law because the sanction are intertwined with iran's human right record ballistic missiles and terrorism. so which sanctions will you suspend and ultimately lift under a final agreement and will you to come congress to ask before action is taken? >> thank you. with respect to the action we took in cuba's amendment amending our regulations i will note that the license authority is one that has been drawn on by administrations, democratic and republican, over the last decade and i have been involved under both presidency and it is an authority -- >> thank you. this will take a long time. iran has been cheating skirting the rules violating international agreements you have heard from both speakers

what mechanisms do we have to enforce any violation? will there be penalties embedded in the nuclear deal? if you could be specific. >> first, i should note it has been said iran has complied. -- >> have they also said iran is not complying and letting them in as the iaea asked? >> no it is saying they complied and outside of the agreement of course they are seeking -- >> so you look at the report and cherry pick. you say the iaea is happy with this but you should give the totality of what they have been given and how frustrated they have been with iran. >> they have said with regard to the obligations iran complied and outside of the agreement you

are correct including the question of military dementions of iran's program in the past or that matter now it hasn't comply would what the iaea is seeking and that has to be part of any agreement. and enforcement is straightforward. in the event iran were to renege the sanctions would snap back in full force. >> and i am sure iran is shaking at that. >> that is why they are at the table. >> absolutely. >> we go to congress member from california. >> we should remember why we are in this situation. the executive branch under the bush administration refused to force sanctions. the bush administration prevented congress from passing and used all of the power in congress from passing new statutory sanctions. that does want fit with the image we have of president bush until you realize at the time

the sanctions all focused on international oil companies which was not president bush's target of choice. had we continued president bush's policies, well we should know that during the bush administration iran went from 0-5,000 installed centrifuges. had we continued those policies iran would have $300 billion more in cash because we have frozen $100 billion and $200 billion has been lost in oil sales. it is congress who has had it right, not the executive branch over the last 15 years. which is why i take offense when i hear the administration say if congress has a view we are interfering and undermining. when you read the united states constitution you will see that when it comes to economic sanctions and international

economics all of the power is vested in congress except to the extent the president negotiates are treaty that is ratified by the senate. yet, i fear that what the administration is doing is using foreign ropes to tie the hands of the united states congress because the foreign minister of iran was able to site article 27 saying well the united states will be in violation of international law if congress doesn't do whatever the president promises congress will do. and the administration feeds into the that when a high administration official declares foreign policy runs through the executive branch and the president and does not go through other channels: . i fear we will have a situation where the executive branch comes to us saying you have to take this action. you are prohibited from taking

that action because you will hold the united states up to ridicule for being in violation of international law. i would hope that you would look at the memo issued by the carter department of justice that stated congress may enact legislation modifying executive agreements and if that was formally turned over to the iranian delegation that would get us support under article 46 of the viena convention on treaties. i should point out for the record that in 2007 senator clinton introduced with the co-sponsorship of senator obama and senator kerry -- the oversight act that stated any status of forces agreement to

the united states and iraq that was not a treaty approved by 2/3rd 2/3rds of the senate or legislation would not be authorized and prohibit funding for implement that. for the record because i don't have time to give you at this moment i would like for you to understand whether under the standards of the obama administration the introduction of those act by these three senators constituted an interference with undermining bush's policy. but i fear you have misled the committee in telling us once iran has the rights of a non-nuclear state subject to additional protocols you will be able to stop sneak out. because you said first that well they can't develop a nuclear weapon because that would be illegal.

that is a proposporous argument. they are willing to break the law obviously. -- prosporous -- and you say there is going to be inspections and there is nothing that adds to the ntp. it took two years after it suspected to be a secret site to get there. so you say it has worked for japan and the netherlands but it will not allow us to get in quickly to sites. >> thank you. first, if iran make an agreement it makes it with the full knowledge if it violates the agreement there wile be severe consequence consequences.

>> let's talk about not being detected/secret sites. >> let me finish, if i may, please -- will be beyond that any country has had at any time in the world. from cradle to grave of the production process. mines, mills, factories will create the documents that will last beyond those provisions and beyond that it is obligation under the safe guard and modified code 3.1 and all of those taken together will with any other measures we might achieve on top of that gif us the confidence the inspectors will have the ability to detect in a timely fashion to break out. >> you will have the regime for a few years and for reasons you cannot explain the blindfolds

will go on and we will hope we can prevent sneakout there after. >> the blindfolds will be off. >> chairman of the subcommittee on europe, asia and emerging threats is up now. >> it does get a little tired to keep being reminded that president bush is responsible for all of our problems. after all of these years they are still blaming president bush. >> if the gentlemen will yield i blame the executive branch and spent four blaming the current executive branch. >> thank you very much. i am -- are we actually more concerned about the regimes that

are housing the weapons -- and i think with benjamin netanyahu's speech and what we have been hearing, i think the american people are being lulled into a false sense of security. if we prevent them from being able to manufacture the weapon that the crazy people are not going to have their hands on the ability to have possession of nuclear weapons. >> you have to push the button on it. >> thank you. like it or not, iran has mastered the fuel cycle. we cannot bomb that away

sanctions that away or now goings nu negotiate it away. so if the program is so limited, transparent and strained they cannot develop the material for a bomb or if they did we would detect it. >> whether they can manufacture it or not -- couldn't they get one from pakistan or china or korea or perhaps somebody stole a couple nuclear weapons as the soviet union was collapsing. >> your point is very well taken which is why, as my colleague said even if there is an agreement, the various sanctions and efforts around the world we are making to prevent iran from proliferating proliferating or receiving the benefits of proliferation

continues. >> the only way we can prevent the bad guys from having a nuclear weapon. we keep saying iran. we don't mean iran. the people of iran are nice people and i understand they like americans more than any other country in the world. it is this regime that is supporting terrorism and repressing their own people. isn't the real answer trying to make ourselves partner with those people in iran who want a more democratic country? hasn't this administration passed up time and time again the opportunity to work with the people of iran to free themselves from such regime? >> congressman, i think you are right the actions of the regime are the problem whether it is destabile

destabile destabile -- destabilizing actions of hezbollah or something else. we are working with the partners in the region to increase defense and pushing back against support of terrorism. >> i would suggest i give you an a-plus in terms of being able to focus people's attention on the negotiations doleealing with the ability for them to manufacture a weapon. i would give you an f-minus when it comes to whether or not we can try to get rid of the threat by helping the people of iran institute a democratic government there. this administration from day one in order to -- frankly, the irony of this is i believe this instruction is bending over

backyards not to try to threaten this regime in order to get a nuclear deal which makes no difference because it leaves them with the right to own and process a nuclear weapon that they didn't manufacture themselves and leaves us vulnerable to the same concerns >> i want to make sure you know they will not have the right. >> we go to the ranking member of the subcommittee on the western hemisphere. >> thank you. i think you know how concerned the body is that we are not part of the negotiations and we are by passed. i remember when the secretary was here to talk about cuba and i asked point blank about negotiations and they said nothing was going on.

