organizations who are likely to be impersonated by fraudsters would provide the numbers to operators, and then to that no legitimate call which is those numbers. date way operators decanting either remove or translate a bogus caller id information. for example, all such calls with fake caller id is within appear as area code 666. ..

a d's would be derived through crowd sourcing. i went this to last numbers to reach vulnerable individuals while other calls are either blocked or forwarded to family member or other trusted third parties. importantly, such blacklist and wait list can be implemented either by telephone providers themselves or their providers cooperate by making it possible i can numbers chosen third parties to that phone calls than they can be competing on who does the best job of filtering out unwanted calls. this does however require phone

companies provide suitable interfaces to do that good i appreciate your richest in this topic and look forward to your questions on technology. >> thank you very much, professor. or a much appreciate your testimony. ms. greisman. >> thank you very much chairman i'm a ranking member mccaskill members of the committee. i'm delighted to discuss the ftc's spurt to fight illegal robocalls and i'm pleased to say to master -- next to professor schulzrinne has been a vital role of the fcc appeared tackling robocalls and unwanted telemarketing that target seniors at the top rarity for the ftc. 11 years ago the commission established that do-not-call registry to create a tool for can arrest you protect privacy against unwanted calls. i believe the program has been highly effective reducing calls from legitimate telemarketers

for several years ago as he referred to, the landscape started to shift in a very troubling way that robocalls are on the rise. in 2009, ftc received 60,000 complaints about robocalls each month. currently we get approximately 150,000 complaints each month from a dramatic increase. major technological joe's changes and services have led to lower costs and improve service is for can rumors. unfortunately fraudsters have taken advantage of the same lower costs which brought faster and cheaper automated dialing platforms. fraudsters have also further weighted caller i.d. spoofing in which induces the consumer to pick up the phone while enabling the scammer to hide anywhere in the world with its identity and location. and sure, back or so taken advantage of the relatively cheap and scalable business

model and used it to last tens of millions of robocalls over the course of one day at a cost of less than 1 cent per call. it's bad enough robocalls and a consumer's privacy and our legal. coupled with the illegal privacy invasion however we all too often see the color space goods and services riddled with fraud. ftc continues to step up one recent initiatives. for example were shut down a major robocall operation to rip.seniors by telling them they were eligible to receive a free medical alert system offered by a family member or friend. seniors who pressed one were transferred to a live operator to set the medical alert device is approved by the american heart association or the american diabetes association. we alleged that claims to be false and that is precisely the type of robocall referred to earlier in the state of florida was a co-plaintiff in the case.

another case of 10 state attorneys general including missouri, indiana, north carolina and florida, the ftc sued the telemark sued the telemark or come up a generator that provided the names, telephone numbers and also the companies that help the telemarketers to its caller i.d. to hide its identity. the entities were responsible for blasting millions of robocalls attempting to sell a cruise to the bahamas or the coronation mistake in the federal and international partners is as strong as ever. while the ftc has no criminal enforcement of already i'm happy to report the individuals sued by the ftc for placing illegal robocalls have been prosecuted criminally by department of justice. still when a law enforcement not enough. we've committed to stimulating technological solutions by issuing no less than four challenges, challenging entrepreneurs to develop

solutions such as robocall blocking services before she can invade our privacy and spew her lies. our first contest takes place in august. the content of robocalls humanity strikes back. the title says it all. we think these have been very successful as attested to by the fact one of our winners of the first contest brought his product to the market place six months after winning. no more robo has 170,000 prescribers and reports about 24 million calls. the ftc plays a leadership role to stimulate ongoing robust dialogue with technical experts, academics and industry groups and i want to underscore the work is international in scope good members of the london action plan and the abuse special interest group are meeting in dublin, ireland as we spake for the consumer

protection issue is robocalls present. finally i want to assure you of our ongoing and sustained commitment to protect consumer privacy and hauled telemarketing fraud by enforcing the do-not-call registry and tackling illegal robocalls. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you for your testimony. mr. dandurand. >> i take this opportunity and thank senator collins and my friend ricky and committee member claire mccaskill for inviting us this afternoon. i apologize for being a bit redundant. the attorney general's office has a division dedicated entirely to do responding to complaints from consumers or the consumer protection division receives complaints about a wide radius and then fraud such as illegal that collecting practices and identity theft. however, number one complaint

and senator mccaskill indicated by a significant margin is about unwanted and illegal telemarketing calls. in 2014 the vast majority of complaints are office received our 52 dozen calls received were about illegal telemarketing in the next highest category of complaint was 1200. as most states missouri's no call allows individuals who don't want to be called to register the residential and cell phone numbers on the no call list. every day are no call universities complain from people, many seniors abused or harassed the telemarketers have no respect for the law or privacy of those favorite minds. last month the office received a complaint from an 80-year-old woman in st. louis who received a call from someone telling her she's eligible for a back brace paid for by medicare. the caller was able to get that magic card number which is her

social security number and date of birth. after hanging up the song she realized something was not right in the site are off the spirit we also receive complaints about robocalls which specifically target seniors. for example, the senior consumer is eligible for a free medical alert bracelet and will provide identifying information. for some technologies such as caller i.d. help address unwanted calls, even then technologies may be asked weighted. for example, caller i.d. spoofing happens when the caller falsifies the name and telephone number. on the caller i.d. information to disguise the true identity as you have seen senator collins be victimized here before we started today. one of the most frequent spoofing concerns from seniors as the caller i.d. relate the letters ssi as the identity.

