i consider, senator whitehouse mentioned smelling the polls, one of the smelliest loopholes we engage in is this one. this would stop congress from engaging in this terrible crack this and protect and preserve this fund. senator to me is the sponsor and i'd like to give the rest of my time to senator to me. i think senator crapo for yielding to me. it's been 15 years congress has been take hundreds of millions of dollars in the federal law should be going to victims of the most tremendous crime sex assault, domestic violence other crimes and not using money for the benefit of the guns despite the fact the law requires you it's outrageous. i'm enthusiastically supporting senator crapo. from 2010 to 2014 the fund collected $12 billion not from taxpayers some of that convicted criminals and gave the big as 2.6 billion of that.

this is outrageous senator crapo is exactly right and i'm proud to cosponsor. >> a few seconds left. senator ayotte. >> i would like to ask my colleagues comment. thank you. rebuttal? >> as senator crapo mentioned, i suspect many of my colleagues will support this amendment. that i did want to add to it that if we are serious about helping the unsubscribe as i suppose all of us are we would not be voting for a budget that slashes funding to the program. ..

democrats and republicans across the country have said the across-the-board cuts are terrible policy and an absurd way to reduce the deficit that must be replaced. there replaced. there are republicans on this committee who have been vocal about the need to roll back these cuts and have expressed the need to raise some revenue. last year democrats and republicans were able to reach an agreement that the rollback the worst of these automatic cuts which prevented another government shutdown, moved us away from the crisis and restored critical investment in research, education defense and more. this amendment builds on that deal and extends it for two more years, maintains the principal the democrats

won't abandon that sequestration should be replaced evenly across the fence and nondefense investments command we replace automatic cuts with the revenue from closing tax loopholes am a witch for which since this budget already contains massive spending cuts already simply maintains the principle that sequestration should be replaced with a mixed of responsible spending cuts and new revenue. finally, we add language to automatically release the additional defense and nondefense funding. that is similar to the language that we passed in the previous senate budget. i urge our colleagues to support this amendment so that we can all agree on responsible and realistic topline spending numbers for this year and allow the appropriations committees to do the work without waiting for another crisis. >> one of the disadvantages of this process where we don't get to see amendments and advances that they can

be difficult to understand on the spur of the moment and also to have the check by i assume i assume this would not have any problems with parliamentarian. >> that's correct. i have been able to wade through all these numbers. >> i will let you look at it i am happy to walk you through the last sequestration budget as well >> i'm sure you would. >> just briefly, we did and a lot of the difficulties by the across-the-board cuts. i don't know to what extent nondefense got relief from that. it is not as bad as it was when passed in terms of imposing cuts but the sequester was just a part of the budget control act. after next year spending

will go up at two and a half percent a year. i do believe at this time of international danger that defense department is going to have to have some relief but it is not as if we have further cuts out there. the spending will begin to go up and maintain that increasing level over the next several years i think. >> i am out of time. i we will just say that if sequestration is allowed to go into effect without replacing the cuts will be devastating and i think most members no that. >> mr. chairman i support the amendment there is a way to do this right. we actually got more than

sequestration without across-the-board cuts. we supported things that work well over 100 different programs but did it the way the public wants it to buy evaluating each program individually. i would hope we would do away with this craziness and get back to the business of evaluating programs for their worthiness. >> i was certainly i would certainly like for us to get back to evaluating programs because there are 260 that are out of authorization that we are still spending money on. and that comes to $293 billion per year. there are things we need to do within our budget. we should not be cutting across the board. they should be flexibility built-in command we should be scrutinizing what we are doing. i do not think that we have done that.

know what their limits are so that they can make requests for changes or whatever. >> this is what this amendment would allow them to do. >> talking to the senator about that. set up to help us with our overseas diplomatic facility benghazi is an example. i wish we had had better security. the world is getting more dangerous by the day. we just closed our embassy temporarily in djibouti. working with the sen. i am

the chairman of the senate foreign ops subcommittee on appropriations command we have put 5.4 billion in fiscal year 2015 for embassy security construction maintenance and more white security protection. 46.4 being. 46.4 being above the budget request but also set aside 25 million as a source of a source of funding to address emerging and immediate security requirements. this this deficit mutual reserve fund would allow us to look throughout the government and try to find a bipartisan approach to putting more money into diplomatic security something i think we all understand that we need and it does allow not just spending cuts but revenue if we could work out an agreement acceptable to all of us. god knows what is coming our way overseas, and to those in the diplomatic corps, you earn your pay as much as any member of the military. you are in dangerous circumstances.

>> rebuttal. >> mr. chairman as the son and grandson of diplomats who served in far away in dangerous places, i would like to be added as a cosponsor to this amendment. >> without objection. any other comments? back to your side. next amendment. >> all right. this is a technical amendment. everybody has a front of us this budget document which at some time will have numbers in it. what it does not have is the spending that goes out through the tax code. it simply does not reported here. the chairman has had witnesses and the ranking member have had witnesses who on a bipartisan basis of common and said to us that

money that flows out through the tax code should be counted as spending. they use the word tax spending, but what our budget process does is it cuts -- counts revenue from the basis of net revenue. the amount of money that goes out the back door of the tax code and that our own witnesses on a bipartisan basis so-called tax spending never appears in our budget document. this is a simple amendment to add that information which has been obtained from the gct and crf and that extended forward can only do five years by community staff exactly in line with economic growth to add those numbers to this document. so i hope that this can be a bipartisan and indeed unanimous amendment.

it does nothing but add that element of information to the budget document. and i i believe i should add noncontroversial, factual information. i don't think there is dispute over the accuracy of the information. it is just a question of disclosing the full budget picture in our budget document. >> i am glad that you added that last statement. you have determined what items are tax expenditures that are to be eliminated, and i think that the finance committee is very concerned about their jurisdiction and whether they can stipulate those things are not. >> this is just the total, mr. chairman. this is the jays ct information on the amount of revenue that goes through the tax code. there is no element of selection or distinction.

it is just the gct number. we have advanced it for five years. we advanced it entirely based upon the rate of growth of the economy that is the mechanic for taking the five years and addressing it. >> you want to explain what the exact things are that are in it? >> this is the total. >> we don't work in totals. totals. we work in details. we don't work in -- >> that frustrates the heck out of me. >> this is the budget committee and we do work in totals. this would disclose what those totals are. >> if we know where they come from. any other comments? >> well. >> i actually would like to learn a little bit more about this when we leave this table. for all of us

should care about tax reform, it might be somewhat interesting. i am not saying i support i support it yet, but i look forward to talking to you about it. might help us think a little bit down the road about how we come up with a bipartisan package to deal with our fiscal issues. i look forward to talking with you. >> senator. >> i think he said it better. announcing this until now. >> i look forward to talking with my colleagues. colleagues. there are no tricks, traps to organics in this amendment for nothing hidden under a behind the curtain. this is just about getting the information published about the total revenue lost due to the tax loopholes and deductions as determined by gct, not some magical sheldon whitehouse version of doing it. based on economic growth consistent with our own projections.