now we have a negotiation similar to what we had in the hearing. can you speak to how the sanctions are being handled in the negotiations? once they are lifted i think it is going to be virtually impossible to reimpose them because i don't think russia and china are going to go along with it. they have veto powers. how are we handling this? >> thank you. on the first point, since being part of this and the interim briefing was signed there have been 300 phone calls and briefings with iranian sanctions. >> we don't get much. the classified briefings we get -- i can get more information on anything in my district than there. >> you will under while the

negotiation negotiations are going on it is difficult to provide all of the details. it is going back and forth on a continuing bases. i would be happy to talk to you about this. >> but the problem is some of the stuff leaks out and we look like we don't know what is going on with the administration. >> don't always believe what you read. >> i don't believe what i listen to when people come in front of me. can you talk a little bit about the sanctions. >> absolutely. so again and i will invite my colleague to do the same thing, just as with our own sanctions with regard to u.n.sanction we would provide sanctions with regard to iran's behavior and any sanctions also would have been to be lifted in a way that chose first iranian compliance

with various obligations under the agreement. so they too would have to be sequenced depending on iran's behavior. adam, you want to add to that? >> only to add that you are absolutely right to focus on the ability to restore sanctions in the event of a breach. that is something that obviously is very much at the froefront of your mind when we look at sanctions relief and is it reversible. it is a tricky question with security resolutions where we are not the only member of the council but we are very focused on that in the negotiations to take sure if there is a violation there is not the ability for one country to stand in the ray of snapping back the sanctions. >> i got these conversations are china and russia on this issue? >> absolutely.

that is very much part of the conversations we have among the negotiating partners as well as the conversations we have the iranians yes. >> thank you. >> iran has repeatedly violated its obligations under the nuclear non proliferation treaty building secret facilities procured nuclear materials denied iaea inspectors access to suspected facilities, so isn't it foolish to trust them now? wouldn't a bad deal be throwing israel under the proverbial bus? and because of the ballistic goals and placing the united states at great risk and i know you will say something to the affect of we are not trusting or it is trusting and verifying but there are a whole lot of us on

both sides of the aisle that are not buying it. >> thank you, congressman. you are right. iran has repeatedly violated various obligations which is why it is in the position it is now which is isolation and sanctions from the entire world and why they are at the table trying to negotiate an agreement. those violations are what led to our ability to impose the most severe sanctions on iran of any country. >> we are concerned we will end up with a bad deal. let me go to the second question i have. president obama clearly has distain for the winner of the israel elections this week -- maybe the only group i can think he has more distrain for is the elected people of congress -- since israel is the most

directly affected by a bad deal how will the administration repair relationship with the key allies in israel? >> we have done more than any administration to provide safety to israel. the prime minister even called them such >> that is the least credible answer i have heard that no president did more for the american-israeli relations. >> that is not what i said. i said security. >> there has been no president that has damaged relations between the united states and israel more than this president. >> let me go to my third question. one concern about a bad deal with iran is proliferation in the region with turkey and perhaps others developing enrichment programs and nuclear

weapons. there are implications that the saudi arabians are so alarmed that a bad deal is in the cards they are already moving in that direction. what is your response? >> of course if there is no deal they could rush to nuclear capacity tomorrow and i think that would spark a race. so the best way to prevent countries from feeling that way is to prevent riiran from getting a weapon. the agreement is hardly ones others would want to follow. the iranian is a decade of sanctions and anything that emerges from the agreement requires intrusive monitoring and access and i doubt any country would want to follow that model. the answer is what we are doing which is preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon so

other countries don't feel the need. >> our concern is we will get a bad deal where they will get nuclear weapons and other countries are going to be threatened and all of the other countries will end up with them and israel is in the middle of that. what is the difference between the road we travelled down with north korea and now going down it with iran. although iran is far more dangerous than north korea. a lot of us believe we have seen this movie before and know where it will end. >> the north korean program was far more advanced. when the clinton administration was in office iran had the material for nuclear weapons and some analysis suggest it had them before this.

by the time president obama game in north korea had nuclear weapons. iran had neither. doesn't have weapons material for weapons and hasn't tested and north korea has tested. so they are far different aspects. the regime in north korea is far less than what iran faces under the interim and certainly any comprehensive comprehensive. >> there is great uncertainty on both sides of the aisle and i believe for good reason. >> mr. ted from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member. and and thanks to the witnesses. it is great to have you both here in your new roles. i understand we are approaching a deadline now. i want to express my thanks as i

have every time i had the opportunity to focus on bringing my constituant home and with respect to the others if anyone is to take iran seriously, and any commitment they can make that can be adhered to the best show of faith would be for them to return those americans. i urge you to make that a pro or-- priority. i know we are not supposed to pre-judge any deal but there are things that concern us. i want to go through a few of them. first, will a final agreement in the technical agreements be made public? will they be readly available to

congress and the public? >> thank you. strongly strongly agree with your statement about the citizens unjustly in prisoned in iran. this is the only issue that comes up regularly in the context of the nuclear discussions is our american citizens. ...

next again just a couple of straightforward question. does iran remained the world's most active state sponsor of terror? >> whether it's the most active? it certainly, for sure in the very top percentile. >> is the administration considering removing them from a spate -- state sponsor of terror? >> no. >> when comes to the issues we're dealing with we've talked about the number of centrifuges in the infrastructure. a question i have is whether the ultimate number of centrifuges is reduced from close to 20000 to 6000 or 7000 or 3000 what will happen to the rest? will anything be dismantled? will they go in the closet, into an addict? would be really available for for iran speak with all of that is subject to negotiations. the remains to be determined i

think you're right to point in general to the centrifuges. that's a key component but it's important to understand it's not the only component. >> i understand. i would encourage, i would suggest it the ultimate deal doesn't require a single one of the centrifuges is dismantled it's going to make an it awfully difficult for a lot of us to be comfortable. this is a series in a stepped up the tempo breaking out. next, i think you can understand and i'm not going to time to get to my other subtle focus on those. i think you can understand the frustration that we have when both you secretary blinken and mr. szubin both talked about face proportion and reversible sanctions relief. but they went on to acknowledge the plan to go to the u.n. security council and to make it clear that at the u.n., venezuela, nigeria may get a chance to vote on this deal now

but congress ultimately will have a chance to vote in this perhaps five perhaps 10, perhaps 15 years in the future. i hope you can understand the frustration. the real question i have how can the sanctions relief be reversible if the plan is to go to the united nations to reverse all of the multilateral sanctions leaving only the american sanctions in place? >> again i just want to try to make very clear that this is, if it happens international agreement that has other parties to the agreement. that is done through the city council. the secret accounts would take note of any agreement and he they would make clear that it's prepared once iran demonstrates that it is meeting its commitment which would be at some point in future because they would be a series of commitments under the deal. at that point to suspend or live in international sanctions. our own sanctions again would be under our own discretion and

ultimately congress has to pass judgment on that. >> mr. chairman, if i could just ask to have mr. szubin provide to us because i'm out of time provide to us after this hearing a breakdown to the extent you done of the $700 million that's been released, the money does been released every few months under the interim deal and if you done analysis on a deal what a final deal might look like of sanctions relief to the extent that 10 billion 20 billion, $50 billion of the frozen money was released all of one time where any of that money indicates of the interview has gone in iran where it would go under the permanent deal and whether it would simply wind up benefiting the revolution occurred the military and their tourist activities. i just got. >> without objection, so ordered. we go to mr. mike mccaul of texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. secretary section one to three of the atomic energy act as you know requires all significant u.s. nuclear and cooperation agreements must be approved by both houses of congress. last year congress approved to such agreements. one was south korea and the other one with great britain who are our allies. however, in this case what we're dealing with the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, the position of this administration is that that should not be subject to approval of the united states congress. i don't quite understand that distinction but can you explain that to be? >> thank you congressman. i think the issue is what is the best form of an agreement in order for us to have the flexibility that we need to make sure that iran is living up to its obligations and to be able to reimposed sanctions quickly if it's not. what we are seeking is, and is

usually whether this is a legally binding agreement or not. if it is a legally binding agreement would be subject to the rules of rules of international law make it into agreement and i get out of it which can be quite burdensome. so having a nonbinding agreement allows us to the flexibly we need if necessary to snap back sanctions, not wait for partners to agree or not agree. with regard to whether it's a treat or not and so subject to the advice and consent of the united states and as you know, the vast bulk of international agreements that we've made under a democratic administrations and republican administrations in the nonproliferation, foreign policy area were generally are not treaties and are not subject to the vice and consent of the senate. i can go to the list under the nonproliferation area. we have everything from the missile technology control regime which has been successful in creating exporting license around the world to the nuclear security guidelines --

