coin. >> embassador sherman with those nonproliferation experts in the middle east it is critical if it succeeds to prevent iran from developing a weapon but even under the final agreement it has the capability i am concerned it could still raise fears in the region to prop up the states with there contingency plans in their posture will saudi arabia and jordan are looking to agreements with united states had we convince them not to a demand to enrich uranium especially since we

just concluded a nuclear cooperation agreement in vietnam to enrich uranium as well? >> is no question that is quite critical to ensure we do not have a proliferation cascade but if there is the comprehensive agreement the of the program it is very small and limited so for other countries to proceed down that road and the untied states does not recognize that in the country has the right to enrichment in we will continue to vigorously enforce that. >> i want to comment on the

claims that the country would lead the industrial scale capability to generate power the in the final agreement the every enrichment program is consistent with practical needs.:::::

could make the demand as well. is a possible a final agreement allows enrichment to continue would cause a proliferation in cascade in the region as other countries begin their own programs. >> we are well aware of potential risk of any agreement that allows in the country to enrich because we

don't believe any country has a right with you on the open market for power generation so if we've reached a comprehensive agreement and to the enrichment program we believe that must be very small and limited fed is not industrial size and indeed i rand has talked about what is fuelled by russia and has committed to do so and iran does not have the enrichment program so we agree with your concern and believe there should be limited and small need under intrusive monitoring s.a. a disincentive to want a similar program spinets this agreement does allow it to

enrich from something better is more profound. >> are you concerned other players would seek their own capabilities and how does that impact regional tensions? >> we hope no one goes down this road as we try to create incentives to do otherwise or to proceed and we think they have more economical ways to get fuel for power generation and clearly we want to make sure we have in place tremendous compliance should make it to the comprehensive agreement. >> then the greater the risk

for those of national groups and so the smaller the program the more likely we will see that diversion so we're very close to reach that cascading point we have held off for decades since kennedy warned as we have held a number of countries. with u.n. panel of experts reminding us it has wide reaching procurement networks to obtain materials on the global market these are complex operations with warehouses and airlines and violate u.n. security council resolutions passed in 2006 with the provision

of items to be used in the program if it gains further sanctions as part of a nuclear deal what challenges with that goes to the efforts of facilitation and procurement networks that exist today? >> et un rapport is right to it does continue to try to illicitly acquired material through the procurement networks we continue to identify and disrupt those networks and have taken action to disrupt those networks. going forward if there is the agreement that we are focused on we are sure during the course of the agreement we are able to

continue to ensure the security council resolution there is for the of rules out what about paving over the site is that the urgent priority acting in a suspicious fashion? >> under the obligations to the iaea to the analysis said is a critical element. >> we could be sure there is no planned test connectivity >> the final agreement

includes iaea being satisfied the military dimensions of the program have been addressed. >> including inspections? >> that is where they are today. >> the queue for having this hearing with your work with iran and the nuclear activities and to the witnesses. one of the natural questions where are the gaps now and we have had that's in another setting we realize that is not a good thing to have or discuss. but i know senator flake mentioned it is a historic opportunity but you although everyone a - - everyone wants a diplomatic solution

but i think when the jpoa came out and acknowledged enrichment you saw a strong response from all involved we just went through the of one choose three agreements to not in rich bay at acknowledging enrichment there are concerns but i want to close by saying despite we want you to be successful i heard what you said today that there is no deadline and i know you have to fudge a little bit but in essence there is not a

deadline but you hope that there is. you would talk about double digits but may be that is better said in a classified setting of less is is very long we have done nothing. that you will have a conversation. we had a conversation with the treaty we have known about with classified documents and that is not exactly the consultation and from when the jpoa discussions began.

but it is beyond the lame-duck session and it appears he will do whatever you wish to do you will not consult congress you don't believe that is your responsibility you will have a conversation but not have the ability even though not in place but then to push this tomb multilateral types of sanctions but again congress is relevant to raising concerns but not relevant to if this is approved by congress that is something all of us if way

into into one there is the way to deal with that in the responsibilities and i think the witnesses. >> with all due respect senator i take the as states congress seriously and we do not believe it is a conversation better consultation we believe you have or recite -- oversight authorities to provide you with realtime information and to continue to do so and

every step of this negotiation it is critical the united states the one congress and working together for year to achieve that comprehensive agreement to carry that out to give us the assurance that every pathway to the nuclear weapon is closed off and a agreed with your opening statement we share the same goal. >>. >> secretary sherman house significant is it the iranians have converted the 20% stockpile down at 5%? >> they have taken and they're 20% and either diluted did or oxidized they will take 25 kilograms about

25 percent of what they have a of a oxidized portion to turn it into a metal plate for the reactors so the likelihood to be converted back is extremely low. that is important. in addition as a result of the extension oxidize up to the 2% that is three metric tons although that does not have significant work units the way you talk about the energy with the breakout scenario it is significant but that being said we are concerned about the 5% stockpile under the jpoa but we would want to deal with that as part of any

comprehensive agreement. >> they have oxidized up to 20% that they have met their obligation. >> what is the administration's position to institute more sanctions and part of the bill is the right of any enrichment to be persuasive that encourages them to do what they need to do or pushes them away from the negotiating table? >> we believe that this point it pushes them away and would push others as well. said to have great respect

for the chairman and all members of the u.s. senate and the intentions are right to keep the pressure on iran to do what is necessary to do give the international community insurance to cut off the pathways the administration believes from this moment additional legislative action would potentially derailing the negotiation and iran is quite clear to congress will pass legislation at any moment. >> can you quantify how this delays that break out time? is that quantifiable? six months? five months? >> what i prefer is in terms of specific breakout times

to be fed in the classified setting. >> but it has to be. >> every element helps a breakout but until we get the comprehensive agreement we will not have the agreementáq

but consulting n a way that there is input taking place when it is agreed upon can be incorporated. i will say for the record the problem of course, iranians know we will pass sanctions but it is the lead time that is necessary has required a six months of notification and then the process to set them

into enforcement takes longer unfortunately that amount of time is greater than breakout if they determine they want to break out so that is the conflict we can wait with the consequences is less so there is no greater thanksgiving day gift for you all to be successful for our country and the iranian people and the world. but the concerns here are legitimate in the next panel which is excellent looking at the testimony of who's spent 27 years it was well-respected and what he says what it demonstrates

iran continues to challenge the obligation to verify the declaration with the safeguards agreement the of legality of the resolution and the iaea practices reporting the findings to the iaea board and to win security council that letter was june 4th a 2014. challenging basically everything it is doing but we are in the midst of negotiations that all these questions we have discussed we will get their informants maybe there is something in between? second, i a appreciate what treasury has been doing that even despite that part of the challenge reface -- we

face yes of iran's economy is bad but it is better than it was because the of that positive sentiment created by virtue of the joint plan of action and its extension that helps to create some modest growth. gdp will grow at 2 percent that is modest but a huge improvement over the fiscal year with gdp contracted 7.6 % and inflation will go down in the first quarter so the rate of inflation dipped below 20% but less than half than 45%. so there are consequences for our wray and -- for iran