factual information that should be in the budget. right now we only support revenue on a net basis. >> back to our site for an amendment. >> this amendment has to do with exports. we talked about the need for more jobs and better jobs, not just to get people back to work but to deal with this issue of flat wages and reduced benefits. one of the one of the best ways to do this is to expand exports. they pay about 7 percent more than average wages, provide better benefits. i met with the ohio farm bureau and for their annual meeting one of every 3 acres is now planted for export. they they would like to export more because it means better prices. in ohio a in ohio about 25 percent of our manufacturing jobs are export jobs now. we we want more products stamped made in america sent overseas.

i think this is one whereas a matter of the budget we ought to be at least making a statement of the importance of exports. we missed this.sometimes as we talk about some of the specific trade agreements and the specific issues. the broader issue is, yes we have to make sure imports are treated fairly, people are not dumping or selling below cost or subsidizing and we need to be tougher on that, there is nothing inconsistent with being tougher on imports coming in that are unfair and expanding exports more. we have we have a problem now. well below the averages of other countries. somewhere between ethiopia and tonga right now. a huge potential for us to not just create jobs but better jobs. i believe we can do more in terms of leveling the playing field on imports. in terms of dealing with the currency issue.

one way to level the playing field is to open more markets to us product. right now we are sitting on the sidelines as a country while others are creating marketing opening agreements that we are not party to. i hope that we could agree on a bipartisan basis to get us back on track with the general notion that we ought to have a level playing field. >> bigelow more into the mic. the table is so long. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> deficit neutral or spending neutral. >> it does not involve taxes. >> i we will oppose it for the same reason i opposed senator grassley's. the underlying idea is a fine one. >> now i can't hear either side. >> probably a good idea of people tried speak closely to the microphone.

i don't know that there is anything about the amendment per se. for the next 30 years the various trade policies have done just the opposite. while 60,000 factories in the country since 2,001. i would hope we are serious about increasing exports and creating manufacturing jobs we take a a very hard look at trade policy in this country over the last 30 years.

>> spending neutral includes tax expenditures. >> i'm just asking. for those were spending neutral proposals on the table. includes tax expenditures. i lovingly together the issue of raising taxes. i no we have a disagreement.

there is no need to raise taxes. let me make one more. how much time i have? twenty-nine seconds. there are trade policies and trade agreements. where we have a trade agreement it's only 10 percent of the global gdp. that 10 percent of global gdp takes 47 percent of exports. good agreements that really do not down barriers are good for american farmers and workers and service providers. that is what this amendment is about. >> and we will lay that one aside. >> who is on hours?

>> this is an amendment to create a a budget.of order against legislation that would reduce medicare outlays below the fiscal year 2014 levels. in other words, a.of order if medicare is cut in this budget. this is a big difference between the budgets we have presented over time and republican budgets and whether it is called a voucher for price support, the result is the same. the republican budgets the republican budgets look to dramatically change the programs and ways that threaten senior citizens benefits which they have earned over a lifetime of hard work and which we have promised them. and so this would say no, say, no, to those approaches. what i find also very interesting, mr. chairman, is that in the house while the house has voted over 50

sometimes to 50 sometimes to repeal the affordable care act and take away healthcare exchanges in the medicare section two pages later in the house budget they put in place healthcare exchanges for medicare. one might say they want to obama care medicare. and change medicare to look more like obama care, which i find a very fascinating debate. so this is an amendment that would simply say we're not going to medicare. we're not going to voucher isaac, provide a price support system. we're not going to cut outlays below the fiscal 2014 levels. >> and we took the president's numbers.

>> mr. chairman, if i might given the given the house budget, given the conference process my given the fact that we know their desires over the years proposal after proposal for voucher systems to change from a single-payer structure where everyone knows they have healthcare to one where it is vouchers or price supports and now we're calling it an exchange all these different versions this amendment simply says we want to keep medicare the way that it is in terms of the spending and outlays. we we can work together to improve, but we're not going to cut it. >> mr. chairman. >> senator. >> colleagues, we have to recall that presidents obama care health care bill cut medicare $500 billion and use that money to spend on a

knew program. as i. as i understand, you are not proposing, this budget does not propose any unwise reductions in medicare spending, but i just want to recall that those cuts were to providers. it did not cut medicare, but it did cut money to providers. the largest amount i think that we have ever seen in the history of medicare. it's going up, too. >> mr. chairman, if i might just say medicare benefits of increased as a result of health reform. there were, frankly savings in areas where it was clear there was overspending. again, that is what the public wants to see us do. we don't want to go backwards. we want to make sure there are not cuts to medicare, continuing to strengthen benefits for seniors.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> senator johnson. >> i i think i have a chart that goes along with my first amendment. >> i think the 800-pound gorilla in the room here is the fact that basically two thirds of the budget is not on the budget, not part of the discussion. certainly one thing i found out in the 30 year career in manufacturing, they knew how to solve problems. it starts with identifying, properly defining it and admitting you have a problem we are talking about a ten year budget window problem

and we really have a demographic problem. according to the ultimate fiscal scenario the 30 the 30 year deficit projected by cbo is $126 trillion. 8 trillion in the 1st which is what we are all focused on. 31 trillion in the 2nd, 87 trillion in the 3rd. put all that in perspective, the entire net private asset base of america today is a hundred and $10 trillion. but. but i find in washington dc is a lot of delusion people denying reality. a story trying to find areas of agreement. i showed a similar graph to president obama. mr. president, you get everything on the table for discussion. you take this information the depth of the problem the definition of the problem to the american public use your bully pulpit, with the pop -- of

the public collectively admit the depth, the size of the problem. you know what he said to me? ron, we can show the american public numbers this big. if we do they will get scared. besides we can do all the work. we have to leave some work for future presidents and congresses. that congresses. that level of denial, that level of delusion is what is preventing us from tackling these long-term problems. again, we. again, we are simply denying that reality. my amendment is simple. as cbo does the cbo does publish, but they do it as a percentage of gdp. nobody understands. some scary charts and graphs we have asked we have asked the cbo to convert those percentages of gdp to dollars. they refuse to do that. we had to do it ourselves. very similar, provides an accurate information. i realize these are projections, but they are projections based on good economics.

hopefully this will be a bipartisan bill to provide information so that america collectively understands the depth of the problem and we can stop deluding ourselves in terms of what we need to be talking about, the entire budget. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman. >> i applaud senator johnson for wanting to educate the american people about economic reality. as a nation we should engage in the discussion and not be frightened about big numbers but i would urge sen. johnson to add to his discussion of economic reality not just deficits and debt but the reality of what is happening to the middle class and the massive level of income and wealth inequality in this country. you can't you can't just talk about a deficit without understanding that today 99 percent of all new income generated comes from the top

1 percent. you can't you can't just talk about the national debt without understanding that today the top one 10th of 1 percent owning more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. so if your goal -- and i share that goal. let's educate the american people about economic reality, talk about how we create jobs, ways wages, deal with the deficit, but i am concerned my republican friends don't talk about the trillions of dollars in the transfer of wealth that is gone from the middle class to the top one 10th of 1 percent. ..

i just want to suggest a friendly amendment expressed in terms of dollars in a percentage of gdp unlike you a percentage of gdp is a helpful way to make the dollars comprehensive. >> i would be happy to include it. thank you. >> further discussion there's

still about ten seconds left. >> if there's ten seconds left i would say that i'm all for adding more information and i hoped it was all about the talk of denial and delusion but i guess that's for another day. >> under -- senator sanders. >> a point of order mr. chairman. has the suggestion then accepted as an amendment to senator johnson to add a gdp language or will we have a vote on that when it comes time for voting? >> that information is already included so we can have the amendment that is reported as a percentage of gdp.

