoring against the program. you may recall in the heyday of

arms control agreements between the united states and the soviet union we chose to focus on delivery vehicles because they were easier to to monitor in some ways than an air weapons themselves or the nuclear programs themselves and i think constraints and monitoring of the uranium ballistic missile program would be a very useful complement in the types of things we have been talking about safari. >> but do we have the ability to do that? when you're negotiating with the russians and you have arms limitation agreement and you have two superpowers those with a vested interest in trying to calm the situation this is an asymmetric situation. iran is no soviet union. do we really believed we could put in place a way to monitor? are there ways to put in place to monitor what they are doing and deal with the assurances that they are not hiding anything in the mountains are underground? or underground? >> one of the challenges we face is this is very much an

asymmetric relationship. this is not where the united states is concerning some of its capability. we are asking iran to stop doing what it has been doing illicitly against international norms and international agreements and we are trying to trade off of sanctions against that. we know how to monitor missiles and we certainly have a track record of things that we could put in place if we could bring iran to that position. >> but your your point is right on. we are talking about weaponization and miniaturization of the delivery system for ballistic missile program. they continue to develop it so is a central piece and an meaningful monitoring verification protocol the missiles have to be very much a part of that. spain mr. chairman --

>> we go to mr. william king of massachusetts. >> i would like to thank the panel for their very important discussions this morning. i think it underscores to me and many of our members the reforms fully before the agreement is to go forward and many of the issues you brought up for critical ones. my role is also as the ranking member on europe and asia and the emerging threats there so i would like to shift more into european perspective of things and how do you assess the role of our european partners in the pf plus five especially if catherine ashton stepping down. will that have an effect at all in what you comment on that? our partners and how they are feeling the situation and give this your expertise in that area as well. >> my only comment on that would

be the europeans are extremely concerned in your last question about ballistic missiles that north korea has the capability and they're working on that to touch europe with their ballistic missile systems and if there's a nuclear program so i think the european nations ought to be extremely concerned about the nuclear program, no question. >> do we have any comment on the effect of the u.s. dealing with the partners as well and this? with things could raise potential conflicts and what things could we do to ameliorate things going forward? >> sir on your question about -- she has been a central player. i think her departure will make a difference although we don't know exactly what the difference will be because we don't know who her replacement will be. we can depend on the personality of her successor. more broadly speaking the observation was made earlier

that were sanctions policies to work we need cooperation of our economic gardeners and there have been plenty of hiccups along the way but by and large in recent years the cooperation is in pretty good. i think congress has provided incredible leadership in the sanctions area. the shorthand that is applied to this is the menendez-kirk amendment to the defense authorization bill. there have been two of them but the way they impose financial sanctions in a creative way designed to discourage the importation of iranian oil but it was done very cleverly and in a calibrated way that has actually worked and there's a lot of conversation about frozen iranian assets in foreign banks. these are not funds that are frozen but funds that are being

held in the banks and being briefed he. to in cash form to iran because of the sanctions policy that congress mandated and other countries are cooperating on. the partnership has worked pretty well. in terms of the actual diplomacy it's interesting. i was involved in it to some extent when i served in the bush of administration and there are times that some of our european partners take a harder line on iran than the united states does for example the current french government has been pretty firm in its stance on the iranian so it's gratifying to see sometimes some of our allies take a harder line on the iranian nuclear program in the u.s. government. >> the pf plus one moves forward there is some kind of flop turned -- long-term agreement and some of the ambiguity and the lack of

robust -- what are the concerns as a group? what would happen if lifting of sanctions unilaterally or as a group. do you see that is a concern going forward. that kind of disengagement? >> lifting sanctions like that would be that would be a terrible move and move us in the wrong direction. i think we have to be united on something like this. >> and then lastly i just want to touch base a little bit on russia. the u.s. and e.u. imposed sanctions what implication of any will increase european demand for gas and our ability to sustain international consensus regarding sanctions on iran? >> the that's a pretty complex

question having to do with the functioning of global energy markets. both iran and russia are major energy exporters and so i guess they both benefit from higher prices and they both benefit from the diversions of shortages so it is one of the challenges that i believe the united states faces in dealing with russia and the fact that something like 30% of european gas consumption is russian gas. there is an effort now to build a pipeline across turkey and to southern europe but ideally to be filled with gas and i think the iranians would be happy to put their gas in the pipeline if they were allowed to do that. we don't want that to happen but the energy equation is a complex one and iran as the government