>> my time is limited. i ever sure what you're saying. i think we are treating our allies differ from the state sponsor of terror and to think the american people through its representatives should be weighing in on this deal but i know we disagree on that point. icbms this concerned me greatly. this has been off the table, not part of the discussions at all and intelligence kinard and the pentagon in its annual report on military power of iran have noted that by as early as 2015 this year they may have a cbm techno gee missile ranges that could potentially reach as far as the united states of america. and then the ayatollah, the supreme leader says that to limit this program would be stupid idiotic expectation and that the revolution regard should definitely carry out their program and should mass-produce. why in the world isn't this on the table?

and those have not concerned about their intent? >> the missile program is absolutely a concern which is again why we have been working very vigorously around the world to deny where we can iran to technology for the program and to push back against proliferation and that effort whether that's an agreement or not will persist and the sanctions and that there is measures we're taking will continue regardless of whether there's an agreement. the scope of this agreement if there is one is the nuclear program. that's what our partners have agreed to back that is what is being negotiated. it is that a missile agreement. there are aspects aspects of it that coming to this that are critical in terms of iran's capacity to make potentially a nuclear weapon to a missile and to be we are focused on that because the does fall within -- >> that's a delivery device for nuclear warhead. >> exactly. >> they are not backing down of that which kind of makes you question their whole good faith

analysis. if i can just say, when i read their own words president rouhani use is taking a different tack in trying to be a peacemaker here says that in geneva agreement world powers surrender to iranian nations will. that's his words. and then they said that centrifuges are spinning and will never stop. when prime minister netanyahu gave his speech to the joint session of congress, iran was blown up a mock of the uss nimitz in the red sea. simultaneously. i question the good faith here. you have an extraordinary challenge, and i wish you all the best but i cannot i just have to question the good faith on the part of iran. >> you are exactly right. it's not a question of good faith. it's the question, and by the

way, whether it's president rouhani or the foreign minister or any others, it's not we think these are good guys who like the united states. is that there are some people who are somewhat more pragmatic about what iran needs to do for its own interest in the future and they believe that negotiating an agreement and getting some relief from the pressure that the vendor is what makes the most sense for the country. not because they like us or have good intentions. the other thing that's important is the art of word statements made on a regular basis by iran's leaders -- abhorrent. on all issues. some instances about some of the statements are made for domestic political purposes. we have a tendency to surrender the only country on earth that doesn't have politics. it has very intense politics and there is a lot of politics going on right now between those in iran who would want an agreement again because duplicates in the interest of the country and those who don't know when. some of the statement you're seeing as objection and as a

board as they may may be so mortified for political consumption from to push back against those who don't want an agreement. thank you. >> i hear death to america on an ongoing basis regardless of the politics, and that is concerning force. we go now to david sicily of rhode island. mistress of selenium. >> thank you, mr. chairman. they give very much for being here -- mr. sicily. i am hopeful that the ongoing negotiations will ultimately result in an agreement that we can get behind and a think as your chairman and our ranking member said, many of us have a lot of questions about the details of a final agreement and in a letter i think we will express to you what some of those concerns are. as i listened to my colleagues today guaranteeing that actors to negotiate agreements are going to behave in a certain way is a typical. we have no guarantee of that. so seems to me what the goal of this agreement should be is to be sure that we set it out so

it's difficult for them to violate the agreement, that we make it certain we can detect it if they do and that we have an opportunity to respond. that's the best we can do other than imagining that we can control the decision of lots of other people. with respect to that last to to that lest to that last to the pentagon's defense science board released a report that found the u.s. government mechanisms for detection and monitoring a small nuclear enterprises or covert facilities are quote either inadequate or more often do not exist. in that context how will we know and what we doing to ensure that we would learn if iran was pursuing a covert program particularly after the sunset of a comprehensive agreement? and with the additional protocols in the npt address this? but isn't that a fair question to know we are not particularly good data from the sounds of it in general, and with respect to render particular what are the

protections? >> thank you very much. yes, i think you make a very important point and, indeed, i'm well aware of the report by the defense science board. we are factoring in the reports recommendations as we work on and think about any agreement with iran. i think it underscores the absolute necessity of having the most intrusive significant monitoring access transparency regime anywhere, anytime, anyplace in the world. and in terms of what happens in perpetuity, it underscores the necessity of having at the very least the combination of the additional protocol modified code 3.1, and the safeguards agreement. those things taken together restore house of knowledge that would be built up by the transparency measures we believe that all of those things taken together will give us the ability to detect any efforts by iran to break out or to sneak

out. but think the report underscores the absolute essential nature of those composed of any agreement. >> thank you. and we just take for a moment about kind of what you see as kind of a scenario if no agreement is reached? there's been a lot of discussion about the urgency of enacting additional sanctions which i think congress would immediately of the president would support. but to the extent that that happens do you foresee that action would prevent development of a nuclear weapon? the goal here is not just to impose pain on iran but impose conditions such that they don't develop a nuclear weapon. that's the ultimate goal. i'm wondering if you'd speak to what's the alternative of a good comprehensive agreement here what do you like us even if the additional sanctions are imposed if these talks fall apart? do we prevent a nuclear iran in that senator? >> i think it depends very much on how an agreement is not reached. that is to say if it is clear at the end of this process that iran is simply not able and will

not make a reasonable agreement then clearly that calls not only for sustained existing pressure but adding to it in an effort to get them to rethink the very unfortunate position. indeed, to bear down on all fronts in its efforts to acquire technology for nuclear program and the resources for a nuclear program. if on the other hand we are at the end of march very close, having done the agreement on many of the key elements but not all of them and because nothing is agreed until everything is agreed we can't put the whole thing together, they can see a circumstance where it might be useful to take the time we still have until june under the nature of the interim agreement we signed the we have to see where we are. the third possibility is that for whatever reason we are perceived as having been responsible for failure to getting an agreement.