is it in the johnson amendment or not? >> i will ask unanimous consent to include it. >> the author has the right to revise his amendment. >> senator sanders. >> colleagues, this is the amendment that could give us the opportunity to secure the protection for our public land and the opportunities they present for the community. this creates a deficit neutral reserve funds for federal land secure schools, payment in lieu of taxes and the land and water conservation fund. they protect our public land, water, wildlife, tourism

outdoor recreation, support local businesses ahead of this debate. this ensures that role america has a presence in this budget and in the priorities that are important to us and it's important that they be linked. many of you know the senator and i have worked on this in a bipartisan way and have been linked to for example it was the linked from the rules into so many of the counties wake up with less support. it is especially important because in addition to increasing the sustainable

fashion, and this is something else i think can be done in a bipartisan way, we have to have a safety net for our committees where the federal government owns so much of our land. the reality is you cannot get the lobbying at the low and high enough to not need a safety net and that is why it's been so important since. and the senator knows that we teamed up on that and since then there has been a large group of westerners and others who represent the communities that are heavily for the study and worked on it in a bipartisan way. and i think that this amendment gives us a chance to once again link to payment in lieu of taxes to ensure that we go forward to the forestry policy that does find a way while at the same

time ensuring that we have the safety net that is so important for the community and i will close. americans place a high value on clean water and wildlife of the -- habitat that it brings. i hope that this will win bipartisan support. jeremy and i just yield back at this time. >> i appreciate the senator's comments about the schools and what i prefer to call payment in lieu of taxes. people don't understand that that is taxes the federal government pays for the land. if that affects 49 states.

when i offered this amendment to the colleagues is that we saw together both programs one. they've determined a lot of the communities that relied on the payment in lieu of taxes. i would yield back. any other a bottle.

>> i read all the support and i want to thank the senator for bringing this amendment and the work that he does to help us deal with these problems in the secure rules and funding and i appreciate working with him on this and hope we can pass this amendment unanimously. >> do we know when the vote is going to be? i think we can vote on the sessions number one, grassley number one, sanders number two and that will give some time to work on the other amendment so that we can do those after the vote. sessions number one sander number one, grassley number one and sanders number two. will you also just -- if

everybody has their material together i will call sessions number one for 30 seconds and the other side gets a 32nd. i think i see confusion on both sides unless there is an objection people start after words and have a lunch break and hopefully everybody can grab something to eat after time.

[inaudible conversations] in a come back at 1:30. at 1:00 there will be a republican caucus, too. just the ones on the committee. continuing continue in the amendment process until the offering and months until the vote is called. that will give people time to prepare. >> 1:00. senator ayotte. >> we will go back to offering. >> there was some confusion on both sides. we will give you more time to prepare.

>> i am offering an amendment and i'm going to be making one on the revision to the amendment because it is an amendment -- this is an amendment to strengthen our civilian workforce that works on national security and military issues. the language that is being handed out is the spending mutual fund. i'm going to amend that to be a natural reserve fun because that is what i intended in the first place and i am the chair of the readiness subcommittee and the civilian workforce for example at the naval shipyard and the shipyards indeed those

recruiting and maintaining the very best to support the national security. it's very important in terms of our military readiness into so that deficit neutral reserve fund will focus on ensuring that we are maintaining the best civilian workforce and as i understand it the ranking member on the readiness subcommittee is also going to speak to this amendment and cosponsor it with me. >> if i can speak on this amendment i asked the senator for two changes. first it was originally drafted to promote and when i asked to broaden the workforce she accepted that and then i also recommended that we change it from a spending neutral to a deficit of natural which would involve the title amendments added the omission and she agreed to that as well and i think this is a very positive on

the readiness can be we deal with this on armed services and has an part and to advance the workflow in this important area. thank you. >> with the change to the deficit neutral i would like to be added as a cosponsor. >> without objection. >> senator sanders. >> following that support i have two following that same mold with senator johnson as a cosponsor i hesitate to say anything would be a no-brainer but i hope that this would be such that this is simply requiring the irs to notify

americans when they were the victims of identity fraud. the gal reported that they paid on an estimated $5.8 billion in fraudulent funds in 2013. they list the top schemes that they don't tell individual taxpayers even if they know their identity has been stolen they don't reveal that information to the individual taxpayers. we've been hoping for some time that they would move on and perhaps if we could show the support of the whole budget committee we could get that moving forward. this clearly is getting citizens the right to have this information. if they could call and find out if they know their identity has been stolen. that should be a piece of information they should have access to and i don't know if the senator wants to add

anything. >> we have family in wisconsin that they were the victims of identity theft. they knew about it for years. they simply cannot be notified. this is a good amendment and i fully support it. >> i would like to be added as a cosponsor. i would like to be added as a cosponsor. >> any further comments? this is number one and it follows along the same line as senator john johnson getting the

estimates. what this amendment does is says for those that have a spending effect of a quarter of a percent of gdp over the first decade we require that we give an estimate out to the second and third decade as that's what it does so i would think it would be a nice complement to senator johnson's amendment concerns with this

amendment come and we will need to discuss it before the vote is that it is hard enough to predict what will happen ten years in the future and if anyone is smart enough to know what will be happening 20 or 30 years from now, let us know. tell us right now and we can save a whole lot of trouble for example i think we all know in 1996 they projected that in 2000 just four years into the future the deficit would be 244 million in reality the surplus of the 232 billion off by 400 or $500 billion, etc.. if cbo was unable to predict what would have been ten years into the future, for years into the future or four months into the future i suspect they will have a hard time predicting what will happen 20 or 30 years from now. so i'm afraid of the motivation

made behind this amendment is to make it look like programs that help some of the most vulnerable people in this country are just outrageously expensive and i don't think we can project 20 to 30 years into the future. >> it's only difficult to predict when it's about the future. >> it is difficult to project even tomorrow but i would rather have some information and maybe you realize it is not accurate and we realized that at some information is better than no information so i'm in strong support of what the senator is trying to do. we will take all of these with a grain of salt. these programs are meant to last the closest thing to return to the federal program we should at least make some attempt to make sure what the long-term fiscal

problems are with these programs >> let me just say senator johnson is certainly correct and as a matter of fact there are republican and democratic members of this committee that have been working together on issues involving programs that have an effect so i would think they would be supported by the bipartisan majority based on the conversations that i've been having with democrats since i've been a member of the committee this term.

>> senator sanders. >> thank you. i would like to call up of the amendment it the amendment dealing with taxation estimates and this is very appropriate to the discussion that we are having right now about the information available to us when we review policy and tax reform proposals. section 412 is entitled on us accounting estimates and i believe it needs some improvements to attempt to live up to that title. the chair man's mark requires the congressional budget office and the joint committee on taxation provided supplementary dynamic score for certain bills.

i have my questions about the dynamic scoring and believe that it sometimes cooks the books by making the tax cuts seem cheaper than they are in reality. but i do believe that we need information and we need to look at how the proposals that are before us or affecting the rising tide of income inequality and wage stagnation that is crippling the middle-class. we've heard from senators on both sides of the aisle who share this concern. so my amendment would simply require your in additional supplemental estimate that evaluates the distribution of all effective revenue changes across income categories. this is an estimate the joint committee on taxation can provide and the former ways and means chair man requested the joint committee on taxation to do just this for his previous

tax reform proposals. my amendment would simply require that. in addition the chairman of the house house and the senate budget committees are able to deem what is considered major legislation and i believe the ranking members of both the house and the senate budget committees should share in that privilege. in fact the amendment that we just saw spams that ability to both the chair and the ranking member. all this change allows his access to additional estimates that the chair man's mark deems honest accounting estimates. and if they are honest enough with the majority and minority should be able to have that same access so i urge the committee support as we try to gather more helpful and accurate at permission for the policy choices we face.