is guilty of gross financial mismanagement so their energy resources are relatively undeveloped compared to what it could be with that or management. >> we go now to mr. randy weber of texas. >> thank you mr. chairman. our colleague mr. meeks said that negotiating with iran is not easy and i thank you mr. mr. rademaker would -- negotiation would be easy and my words if we roll over and play dead in every -- give them everything they want. was either said that? >> my opinion is that if we are not careful in these negotiations we will get what we got in the guantánamo trade. we get to keep unconventional weapon. they get five nuclear weapons so it turns out adam kinzinger was correct. negotiations have not been kind during this administration.

if we don't realize there's a danger of negotiating with iran we are fooling ourselves. anybody here on the panel remember when the first time iran referred to the united states as the great satan? anybody? >> november 5, 1979 but ayatollah khamenei so for 35 years. i don't know what time it was said israel was a smaller state so should we be saying when we talk about negotiating with iran and the terrace here we are negotiating with the group of people who are radical is fundamentalist terrorists who the jihad is believed in

exploiting terrorism to the extent that they will strap explosives on young boys and girl's to kill other foisted girls and we think we can negotiate with them? i believe it was you mr. lauder who said we need a list of all of their scientists who are working on their program? i don't know if you saw "the wall street journal" article on may 27 where there's a group of opposition leaders who have identified motion foster is our day i think is his name as the father of a nuclear weapon. would you agree with that? and mr. chairman by the way mr. chairman if i may have would like to get this letter into the record. >> without objection we will include that. >> would you agree with that? >> i think it's very important that we have access as part of the regime of the key personnel

on the part of iran's nuclear program. >> you agree that he's the father of the nuclear program? >> i don't know. most nuclear programs probably have multiple fathers. >> but do you know this gentleman? mr. ambassador you are shaking your head. turn your mic on please sir. turn your mic on. >> i've heard the name before sir. he's affiliated with the nuclear program. >> would you give this credence versus something you heard in passing? >> i think there's something to it. >> okay. >> you mentioned also mr. lauder that the facility first of all that we should get that list of those involved those scientists. we should have anytime anyplace access for 24/7. i think it was you that said that in today's hearing which i

can't agree more on. if we keep it in the context that we have terrorists who will kill innocent children men and women and who had been lying and doing such for over 35 years. how long do you think we have to give them a chance to prove themselves? trust but verify 24/7 anytime anyplace access? should it be 35 years? should they stop their exporting of terrorism or i should say supporting syria right down the list afghanistan and iraq all the terrorists they are supporting should be 35 years or is 35 months long enough or not long enough? we will start with you mr. mr. rademaker. >> the question is how long should we expect to be compliant before we can trust them? >> i have a hard time answering that. it's sort of like the supreme court. i will know it when i see it.

i don't think you can measure this by a timeline for it i think the measure of whether you can trust iran will be the totality. >> okay i've got you. >> who is in power there and what policies are they pursuing. >> what do we catch them with if we are diligent enough? i'm almost out of time. let's go to mr. lauder for a minute. >> i agree with some of the comments mr. rademaker made earlier that we have to be about this monitoring and verification regime for the long-term. >> six months karen bass bass asked the question six months is long -- not long enough for great? >> has to be longer. >> very quickly because i'm out of time. what do you think the length of time out to be? >> more than six months but it's

how the compliances dealt with. what kind of process will have in place when something comes up when we see iran has not complied. the track record is fair. >> forgive my. >> i would say this is going to be indefinite. the part of the npt is fair. you're going to have to have those launches and they have two have the protocols and the unfettered access is going to have to be there indefinitely. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yield back the. >> we go to mr. david cicilline from rhode island. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you to the witnesses for this very useful testimony of very serious issue. the principle challenge we face as a country is how we reach agreement with the party with very serious consequences that has been deeply untrustworthy and deceptive and i think in part our success depends on our ability to monitor effectively and to respond effectively to

any failings to any agreement. i want first asked the witnesses, the joint plan of action calls for a conference of solution that and i quote that would ensure iran's nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful end quote. we have also heard of president rouhani say that iran will not dismantle a single centrifuge and so my first question is, is there a way to ensure iran's nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful without dismantling some centrifuge is? ..