to get them to do the right thing. and i spend the fair amount of time but i went back to read years of the editorials about north korea and it is amazing to me the language that was used about the aspirations we were seeking with north korea is the language used now with their real. there is an example the no deal is better than a bad deal that was devised with north korea because it failed to dismantle the infrastructure. and we all thought it was success than the seeing that they cheated we cannot have

that. i am glad to hear they pay attention to congress that since one hell of a message but because the stakes are so high we have a deep respect and we have a neutral cool you may not always like that but at the end of the data is positive positive:the call of our next panel mr. heinonen from international affairs at the kennedy school of government and mr. singh see your fellow and managing director

at the washington is to. -- institute. we want to thank our witnesses a please do so quietly and the new panel's full statements are included in the record without objection we would like you tussaud verizon in five minutes so we could have the give-and-take like the first panel and now going to mr. more who was listed to be a witness but took ill today so we do not have his benefit today that we will at another time. >> chairman and ranking member and members of the committee thank you for letting me address this hearing we have experienced

much from iran it has not cooperated with iaea in particular with of military nuclear program. jpoa has proceeded well but they have also seen headwinds. iaea demonstrates iran into tears the challenge. [inaudible] in reporting its findings. iran has been running the nuclear program with the obligations to disregard the resolutions it bears heavily to show the program.

and with the negotiators crafting the agreement i highlight some of the basic reasons. the first it is important for the agreement to look devil elevations and delays to achieve compliance. iran has a complete declaration of the program to serve as a clear cut baseline for military base line from the iaea. one example suggest the and i ran to increase to the number of 10,000 better to

increase to keep the stocks exceedingly low they have the fuel production in the uranium stocks this experience also demonstrates the undertaking is. but with regard to the practical needs go straight to the verification. it is a complex task.

[inaudible] iaea must have a prompt warning of violations so the declaration is acquired by iran with the iranian stocks keeping track of the of the activities and their efforts. the long term agreement and other provisions are referred to as additional protocols. iaea has a right to inspections under the existing agreements where appropriate. to have access to all areas with materials iaea needs to do its work it also requires

iran to verify to stop the proliferation for the nuclear program. . .

is the heart of iran limited production at iraq. to remove the current and replace it but not able to hold enough or out of the around the reactor. but he is changes there would be no need to produce what could be used in this reactor. iran has also resisted making concessions about what to do with that which would exceed the total agreed number. if not removed and rendered harmless, it would reconstitute the operations and create a

sizable breakout capability. adequate for the last point. and it must remove the response to the major violations by iraq. reports from the key part of member states can use these reports to complement their findings. the uranium is the more difficult and time-consuming person and the uranium at its disposal the material would vanish. [inaudible] as was was the case of south africa. in a summary it would be more time-consuming over many years.

it took for the medium-sized nuclear programs in europe with the comprehensive agreement and that is implemented about five years of the nuclear material in the countries and forcing peaceful use. forthcoming and cooperation in iran could set the tone for the country to have in place but limited nuclear program. the system endorsed by the security council is needed to support a long-term deal. thank you. >> chairman and is thank you for this opportunity to address the committee. i'm a strong supporter of the diplomatic resolution to the iran nuclear crisis and i've been involved in the talks since their inception. i am concerned that we are not close to the true diplomatic resolution that in fact is we have a deal it's likely to be

postponed. and atand at weekends or it begins our ability to achieve such a resolution. i am concerned it is going to be one that falls short of the minimum requirements. it's not likely to require them to dismantle anything including facilities that have built a violation of the requirements. to permit new activity under the jpoa. on the weaponization activity or give access to military sites as was said. it won't deal with the missiles that are such a vexing threat in places like east asia as we have seen in other reports and it would allow in a matter of years to be free of any constraints whatsoever and what we get in exchange for this deal is a commitment not to build nuclear weapons but of course the reason that we are engaged in this process is they have violated a similar commitments in the past.

we would also get an enhanced inspections but i do think we are placing too much stock on what inspections can achieve because they would be hampered by first the size of a program the program that we would leave in place under such a deal and by the refusal to come clean on its past work. frankly the absence of the willingness on the part of the u.s. or the international community to enforce. and the more more that we leave in place, the less likely the community will be to punish incremental obligations. the regime as both both if you know plays a major role in the stabilizing the middle east and supporting terrorism. frankly the arms embargo that is in place which would address for example groups like hamas comes from resolution 1747 that could be lifted as part of the deal. this deal that we are talking about would leave tremendous nuclear capability in the hands

of the regime and enrichment regime but it would also have other negative implications for the interest. i think it would give other states have the opportunity to match the capabilities and would undermine the nonproliferation efforts globally and encourage the spread of admiration technology to other places. and i think it would damage our own influence and prestige which are already pretty damaged and this is the issue i think those would be most judge in the middle east. how have we reached this juncture that we are at right now? if you look in exchange for temporary steps we have made major concessions they have been seeking for a long time that it could enrich uranium indefinitely and any constraints would be temporary. we have the saying that been saying that nothing is agreed until everything is and i think it is more complicated than that. it would be difficult to take back these concessions for any future negotiations.

we also frankly have not put forward a frightening alternative to an agreement which i think is later on to reject very generous offers our sanctions threat has been undermined and we've not responded to that increase that we were talking about earlier. our military threat has been undermined because of the paralyzed decision decision that we face the situations in syria, iraq and elsewhere and i think that it was in error for us to stray from what had been the previous approach. they dismantled their nuclear facilities in exchange for the dismantling against it. iran and our own officials have portrayed that as maximalist. but it's reasonable because as it was stated there is no need for those activities that we are asking it to forgo but it does have the need for sanctions relief. i think we should be prepared and we are prepared to accept the nuclear program in iran on

the condition that the imports of fuel as most countries in the world including the united states. the only scenario that we should be prepared to live into capability is one in which we see evidence of a broad strategic shift by iran and it is not an evidence in its refusal to be transparent about what it's done on the nuclear issue in the past. the most important question for policymakers is how do we make a good deal. i think we can do that in a number of ways we can strengthen the sanctions threat in the congress and the sanctions will following the agreement and i think the action is required now. we need to act more in response to what appeared to be dissertation as some of the members set of distinctions of said

of the sanctions and the increased exports in particular. in the messages about the commitment to this region and backing up the message with adequate defensive diplomatic intelligence resources by taking the steps to counter the support for their purpose and in the provision of the rockets and things like that to counter that impression that they get a free pass as long as the talks are going on in we can try to strengthen to the point. so to end this i worry that we have become captive to this choice in this prospect of the military conflict. i reject that and i think the choice is between the deal that will set back the interest and a firm the approach that holds out the hope of advancing the interest. >> thank you for your testimony. you bring up important points. you wrote in an article recently that the negotiations have shown that the principle guiding the

positions are markedly different than those in iran. can you explain the two sets of principles that you are referring to and at the positions in the body those different sets of positions make it more difficult to reach an agreement? >> i think if you look at the history they have been going enough in years. this is a story about 4000 night and not 1000. and you look at what has been the driving force in iran and they want to maintain and save their nuclear program which will include uranium enrichment and it will include also the capability to produce plutonium in a heavy reactor and this has been all along there through the

hardships. you read the statements made in 2005 when he left the office and how he explained he was able under difficult circumstances to preserve the program by suspending it for a while and how he was able to rescue the uranium conversion program. then we looked at the talks of today when the supreme leader says that we want to have 190,000 centrifuges and produce uranium fuel for the reactor it's clear that the bottom line in the program has to survive and then you look at the challenges they are facing if they want to produce the nuclear fuel. the first thing is the fact they don't have enough in their soil to support such programs.