were that to happen which cannot and must not happen, that will make it more challenging. not only to add new sanctions and add more pressure but just to sustain the pressure we have because it's important to keep remembering that this is not just about us. the power the efficacy of the sanctions that congress has produced and that we've been implementing is exponentially magnified by the participation of other countries around the world. that goes way a lot of the power of the sanctions will. >> i yelled back. >> mr. poe of texas. >> thank you gentlelady. i have a lot of questions and i think you can answer many of them with just a yes or a no. they are not gotcha questions but unless i ask you to explain the answer, don't explain the intercom if you would. the 10 year agreement or however many years it's going to be is

the deal that the sanctions will be lifted all of the penalties i should say after an agreement is over with, whatever that is with iran all the phillies come to an end? >> it would be faced. we would insist on iran diversity compliance and then certain sanctions might be at the point suspended, not ended, after still more compliance at some point sanctions would actually be introduced in congress agreed to end of the. similarly on the international front with the u.n. we would be looking at demonstrated compliance by iran and then suspension, and then ending. and then if iran didn't get what he was supposed to do our bit cheated or renewed, we would have snapped back provisions both here and internationally. >> okay. the purpose of this is to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons. would you agree that israel is probably concerned being a

neighbor about iran getting nuclear weapons? >> yes. >> and the united states as well as? >> yes. >> the icbm issue, that's not even be discussed as part of this agreement is at? >> that's correct. >> the supreme leader has said they want to get rid of, he wants to get rid of israel first and then take on us, calls us the great satan. and the only one-way ticket to us is icbms, correct? >> that's correct. >> icbms are not needed to eliminate israel. they buy the missiles that can already go and reach israel correct? >> that's correct. >> we're not talking about trying to prevent icbms. all we're going to do if i understand the state department position is to keep them from getting technology. >> what we are trying to do apart from this agreement speech is that correct? >> the contours of this agreement go to the nuclear

program and to united nations city council resolutions regarding that program. that is what needs to be satisfied. those of the terms of the negotiations that our partners signed on to the separate and apart from that though we are working very hard to prevent iran from getting the technology. >> yes or no? we are trying to prevent them from getting technology. but is it true that iran is pursuing the development of icbms in their country and? >> i'm sure that is true. >> so they are building the missiles. we're not trying to stop. we didn't want them to get the technology from north korea and for the chinese. >> that's why they need to develop and they need to get technology from other countries -- >> reclaiming my time. they are developing intercontinental ballistic missiles, is that correct? >> yes. that's correct. >> and we are not dealing with that issue i don't think that i'll -- >> we are but it's not part of -- >> excuse me sir.

>> sorry, congressman. >> i think at the end of the day if this agreement is signed and delivered they will get them eventually. and then they may have the capability to send them to us. i think this is a long-term threat to the world and especially the trend and israel and other peaceloving countries. iran gets nuclear capability assume this would you agree that saudi arabia will get it next? turkey will get it egypt will get it and who will than those in the middle east to balance the power over in that middle east? >> yes. it significant increases the likelihood which is why we are trying to prevent them from getting one. >> just a couple more questions. the 2015 worldwide threat assessment put out by the national intelligence, the director of national intelligence. you said that this report focus on isis. if it's a worldwide assessment

worldwide wouldn't you think it would mention hezbollah? do you think it might should? >> hezbollah is a foreign terrorist organization but there remains a focus of our activities. >> but it's not mentioned as a worldwide threat. that confuses me. if the federal government comes out with a report and the report on everything, and it's a worldwide threat, assessment of terrorism, we leave off a state sponsor of terrorism, iran and we leave off their public new is causing mischief all of the world, has been. that seems a little confusing to me. would you recommend that maybe intelligence agency go back and have ended into this worldwide report and that these other two organizations? >> what i can do is let by the intelligence agency were pushing back every single day on hezbollah's activities. >> to think they ought to add to the report that hezbollah and iran are terrorism threats? >> mr. kobak a look at the

report. >> thank you. thank you, judge poe. ms. frankel of florida. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. it does sound like the one thing that we all agree on is that iran should not be able to get a nuclear weapon. i have a couple of questions. if i could just stick them first and then you can answer. my first question is if there is no deal how long would it take iran at this point you think to breakout to have a nuclear weapon? it's interesting because i hear the frustration of so many of my colleagues about not trusting iran. i think no one trusts iran, but if we do not get the deal we do not get a deal is the alternative the realistic alternative and a military operation, what would that look

like? and if there was a military operation how long do you think that could delay iran from getting a nuclear weapon? and what do you think would be the interim collateral damage? i mean what would you i'm sure you have discussed this. what is the scenario of not having a deal? just to add to that. you have said if there's no deal been going to increase the sanctions but i am assuming that you've made the calculation that we have taken them, that this is the time to get a deal. so you can just respond to those thoughts. >> thank you for much and i think you raise very important questions. first with regard to the breakout time. this is something we can't i think best deal with in a classified setting but what i can say broadly is this, that currently the breakout time is a

matter of few months if everything went just right. but, of course, we would even under the immigrant we would see that immediately but that's where we are. so if there was no deal, that's what they would be but presumably under various scenarios they would then seek to speed increase the number of centrifuges could increase the other capacity, move forward on fordo, move forward on arak and as a result of all of that over some period of time the breakout time would drop presumably even further. what are the alternatives? i think that's a critical question because at the end of the day in the agreement is reached has to be evaluated in the first of all under the terms of the agreement, people have to decide whether the agreement holds up makes sense, advances our security. but i think it's also going to be very important for those who would oppose the agreement if there is one to say what the alternative would be and how it would be achievable.

those are critical question because we are not operating in a vacuum. so although it again as i suggested earlier depends on why they would be no deal. that is if it was clear that iran so was not going to make an agreement and the international committee recognize that i think we'll be in a position not only to sustain the sanctions we have now but to increase the pressure and increase the sanctions. now however, if for whatever reason that didn't happen if iran started speeding toward weapons capacity and to a bomb the military option has always been on the table. it would remain on the table. if military action were taken it's early could set back iran's program for some period of time. but again it's important to understand because iran has the knowledge and we can't bomb that away we can't sanction it away, that at some point they would resume their activities, they would probably go underground. we would lose the benefit probably of the international sanctions regime and pressure

and iran will be in a better position than it is today certainly than it would be under an agreement. >> if you could because i'm sure you've talked about this what would be the ramifications especially in the region is all of a sudden there was a war with iran? >> wealth -- >> what would be the consequences to israel? what would you expect? >> versatile if iran were in a position where we rush into a nuclear weapon, many of the concerns that been raised by other members of the commitment and support of the countries in the region would do would be front and center. that is, it would be i think very tempting for other countries to fill that they needed to pursue to protect themselves. that's one of the reasons were trying to prevent iran from getting a weapon. we don't want to see an arms race in the region. in terms of israel it faces an existential threat from iran. and indeed, one of the recent were trying to prevent iran from getting a weapon is in defense of our close ally and partner israel.

>> would you expect for further act of terrorism? >> i would expect that iran unshackled with a weapon or speeding toward one would feel further emboldened to take actions in the region including against israel. >> thank you. subcommittee chair mr. duncan is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. this has been a very informative hearing. yesterday we had hearing on iran as well. mr. deputy secretary, do you believe iran's present and active in the western hemisphere? >> yes. >> do you believe their influence is steady? do think it is increasing as general killey may say or do you believe it is not? >> i think they are trying and there's parts of the world including in our hemisphere to position themselves in the event of any openings that they have. >> state department report that came out 2013 says the iranian threat in the western hemisphere is waning. are you aware of that? >> i am, yes.