>> >> of course, we don't except that. if your question is how many centrifuges could they be operating we are confident it is with the history with where they have been. and forgery to say to be a

exclusively peaceful is zero centrifuge but we're in in a situation where they have an operating number of a centrifuge. i don't understand why they need any. and to produce fuel for the civil nuclear program. >> then they do gave more centrifuge. so the idea to negotiate the number that is lower than it now that is evidence of a peaceful program so of an abominable -- minimum number makes no economic sense and now negotiating down to is a centrifuge program literally

make sense of the military program. so it would go to the operation of zeros interviews. >> with there were constraints with respect to research and development with that technology it is frozen in time and were entering your thoughts of the final agreement to impose responsible constraints on research and development with the security of our country and the limitations? >> access to the facilities to the notes and the data and the test records. it is important to go way back to determine the capability is. >> but in addition further

it a limitations to limit research and development to limit capability? >> first of all, in our mind we saw the two technologies for their uranium for peaceful purposes. it is the behavior of the state and i personally see very hard to argue they need in richmond for the power plant if nobody sells it and it is uranium so what you are not able to buy uranium then you are well dressed but nowhere to go. solo to baster argument on

that. >>. >> i have been struck to watch the ayatollah reaction how things have unfolded in front of a bitter that america cannot do a thing and said they have renounced the idea of any military action in. i try to understand from their perspective the sanctions so what incentive does he have to want to change his course of conduct? to me he is absolutely incentivized to want to enrich and have a nuclear

capability. and does anybody want to quibble with me with the ayatollah perspective haven't we provided him a road map to continue on? >> i thank you point to a well-founded concern what brought every and choose the negotiating table in the first place? in a tin is pressure that has been relieved to some extent and on the military side with the threat of a military strike than one year ago. we have negotiators meeting today in geneva. maybe they are making progress i don't know but i am concerned iran right how

they know what they need to would agree to to get the deal been holding now for better terms is that because they are under less pressure and will diminish over time? that the current trajectory is in their favor? i worry that is what they are thinking. maybe the diplomats are also. for whatever proposal they have made. >> as this has unfolded to deal with ivory and to treat to them in a way that is too much of the sensibility however and conducts themselves they don't recognize enough the way they are motivated with the

islamic jihad to wage war against infidels. and to to have negotiations i am not optimistic that that will be done and iran well willingly disarmed itself for i hope i am wrong but that is where we are. i will yield back the balance of my time. >> edwin what has been said and allowing us to conduct a bipartisan way into the ted shawn in testimony with the deal is time based in

proceed however the country wants to. with that since we all need to a trustee and iran is with hegemonic and nefarious intent that it can be treated like to pay and i would argue the exact opposite. like any non-nuclear weapons state by rand is different. today is 40 days away from the deadline in there is talk about moving a ran back onto the pathway to a nuclear weapons capability. many of us have stated here before and today moving iran

back words is not sufficient the goal should be to move it off the path by that way of introduction is there any reason we should be not holding them a reactor or to fully disclose their previous military intentions? civic i think we're in violent agreement with our perspective. but with the rationale i am the wrong -- the wrong person to ask because i don't think they should be allowed. if you want someone to do give you a reason.

>> does anybody have a case to justify to allow them to a rich? i think the sense is we're all in agreement. before november to fourth last year before it was made the conversation was any and all pathways to acquire a nuclear weapon and it seems that concern is not closing the pathway after all. mr. lauder you talk about how to deal with noncompliance but how do we do that even before to make sure as incentive to go forward? >> it is an excellent question and comes back to

begin to have any confidence that this agreement will be complied with we have to go back to the path to make a full disclosure of what they have done under the nuclear program. we still have to leverage the sanctions nothing is agreed and everything is agreed but that understanding for what iran has done in the past becomes a foundation for the of monetary regime. >> in 2003 when they reach what is an agreement with iran to come to the history of its program made to look what was the reason was there another and this is

the most important element to be concluded. >> sanctions they are abiding we know why they are back at the table because they need relief. going after the financial system with that illicit activity is so lucky in that is the pressure to keep them on a path my personal view is you keep that on if they want relief that is where it comes in and if you're not performing. >> ambassador eyes agree but my personal belief is we need to make sure iran understands no deal is better than the bad deal but orders of magnitude credit -- greater if there is not