>> there was no intent to keep the information for the majority regardless which party happens to be the chairman of the time. >> not keeping the information for just one side or the other but who can deem the underlining legislation with its major legislation that would be able to acquire the estimates we are talking about. >> now you are undoing the history of the budget committee. the chair man has always had the final wording on the scoring. >> the amendment if i'm getting this correct has the same allocation for the chair man and the ranking member. so it would follow suit either the chair man or the ranking member of the respective committees would make that call.

>> i'm looking at this for the first time and because it would in effect from what you said it would mandate provisions in the provisions of the bill that are part of a legislation that i've introduced him to be voted on as a committee the last time we went through this process and actually to the floor and had democratic support and test it by a vote of 52 which meant six or seven democrats including members of this committee so i don't know that we want to change the traditions and ultimately is the scorekeeper which is what it's been through for democrat and republican majorities alike i'm happy to take a look at it. just be sure that you understand what the economic scores mean to me at least. this isn't about cooking the books. this is about providing information that we need to come up with good tax reform and no one would tell you that tax reform isn't going to have an

impact on the economy and that is essentially what it says. we may disagree at the end of the day with the right impact is, congressional budget office, how can they do this macroeconomic analysis and with precision and what provision of the legislation provides for which is consistent with the bill i've introduced again is to have that information available. they have the ability to decide what the ability is going to be and if we have to take a look at it i do think this i do think that more information is a good thing and. >> next would be senator corker. >> i have a question about how

side-by-side -- i have an amendment by want to combine which are supportive of the military readiness and national security. i think it's important we pay for that and i have an amendment and i would like to offer that as a side-by-side we will be combining the language and i just want to get into the queue to be able to offer that. >> side-by-side will be allowed and that will be pulled out of the voting order. >> we can offer that. thank you. >> i hope many people would support and it will give us more information about the long-term impact of the legislation.

it requires the cbo to produce for informational purposes only. they would even raise the caps or authorize general funds transfers. for scoring purposes we still only use the ten year score. here's the issue last year -- >> last year we had a situation with the highway trust fund where we created this gimmick that we spend money for a short amount of time and it looked like it was positive but in the years 20 and 30, we lost a significant amount of money and it was a gimmick that due to timing it made it look like we were actually paying for something so for informational purposes, i would like for us on the issues that address the cap or the highway trust fund to

have this score to help us see whether they are actually doing something lowering the deficit or not and paying for something like we say we are paying for it so i hope people will support this. it's not a dot just that it's common sense and with that i will stop. we have had other amendments relating to the liabilities. the doctor from boston university said balance budgeting you should judge all spending and what it does to the long-term liabilities of the united states, to increase the unfunded liabilities so this is

a member of amendments number of amendments that move us in the direction. >> i want to thank them and the senator but our need to look at things for the long haul this is for information purposes only. >> my amendment i'm introducing would create the cost of attending institutions of higher education. in the path to higher education is a key pillar for the strong middle-class to be the increasing number of students are graduating with substantial

debt and two thirds graduate and their death will be about 26 $27,000. many have much higher individual debt burden. the skyrocketing student loan debt is hurting the economy and surpassing the credit card debt. air making major purchases such as a car. the rate of home ownership is declining and that more and more students are wrestling with whether they should attend college because that load they would carry with them. that isn't the door of opportunity we want to open wide, that is the door of opportunity closing on our students of modest means. by 2020 the economy will have a

deficit of 5 million college-educated workers and a 65% of all jobs will require education beyond college. both were the sense of opportunity in the nation and the future economy college needs to be more affordable and that's why i'm asking for support on this amendment. >> the budget resolution doesn't make any changes to the outstanding student loans and it won't prevent anyone from getting a student loan that is currently eligible to receive one so we are trying to bring in the rising college costs and reduce the growing burden of student loan debt. i know that the that to the senators probably the senators probably want to make some quick presentations and any others? senator perdue? >> this will create a fund aimed

at financial protection bureaus to the regular appropriations process while republicans and democrats may differ or have different feelings about the cfp b. making them a part of the process should be a nonpartisan issue. right now the funding doesn't come from congress that comes from transfers and the federal reserve. the budget is as much as 12% of the annual operating expense 600 million without congressional oversight over the funds and all. congressional oversight in my opinion of and my opinion of this agency should be a constitutional function. it's already proven that it isn't a good steward and the prime example to see the headquarters currently the federal reserve inspector general just estimated 120 million-dollar cost overrun of the headquarters renovation. current estimates put the renovation of $600 per foot according to the house financial services committee that is more

per square foot than it costs to build a casino at 330 and dubai at 450. i.e. enter in for consideration at the appropriate time. >> thank you. senator sanders. >> i speak in opposition to this amendment. no other bank regulation agency is subjected to regular appropriations subjecting to the appropriations that is just one way of singling out the one regulator which by statute is a consumer advocate and this amendment would weaken a very important agency. the cfp b. has been successful and is working. it's helped 15 million consumers that will receive relief from the financial service products in order to $5.3 billion in consumer relief so if you want to continue to protect consumers i would urge a no vote on this

amendment. >> mr. chairman may i be recognized. i would like to ask unanimous consent to be included on amendment number one. the senator senator from georgia is correct the cfp is unique among the powerful regulators having no accountability to congress. it has exceeded its authority in part because it isn't subject to congressional oversight and frankly it is outrageous that they are able to operate in the budget they have and the latitude they have without having to come to congress so i think the gentleman and i join him. i think senator king has an amendment to offer. >> this essays this is kaine one and ide that line and maybe leave it has some good positive

bipartisan support. two of my colleagues on the committee, senator baldwin and portman are together with me the cochairs of the technical education caucus. it's a deficit natural fund to support legislation encouraging more innovation to prepare for the 21st century workforce. i'm the son of an iron worker and iran a technical school for a year and learned their. since the power was put into the shadows of american public education for a number of decades is now in his now it is back strong and there are some wonderful programs about 20% of jobs will require a technical training establishing the deficit neutral reserve advance on this prayer d. and i believe both senators baldwin and portman are cosponsoring.