>> is iran still on the state sponsor of terror list speak with yes. >> these are still aiding and abetting hezbollah speak with yes. >> what's going to change with this agreement with regard to their being on the state sponsor of terror list in the eyes of the best asian? >> nothing. >> we are negotiate with the country that is not willing to quit exporting terrorist items that could threaten the united states and its friends and not? >> we're negotiating under deny them a nuclear weapon which would further emboldened those activities. and at the same time we are making clear whether not there's an agreement we will continue to be taking action against its efforts to do all the things you just cited. >> iran is continually violated past obligation with regard to sanctions and saying simply that all that. want to make us think they're not going to violate this? >> because of the penalties they would have to pay. the reason there at the table now -- >> but it's not binding on us. do you think it's going to be

legally binding on them? how do you think they do that statement? >> i think the issue is not whether it is legally binding. the issue is whether it is clear and will be that if they violate the agreement there will be consequences. the sanctions will come back into full force and -- >> north korea has the same sanctions as they violated those and they have the bombed out. >> the very reason there at the table is because they spend years and years and years violating their obligations. thank the congress, thanks to the administration we exert significant pressure on them and now faced with that pressure they are seeking to make an agreement. >> i think pressure works. i think mr. szubin has talked about some of the repercussions of that. in april 2014 secretary of state of john kerry said the obama administered would consult with congress to sanctions relief campaign in the final agreement. he said while of course we would be obligated under the law. what we do have to pass muster with congress.

we all understand that yet the secretaries test were in the senate, deputy secretary blinken said and under secretary cohen indicated the obama emissions would not submit to potential agreement to congress for a vote. instead the administration will sign a political agreement. was difference between what secretary kerry state in 2014 and what's been said by the administration of? >> i don't think there is a difference. the second is right. first of all in our judgment at least we've consulted extensively for the duration of these negotiate, more than 200 hearings meetings, calls briefings. if there is an agreement obviously we will go through that in great detail in congress in open session and close sessions come in meetings and calls. as we've been clear all along, the agreement at some point will require the lifting of sanctions and only congress can decide whether to do that or not. so congress will have a vote and, indeed, keeping that sort of thing over the heads of the

reins that is the knowledge that sanctions have been suspended but not ended and the congress has the authority in them we think will deleverage to make sure they make good on their commitments. >> madam chair, i don't have a whole lot of other questions. i yield back. >> although there is a vote on and we have two votes the subcommittee, the full committee will come back but we would never break without the opportunity of recognizing mr. connolly for his five minutes. >> i thank my friend. unfortunately, i have to begin by chastising my friend. my friend, the chair who is truly my friend, referred to the president having a temper tantrum about prime minister netanyahu. and mr. chabot, my friend from ohio and is also my friend said there is no president has done more to damage the u.s.-israeli

relationship. i cannot let that go by. 8.4-liter has insulted to have the state of the united states government. -- a foreign leader. it's not a temper tantrum. it didn't start with president obama. it started with bibi netanyahu. you can decide for yourself whether it was appropriate for him to speak to a joint session but the process is beyond dispute. it was an insult to this government. friends don't act that way. and i would say to my friend, mr. chabot from ohio it would come as news that the outgoing president of israel who gave president obama the highest award that the israeli government can give for his support of israel. at some point does the partisan rhetoric ever stop? where are your loyalties with respect to the prerogatives of this government and our country?

and the shameless way mr. netanyahu is conducted himself deserves reproach. and i think the president has actually shown restraint. and i say this as somebody who has a 35 year record of unwavering support for israel. i'm not a critic of the israeli government, but i am a critic of how this president has treated my president everyone's president. and i cannot sit here and listen to the waving a way of bad behavior that is an insult to my country. we have one president whether you like him or not, whether you want to take political issue with him or not. fair enough. that's fair game. but when a foreign leader insults him that should not be fair game and that should never be apologized away. because it damages relationships

long-term. it puts a divide where there was never a divide in public opinion in my country. and i worry about that long-term. i hope you do, too. but they say mr. deputy secretary, it seems to me there are five issues that congress has to be concerned about. there's a broader question over better with the deal or without. i would argue that same primers a visual has never supported any agreement with iran even though we are where we are. and he would like zero centrifuges. he would like zero enrichment capability. he would like a complete rollback so there is no nuclear capability, and so would i. but i don't know anybody who can achieve that realistically. and if you feel that if those are your goals, the only option is what has euphemistically been called the kinetic option. if you're not willing to accept any nuclear capability, and i'm sure the american people support

the. i'm not sure the israeli people support the. would you agree with that analysis, mr. deputy secretary? >> i would agree as we discussed earlier that iran has knowledge of the fuel cycle. they know how to make a bomb if they choose to do it. left..

if there are holes in the inspection regime, i don't see how you will get any confidence in an agreement. thirdly sanctions how do we phase in the lifting of sanctions? how expeditiously can we be imposed them? i we will reason i will reasonably might be okay but our allies might not. fourth the threshold timeframe. there's a lot of legitimate concern that it is too fast, iran fast for iran to quickly rushed to the capability under the reported terms of the agreement and finally the expiration of an agreement. a timeframe for exploration, a lot of people are concerned about thank you very much.

>> it is not much potential to cut you off. you are at a time. we have to vote on the floor. we will recess briefly and in get to the most amount of members of making it to before witnesses have to depart. with that the committee stands in recess. [inaudible conversations] >> three adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chair. just a couple of questions. first thank you for being here and thank you for your

service. your opening marks your opening marks were assuring to someone like me who wants to see the branches as they were constructed work the way they were supposed to. i just want to confirm i believe it's article one section 8. it is the sole responsibility of congress to enter into agreements with foreign nations which would include treaties or agreements such as the one that we have been discussing i believe you confirm that again this morning. it will be congress' obligation to finalize ratify any issued agreement. congress imposed and legislated sanctions if the sanctions are ever to be lifted? congress must be the one to do it. >> sure. that is already in place.

that part aside any agreement with the details that the administration has participated in negotiations it's congress that not only have think your words this morning will play an important role that indicates to me they will be months to have much communication. once that is once that is reached there will be some significant communication. >> absolutely. >> after that assuming that you can arrive at the final details by the end of june that i just want to make sure that i understand your position on behalf of the state department congress will have to approve of will not any final agreement. >> no, congressman, that is not our position.

this would not be a tree that will be subject to the advice and consent of the senate. this would be an agreement that obviously as i said before for its terms to be important to assuming that sanctions are to be lifted congress would have to play that role and could decide whether or not to do that. you that. you are absolutely right that just as we have sought to consult fully throughout this process in hearings and briefings in meetings and phone calls your absolutely , you are absolutely right that if there is an agreement in the coming weeks we would consult intensely with congress on that agreement. every aspect of that agreement -- >> but all you are going to ask for based on what you are testifying to this morning is that congress lift the sanctions. your not going to ask for congressional approval of the final agreement. >> that's correct. >> so if it is not legally binding secretary of state

kerry has discussed what do you believe you are getting out? and let me just add to it. i'm trying to be measured. it disturbs me greatly to have people talk about giving an organization that is not interested in piece around the globe is actually being an aggressor and trying to develop the problems. it will give them all kinds of hard currency. explain to me how this is a good idea. >> with regard to whether it is legally binding are not commit this is a question of international law make a legally binding agreement (violates the agreement there are all sorts of treaty law formalities the vivid have to go through.

they would have to present a legally defensible reason to cease our implementation of our commitments. they make it into a debate with their international partners they didn't agree. >> am going to run out of time. i think this is the problem that the administration has had. now that the administration and congress are having this breakdown in an understanding of respective positions in the process. the idea that this administration is going to go get approval from the un security council as opposed to coming to congress is not only disturbing the wrong. >> could i just mention again we will have to go to both. there are sanctions that are pursuant to the united nations security council that have been implemented so that the council will have the authority and will have to decide whether to lift them are not.