the deal to our terms and with that i yield back. >> i appreciate you being here. we sat here several times over the past year in the half and everybody was pretty much in agreement therapy nuclear richer real to construct five or six bombs does every and accomplish that mission is to have enough material? >> no. the concern is with 20 percent parity into enough kilograms. >> but we don't have all the information can we -- and we cannot say with certainty? >> have made the as indicated. >> you were saying is very difficult to monitor and

verify the compliance. should these details have been worked out before releasing sanctions? >> you should have everything on the table i wanted everything before you move forward. would you agree with that? >> i don't have all of the modalities but they gave relief with a certain number moving forward. >> but if we cannot verify your monitor richet of had a way to monitor all those parameters before moving forward. i hope so what about you? >> i think it is very important before there is further loosening of the sanctions that we do get the complete and full accounting

of those declarations as the basis of the monetary regime. >> in your opinion does the program allowed iran to do get closer to have a bomb if we stay on the current track ?yq- >> i think the obama administration would argue with the current arrangementq there is a jig at the 20% but on the other hand, there was of recent analysis from the center along your producing 20 percent with up

production of three or 5 percent. did vintages of the of progress is substantially less than what the administration advertise. >> i have heard they have way more centrifuges than they need for nuclear power production so we are an agreement they're moving in that changed direction and they have over the last 30 years. would you believe the interim agreement was detrimental to u.s. security or the regional security of israel the way it was negotiated at the time? >> guys think it was detrimental on the sanctions side so that was not permitted.

>> [inaudible] >> turn on your microphone please am part of the inventory part of the enriched uranium and the report speaks about the former for cooperation. there has ben movement in response to the relief of the sanctions. >> but to feel they have abided by the terms of the agreement? >> it was a much more positive report with the

exception. >> and what should we do? to prepare for the nuclear bomb? >> sanctions are big and have impact. >> i appreciate your time. >>. >> the key to the ranking member. i have been very critical of the deal i thought it was a mistake but first we should have gotten the final deal that negotiated the interim deal with first should have made sure there was no path said we could negotiate the interim deals because the sanctions were working. i voted to ratchet up do you

want us nuclear program or to function in the economy? we will press the sanctions that would have been the right way to go but now we are here and it is a very dangerous situation because we will get to july 20th and they will want more time. said what do we do? then it is harder to put the sanctions back on so where do we go from here? i could not agree more wholeheartedly so to force them to comply so to play

cat and mouse so where do we go from here? >>. >> we talk about unfettered access with access to all the facilities with weaponization to be drilled down indefinitely. >> but we will get to that six month when they want more time. >> it is pretty clear if we reach the six month point of the comprehensive solution there will be the six month extension and they said at 1.it will take up to one year to negotiate they were

anticipating the six month extension but they do want to pick up on one thing. rethink the right they would be to negotiate the final agreement? it pains me to lose say this but i think that is what they did. it does specify the final agreement, i read it earlier that upon the expiration of a comprehensive solution and the program will be treated the same manner as did a non-nuclear weapons state. the end state is no sanctions are restrictions on the ability to do whenever they want but with those ordinary safeguards. >> i met the issue to have any type of the richmond program or a way to reach set ability to create a nuclear weapon.

i know what you are saying and i am not disagreeing with you but what i would say if you allow if you had no way around to have it come from somewhere else to have unfettered access where they could be hiding things that is the deal. those people associated with the deal are good hearted to attend to negotiate this western type of nation. >> so as to the extent the negotiations continue but to

expand the provisions that area needs to take. they have not been in compliance with international agreements that iran it should be to undertake additional provisions to build confidence in the international community. >> it was like north korea they would also threaten to bomb los angeles and they may have the nerve to do it. >> now we go to the senator from north carolina where i think we could agree if they would draft a final

agreement is a huge foreign policy win that it was bereft of foreign policy. but my a concern was if they achieve a win the lack of political will to: and a violation subsequently. so to respond to this one and one dash internal controls that the politics to salvage the foreign policy win do not trump good sense in the white house before calling out a

violation. take 30 seconds and then i will be out of time. >> i don't know the checks with the decision making on foreign policy the way he sees fit to a life to think there are people in the intelligence community trying attention to problems that i don't know. but ultimately it is the united states congress. >> baby that was helpful as the president was considering in stanching five taliban terrorist for bergdahl. >> they are trying to hint the sanctions that i don't think the president has the authority unilaterally to get rid of all of the sanctions.