>> we will recess until 1:30 and begin the process so you can get some lunch and republican senators we are going to meet out here at 1:00. in audible conversations [inaudible conversations]

the senate is finished for the day but earlier today members continue to work on anti-human trafficking bill. democrats have objected to the measure due to abortion language and because of that, senators once again blocked the bill from advancing. the chamber returns on the 2016 budget plan and possible consideration of the attorney general nomination. watch the senate on c-span2. they came to the floor to discuss u.s. relations with israel and then demand that in -- benjamin that in. i >> i want to talk up a separate topic as well and it's what an people are reading about in the wonde last 72 hours.ding many people are wondering what is this aftermath controversy and back and backend for data

that happened a few weeks ago when the minister visited washington and spoke before the congress. people wonder what is it that's going on here and why is there so much controversy. i want to take a moment to delve deeper into this. there are two reasons. they represent everything we wanted to be. israel is a democracy as evidenced by the process that they just underwent. it's a free enterprise economy, developed economy that provides prosperity for the people and partners in trade and commerce and israel is a strong american ally don't we wish the entire middle east that way that we had more countries but like israel that were democratic and had a free prosperous economy.

it is less like iraq and syria and other places at this moment. there's another reason. it's not just another country and it has a special unique purpose. barry homeland in the holocaust where over 6 million human beings were slaughtered. and it was founded on the promise that never again in the history of the world were there not be a place for people. it's not just a nation committed is the nation with a special and unique purpose of m-mike any other in the world and i for 1 a.m. proud that the united states has stood with israel for all these years and i'm proud to be behind the judicial state of israel for all of these years. and as though the security safety and future is in the national security as well as a moral obligation of every member of the body and as for the nation and what are the underpinnings of the israeli

security there are two is that the first is the ability to defend itself and second the reality that if israel ever has to defend itself. there's the first cover of this activity. as the prime minister reminded us unlike any other country israel isn't asking us to send soldiers aircraft they are willing to defend themselves. but the second pillar about the strong and questionable support is increasingly being questioned around the world and there is good reason why. let's begin by the aftermath of the recent election. as far as i know there may be a change in the last few hours. the president has yet to call the prime minister. that is unlike the fact that in march of 2012 he was among the first to call and congratulate putin and moscow were in june of

26 the muslim brotherhood when they won the egyptian presidency were they called to congratulate the top communists on their position which is not elected in the way that you and i would consider. or the fact that in 2013, the historic phone call they brag about and they congratulated him and of course in august. as far as i know thinking about all the things that have been going on you'd think they would be quick to make that call. it hasn't happened but where does this come from.

the unwavering approach which is the political party in israel unless adopting the approach that you are anti-israeli which is a silly comment to make because the party had been out of power. in january of 2009 the president is taking office and makes a quick phone call before he even found that the prime minister this is my first phone call to a foreign leader and by making it only hours after he took office about the spokesman. in june of 2009 the president hosted american jewish leaders at the white house and he reportedly told them that he thought that daylight between america and israel could here is the quote that someone at that

meeting said he made. for eight years during the bush administration there was no life between the united states and israel and nothing was accomplished. in september of 2009 in the first address to the general assembly president obama devoted five paragraphs to the conflict in which he declared to the united nations to no surprise america does not accept the legitimacy of the continued settlement and he went on to draw a connection between rocket attacks into the living conditions. there wasn't a single unconditional criticism of palestinian terrorism. and in march of 2010, secretary hillary clinton be rated a 45 minute call telling him that israel harm to the bilateral relationship and by the way the state department to share details the details of the call to the press.

the united states under his leadership joined israel. in may of 2011 the state department issued a press release that the number two official with the visiting jerusalem and the west bank so they made that separate. only hours before he departed from israel to washington, he delivered his infamous speech that he focused on the demand they returned to the indefensible 1967 borders. in november of 2011 and open microphone caught part of a private conversation with the president. he said i can't stand that in that in.

he titled on and said you are tired of him, what about me i have to deal with him everyday. february, 2012, at the conference the secretary of state was asked about mr. obama pandering to the lobby and she acknowledged that was a fair question and went on to explain they don't make the foreign-policy. at the white house and the state department criticized for deaths of palestinians being used by hamas but worse about the true feelings was the decision to try to use a pressure point against israel and in october of 2014 the oversold called him a chicken and i can't even finish

it so that's what has happened up to this point. what happens now and election. that is saying a lot from someone that has been elected once or twice but what about when iran had a election in 2009 and two to the seats to protest you know what the white house said we are not going to comment on that because we are not going to interfere in the sovereignty they are calling their rhetoric but when an enemy has a fraudulent election we can't comment because that would be infringing on the sovereignty.

it's how the two state solution is impossible given the isn't possible given the circumstances. what does the white house do they say we may have to reconsider and go to the united nations security council and support a resolution. why would the minister of israel say that? first of all let's go to the history of the peace negotiations. israel offered the palestinian authority nearly all the west bank eastern jerusalem and gaza and they said no. they withdrew and do you know what it is today where they launch rockets against israel. it is a place they launch against and in 2008 nearly all

of eastern jerusalem and the palestinian authority said no. what about the palestinian record let's begin with the fact according to many reports about 6% of the budget is to pay the salary of prisoners, of people including americans and they are being paid salaries and benefits including the united states great britain, norway and denmark. there is another material desist from a scorebook and the war ended with a catastrophe that is unprecedented in history. it's an expression of ideology.

the difference between hitler and the british foreign minister was simple. he destroyed them. while hitler is without colonies. they both wanted to get rid of the jews. zionism was crucial for the defense by ridding europe of the burden of the jews and these are the people to put a peace deal with. the palestinian authority has numerous events after the palestinian terrorists responsible for killing the israeli civilians. in 2013, palestinian authority television summer camps, service magazines and websites are being used to drive home

message is that the states that the legitimate because there are no jewish people or jewish history. second they are horrible creatures that correct those in their vicinity and that palestinians must continue to struggle until the inevitable placement by the palestine state and all forms are honorable and valid. and if being that being schooled in the coach or peace they are being relentlessly rhetorical in the demonization of jews and the conviction that sooner or later they will cease to exist. these are the people that they want to put pressure on them to cut a peace deal with. the conditions do not exist for the peace deal. the conditions do not exist for people with a government that are victims of this government.

the palestinian authority and not to mention there's no such thing as a jewish people and any method of destroying them that pay the salaries and benefits. this president is making historic mistakes. allies have differences. but allies like israel emboldens their enemies. it's a good to the international forms this is what they are doing. this is a historic and tragic mistake. israel if this is a republican president doing these things i did give the same speech. this is dangerous and it betrays the commencement of this nation has made to the right of the jewish state that exists in peace. most people on earth once more peace than the people of israel

at the hands of this terrorism than the people of israel and they need need need america as a support america's support unconditionally if there are differences the need to be dealt with privately. they need to be treated with more respect not less than this white house is giving the supreme leader. for he wouldn't dare to say things about the supreme leader now that he's saying about the prime minister of israel because he wouldn't want to endanger the peace deal. i hope the nature is reinvigorated and i hope that once again this body and this congress and this government will recommit itself to this extraordinarily important relationship because if america doesn't stand with israel, who will he stand with if the democracy and a strong american ally in the international stage are not worthy of our

unconditional support and what ally in around the world of ours can feel safe in their alliance with us >> senator from arkansas. i want to comment on the recent election in israel and the reaction to it. the prime minister's party won the decisive victory in the election for myself and on behalf of 3,000 arkansans i want to offer a congratulations. i have the greatest admiration for the visionary and courageous statesmanship as well as the service as a young man and the

country's elite special operations forces. at the prime minister and his family have paid the highest price over the decades and the fight against the common enemies of israel and the united states. yet let me also stressed the alliance in the united states and israel is not an alliance between this and the statesman nor this or that political party. or for that matter does it depend on who or which party controls the white house or the congress. the alliance between the american people and the israeli people the ultimate defender of the west and eastern frontier of the west our alliance rests on the shared experiences and principles and the christian heritage respects the natural rights of mankind, democratic self-government, market-based economics and strong provision for the common defense. the commitment to democratic

elections demonstrated just this week is an important distinction for many of the neighbors and why they are the closest ally in the region. apparently president obama harbors and antipathy for prime minister netanyahu that he is going to end this alliance. the antagonism towards him is long-standing and well-known. last year for example the officials used an epitaph to question the prime minister's courage. and for now it is in an aside that anonymity is the washington shield, just as i am also compelled to point out so far as i know that president or his senior political aide served in the country's special operations forces unlike the feminist or. but back to my main point under the last 48 hours more anonymous administration officials suggested a fundamental rethinking.