similarly our own sanctions have been imposed and legislated by congress. only congress can decide whether to end. the the vast majority of the international agreements we strike around the world are nonbinding. >> i just want to make the comment. this puts congress and the un on the same level. >> if the gentleman will yield a much sure it's on the same level. i think the un vote will come immediately. >> i was trying to be measured. >> you are being measured. i appreciate that. i do think that it is going to be a considerable amount of time under the calculus that the administration is working under what they intend to come to congress. that is very, very concerning.

but i appreciate the gentleman raising this issue. issue. we go now to mr. brian higgins of new york. >> thank you. this is a complicated administration direct. >> i think the answer is yes. i'm searching my mind to think of anything that could rise tries to a higher level of park city. arguably the new start agreement was complicated but this probably tops the list. >> is still an agreement. you here varied reports saying that 90% is done and 60% is done. the bottom done. the bottom line is it is still very fluid. as issue that remain will be the most critical. but clearly the issue of fuel and enrichment capacity has central.

inspections and verification. how many pounds of enriched uranium is a rant thought to have currently? >> they have a stockpile of low enriched uranium. about 3.5 percent to about 7,000 keep. >> and under the current draft framework what would become of that 3.5% of enriched uranium? >> you understand, i can't get into the details. one of the elements that would be important in figuring out their breakout time is the available stockpile of material that they have to work with. centrifuges the number of centrifuges is one component, the configuration is another.

the stockpile is a third. depending upon how you put those on this together you limit there breakout time. >> the proliferation of centrifuges ten years ago, they were probably less than 200 centrifuges. now there are over 19,000. 19,000. we're talking about advanced centrifuges, next generation centrifuges, as you mentioned in your response to my knowledge that you can't destroy. is it possible realistic to accept the uranium -- the iranian argument that they need so many centrifuges in order to sustain a civil. >> obviously we are highly skeptical of that argument. they argument. they clearly have military aspirations for the program, at least through 2,003. that is certainly the assessment that our

intelligence community made. of course there are so many aspects of the program to strongly suggest that they are seeking and have been seeking nuclear weapons capacity. that said their argument is that they do want to build a nuclear power program for the country. country. they obviously have vast oil resources. they say they say that they want to devote world exports they want the nuclear program for domestic energy production. they talk about opposed cover future. all of that said there activities suggest the opposite. and if that is really what they were focused on they could presumably by nuclear fuel abroad. >> what percentage of domestic power is nuclear? >> it's very demanding this. what they purport to be

looking at is a much more significant piece of the domestic energy program being provided by nuclear. that is the argument they made. again, we are certainly skeptical about. >> you know, again very very difficult within the context of what karen is engaged in today iraq today. direct daily in the shia militias be saved aside in the 11th hour. that acts as a proxy. and yet here we sit them

face-to-face negotiations. i do understand the complexity of diplomacy and the fact that you use diplomacy with your enemies more than your -- but this is a very, very hard thing, not only technically from the standpoint of a negotiator. a negotiator. we do appreciate your efforts, politically as well trust is a hard thing. i do believe that even if in the end we have to exercise military option because negotiations fail we have to demonstrate to the international community that every diplomatic avenue was exhausted before that can happen. that is unfortunately the responsibility of america's indispensable oil power. as you back. >> i think the gentleman for yielding. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate it.

physical president dwight eisenhower 60 years ago when he announced that adams piece program. one lesson is clear from a civilian nuclear program to flourish only through cooperation and openness. secrecy secrecy and isolation are typically signs of a nuclear weapons program. i don't think that's different. we we look at the ran over the last 30 years. if you read ambassador john bolton's book's marion has been moving steadily in this direction ever since. they play the mouse game light and deceived and this is a well orchestrated deception and misconception

to see that going out with the nuclear negotiations. i think it's great that we're negotiating nuclear arms but were all in agreement they will get nuclear arms. i'm going in my 3rd year. we had expert after expert after expert sitting where you are. iran within six months to year has enough material for five to 6 pounds. so that has been over a year i can only assume because the experts like you have told us they are going to have that. for us to say no they aren't and then look at iran has prevented the iaea to go into inspect we have evidence that they detonated a nuclear trigger. but they want with the iaea going.

going back to a president eisenhower said if they are not going to be forthright and honest and open is it prudent for the united states of america to go forward with this versus backing up from the negotiation table and say: your serious let us no it will take the sanctions off. you brought up that iran is in a crisis mode take over a hundred and $60 billion. yesterday the western hemisphere meeting we had the experts again and the report from the state department said that iran and hezbollah and get the most activity they have ever had in the western hemisphere since 2,009. iran is working with iraq to beat isis. they are they are funding a war, have funded the takeover of human command i ask you, is that the status

of a nation that is in crisis and starving another last dollar? with a be a be investing money in that on their own country? >> thank you, congressman. >> i have another one. go ahead. >> i i did not say they are on there last dollar. obviously we're talking about a sophisticated, marge, industrialized country. i'm talking about the indicators of the economic strain on the country. that does not mean that we don't have thousand dollars. >> we have a common enemy. that enemy is america.

i don't see that any different. with the narrative coming out of they're, the rhetoric you hear you can pick up the paper pretty much every week and you'll find that in their. to move forward thinking that we are stopping them and even henry kissinger said the move that we are moving to prevent proliferation to managing it they are going to have a nuclear weapon foreign policy foreign-policy because you are already seeing saudi arabia and egypt wanted to run a nuclear program. are we going to monitor them? and that what.do you intervene? all this were going through. i appreciate you going through a couple of putting emphasis on some things 1st of all as in many things president eisenhower is very wise.

applied appropriately to what we're looking at now. precisely because of the uranian effort to cheat and dodge responsibilities and commitments and proceed with the program is they would have to make good on the agreement. they make good on those commitments for the duration going forward we have to have an will have for there to be any agreement the most exceptional, intrusive monitoring, access to land inspection regime inspection regime that any country has ever seen. as the only thing i i can give us confidence that we are not trusting they ran's word the looking at its

actions and will find out if it is violating its commitments. that is what it's about. at the end of the day we don't accept the proposition that they would get a nuclear weapon. the entire effort we are making is to make sure that they don't. if there is no agreement is a good chance they will rush to weapon or rush to have the capacity to make one. >> make all those experts previously that said they were going to have it on. >> i would have i would have to go back and see what exactly they said. they were talking about capacity to produce a weapon should they choose to do so. and what the timeline the. we are pushing that back, making sure that if they did decide to do that we would see it and be able to do something about it. >> my time has expired and i appreciate it. >> i think the gentleman. i think secretary like an mr. zubin. thank you for your testimony today. i want to remind you about

the points that we have made here, the points that we made the opening statements. i implore you to convey those views immediately, if you would, to sec. to secretary kerry in the negotiating team. you her deep concerns over the sunset provision whether iran will be required to reveal its clandestine work that it has took on trying to develop a a nuclear weapon in the past as part of any final agreement. can have real can have real verification going forward as you have that revealed. concerns about previous military activities in the part of the regime previous testing, what went on to my site they won't give us access to sites as well as iran's vast ballistic missile program.

and that congress' role as. so there are number of other issues raised. i would hope that you can convey that there are profound bipartisan concerns that need to be heard. and you may be announced in a day. while are hearing was taking place there is news breaking from switzerland that a draft is circulating among the parties. and in that draft iran would have 6000 spinning centrifuges for the next decade. i no the committee is frustrated to read the press about drafts circulating. it it does say something about the administration's commitment to transparency when the press has the information and we're reading it off the newswire. >> just on that point, my

understanding is that there is no draft, that that report is erroneous and indeed our spokesperson clarified that. >> that is good news. we appreciate that. when there is a draft, please share it with the members of this committee. we thank you again for your testimony. for now we stand adjourned. as. >> and take a look at the road to the white house. join us tonight for remarks by former maryland governor exploring a run for the democratic nomination to be president speaking to the

scott county democratic committee. you can see his you can see his remarks live tonight at money like eastern on our companion network. in congress next week we expect both chambers to take up 2016 republican budget plans. the house is likely to take it up later. once he's chamber has completed work and will come together to negotiate a single resolution. in other news coming out of washington, the associated press reporting a 1st senate confirmed director for the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives is leaving the post after less than two years. resignation effective on march 31 of his his departure was applied by the chair of the house judiciary committee. critical of the agency's mismanagement and was among those lawmakers who objected to changes in rules for ammunition.

>> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us no what you think

about the programs you're watching. call us, e-mail us or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> both the house and senate budget committees met to craft the respective 2016 republican budget plans with republicans being in the majority in each chamber. expected to start work on the proposal monday. now a portion of the senate budget committee's budget committees work's. this is about three and a half hours.

>> i call the community to order. we have the vote order now for covering amendment. those with side-by-side are pulled and put down to the lower.on the list. so the 1st only start with -- chairman may i i raise a.of order before we get into the voting order? we have been presented for the 1st time as far as i know in the history of the budget community the spending neutral reserve funds. to my knowledge the committee has made no definition of what is spending neutral reserve fund is.

we are being asked to vote on this new concept with no committee definition of what it means. it is a theory at least that offsetting spending that would have to be cut in order to make it neutral must come out of medicare and social security and other mandatory programs out of those core programs. if we are if we are being asked to vote on cuts to medicare and social security , that puts us in a difficult position. whatever it is it is. i don't want to be voting for what i think about a new turn of the committee has put into place without having the committee ever having defined the term. >> it is not a new term. it was used in 2013. >> as i understand it this would be spending cuts in mandatory spending? 's that's what we have been told. >> it is not a definition.

>> it is not a a definition and mandatory. it's just to cut spending. >> mr. chairman, let me ask again. our understanding is the way that is written it would mean that any funding for these reserve funds would come from mandatory spending cuts. >> because everything else would be appropriated. >> very well aware that would be the consequences of the spending neutral reserve fund. ..

we think the solution to many of our problems is not just cutting, cutting cutting. some of the amendments that came up it's a reasonable amendment. i don't know if i can support it if all you are ascii and -- ascii and by deficit nature would make all the difference. >> to respond to senator portman the language -- i am using the language crimson undertrained six that was actually mandate, the chairman of the senate committee on the budget with the allocation subcommittees, aggregate and other appropriate of this resolution so it doesn't look

like too made the decision of the committee. the budget committee chairman and there've were the definition of this term for budget committee purposes of some significance. >> mr. chairman -- >> to be clear on this one, all that one says senator white house if i'm not mistaken as they make the decision in the chairman is the one who adjusts the budget. >> he doesn't make the decision on this. he changes the budget according to the committee decision. this is done in our committee. >> mr. chairman, on this point i am going to have to do a check. i call economic finance numbers our jurisdiction mandatory program. if you have a direction for the finance committee to go after spending, your real estate is a mandatory program. thank you.

>> aura could be the appropriations committee. >> that is my point. >> mr. chairman, just to clarify when we say mandatory, of course we are talking about data care social security, medicaid, food assistance, agricultural programs we've done in the farm bill, all of those things we have made commitments to better mandatory funding outside of appropriations committees. >> mr. chairman, let me raise one other thing. obvious they we are all sort of wondering what it is. it's been a natural means i have since been a natural you could actually raise taxes because it has just been a natural. it doesn't say revenue neutral. >> well, if you are just

establishing spending a show you can spend more, but that doesn't say you can't raise taxes more to pay for it. a cautionary note. >> we need to get on with developing. the first amendment is the sanders dataset future of acts. each site gets 30 seconds. >> it's not the way i define the amendment. here is the story. everybody in this room understands at our infrastructure roads, bridges airports real system is in very, very bad shape. many trillions of dollars in investment. when we make the investment, we can create millions of decent paying jobs, jobs that we need right now and we pay for this investment by eliminating outrageous loopholes that corporations currently enjoy such a stash of money in the

cayman islands and paying $0 in federal income taxes yet i ask support the amendment. >> actually, the budget resolution resolution art includes transportation priorities to strengthen the crumbling infrastructure. a new highway bill the budget provides a mechanism to allow authorizers to find new revenue or offset that would expand the highway trust fund. the president proposed the international tax reform. i think there's a committee working on international tax reform and some of the repatriated money would be used that way. i urge my colleagues to vote no. >> i would ask for a roll call vote. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] >> mr. chairman, the ayes our time the nay is 12. >> the amendment is defeated. grassley amendment. >> mr. chairman, is my understanding if i make make this a deficit neutral reserve funds it would be accepted yet is that right?

>> is that correct quick >> that as well modify my amendment. >> all in favor say subfloor. opposed? adopted. the sanders amendment on minimum wage. >> the simple truth is millions of americans are working wages that are grossly inadequate. the minimum wage today in inflation accounting for dollars is smaller back in the 1960s and we are concerned about low-income people with dignity and earn enough money to take care of their needs it is time for a substantial increase in the minimum wage and i ask you support the amendment. >> there really isn't any need to have any kind of a fund in order to debate minimum wage and be brought to the floor under any circus dances. i urge a no vote.

please call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> the yeas are 10 79 r. 12. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

this is the budget point of order amendment relating to the use of crime signed. essentially this creates a budget point of order to stop congress from effectively mugging victims of crime act and allowing the most vulnerable some of the most vulnerable in our society to be protected and that is continuing to be victimized in their own homes and having congress robs the very fund is designed to protect them. i think we can go on a voice vote here. >> all those in favor say ayes. opposed? it has been adopted. senator murray. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment fixes the problem we all know is coming which is a quester for the next few years based on the agreement from the last few years. basically a mixture of the defense and nondefense equally replaces $157 billion a quester

coming out. this keeps us out of a giant nightmare this fall that i know it's coming out of free don't deal in this budget. i urge your support. >> we do take seriously the call for future legislation regarding possible modifications budget control act it will take a look at the act right after april 15th when we get the budget done. so there is a highly flexible deficit natural reserve fund to address the matter already in the resolution. this amendment is a tax and spend amendment calling for unspecified tax increases of 157 billion increase discretionary spending today. i urge my colleagues to vote no. >> mr. chairman, i would note the underlying bill has $5 trillion in spending cuts. in this a quester replacement we replaced it with $157 billion in tax increases. this is a fair and balanced way

to do it that is critically important and builds on the murray ryan agreed that but it does mean that congress will not face a nightmare of sequestration. this coming fall. >> do you want a roll call vote? roll call vote requested your lease call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> b-tree yeas are 10 the nays

arts do. >> this is a deficit mutual reserve fund to be used to be both are diplomatic facilities overseas in light of the threats we face a think it is a very prudent and to do. >> anyone wish to provide opposition? if not we will proceed to go. all those in favor say subfloor. all those opposed? the ayes appeared to have it. they do have it. the amendment is passed. next is the white house amendment. >> the white house amendment. >> thank you very much. this is the amendment would cost the amendment we typed about that would add the information into the budget report that the