but to enforce certain losses that only the congress can do. to lead this congress to pass legislation to pass judgment on the entire arrangement and for that reason it would behooves be administration to consult closely now that you are prepared to except. >> indeed. >> i don't know if that is happening but they need to persuade you that if there are details you're not happy about let them know that now that after they promised things that they cannot deliver. >> i agree the most effective red team will be

the u.s. congress. you will have the opportunity, i am presuming as an outsider, but this is not to a treaty but the functional equivalence of the ratification in dealing with the sanctions question. that is the opportunity to express the congress view of the capabilities to be nurtured with the compliance report to the extent with the agreement what has been done to resolve that asking for the of classified report it has been a feature in the past it led to internal

debates but to make sure the iranians understand compliance will be very important. >> i agree with mr. lauder. but with public opinion you make the deal ( and compliance. the deal is important on only to the security is the united states by a regional security to set a benchmark. this will have ramifications >> i believe it is the foreign governments at have access to a unique insight but a strong case can be

made and if they are in their own way i don't think anyone can conceal that aspect. >> we thank of witnesses for testimony today and you have given us a lot to consider as the administration continues to negotiate higher troubled as mr. rademaker put it to iran is on the path from nuclear pariah to partner and i don't think any member of the committee is comfortable with that given the supreme leaders comments in may in particular about the expectations to limit the ballistic missile program that this was a stupid and idiotic expectation but i did not give you the rest of the quotation which is very revealing. the revolutionary guard

should definitely carry out their program and not be satisfied that the present level. they should mass produce ballistic missiles. he is not referring tompgug space program. and adding those juicy 19,000 ignoring what the leader is saying on this subject as they move forward with their program is very concerning to me and especially wanted to thank the members of this committee and witnesses for the chance today to take a good hard look at the on the

wing negotiations thank you very much. we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations]."

[inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, the president and vice president of united states of america. >> hello everybody. [applause] >> good morning. thank you so much. please have a seat. today i am proud to sign two bills into law. [applause] one will support jobs to strengthen our national infrastructure the other

honors military heroes. they accomplished to very different sayings they do what we want all the laws to do to serve the american people to honor the past to build a stronger future. the first bill is the water resources reform and development act that will put americans to work but during the "state of the union" address to congratulate that outstanding crew to get it done. bipartisan negotiators. [applause]

they focused on what was good for the country and their communities and the consequence with the legislation to make a difference as more of the world cargo is transport of these massive ships we have to make sure we have bridges high enough and ports did you have to accommodate and businesses can see -- king keeps selling goods made it a bear cub but many businesses shipped across the country by river and canal to make sure those waterways are in in tiptop shape than this bill gives a green light to projects across the country including to deepen boston harbor and restore the everglades and with congress authorization and now they can move forward. this bill will help towns and cities improve commerce

but also helped them to prepare for the effects of climate change, storms, floods, drou ghts, rising sea levels. traditionally and it does not always been true in putting americans back to work that we could be getting done right now because contractors are coming in under budget. so we could be doing even more. there received bipartisan support hopefully sets a pattern for additional work we can do on transportation and infrastructure we need the bill by the end of the

summer to make sure they don't get shut down. but i just want to be clear is if congress fails to act in federal funding runs out by the end of december that means more than 100,000 active projects or 700,000 jobs are at risk. and the last point about infrastructure that is one of the reasons america became a global superpower in the first place. the good thing with infrastructure projects is they cannot be allosaurs. american workers have to do the job here in america.

and american in companies as a huge ripple effect with a steel, concrete, engineers, engineers those that have ph teas from what we put together it is a high priority. surely after p.r. became part of the united states the soldiers was four days have served the nation bravely ever since then world war i they controlled the panama canal and did world war ii they fought in europe in korea in mud and snow the 55th infantry regime and also down as of board mckinny is? yes.