what good is it for you if you cannot find your own uranium soil. when you look at this one the reason is they want to preserve the program from that declaration. then the other side is actually we don't want to add the enrichment program because of a number of reasons. this is what i meant it's a very different starting point and unfortunately now the situation is the spiritual leader said its 190,000. so it is a great number. i mentioned this idea iranian ambassador questioning all of the authorities in this regard.

>> is this extending the period, what do you think is the intent? >> this tells me when the agreement will be there whatever will be negotiated in the next few months when it comes to the implementation they have the talk with iran and since these are the same people that are productive negotiation committee are still posturing, they arestill posturing the old language that is their periods of the negotiations start with every action they try to take to be challenged. >> you are saying even presuming that the negotiators can reach

an agreement in four months then there will be a whole other set of negotiations with the iaea as to how in fact those agreements would be enforced? >> what lesson should we draw from the framework agreement of north korea as we deal with this one? >> i think that there are similar lessons at the first and the first thing that we learn is exactly the same. north korea was about to leave and therefore they said that they are not found with the safeguards agreement and therefore they didn't do certain things and they tell us every step in the process but they did

and i can give you an example. we were not even able to produce the inspection because it is in the agreement and therefore you cannot. i don't think that iran would take that line but it would be the uphill battle as we've already seen between iran and very recently they've challenged some of these actions taken. >> when i hear the secretary sherman say that they would have to satisfy, that can be based upon the actions dedicated for some time in terms of what baby

leave is appropriate for the verification and enforcement on both of the dimensions including the possible weaponization elements while the sanctions relief was suspended. >> this is a good remark and the only thing i would say that they need to pay for this agreement in such a way that it becomes legally binding and that when one is not in compliance and noncompliance has consequences. is that what we ask you your final is a good model the south african model which ultimately admitted in 1993 to possess a nuclear program of nuclear tensions. the dimensions and then showed a allowing anywhere at anytime inspections that took 17 years to get it clean bill of health.

that is elicited program than then we are talking about in iran but what is your perception of that tax >> it is less and more of a program because they have much more nuclear material before and there was a history of operation for 20 years. and one of the stumbling blocks is actually the verification of the race. there were 70000 borrowers and it took a long time just to go through those. but why it was successful was the government had given up the nuclear weapons program. they wanted to close that chapter in the history of south africa. and in order to do that they needed someone to certify that and that organization was the iaea said the operation was there. once they did the disclosure in 1993 it was easy to go because the whole government was set up to help to complete its mission.

but if that change doesn't take place in iran that they come clean code they want to come clean it is good to be difficult as it was in north korea. >> so even though in this case south africa determined as a government that it wanted to end that chapter in its history wanted to end its nuclear program it took 17 years to get a clean bill of health with the government willing and wanting to end its nuclear program i think that that is pretty instructive when we say long-term verification and an important of course that agreement it is very difficult to the code different the two paradigms where south africa was at. senator corker? >> thank you mr. chairman and member for being here. i listened to some of the complications related to having this negotiation after the fact and i know the way it has to

occur. but i wondered we keep pressing about the full transparency of what the program is about in the past. as to how important is that to understand fully what the program was in the past. >> you don't need to know everyone from the program. but you need to know how far. one part is the risk assessment. how much of the unknowns you tolerate when you agree with the number of centrifuges if you allow them to have a short break out into centrifuges. that is one reason. the second reason with your unknown is you certainly don't want to know how far and you

want to see that they are not reconstituting the program. so therefore, you need to know what was done where it was done and how it was done into this took place in south africa, still in 2010 they visited some of the military sites to confirm that those actions are not reconstituted so that is very important in setting the baseline so that the proper scheme can be established. >> and when you do that, how do you know that when people are sharing with you what they were doing in the past, how do you know that that has been in reality what they were doing in the past? >> it's actually a number of things. you look at what people people told

you youtell youyou look at the experiments they have been doing. do they make sense and debated the nuclear program at that point in time when they do those experiments? you can indirectly confirm by seeing the equipment they brought forth for that and others that have taken place. so it is where you have bits and pieces all over and have some of the gaps that you can establish what has taken place and there have been no outliers or inconsistencies. >> one more question along those lines especially in a country like iran that has multiple silos and arrangements with the entities at some times are a part of the government and sometimes are not coming how do you know that there isn't some clandestine program clinics how

do you know they have assurances especially in the country like iran that there isn't some other activities that are taking place in theand whatplace, and what kind of the deputies does the organization have to actually figured out how to? >> they have their own authorities and practices and skills but it also calls from the support of the member states and actually, this is the reason that i wrote to my testimony that the report is in a very transparent way what they have seen and what they have been told and what is where so that the member states can have their own beans to find those details were formed their own picture thatabout the program and can see is this consistent with what iran tells them and the important thing is that why this means quite a lot when the ambassador in his letter said he doesn't

like the way they did is they put because this is one of the keys to the success. and only then they can serve the member states if you ask that information. >> thank you for your testimony. the answer is a goalposts continue to move as we talk about where the deal is going but i just want to give a hypothetical. let's say they ended up in a situation with a 3,000 centrifuges and very expensive and intrusive extensions. how does that affect the behavior in the region and the ability in the future how it would affect the neighborhood?

>> it's important to note that sort of deal doesn't seem to be in the prospect because on some of those issues that you mentioned before, we have already -- >> i appreciate the testimony candidly and i feel very aligned with much of what you have to say. but let just go back to again unfortunately we have seen the goalposts move if let's say that hypothetically that is where things ended up. talk with me about the response. >> a lot of it would depend on not just the particulars in the field of the context as well. look at some of our allies are not happy with the concessions that we've made. they would like us to not have made those concessions. but i think that if we had a -- >> is a big part of the p5? >> that is hard to answer because some of our allies may not be happy with those that they are unlikely to to say that publicly.