amount of federal revenue that doesn't come into the budget, but instead is dislocated and i guess i would say by the tax code. i think it is important information. it is a neutral amendment in the sense all it does is that information like senator johnson. i urge he and his passage if we can get out. >> senator portman. >> i plan to support the amendment. >> senator garcia you should really you should really section 308 of the congressional budget act already requires we provide the committee with tax expenditure projections and those are publicly available in the budget resolution contains annual revenue estimates that implicitly include all tax expenditures. from increase or decrease tax expenditures, such an amendment with the total revenue line accordingly to display each tax

expenditure as a separate line item in the budget make no more sense than providing a separate line item for each program in each budget function. i would urge my colleagues to vote no. roll call vote requested. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> mr. chairman the yeas are 16. 79 r. six. >> next is the portman amendment. i think there is the democrat side by side for this one. >> do you want to wade into it a side-by-side or now? i was told he wanted to way. >> i thought we're ready. >> we are ready. >> have you gotten to see the side-by-side? to >> now, none of us have. >> widely read into it when we have a chance to look at the side-by-side. >> will move it down in the list so everyone can review the side-by-side. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] the next amendment is the stabenow amendment. >> mr. chairman. >> senator portman. >> in the interest of expediting the process, either the interest of a deficit neutral reserve funds side-by-side amendment by mr. sanders. in what way are the candidate is identical with the exception, is that accurate? >> could you talk into the microphone? >> that is the main point but also includes the language without ever using new revenue. i will strike the language. essentially what we do is agree with the basic amendment.

>> i would be happy to support the alternative. this is an opportunity for us to go on record. it's an important statement to make on export promotion. i don't think as i said earlier, the intent is not to decrease spending increase spending or decrease or increase revenues or i would be willing to accept this as an alternative is my colleagues would like to have a voice vote. >> you are modifying your amendment? >> i modify my amendment to make a deficit neutral fun. >> i think we are increasing exports. >> will have a voice vote unless there is an objection. all those in favor say subfloor. opposed? accepted. senator stabenow would be next, but she changed her amendment. i haven't gotten to review that.

we has to have that in the next tranche. >> are you ready for your amendment? >> we are asking that you wait because you make changes. >> i will wait till the end of this grouping. >> you want her to read until the end of this? >> hopefully we can have it reviewed by then. >> we made a small change. >> small change, okay. we will see if we can comply with that. the johnson long-term spending. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am hoping we have continued bipartisan spirit that the information is a good thing ever going to solve the problems we need to define it properly and that we have it. again, my amendment is pretty simple. we've got the amendment on the big screen again. the demographic blog, all these

promises made and a way to pay for them. asking cbo when they report their physical scenario and baseline to gdp which we've added to the amendment by senator king suggested just reports the dollar amount over the next 30 years. i'm hoping we can voice vote this unanimously. >> mr. chairman, if i could complement mr. johnson on the biggest budget committee i've ever seen. >> impressing that nice. >> any objection to a voice vote? all those in favor say aye. >> mr. chairman the amendment i have simply says that the irs ought to allow american citizens to know if they are the victims

of identity theft is the irs has that information. we hope the irs would move on this administratively. they have not moved on it today. >> i hope we can voice vote this unanimous consent. >> it would give the irs the ability to share the confidential information with somebody who has been a victim of identity theft. that the irs knows. the iris somehow interpret the regulations right now that they cannot even tell their identity. >> i haven't been a victim myself and have it been inconvenienced fairly recently. i think we showed improved the ability to respond. they do have some sort of program and they did work through it. it probably could be improved.

it's a dangerous, problematic thing if it gets worse and worse. >> any objection to voice voting? all those in favor say subfloor. all those opposed? the amendment passes. next is the wicker cbo score. >> first of all in order not to run a file of the long-standing requirement that the committee i delete from my amendment the word ranking member so that the chairman of the senate or house budget committee may make this request. basically, this is along the lines of the white house and johnson amendments providing as much information as we can about the out year impact of major spending legislation.

>> opposition? >> just a quick point of clarification. was that a modification of the amendment? >> so would be voting on the amendment as modified? any objection to a voice vote? seeing none. all those in favor say ayes. opposed? the next one man is the senator baldwin amendment. >> eyes to look like to modify my amendment to strike the ranking member and key to the long tradition of the committee

in both the house and the senate. but as a reminder to all, this is the amendment that has the joint committee on taxation provide a supplemental estimate that evaluates the distributional effect of revenue changes across income categories and other very useful information for us to have as we evaluate tax policy. i urge a voice vote. >> any opposition? seeing none. august in favor of the amendment say aye. as opposed? >> mr. chairman. >> senator portman. >> the vote has already occurred. one, thank you for dropping the nontraditional approach in terms of who can ask for it the

second with regard to the capability of the joint tax committee. they indicate they don't have the ability now and perhaps we can work it out as we move forward. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> the next amendment is the corker on pca gaps. >> yes, sir. i hope this to be adopted by a voice. it is for informational purposes only when we are reasoning to bca cats are transferring money from the general fund to the highway trust fund that if we are to keep buster to keep western using gimmicks, we have informational purposes a 30 year score instead of just 10. the tenure score is the one that guides us, but the 30 year would help us know whether we are using gimmicks, like we did last

year on the highway trust fund where you're actually losing money. i hope this could be unanimously approved. >> opposition? seeing none. sensing you are ready to vote will do this by voice vote unless there is objection. others in favor say aye. opposed? adopted. next one is merkley student loans. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we can all recognize student debt is having a huge impact on the sense of opportunity among our children, american families and that this prescribes no particular solution the weather is lower interest rates, and enhancing the grants under the pell grants or other program improving stafford loans. whatever a bipartisan group can come together for, this provides deficit mutual reserve fund to

help accommodate and recognize this is a significant problem facing america that we should work to try to address. >> i think we are all concerned about the cost of college and student loan debt. i note dirty three -- the average graduating senior is $33,000 in student loan debt and that is eclipsed credit card debt at the time. the reason that contains a reserve fund for the higher education act just because it is due for reauthorization and that should be an appropriate vehicle for any specific reforms that want to reduce the cost of college and mini for student borrowing. i look forward to working with chairman alex and her and senator merkley on the committee and the rest of the people on the committee to make sure we get the higher education act reauthorized before it is out of date and join the list of 260 that arm.

i urge my colleagues to vote no. is there a request for your phone call? is there a request for a roll call vote? the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

mr. chairman, the yeas re: divan. the saturnine re: divan. >> on a tie vote on the amendment fails. the next one is the purdue amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. fifth amendment simply creates a spanning mutual reserve fund aimed at subjecting to see fpb to the regular appropriation process. the last thing we need right now is a rogue regulator out there without any oversight of congress. that is the intent of the amendment. thank you. >> opposition? >> mr. chairman the cfpb would deeply damage its regulatory role that is overseen and numerous roles like it ought it

monitoring by the inspector general, mandatory reporting to congress, will make in requirements, require testimony before the banking committee and the ability of the financial oversight committee counsel and we need to protect this to protect a script that is done such a fabulous job of defending his tumors from predatory practice is. >> i urge my colleagues to vote yes. for the roll call vote. please call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> mr. chairman the yeas are 12. 7910. >> the amendment has failed. no, the amendment is passed. sorry. the next one is that it came amendment. i think there is a side-by-side. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is an amendment to provide a deficit nature reserve fund to promote dt education cosponsored s. senators baldwin and portman. >> any opposition? seeing none. i sense we can do a voice vote. all those in favor say aye. opposed? it is passed. next, the transfix amendment and then a democrat side-by-side on this