[laughter] i've practiced. it is said before p.r. that sets them apart but their courage made them legendary. they have on thousands of medals for their service for one of the highest gold medals one of them would be very proud to see his son james of the white house on sunday he has been serving in my administration since 2009 here in the white house said the department of homeland security. it is a proud day for his family. [applause] >> and then senator richard

and we're glad we have their governor here with us today as well. only a few have won this award italy one other hispanic. and whose lives a of it's a proud day for americans especially hispanic americans making contributions to our country many through military service. on behalf of the american people for their extraordinary service and to those members of the 65th regiment i would ask you to please stand and raise your

hand so we can recognize you for your service. [applause] [applause] >> okay. i will sign these bills. we will do the water one first for the water folks. [laughter] then the infantry will be up here.

[laughter] [inaudible] there you go. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> there you go.

[applause] [applause]

[applause] [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you everybody [applause] [inaudible conversations]

benevento's see any distinction if he tried to justify my program on the victims lost i cannot convincingly explained why 9/11 yes 93 world trade center no. the only way you justify this program it as special from the perspective of the nation a recognition that and 11 along with the american civil war, pearl harbor, maybe the assassination of president kennedy the impact was such

that it was a response from america to demonstrate the comes solidarity and cohesiveness to the victims hearing will come to order. good morning, everybody. of the hearing will come to order with the war one. we have been talking

about to have upward mobility in the to first century and we will pick up where we left off last time were be heard people fighting poverty on thein front lines ar from people who have worked on the supply lines. we're going to look at how the states and federal governments can better support the fight against poverty. because if we've learned anything, it's that there's room for improvement. each year we spend nearly $800 billion on 92 different programs to fight poverty. and yet the official poverty rate hasn't budged in years. if we're going to people -- they can get help if they fall into poverty but far too many people still can't earn enough to get out of poverty and over the past three years deep poverty has been the highest since it's been recorded. clearly something's not working and we need to try something new. and given our history i'd say we're due for an adjustment. the last time we made big changes was welfare reform in 1996. that was almost 20 years ago. we all know what happened.

poverty among children of single mothers fell by double digits. we also learned and our witnesses are unanimous on this point, that work is crucial to fighting poverty. and there's another takeaway. before congress began drafting legislation, it allowed states to try out new ideas. the national evaluation of welfare-to-work strategies program tested a number of different approaches for work programs, education programs and different mixes between the two. i think that approach, with an emphasis on results, on concrete evidence, on what works, is just the mind-set that we need today. but times have changed. today the biggest means tested programs are medicaid, s.n.a.p. and the earned income tax credit. we spend more on earned income housing, and we haven't made serious reforms in almost two decades. pofr if i is a very complex problem. and deep poverty is especially difficult. many people in deep poverty face

serious challenges like addiction, homelessness, disability, and all of these challenges are interrelated. but the current system is too fragmented to give them the care that they need. if we can provide better coordinated care, we can help more people actually get out of poverty. today we will hear from two panels. on the first is our colleague, a leader here in the house, the esteemed democratic leader congressman james clyburn. he is going to brief us on the 10, 20, 30 plan that he's been discussing. and to make sure we have enough time to hear from all of our witnesses we will not take questions from mr. clyburn. on the second panel we will hear from three people who have extensive experience working with aid programs at the federal, state and local level. first we have jason turner who worked with wisconsin governor tommy thompson to reform our state's welfare program. then we have robert doar who served as commissioner of the new york city's human resources administration under mayor michael bloomberg. finally, we have olivia golden

who led the d.c. children and family services agency from 2001 to 2004. i want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today and sharing your expertise. the question i want answered today is how can we improve. what are some ideas to do a better job? how can we better focus and target, interrelate these programs? how can we make these programs better? how can we get more bang for our buck? and how can we get more people involved? i said we need to hear from people with different points of view, and from different walks of life. today we'll hear from people who have firsthand knowledge of the challenges we face, and with that i'd like to recognize the ranking member for his opening remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'm glad to have another opportunity to talk about what additional measures we should and can take to fight poverty in america. let's begin on a point of agreement that for all those who can work the best anti-poverty measure is a job. and many of us believe that if someone works hard all day, all year around, that he or she should be able to earn enough to keep their family out of