some of the allies in the region and the gulf states have been more outspoken in the way they feel about that. and so, the risks they are i think is that position in the region how do they perceive the nature of the agreement and therefore the context of the policy in the region is important to healthy allies and others with judge judy view this as an expression of american resolve or do they view this as an expression of american weakness? so i think that if we have the right sort of policy context what are we doing in syria and in iraq, or we repairing the system in the region? we can influence the folks see that agreement and then we can influence how they view our willingness to actually uphold in agreement. an agreement. in my view, i think that concessions we made about conceding in richmond and any number of centrifuges to iran that is not a good deal to conceive and we shouldn't have done that. and that is is the view that is widely shared in the region. but again i think the context is

important and to improve the situation and how it is perceived that he can take certain steps. >> you included to the fact we started off in a not great place and people on both sides of the aisle are concerned about where we began. the use of the testimony you thought we could get to a good ending still. so, with where we began and where we are how would you go about doing that? >> the reality is we are where we are in the associations with the question before was how do we take the situation and make a good deal out of it and make the best situation. first i think the congress has a role to play in that and there has to be broad body in a politically for the agreement to succeed in the long term because of course it is important i think that the congress will have a role lifting the sanctions and the next administration will have a role

in this agreement, so i think you need to have that broad political line so that's important. i do think from where we are now, we should be focused on those principles which the doctor articulated in making sure whatever agreement comes out is as strong as possible but i do think we should consider that any final sanctions relief again would be depended not just on these particular steps that on the evidence of the broader strategic shift by iran and the evidence that in fact they are going in a different direction and therefore that they are perhaps more trust and confidence that they would actually uphold the other side of the bargain. and again i think that we can take steps on the other side. because remember for the states to agree to the deal isn't just about within the deal but it's about what is the alternative and we need to take steps from iran's perspective and's p5 perspective and that means strengthening the credibility of the military threat and i think we do those

things then perhaps we can influence the perception of what is a good feel? >> thank you both. i know this trouble to prepare testimonytestimony and be here. we all benefit greatly and i want to thank you both for being here. bickley about noon at these hearings. things kind of clear after the other meetings but i know people are paying attention. and they break your written testimony. thank you. >> thank you senator. once the second panel with all due respect to the first panel is as important if not more insightful. i want to revisit the doctor something that you responded to such is not insignificant. basically, you said when the iranian ambassador among their complaints to the iea ea was complaining about the way in which they were issuing the reports to its member states that the reason it is important

to issue its report to its member states in the manner a manner in which they are doing it is because then the member states can use their own intelligence and information to judge whether what the iea ea has been told is along the lines of what they know from their intelligence. >> it's not insignificant when the ambassador says i don't agree. i think that you are not reporting correctly. it may look like an insignificant element but it can be very significant if the states will make a judgment in this respect. >> and the complaint has been

there the last five years. it started to arrive somewhere around 2007, 2006. so it's been quite some time and it is repeated and i personally thought with this new team that this kind of language disappears but apparently that is not the case. ..

or satisfying its purported rights in a way it's safe and monitored. that's a very important shift and one of the things that iran has tried to do in addition to its effort to undermine the credibility of the iaea is to show that it stood up to the u.n. security council whose legitimacy is also impugned. and so that in itself that kind of change in dynamic, is an important change in itself. when it comes to the

particulars, i think we made that vital concession on iran -- iran has been seeking this since 2003. we conceded any restraints iran is under will be temporary in nature and quite short in nature and iran will be treated like nye state at the end of this process, despite again, those obligations. we have granted some implicit legitimate si to those facilities which remember, constructed in secret and in violation of -- the -- now will remain in place and not be dismantled. we have not forced iran to address the weaponnization question or the ballistic missile question. so all of these things are significant concessions we made in the course of these talks. on the second part, how do we bolster the credibility of the sort of or-else. i think it's important that

there be a clear message to iran about what are the consequences for not reaching a decent agreement by the end of these talks? and i think that should be a unified message. here's an issue where i think there is strong bipartisan agreement in the united states and i think that the messages we're sending should reflect that strong bipartisan agreement. i do think it's very important that we continue to enforce vigorously the sanctions which are already in place that haven't been suspended as part of the jpoa. i'm concerned, for example by reports that china's oil imports from iran have increased 48%. you look at the first six months of 2014 compared to 2013 and there has not been an appreciable response. when it comes to the military credible think, look, that's harder because i think this is -- we have implanted in the mines of folks around the world the idea that we're a lot less

inclined to address situations like those in syria and iraq and elsewhere in a sort of forceful. we didn't enforce the redline in syria. have not done much of anything frankly in syria to uphold or policy. we responded in similar ways in iraq when it comes to ukraine i think our response has been relatively modest compared to what is happening there. part of the answer is trace michigan of these situations around the world in a more purposeful and a more decisive way. i think we need to stress our continuing commitment to this region. i think the messaging often that we send out is we're pivoting to a different region we hey not have much of an interest in this region because of energy independence, and since 2011 our alliances in the region have suffered and i think we need to

rebuild that security architecture which we once enjoyed in the region. without the 0 -- or-else, i don't see why iran would accept a deal that restricts its activities. >> one thing that is clear to me is that military assetses that did not exist or weren't in position in the region, are placed in the region which should send the iranians a clear message that enough fact we cannot strike a deal and if sanctions ratcheted up sanctions don't get them to rethink a break in negotiations, there's a real credible threat because those assets were not in the region prior to this process. they are in the region now. and i would happen that would be some sense of a messaging to them. look, with the thanks of the committee for your expertise, and i hope we can continue to call upon you.

this hearing will -- record will remain open until the close of business tomorrow, and with the thanks of the committee, this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]nt on another

matter entirely, israel's military campaign against the terrorist organization hamas has a clear-cut objective: to restore israel's security by eliminating rockets shut down these infiltration tunnels from which hamas is launches its attacks against israel, and indeed militarize gaza. that's israel's objective. this is clearly clearly justified in the face of more than 2,300 rocket attacks into israel from gaza since early july. and i strongly support israel's recent efforts through operation protective edge to defend itself and to end the threat of additional rocket and infiltration attacks by hamas. operation protective edge also serves a larger purpose and its resolution has broader implications for the future of

the palestinian people. if hamas declares victory by keeping its weapons stockpiles, by continuing to undermine israel's security, and by turning away from egypt's efforts to forge a reasonable cease-fire the net result will be a relative weakening of the palestinian authority and of those in the west bank who have worked toward a peaceful resolution of the overall conflict. so look, i support any effort which brings this campaign to an end in it a manner -- in a manner that increases israel's security. that means specifically, that hamas cannot be left with large stockpile of missiles and rockets, cannot be left with infiltration tunnels -- they must be destroyed. ma hamas cannot be allowed to refit and build up weapons stockpiles. that weak ngs israel and the palestinian authority.

and here's what i oppose. i oppose any efforts -- any efforts by the international community, especially the united nations, to impose a cease-fire on israel that does not meet these military objectives and that therefore risks rewarding hamas -- actually rewarding them -- for a campaign of terror and that steeks to make additional -- and that seeks to make additional concessions to hamas such as easing security along the border. an unfavorable settlement, especially one that left hamas with a stockpile of weaponry, would create incentives for hamas to continue smuggling arms from iran and of course to return to violence. an unfavorable settlement would also undermine the leadership of the palestinian authority which has attempted to negotiate with israel through peaceful means. so let's be clear here. the terror tactics employed by hamas show contempt -- contempt

for human life, whether israeli or palestinian by employing rockets and mortars as weapons of terror against israel's civilian population or, using its own schools within gaza as weapons depose, hamas has shown a gross disregard for civilians. the prime minister of israel, i thought, put it very whl well when he said israel uses missile defense to protect its citizens. hamas uses civilians to protect their missiles. there's no moral equivalency here none whatsoever. these tactics should be loudly and widely condemned and israel's right to defend itself should be affirmed. as i noted last week, secretary hagel wrote to the majority leader seeking urgent funding for components of the iron dome missile defense system.