there can be no palestinian state and the conditions change. they recognize the their right to exist as a jewish state. as the prime minister said, the palestinians lay down their arms and there will be peace with israel lays down its arms there will be no israel. the obama administration has gone off the deep end and left their personal bitterness towards the primitives or drive the foreign policy towards the ally. here are just a few quotes from the administration officials suggesting a change in the relationship with israel and the willingness to abandon at the united nations. one of officials said we are signaling that if the government's position is no longer to pursue the palestinian

state we have to broaden going forward. according to reports the same official said he wouldn't pull out of the modified american' and i'd nation for the u.s. has one fended off resolutions in the settlement activities and demanding its withdrawal of the palestinian territories. another senior white house official said the position internationally has been to separate the direct negotiations between the palestinians where we are now in the reality where they no longer support the direct negotiations and therefore we have to factor that into the decisions going forward. finally, state department spokeswoman said we are currently targeting our approach. we are not going to be judge what we would do if it were you in action. some will dismiss the comments to the response of the president and political operatives that didn't get their way this week. but there is something much more worrisome under way.

while the prime minister won the decisive victory committee still has just started assembling the governing majority coalition. these kind of quotes from the most important allies could very well startled some of the smaller parties and their leaders with whom the prime minister is currently in negotiations. this raises the question of course the administration intends to undermine the efforts to assemble the coalition by suggesting the change to the long-standing policy of supporting the position with the united nation. after all if you are an elected one year in the parliament, you would worry about the united states refusing to exercise the veto at the security council. consider the long and dark history of the anti-semitism. the human rights council condemned israel and 45 resolutions since the creation in 2006. in 2013 the general assembly adopted a total of 21

resolutions singling out the disapproval. and just for resolutions for the rest of the world. 50% of all emergency special sessions were convened to denounce israel. meanwhile no special session has been called for any other state in over 30 years. given its history in the state here and abroad with me speak bluntly so there can be no misunderstanding. under no circumstances will i or this congress allow the administration to abandon israel to the united nations or any other institution or to change fundamentally the terms of the alliance with israel. the administration's pronouncement is even more difficult as i understand to simultaneously call the regime in iran. the people should know that the american people remain in solidarity with them and the quest to exist peacefully with neighbors and that we will not allow them to be thrown into the

united nations. characterization made famous by the member of the that member of the body, the late daniel patrick moynihan. the call for all members of the body including my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join me in one voice in supporting our ally against them. in the coming days the debate over the budget resolution next week i will propose the legislation that reaffirms the long-standing policy of the united states to continue to defend israel against attacks of the united nations and other international agencies. i urge all members of the body including my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that have a history of supporting israel to join me in supporting such legislation. .. national criminal court or any other international agency take adverse action against israel, i will consider introducing legislation to restrict u.s. funding for the offending agency.

finally, if the united states ambassador to the united nations does not exercise the american veto in the security council against any anti-israel resolution, i will consider introducing similar legislation to restrict funding to the ambassador's office. for decades the relationship between israel and the united states has transcended personal differences. our shared interests were enough to overcome any disagreement but i fear mutual respect is of little concern to this administration. the president and the senior officials around him should care fully

al gore was the first speaker to address the floor. you can watch al gore's speech didn't on c-span2.org. c-span was created as a public service. a state department official told congress today that any legislation to impose sanctions on iran would lead the u.s. to be blamed if no agreement is reached on a nuclear deal. that hearing is coming up next. the fcc commissioners were back on capitol hill testifying about net neutrality rules-coming later, and we'll hear from treasury secretary jack lew. then a look at wednesday's federal reserve potential rate increases. and then a discussion about the problems in the secret service and director joseph clancy's appearances on capitol hill. you can join the conversation

with your phone calls and comments on facebook and twitter. next deputy secretary of state tony blinken takes questions from lawmakers on nuclear negotiations with iran. this house foreign affairs committee hearing comes as a deadline nears for the p5 plus 1 countries to reach agreement with iran. congressman ed royce is the chair. >> the hearing will come to order and the committee will continue to evaluate the administration's nuclear dep diplomacy with iran. negotiators face a high-stakes deadline next week. we'll hear the administration residents case today. but it's critical that the administration hears our bipartisan concerns here. deputy secretary blinken this is your first appearance before the committee, and i congratulate you on your position. i wish you well. and after the hearing i trust you will be in touch with

secretary kerry, undersecretary sherman and other involve in the negotiating process to report on the committee reside -- committee's rues. this committee has be at the for 'front of examining the threat of nuclear iran. much of the pressure that has been brought on the islamic republic of iran and that brought them to the table was bus in place by congress and it was put in place over he objections of the executive branch. that's the executive branch whether it was republican or democratic administrations, but it is the house of representatives that has driven this process. and we'd have more pressure on iran today if the administration hadn't pressured the senate to sit on the royce sanctions bill that this committee produced and passed in 2013 and passed, by the way, unanimously and passed off the house floor 400-20.

so congress is proud of the role and we want to see the administration get a lasting and meaningful agreement but unfortunately the administration's negotiating strategy has been more about managing proliferation than preventing it, and a case in point i bring up is iran's our rainup enrichment program. the key technology. the administration would -- if congress will be asked to roll back it sanctions on iran, which we certainly fund iran's terrorist activities, when we roll back the satisfactions -- there must be a substantial rollback of iran's nuclear program, and consider that international inspectors report that iran has still not revealed its past bomb work despite its

commitment to those inspect yore and the iaea is still concern about the iranian nuclear activities. iran has not even begun to address these concerns. last fall, over 350 members wrote to the secretary of state, expressing deep concerns about this lack of cooperation from iran. how can we expect iran to uphold an agreement when they are not meeting their current commitments? indeed we were not surprised to see iran continue to elicitly procure nuclear technology during these negotiations. or that tehran was caught testing a more advanced centrifuge that would help produce bomb material quicker, a new grade of super sonic

centrifuge right in the middle of the process. this was a violation of the spirit and in my view the letter of the interim agreement. iran's deception is all the more reason that the administration should obtain zero notice anywhere anytime, inspections, on iran's declared and undeclared facilities. you have to have a verification regime in this process that is going to work for us. and there's also the fact that limits placed on iran's nuclear program as part of the final agreement now being negotiated, are going to expire. they'll expire and that means the final agreement is just another interim step. what you call the final agreement is an swim step with a reel final step as iran being treated as any other nonnuclear weapons state under the knopp proliferation treaty with a deep history of deception