poverty. that's why the president and democrats in congress have proposed to raise the minimum wage, which has less purchasing power today than when harry truman was president. and according to the congressional budget office, that measure would lift over 1 million hard-working americans out of poverty and raise low wages for another 15 million working americans. here in the house, speaker boehner's refused to even allow a vote on that measure to raise the minimum wage just as he continues to refuse a vote to extend emergency unemployment compensation to 3 million americans. but we all know that even if we raise the minimum wage, huge challenges remain. and we must examine the past to chart the best way forward. a january report from the council of economic advisers did just that. it found that about 50 million americans remain in poverty. an unacceptably high number. but it also found that steps

we've taken over the last 50 years have cut poverty in half from what it would otherwise be. that over 40 million americans who otherwise would be in poverty are not. that's why, mr. chairman, we cannot understand the disconnect between these hearings on poverty, and the republican budget that was recently adopted. that budget is full of trojan horse policies that are heavy on sound bites but actually shred the social safety net and push more americans into poverty. the republican plan undermines the existing supports for the most vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled and children. it guts food and nutrition programs, it slashes $700 billion there the base medicaid program which primarily serves these vulnerable populations. and it repeals the optional state expansion under the affordable care act. all told, two thirds of the budget cuts in the republican budget come from initiatives to help middle and lower income individuals.

now by what logic do we reduce poverty for the millions of americans in poverty today by cutting programs that have helped lift about 45 million americans out of poverty? it's bad enough that the republican budget targets these programs, but it does add insult to injury to do so to protect special interest tax breaks for powerful wealthy elites at the expense of middle class families and those working to climb into the middle class. the republican budget passed this spring calls for a one-third cut in the tax rate for millionaires and refuses to close a single special interest tax break to help reduce the deficit. not one. but it doesn't just slash safety net programs designed to prevent people from hitting rock bottom. it also slashes programs that provide opportunities to climb out of poverty. it cuts deeply into early education. it cuts deeply into k through 12 and cuts very deeply into higher

education programs like pell grants, and student loan programs. and just this week while the president and many of us are working to try and reduce the debt burden being faced by college students, here in the house, we're talking about permanent unpaid for tax break extensions for businesses. allowing future generations to foot the bill. so, in the end, mr. chairman, the republican budget will not create jobs, it will not make people more employable. it will not reduce the poverty. it will reduce the ladder of opportunity, and shred the social safety net as part of a trickle-down ideology obsessed with cutting tax rates for the wealthy at the expense of all the other priorities. when you get to the top in the republican budget, you pull the ladder up, after you. so i hope, mr. chairman, that today we can really get to the bottom of some issues here on

moving forward, and we have a tremendous witness with us right now, the assistant democratic leader mr. clyburn who has spent his life working to improve the lives of those living in poverty, particularly in communities that have had persistently high poverty rates. we couldn't ask for a better person to be before the committee, and i'm proud to join you, mr. chairman, in welcoming mr. clyburn to the budget committee. >> now that we set a nice bipartisan tone for productive conversation, the floor is yours. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let's hope we can keep it that way for awhile. mr. chairman and ranking member van hollen, members of the committee, good morning, and thank you very much for having me here today. i want to thank the chair lady of the congressional black

caucus first and other members of the congressional black caucus who have adopted this formula as an appropriate way to tackle this issue of persistent poverty. i know that all of us know that it is no secret that there are major disagreements among the members of this committee, and our respective parties, over the role the federal government should play in fighting poverty and confronting many other national challenges. these disagreements put simply come down to a question of federal resources. i believe that we should target more resources to impoverished communities. than you proposed budgets allocate. and i believe you can do see efficiently and effectively.

i was privileged to have the opportunity to work through some of these disagreements with you, mr. chairman, last year, as a member of the budget conference committee, and the results, while not 100% of what either of us wanted, was a reasonable compromise on federal spending through the end of the next fiscal year. i was proud to support that agreement. now that we have determined how much the federal government will spend, we must determine how to spend it most effectively. it is on this latter question, how to allocate finite federal resources to get the most bang for the buck that i believe we need to work a little harder, and more creatively to find common ground to make real strides in combatting persistent poverty in america. now mr. chairman there are currently 4 8 persistent poverty

counties in america. so defined because 20% of the population live below the poverty line for the last 30 years or more. they're diverse, including counties in states like kentucky, and west virginia, native american communities in states like alaska, and south dakota, latino communities in states like arizona and texas, african-american communities in states like south carolina, mississippi, and alabama. there are urban communities in the northeast, and rural communities in americaaries heartland. 139 of these counties are represented in this august body by democrats.