i and others support this request, as iron dome has afforded israel some real protection from these indiscriminate rockets. this morning some of my colleagues will further explain the importance of iron dome and the need for israeli defense forces to press on, to finish the job in destroying the infiltration tunnels and weapons stockpiles. republicans are united in our support of israel's defense and this morning my colleagues will explain our opposition to any effort to force a cease-fire on israel that does not further its security objectives. in a situation like this, mr. president, israel only has one dependable friend. the united states should not be trying to pressure israel to make a bad deal that leaves hamas in a position to continue these attacks against israeli civilians.

and no one has been more active on this issue than my colleague from south carolina, and i see him on the floor now and therefore, i yield the floor. mr. graham: thank you. mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:00 noon with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, and with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you, mr. president. i just want to return the compliment to senator mcconnell from kentucky, the republican leader. i've been here now since 2002, and there's no better friend of the state of israel hasn't mitch mcconnell. he is the former chairman and ranking member of the foreign ops subcommittee on aeption pros that deals with aid -- appropriations that deals with aid to the world but particularly to israel. and it was his idea to come on

the floor today and have voices speak in support of israel at a time that they need friends. you know, friends are a great thing to have. they are hay a a wonderful thing in good times. they are a necessity in bad times. and israel is going through some pretty bad times and so are the palestinian people. i want to clearly make myself known. i have nothing against the legitimate hopes and aspirations of the palestinian people to have their own country to live in peace and prosperity by israel but they have to want it more than i do. and the palestinian people are suffering. children are being killed in killed and the most innocent people on the planet are chin. and it breaks all of our hearts see them as cass iewflt war. but now is the time to be clear-eyed and focused as to what the problem really s the problem is very simple in many ways u.

hamas is a terrorist organization in the eyes of the united states government. hamas should be a terrorist organization in the eyes of any decent person in the world. what do they do? they have as their goal not a two-state solution but a one-state solution. the complete and utter destruction of the state of israel. if you don't believe me, just check out their own cheamplet they have as their tactics using their own people and children as human shields to win a propaganda war. when israeli children are killed killed it breaks israel's heart. when palestinian children are killed it breaks the heart of all decent palestinians, but hamas seize sees it as a victory. they literally try put women and children in harm's way to

marginalize the ability of israel to defend itself against two things: irntion the things, the tunls are something new in this fievment 41 tunnels have been discovered that go from the gaza strip. and yesterday five israeli soldiers were killed by an attack that came from hamas fight theirs penetrated rails through the tunnels. so senator mcconnell not only are you speaking for republicans when you say "the the senate stands firmly behind israel's right to destroy the terrorist tunnels i think that's the body's view, democrats as well. there is a resolution that's bipartisan in nature that is before the body and i hope we can pass it before thursday. and in the resolve clause it says that the senate opposes any efforts to impose a cease-fire that does not allow for the government of israel to protect

its citizens from threats posed by hamas rockets and tunnels. that, i believe is the view of the united states senate in a bipartisan fashion. today republicans take the floor to clearly state where we stand in this conflict. we stand with israel's right to defend itself against a terrorist organization called hamas. we stand with the palestinian people's legitimate aspirations to have a better life. but until that day comes we're going to be firmly in the israeli camp to defend themselves because what would we do as a nation if a neighboring nation dug tunnels under our border for the express purpose of kidnapping and killing our citizens? what would america do if one rocket came from a neighboring nation fired indiscriminately to kill american citizens? we would respond in the most

aggressive fashion and we'd have every right to do so. as the minority leader stated, there is no moral equivalency here. israel tells you they're going a tack. israel calls you before the attack. israel gives you notice about an impending attack. hamas secretly fires rockets carrying less where they land. their hope is it hits a kindergarten. that's their desire. and the only reason they haven't been successful is because of the iron dome program that's been a collaboration between the united states and israel for many years. there is discussion about appropriating additional dollars for iron dome. that discussion needs to turn into a reality. we don't need to marry it up with controversial topics. israel's under siege. we are the best friend of the state of israel. they need this assistance. every republican stands ready to work with every democrat to pass

in the next five minutes additional money for the iron dome program. so in tough times what is the smart thing and the right thing for america to do? the smart thing for america to do is to pursue a lasting peace a peace with meaning and not to repeat the mistakes of the past. insanity is doing the thing over -- the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. israel is beyond that moment. america needs to stand by israel's legitimate right to get to the heart of the problem and not face this threat six months or a year from now. the one thing i can tell you that's not a smart thing to do is give hamas a bunch of concrete. they're not going to build schools with it. they build tunnels. all the aid that the international community has been providing to the gaza strip through the hands of hamas has not gone in to building

hospitals and schools and economic improvement of the lives of the palestinians but to create weapons of war. the tunnels are weapons of war. the thousands and thousands of tons of concrete and iron that's been misappropriated to build these tunnels came from people with a good heart. and how long does it take the international community to wake up to the fact that hamas has a bad heart? a evil, wicked heart. they could careless care less about their own people. they want to destroy israel. mr. mcconnell: would the senator yield for a question? mr. graham: absolutely. mr. mcconnell: we all remember that 10 or 12 years ago israel, which had previously occupied hamas for the purpose of trying to prevent these kinds of devastating attacks left withdrew as a solid statement

that we're uncomfortable occupying. and all we ask in return for our removal of our occupation is a peaceful border. and the center from south carolina has just outlined, periodically this is what they've gotten in return for basically leaving gaza alone and giving it a chance, if it chose to, to have a normal, peaceful existence. and yet they choose to continue the conflict as the senator from south carolina indicated because they're not in favor of a two-state solution. they're in favor a one-state solution. mr. graham: well, senator mcconnell is dead on point here. land for peace. give the palestinians land and in return israel gets peace. they gave the gaza strip to the palestinians and what have they got then in return?

2,500 rockets in the hast three -- in the last three weeks terrorist tunnels. so the idea that leaving an area will lead to peace with the palestinians has not borne fruit. so what to do, very quickly. number one pass more appropriations for iron dome because it's the right thing to do it's the smart thing to do. number two pass a resolution saying that we oppose any cease-fire that does not allow israel to get to the heart of the problem when it comes to the terrorist tunnels and deal with the rocket threat against their country. number three push back against a united nations that's lost its moral way. the human rights commission a subcommittee, for lack of a better term, of the united nations passed a resolution 27-1 about the israeli-palestinian conflict in gaza and i want to read the first paragraph. "deploring the massive israeli military operations in the

occupied palestinian territory including east jerusalem since 13 june, 2014, which have involved disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks and resulted in grave violations of the human rights of the palestinian civilian population, including through the most recent israeli military assault on the occupied gaza strip the latest in a series of military aggressions by israel and actions of mass closure mass arrest and killing of civilians in the occupied west bank." this resolution is 1,600-and-something words and it has a half a sentence about rockets against israel and nothing about the tunnels and never mentions hamas. so the third thing i would like this body to do is either through a letter of of resolution, let the united nations know that we condemn this one-sided view of the conflict, that we find the human rights commission report objectionable and quite frankly, immoral.