covert procurement, and clandestine facilities, iran is not any other country. it's certainly not any other country to be conceded in an industrial scale nuclear program. any meaningful agreement must keep restrictions in place for decades, as over 360 members of congress, including every member of this committee are demanding in a letter to the president this week. meanwhile, iran is intense identifying it destructiontive role -- destructive roll. they're propping up assad and syria, and its proximatey hezbollah, threatens israel. iranian backed shia militia are killing hopes of a unified stable iraq and last month, an iranian can backed militia dismailsed the government yemen formerly a key counterterrorism

partner to the united states. many of our allies and partners see iran pocketing an advantageous nuclear agreement and ramping up its aggression the the region as a result of the hard currency they'll have at their disposal as the sanctions are lifted. so this committee is prepared too evaluate any agreement to determine if it is in the long term national security interest of the united states and our allies indeed as secretary kerry testified not long ago any agreement will have to pass muster with congress. those were his words. yet that commitment has been muddied by the administration's is insistence in recent weeks that congress will not play a row. that's not right. congress built the sanction structure that brought iran to the table and if the president moves to dismantle it, well have a say. so i now turn to the ranking member mr. elliott inning goal

of new york. >> thank you for calling this important and timely hearing. welcome to our emptyee. we're greatful for your service and we look forward to your testimony and i want to congratulations both of you on your new positions. the chairman's remarks are very similar to mine. we have worked very hard on this committee to have bipartisanship because both the chairman and i agree that if there's one place where we need bipartisanship more than any other place it involves foreign policy. so wherever possible we try to talk with one voice, and i want to associate myself with the chairman's remarks. we have seen a lot of speculative reporting in the press about might or might not be included in the comprehensive

nuclear deal with iran. today we're going to send over a letter to the president, signed by 360 members of congress in both parties, a majority of each party, talking about in of the things we're concerned with and we would hope we could get a prompt response from the white house. it's a very bipartisan letter expressing congress' feelings about what needs to be in the agreement. i want to emphasize, re-emphasize what chairman said. there really cannot be any marginalization of congress. congress really needs to play a very active and vital role in this whole process, and any attempts to sidestep congress will be resisted on both sides of the aisle. we have seen a lot of speculative reporting in the press about what might or might not be included in a

comprehensive nuclear deal with iran. we don't technically even know right now if there's going to be a deal, but if there is, we would all be wise to review the details before passing judgment whether it's a good deal or bad deal or simple play deal we can live with. i think it's safe to assume we're not going to see what i would consider a perfect deal. i've always said lawn should be required to halt enrichment during the negotiations and but it's clear they weren't and a froze is not on the table. we need to focus on making the deal as good as it can be. homing our witnesses can shed light on a few key areas that for me could tip the scales between a bad deal and a deal with me by able to live. we need total clarity about where iran stand inside terms of its able to weaponize its nuclear material. how far along are they? secondly, will the deal give us sufficient time to respond if iran re -- re nigs and presses

full forward. enough time to catch their violation and react. next how would a comprehensive agreement stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon covertly. iran residents lead ares don't deserve an ounce of trust. we need very strong safeguards. lastly, how will we be certain that sanctions relief won't just open the faucet for funding terrorism or fueling the regime's already abiz mall human rights -- amiss mall i'm rights reports. here's the bottom line. if we say yes to a deal, will it be worth up ralphing the decades of sanctions and pressure that the united states and our partners have built against iran? but if we say no, would be able to hold the sanctions coalition

together and if we maintain or even increase our sanctions, wouldn't iran just move full speed ahead toward a bomb? i know these negotiations have gone on for months and months. i know the p5 plus one is under bees pressure to produce something but we cannot aloes those factors to push push us into a bad deal being sold as a good deal. the administration argued that reaching a deal is the best chance to solve a nuclear price diplomatically and individual another war the middle east and dialingle sunkses would undermine the talks. as i have said, i'm willing to see what is actually in the deal before passing judgment and i strongly urge my colleagues to do the same. but make no mistake congress will play an important knoll the evaluation of a final deal. again, i want to say i will not stand by and allow congress to be marginalized. any permanent repeal of sanks is by law congress' discretion, and

before we do that we must be convinced this deal blocks iran's pathways to a nuclear bomb. i look forward to your tonight and hope we can have a frank discussion of this issues. >> this morning we're pleased to be joined by senior representatives from state and from treasury. marx tony blinken the deputy secretary of state. previously serve as the assistant to the president and was principle deputy national security adviser. also worked as the democratic staff director foe the u.s. senate foreign relations committee, and just confirm last december, we welcome him for his first appearance before this committee. mr. adam szubin is the acting undersecretary for the office of financial intelligence in the department of the treasury help was previously the director of treasury's office of foreign assets control. we welcome him back and without objection, the witnesses' full

prepared statements will be made part of the record. members here will have five calendar days to mitt any statements to you or any questions or any extraneous material for the record. we'll ask you to please summarize your remarks and mr. secretary, if you would begin. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. it's pleasure to be here. i i want to thank you you and members of the committee for having us here today and give us the opportunity to discuss our efforts to reach a come mensive solution to challenge polessed by iran reside nuclear program. also we speak, secretary of state kerry the secretary of energy, undersecretary of state sherman are in switzerland negotiating with the government of iran over the future of it nuclear program. our goal is to ensure that iran's program is for peaceful purposes. to that end we seek to caught off the fourth a pathaways iran can take to obtain enough material for a nuclear weapon.

there are activities at enrichment facilities. a plutonium pathway through the heavy water reactor, and a potential covert pathway to cut off all pathway any come preparesive arrangement must include restrains on the nuclear program and transparency measures that make highs the international's community to -- as a practicalmeter wear working to ensure that iran would take at least one year to produce enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon. that would provide us with more than enough time to detect and act on any iranian transgression in face the community provide recertain able sanctions relief. if iran were to violate its commitments, sanks would be quickly re-imposed. it is iran's responsibility to convince the world by building a track record of verified

compliance that its nuclear program is exclusively peaceful. that's why we're sacking a time frame for a come mensive deal of sufficient -- comprehensive deal of sufficient length to produce a track record. -- with all the rights and all the october ghaiths of an npt state, and a commitment to not build a nuclear weapon. the bush administration first propost officed this to iran and dotses of countries responsibly adhere to the nnpt. 'some constraints would be removed after significant period of time, others would remain in effect even longer and some would last indefinitely including a stringent and intrusive monitoring and inspections regime. iran would have to fully implement the -- this give

inspectors access to declared facilities and suspected undeclared facilities. so far more entriessive inspections will be required of iran before this agreement. some have argued iran would be free to develop a nuclear weapon at the conclusion of the joint plan of action if we achieve it. that is simply not true. to the contrary iran would be prohibited from developing a nuclear weapon in perpetuity and we would have a greater ability to detect any effort by iran to do. so iran would be allowed to have a peaceful civilian nuclear program saved by the iaea. our goal is to reach a deal by the end of the month and complete he technical details but the end of june. there's been a lot of reporting in the press in suiterland the negotiations have been substantive and intense. we have made some progress on core issues of significant gaps remain on other issues between what we and our partners believe must be part of the comprehensive deal and what iran