27-1. we were the only nation that objected to this resolution which i think should make every decent person in the world fill the shame of the united nations. so to our leader on the republican side, thank you for creating this opportunity for us to speak. thank you for your long-standing support of the state of israel. and i close with this thought. in times of trouble try to do the right thing and the smart thing. here they both come together. the right thing to do is to stand by your friends in israel. the smart thing to do is to stand by your friends in israel. the right thing and the smart thing to do is oppose hamas who has a wicked heart and allow israel for once and for all to fix this problem by demilitarizing gaza, dealing with the tunnels and the rockets. as senator mcconnell said, israel has tried time and time

again cease-fires without dealing with the military threat they face. not this time. when israel says, never again they refer to the holocaust. america needs to stand with israel today and israel should say to hamas never again will we allow a cease-fire that allows you to dig tunnels under our borders to kidnap and kill our citizens, and never again will we allow you to rearm and rain holy terror on our people through thousands of rockets being fired at innocent civilians. so now is the time for the senate to say with israel, never again. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: briefly before senator ayotte takes the floor i want to commend senator graham for his suggestions. all three of those suggestions should be carried out this week. mr. graham: yes. mr. mcconnell: time is of the

essence. and in listening to the litany of the actions of the palestinians that you recounted and that we all remember going back almost to the founding of the state of israel, i'm reminded of what one of israel's early foreign ministers once said about the palestinians. he said, you know the palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. mr. graham: sad but true. mr. mcconnell: sad but true. and, you know, i recall when prime minister barock was in office at the end of the clinton years. the administration brokered a deal that israel at that time was willing to offer and the palestinians said no. probably a deal they couldn't have gotten today. so we've seen these litany of opportunities wasted over the years. and the people who suffered as a result of it, obviously, have been the palestinian people. mr. graham: absolutely. and with that, i would like now to turn over the debate to a

good friend, senator from new hampshire, senator ayotte, who has truly been one of the leaders on our side on foreign policy and is a steadfast ally of our friends in israel. ms. ayotte: i want to thank my colleague -- the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you mr. president. i want to thank my colleagues the senator from south carolina for his leadership and also for our leader, the senator from kentucky, for the incredible work that he has done in supporting our great friend, israel and also on -- in reading in this body in terms of the issues that he has brought forward not only in supporting important protection, like the iron dome system, but also in ensuring that america remains safe and strong. so thank you very much, senator mcconnell, for your leadership. i rise today because i had the privilege in march of traveling to israel and i went there not

only to meet with the leadership in israel but i had the opportunity to meet with some of the palestinian leadership as well but to actually go down -- go to storogh a town in israel. and i was very much struck about what the israelis are facing every day and the threat they face from hamas a terrorist organization. you know you go to a town like storough and everyone in their household has a bomb shelter. and i met with mothers there whose -- whose children feel traumatized because they ever know when the next potential rocket may be coming toward their town, and it's very much affected their children. so much so that actually when you go to the playground where the children play the playground itself contains a bomb shelter. so there's a caterpillar that looks like something that maybe your kids would play in but it's

actually a bomb shelter because this town in israel has been facing rockets from hamas. and that is what we need to understand in this conflict, that hamas a terrorist organization has not only used its own civilians the palestinians, as human shields but they've also continued to threaten the children of israel. so much so that their bomb shelters that their playgrounds have bomb shelters. and what is happening right now in this conflict is that israel is trying to defend itself to defend itself against this threat of rockets from hamas that threatens their children and threatens the palestinian children who unfortunately have been put in harm's way by this terrorist organization hamas. but they're facing a new threat.

can you imagine if we were faced with the threat that terrorists could pop up through a tunnel and suddenly terrorize the people in this country what we would do to address that threat? and that is the threat that the israelis are facing right now. they need to eliminate these tunnels to ensure that their people can be protected from this threat. and how did they build these tunnels? they actually built some of these tunnels using concrete that the israelis let them have, the palestinians, for building things like schools and instead hamas has taken this concrete and used it to build terror tunnels to allow them to either kidnap or kid israeli citizens. and so we -- kidnap or kill israeli citizens. and so we stand with the people of israel and their right to defend themselves against this terrorist organization, hamas and the terror that it has brought upon not only the

country of israel but also the terror that it has brought to the palestinian people and how hamas stands in the way of peace in the region overall. and we also stand against the hypocrisy that we have seen on many levels and that hypocrisy and double standard has been most apparent in the u.n. human rights council and the recent resolution passed by that council. i have to wonder why that council exists in the united nations because you have countries like china cuba, russia and venezuela issuing a resolution condemning israel for what is happening in this conflict but in no way even mentioning hamas or what hamas is doing to use civilians as shields, to use civilians as

basically targets so that they can try to get support for the international community and the opposite is happening in terms of what israel is doing. it's such a contrast. israel is taking steps to notify civilians if there's going to be a missile coming in their area. they have warned civilians to leave areas. they have taken extraordinary steps to protect civilian lives in contrast to what hamas is doing in using civilians as shields. so we condemn in this body very clearly what the human rights council has done. and the notion that we're going to follow what china cuba, venezuela and russia would tell the world their view is on human rights that doesn't even mention the actions of a terrorist

organization that is at the root of the conflict that we see right now in gaza, talk about the situation where the cat is watching the hen house that's what's happening with this human rights council. frankly, this council in my view, should be eliminated because it is the opposite of standing for human rights. it is standing up for terrorist organizations like hamas. and i stand with the recommendations of my colleague from south carolina and our leader that we need to absolutely condemn the human rights council. we need to reaffirm this week before we leave in this body our support for israel's right to defend itself and to eliminate the threat that these tunnels present to the israeli people and, frankly also to the palestinian people as well. and to allow them to finally address this threat from this

terrorist organization hamas because until this threat is eliminated there can be no peace in this region. there cannot be peace for the israeli people and there cannot be peace for the palestinian people. and so it is my hope that we will take this up this week, leader and make sure that we clearly send a message to israel that we stand with israel, that we clearly send a message to the u.n. that we're not going to accept the hypocrisy of the human rights council. that we clearly send a message to hamas: we know who you are. you're a terrorist organization. stop using civilians to try to accomplish your purpose. and we stand with you. and with that, i would yield the floor to my colleague. mr. mcconnell: before senator ayotte loses the floor, i wanted to just commend her on her contribution to this discussion,

particularly the stories with regard to your last trip to israel. and also add i'm sure the senator from new hampshire agrees with me that the last thing the american government needs to be doing right now is trying to pressure israel into a bad cease-fire that doesn't allow this terror to be stopped. it at times appears to me as if the american administration is trying to push the israelis and to stop them before they finish the job. and we all know based on past history that unless this operation is completed the challenges will continue. i just wanted to see if the senator from new hampshire shared my view on that. ms. ayotte: i would fully share your view. and really in order to end this threat we need to support israel and its right to eliminate the tunnels to

address the missiles and eliminate the missiles and the stash that hamas has that they are targeting israel with, which, by the way, would have had many more civilian casualties but for the iron dome system that we have supported and worked with israel on. and finally we need to get to a point where the gaza is demilitarized and they're put in a position where this threat cannot continue. that's what we need to get at thinking about but we need to allow israel to deal with the threat of these tunnels and the missiles so that the children in storogh will not continue to be targeted so that children, not only israeli children but also palestinian children can live in peace in the region and that can't happen when hamas continues to be a terrorist organization that threatens all children in the region. thank you.

mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i'd like to echo what my colleagues, senator mcconnell, our leader, senator graham senator ayotte and appreciate senator mcconnell's leadership in making sure what is at stake here, pushing hard to make sure the united states senate is doing its job in support of israel, making sure they are able to defend themselves and funding for the iron dome which has been so effective as a defense mechanism against these rocket attacks is funded in a way that allows them to continue to use it and that capability. as you look at the situation in gaza mr. president, i want to start by taking a step back and looking at this conflict in both its historic and regional context. in israel, we have the only, the only functioning democracy in the middle east. israel is a nation that emphasizes human rights and tolerance. its population includes religious, ethnic and cultural diversity. in jerusalem, you can hear the

muslim call to the prayer, the bells from catholic and greek orthodox churches and the prayers of the jews at the wailing wall all at the same time. there is no other place like this on earth. this democracy however is situated in a region of intense brutality and extremism. historically that's meant seemingly endless conflicts with israel's neighbors intentionally targeting civilians in order to maximize casualities. one need only look across the border into syria to get a glimpse of this brutality. when syrians made the first attempt at striving for democracy the assad regime began slaughtering opponents including gassing civilians with chemical weapons. as that violence spread into iraq radical terrorist organization isis began killing not only shia opponents but

sunni clerics. communities with ancient traditions such as christians and mosul who ten years ago numbered 60,000 have been forced to flee for their lives. mosul has been completely emptied of christians for the first time in 1,600 years. mr. president, it is in this context that the people of israel have built their nation. and it is in this context that we now view the conflict in gaza. the current conflict in gaza is one that israel did not start. it startd with hamas firing over 2,300 rockets from gaza into israel specifically targeting civilian populated areas to maximize potential casualities. in response, israel has conducted a methodical and forceful response just as you would expect any nation to do. first, israel locates the source of the rocket. then an attempt is made to call

the residents by phone and tell them to evacuate. in many cases a flare is sent on to the roof as a warning that the location is about to be hit before that location is ultimately destroyed. in a region where neighboring leaders indiscriminately drop barrel bombs on residential areas for the sole purpose of slaughtering civilians israel goes out of its way to save lives. these are not just civilian lives israel is saving because they know by their efforts they're giving aggressors the chance to escape as well. after hamas continued to launch rockets in israel, even when israel agreed on multiple occasions to cease-fires tunnels were used to insert combatants near israeli settlements. israel responded with a ground assault to destroy the tunnels and eliminate hamas' is to be pile of weapons. attacks and rocket launches

continued, it is underrable israel would want to destroy the stockpile of weapons to keep the cycle from being repeat add few months from now. like my colleagues on the floor today i want to see peace in the middle east. specifically i want to see peace in gaza and the west bank. i want to see peace in such a way that the palestinian people can live with the prospect of a better life. but as we've seen, peace is not possible when a terrorist organization continues to pursue its cause of annihilating israel. peace cannot be achieved while hamas rejects cease-fire agreements and continues to fire rockets. mr. president, as violent as the current conflict in the gaza strip is, it would be far worse it would be far worse if israel did not have the iron dome. in any conflict civilian casualities are a tragedy.

and if israel did not have the sophisticated purely defensive weapons system that allows it to shoot these rockets out of the school the number of civilian casualities would be far greater. hamas does not drop leaflets telling civilians to evacuate. hamas does not send flares to warn residents to get out of harm's way. if not for israel's iron dome, civilian casualties in israel, mr. president, would be staggering. the united states must continue to support israel by ensuring that iran dome missile defense systems remain an effective deterrent to even greater civilian casualties. for as long as israeli men women and children need to run to bomb shelters ahead hamas rocket attacks we must support israel's ability to defend itself.

mr. president, the united nations council of human rights, other countries around the world can choose to do things that are consistently at odds with the facts and with reality. but here in the united states, we need to do, as my colleague from south carolina said, the right thing and the smart thing. in this case the right thing and the smart thing are one and the same. so i hope that my colleagues here in the united states senate will make a priority providing the necessary funding for the iron dome and for standing united united behind our ally and our friend, israel, as they defend themselves from these attacks. mr. president, i see my colleague from texas is here, and i would simply ask him if he sees -- what role he sees the united states playing in both supporting israel and in providing support for the iron

dome. mr. cruz: i thank my friend from south dakota. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: and i'm pleased and saddened to stand here in support of my colleagues as we stand united in support of the nation of israel. in the last several weeks over 2,500 rockets rained down on the nation of israel. 80% of the population has had to flee what they're doing and run to bomb shelters to hide. moms dads, children. when the alarm goes off, they have sometimes 10, 15 seconds to get to a bomb shelter. mr. president, i want you to imagine if the same thing were happening here in america. imagine if 80% of this country in the last several weeks had run to a bomb shelter. imagine if 240 million americans in the last several weeks had been sitting at work or in the

doctor's office or having breakfast and had to grab their children and run in a panic towards a bomb shelter. imagine what our country would be doing in response. mr. president, in recent weeks we have discovered that hamas has opened up a new chapter in the annals of terrorism. it's not just raining rockets down from on high, but it's now attacking from below. some 32 full-scale terror tunnels have been discovered, dug under the ground, under the border. and coming up in kibbutzes inside israel along gaza. some of the tunnels come up inside kindergartens and we discovered in recent weeks a

terrifying plot that was underway for hamas terrorists on rosh hashanah to come through those tunnels hundreds of them, to emerge in kindergartens to kidnap or murder vast numbers of young jewish children. mr. president, imagine right now if enemies of this country had dug tunnels into this country that were coming up in our schools. imagine in iran or china or some other hostile foreign nation had tunnels where your children or my children were at risk of being kidnapped or murdered. and right now today in gaza, we see massive civilian casualties that are the direct consequence

of the violence of hamas. you see mr. president these human casualties are not an unintended side effect of the conflict. they are the objective that hamas seeks. dead palestinian children and women and men. we know this because hamas is engaging in a war crime right now, not that the united nations human rights council would ever say anything about it. but hamas is engaging in a war crime of using human shields deliberately using human shields. they place them in schools. they place them in private homes. they place them in mosques deliberately they surround their rockets and their terror tunnels with innocent civilians.

israel right now is engaged in something unprecedented in the annals of modern warfare. it is undertaking more humanitarian effort to spare civilian death than any military has in recorded history. before attacking israel sends out texts. when they discovered a rocket battery that they need to take out because it is firing rockets targeting innocent civilians they send texts saying, clear out of the area. they try to save the palestinian civilians. they drop from the sky pamphlets on an area that is about to be bombed to take out the rockets that are coming from that area. and the pamphlets say to the civilians, get out. get out because we're going to take out the rockets and you're in harm's way. not only that they have a practice of sending an initial knock bomb.

that means the first bomb lands on the roof and makes a knock. doesn't explode. just makes a loud knock. they do that for a reason, so that the people inside the building can look up, can hear the knock and can flee the building so the second missile can take down the building and the rockets that are housed inside that are being used to try to murder innocent civilians. prime minister netanyahu a few weeks ago summed it up very powerfully when he said, israel uses missile defense to defend our citizens. hamas uses its citizens to defend its missiles. now, israel is trying to warn palestinian civilians don't be located where the missiles are because we're going to respond as any sovereign nation will to protect our nation.

what does hamas snai hamas tells the palestinians, stay there. mr. president, picture that for a second. israel is warning civilians clear the area because we're going to take out the rockets. we're going to take out the tunnels. and the response from hamas is, no stay there. why? because what they want to see is palestinian children, palestinian women killed so they can put the pictures on the sunday night news, because they know the world many at the united nations many in the media will behave like useful idiots will point to the civilian casualties, that are hamas' fault -- when you put children on top of rockets when you tell the children do not leave, when you know the rockets are going to be taken out, it is hamas, the terrorists, who are responsible for those children's death. but yet the international

community puts the pictures on the evening news and blames the nation of israel. i am a i'm proud this week to have joined my colleague senator gillibrand from new york in filing bipartisan resolution in this body condemning hamas' use of human shields condemning it as a war crime condemning it as an outrage condemning it as the direct reason that we're seeing so many civilian deaths. and i have to note that one of the reasons civilian deaths have been mitigated in israel is because of the incredible success of the iron dome missile defense system. ronald reagan's star wars is today's iron dome. we see unfolding in recent weeks in israel the product of

presidentpresident reagan's vision when he proposed the strategic defense initiative, or s.d.i. now, critics at the time dismissed it as star wars. you and i will recall, we were both teenagers at the time. you'll recall learned experts so to speak going on television saying f.d.i. was a -- s.d.i. was a fool's errand. you cannot hit a bullet with a bullet was the analogy. it cannot work. well run the clock forward three decades and we see an iron dome the strategic vision of president reagan playing out in realtime. there is a wonderful video on youtube that i would encourage anyone who's interested to google and watch. it is a video called "iron dome

wedding." if you google it, you will discover a video from a wedding in southern israel. it's an ordinary wedding video just like i suspect you a understand i both -- you and i both have from our he had withings. in the midst of it, rockets beginning coming through the sky. the night sky -- you see rockets come across the sky. then you see iron dome interceptors come up and explode the rockets. and one after the other after the other is fired and explodes, and the whole thing looks like fireworks. and in the background you hear the wedding music and the celebrations and sounds of celebration, and you think were it not for these interceptors, these iron dome interceptors, those missiles might be landing on that wedding and causing carnage and death and destruction. but because of the potential the power the actuality of missile defense instead they're

intercepted. now, there are indisputable differences between the intercontinent ballistic missiles that s. diwas designed to target and the low-tech missiles that is are being fired by hamas. that is why iron dome is one of a three-tier system that includes david sling and theater row 2 and 3 systems which are designed to guard against more sophisticated weapons such as the longer-range missiles that are being provided to hamas by syria and iran. and they would also defend against nuclear ballistic missiles of the sort being developed in iran. and it's worth underscoring even as the fighting in gaza gaza grabs the headline, we have to keep

our eyes on the threat of a nuclear-armed iran. it would make hamas and their rockets sliej child's play and our support for iron dome should be understood in the context of support for the continued development of these systems which not only protect our friend and ally israel but they protect us. this is a reason why hamas and iran refer to israel as the little satan and the united states as the great satan. because their intention with both is the same terror, the same murder, the same death and destruction. israel is currently working to carry out the griengdzing work to eradicate these terror tunnels that have been built under schools and kindergartens designed to kidnap and murder young children. and i would note it is an enormously difficult task, one that might approve impossible

were it not for the success of iron dome limiting the effectiveness of those rockets. and so i would encourage this body to stand together united as one, republicans and democrats. may be issues on which we disagree. there may be a great many issues. but we ought to be able to stand in one and speak in unison that we support the nation of israel and that we will work with the nation of israel immediately to re-plenish their iron dome supplies so that they can protect the citizens there and they can do what is necessary to eradicate the hamas rockets and terror tunnels that are being used to commit war crimes. that should be a unified bipartisan voice in this body. it is my hope by the end of this week that's exactly what it will be. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: what is the parliamentary situation? as i understand -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a period of morning business. ms. mikulski: how much -- may i proceed or does the other party wish to -- how much time is remaining on their side? the presiding officer: the minority has three minutes. the majority has 47. ms. mikulski: with the concurrence of the minority party, i would like to proceed. i know they haven't yielded back their time, but if that is agreeable -- and i note no objection -- i will proceed if

i may. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: thank you very much mr. president. mr. president, i rise today as the chair of the appropriations committee to talk about several challenges facing our country. first, i just want to real estate spond by -- to the comments made by many of the senators this morning on the compelling need to pass a supplemental appropriations to help israel re-plenish the rockets it's used up in its iron dome missile defense system. i am an unabashed unrelenting supporter of that effort. for many years as united states senator on the appropriations committee, on the defense subcommittee and also as a member of the intelligence committee, i know how important the israeli missile defense system is.

iron dome, david slain others that were absolutely crucial. i worked hands-on with senator inouye the late, great senator a congressional medal of honor winner to make sure we fund the missile defense system for israel and to work on a bipartisan basis. senator stevens senator cochran, we have been working together. and thank god it worked. and also to implement a bipartisan agreement signed -- or an agreement signed by president bush with the government of israel that we would always help israel maintain its qualitative edge. and, you know what? we've done it. and i'm proud of it. and now more than ever, an antimissile defense system that has worked, needs to continue operation. we know that the technology works, but they need to make sure that they have the tools to

make the technology work, these additional rockets. we know that israel is under attack. it's always been under attack since its very founding. this is not an existential threat. this is not an abstract threat. it is a daily threat. and we know that israel is trying to defend itself against the grim, unrelenting attacks by hamas a self-avowed terrorist organization that has sworn in its documents not to allow israel to continue. they absolutely oppose an independent israeli state. mr. president, it is this week that we're going to be -- this month that we're commemorating the warsaw uprising. the prime minister is a member of the group we affectionately call the