is willing to to do. is it vital we avoid any actioned that would lead the world to believe that the united states was responsible for their failures. such actions including enacting new sanctions at this time. new sanctions, including through trigger legislation,-under unnecessary. iran knows very well if it refuses a reasonable agreement are renegessen it's agreements new sanctions can and will be passed in matter of days. new sanctions now would be inconsistent with our concerns and undermine our sanctions coalition and give iran an excuse to walk away from the talks or take a hard line that makes an agreement impossible to achieve and plame the failure on us west. avoid action that call into question's the president's authority to make commits the united states will teen. negotiating with a foreign nation this president's responsibility. if they're constance fusion no foreign government will trust that when a president purports to speak sponsor our country, he

actually does. in this case such confusion could embolden hardliners in iran divide itom our allies poison the prospect for a deal and make it difficult -- that international support is critical to the success of this sanctions regime that congress took such an important role in building. up until now we kept other countries onboard despite the hardship it's caused some of them because they're convinced we're serious about reaching a diplomatic solution. if they lose that conviction the united states, not iran could be isolated and the sanctions regime could collapse. congress has played and will continue to play a central leading role in these efforts. congressional legs gave us the tools to get iran to the negotiating table and as has been noted, only congress has the authority to lift sanctions as part of any comprehensive solution. since signing the interim deal with hey been on the hill dozens of times to update the progress

of to the talks, 200 brief, meetings and hearings, and phone calls. if we reach apt agreement we welcome scrutiny and expect any critics explain not only why the deal is lacking but also what would be a better alternative and how it could be achieved. our nuclear discussions with iran do not alter our commitment to the secure of our allies in the region who are deeply affect by iran's evidents to spread unstable and support terrorism. that commitment will not change with or without a deal. we will retain the necessary tools and the determination to continue in counters iran's troubling behavior knowles important thing to do from iran feeling further emboldened is to deny them a nuclear weapon and we'll support those demanding prevent for human rights and rule of law, and we will continue continue cyst that iran release -- and help us find

robert live victimson. thank you very much. >> -- levinson. thank you very. >> mr. szubin. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here today and thank you for the invitation. this is my first appearance as you noted behalf congressional community in my new role as acting undersecretary at the treasury department. in my time at treasury, including nine years leading the office of foreign sass control i worked on building, hope canning and implements sanks on iran. both executive sanks and the strong congressional bipartisan sanctions that you all have enacted. so i'm particularly appreciative of being able to testify here today on this vital issue. the global architecture of our sanctions on iran is unprecedented. both in terms of its strength and the international foundations that underpin it. working together with our

partners around around the world and with congress we have assembled a coalition that has fundamentally altered iran's economic posture. as a result we today have a chance of resolving one of the world's most vexing and persistent security threats. at this critical juncture in the talks it is important to note that iran remains under massive strain and has no viable route to an economic recovery without negotiated relief from international sanctions. this strain is visible across every sector in iran's economy. first, their financial lifeline, oil. in 2012 iran was exporting about 2.5 billion -- i'm sorry -- 2.5 million barrels per day of oil to some 20 jurisdictions. today iran is exporting 60% less oil to just six jurisdictions. the losses of course, have been compounded by the steep drop in global oil prices such that

iran's chief revenue source is today bringing in less than one quarter of what it brought in for iran just three years ago. just as troubling for iran is the fact at that time it can't freely access those revenues. it has a reduced stream of revenues that, thanks to congress, are going into restricted accounts either frozen or tied up in banks rope the world. foreign investment in iran has dropped precipitously. from 2004 to 2013 as foreign capital was pouring into developing countries, iran saw an 80% drop in foreign investment. iran's oil minister recently estimated that iran's oil gas petro chem shaqors will need $170 billion to recover. the iranian real has dropped 22ers and has lost 12% of the value just understand the jpoa period alone.

the imf for this coming year projects iran's economy will enter stagnation. with gdp growth falling to .6%. this ills the lowest projected rate of any country the imf locks at in the middle east north africa region including countries like afghanistan, that sell no oil. finally, iran's banking sector is isolated, and holds a high proportion of nonperforming loans. as you can hear, their economy is under strain but this sanctions pressure cannot be sustained without work. accordingly, over the jpoa period we have worked very intensively to enforce our sanctions. in the past 15 months we have targeted nearly 100 actors individuals and companies who were either helping iran evade sanctions or helping iran conduct other misconduct. we have imposed nearly half a billion dollars in penalties on companies conducting elicit

transactions under our robb sanks and we'll not soften our enforcement of existing sanctions. as we speak, negotiators are hard aft work trying to secure a joint comprehensive plan of action. regardless of whether or not these negotiations succeed, i want to assure this committee that the treasury department and the administration as whole are prepared for whatever comps next. if we're able to secure a comprehensive understanding we will structure nuclear related sanctions relief in a way that is phased, proposer nat and reversible. we'll need to see save end steps on iran's part before sanctions are lifted and we believe that powerful u.s. legislative sanctions should not be terminate for years to come so we continue to retape important leverage years into a deal. alternatively, if we determine that a comprehensive deal with iran cannot be obtained, the administration working with congress, is prepared to ratchet

up the pressure. over the past decade we have developed very subtle insights into iran's knows, its expect stress points and how it attempts to work around sanctions. we stand ready to races the cost on iran -- raise the cost on iran substantially should it make lighter is unwilling to address the international community's concerns. of course, while we must prepare for every contingency we remain hopeful we can achieve a peaceful resolution to this serious and long-standing threat thank you. again for inviting me to appear here today and i look forward to taking your okays. >> thank you. if i could go to my first question here. it goes to the sunset. a major concern this expiration date in as little as ten years all of the restrictions and other measures you're touting here today will come off, and iran's number here program will

be treat as the equivalent of the netherlands. why ten years does the administration believe or hoch that the iranian regime will have moderated within that time frame? >> thank you mr. chairman. there's no agreement on the duration of various obligations. all of that is the subject of current negotiations so whether some aspects are ten years, more or less, that is all to be negotiated. i think looking at this as a sunset is not the accurate way to look at what we're trying to achieve. what we are proposing and seeking to achieve is a series of constraints and obligations. some will end after a long period of time others will continue longer than that and still others will be indefinite in perpetuity. the bottom line is that even after certain obligations are completed by iran, it cannot become a nuclear weapon state. it will be legally bound under the nonproliferation treaty not

to make or acquire a nuclear weapon. there will be legally binding safeguards oregon material to save and deter diversion, and have to sign and implement a comprehensive safeguard -- >> that's why we're here today. you're putting the stock in iran's signature to the npt and its safeguard agreement, right? they've had those same commitments and been violating those commitments for years. that's why this process. i would just point that out. the other point i would make is that ten years or whatever that time frame is, they are then going to be treated as any other nonnuclear weapon npt state and that means no sanctions no restrictions on procurement, no restrictions on the stockpile or the number of centrifuges or on the purity level to which it may enrich uranium.

they would enrich uranium at that point to levels near weapon grade, i'm presuming claiming the desire to power a nuclear navy because that is what brazil is doing. so i assume they're going to do the same thing. that would all be per missable and all be blessed under the agreement, as i read. no matter who is in charge of iran in ten years. that's why ranking member engel have a letter going to the president, seemed by over 330 members of congress, demanaged that the verifiable constraints on iran's program last decades, not as per being discussed, a shorter period of time. i just want to make that point let me go to my next question. the administration set a benchmark of a one-year breakout period but is a year sufficient to detect and then reverse potential