seniors only the call is coming from social security administration. upon answering the call the consumer is asked questions designed to elicit personal information. our office is fighting back in the courtroom could be obtained more than $600,000 for illegal conduct and significantly obtained court orders prohibiting 20 telemarketers simply seen another call in the state of missouri. they are clever and they are relentless. unfortunately senator mccaskill told us a minute ago that often comes thus frustrating that old arcade game walkable. we shut them down in them down and they pop up in other states have different identities. then you resort to make calls from overseas locations nullifying our ability to obtain jurisdiction over them. this is a battle which must be fought on many fronts and we need the help of private industry including telephone

service providers to create solutions to deter unwanted calls. as you know, technologies exist to reduce the number of robocalls to consumer phones. call blocker filter incoming marketing calls before they reach the can immerse phones. bester manically reduced number of unwanted unwanted calls a person receives. yet major phone carriers have resisted allowing customers to have access to call blocking technologies claiming federal law prohibit that. a quote from the telecom rep at a july 10, 2013 subcommittee protection hearing the current legal framework does not allow phone companies to decide which call should be allowed to go through and which call should be blocked. if so that should be changed. but that the only thing stopping, we should clarify the law and give them such power. that is why last fall attorney general greg seller within

senator donnelly his friends was joined by 37 other attorneys general reference before to the fcc which is attached to my testimony as exhibita. we are thankful encouraged by the fact chairman wheeler agrees and response to the letter chairman wheeler submitted a proposal to protect americans from unwanted calls thomas and messages in telemarketing calls and it looks like the ftc will provide clarity on the issue based on chairman wheeler's request. they will vote at the commission's open meeting june 18th. our office is encouraged by the progress we made and recognize challenges that need to be addressed. consumers have made it clear they are fed up with unwanted telemarketing calls they receive mms research and apply new technologies to help on a first to keep up with the illegal robocallers. telephone carriers are anemic addition to help their own customers for calls that month

the carriers are on board we can make a difference in the lives of consumers by giving them power to stop the telemarketing phone calls at their inception. where we don't share the interpretation of the rule of law to the extent there is any ambiguity regarding the legal authority to honor its customers request that they block unwanted calls for they arrive, we request clarity on the issue. thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. >> thank you for your testimony as well. ms. blase, as i mentioned, you kept a robocall log that you shared with the committee. it's extraordinary how many calls he received. you are very surprised about listing all of them and that in many cases you would get repeated calls. you would hang up in the person would call back again. i am curious whether you felt

when you didn't answer some of these calls that the individuals had information about io that made the call more convincing and might be more persuasive to an individual who is less sophisticated than you are in dealing with these calls. >> chairman collins, the only time i felt they had information about me specifically was the business calls because they got information somewhere that i have a business. so they assume i take credit card and they assume i would have an atm board want to buy one from a business. i can only suspect it came from the sales and use tax are met i have to have to run my business or from a directory that is put out.

i've had a lot of trouble with the business direct resending meetings every year say if you don't return the information confirming who you are or what you do, we had to drop you from the list. i say great, drop it. every year i get the same one they describe my business is something that is nothing like. i suspect they are getting my number from the business less which i suspect got it from the state. but i don't know that. >> not everyone has seen the call log you put together over a months time. could you describe in a little bit of detail the number of calls you receive in the type of calls. >> it is a big long list. something like 70 for like 70 for calls i put in my testimony. since i sent this to you, the

same caller that called five times in one day when i did not in there has called me back another couple of times. >> and this is just in a months time. >> this is just one month time. i started keeping this blog on the fifth of may. >> you are registered on the do-not-call list? >> yes. >> you get 70 calls and a months time despite being on the list which says nothing about the efficacy of the do-not-call list. professor, i understand some commercial carriers are hesitant to offer robocall filters because of a concern they cannot legally block a call under their common carrier obligations and has been discussed today, the sec chairman has released a proposal intended to clarify the

legal issue and gathered the dispute over the legal issue and make clear the robocall filters are legal. in the event the fcc accepts the chairman's proposal, are their robocall filters available now for consumers that could be put in place immediately by commercial carriers by the telephone companies to help protect consumers? >> chairman colin, there are three types of solutions deployed immediately or within a matter of months are short of a year. one which was already mentioned by third-party services that essentially rely on a specific feature called simultaneous ringing at some both systems provide a more robust solution that allows the consumer to filter calls.

the solution currently is only applicable to more modern phone system typically provided by the cable companies or some of the fiber-based phone services by traditional phone companies. the second one i see as particularly promising is the phone companies would provide external interfaces, application programming interfaces which would allow the dirt parties to decide on consumers chosen by the can humor which calls to block, redirect or redirect to a third party, for example. the third type of solution i mention whidbey apps you can install on your smartphone i would lock it currently. these apps if yes, but because

they have to work a little bit on the side are not only well integrated into the tasting phone devices, they don't work all that well. with the cooperation of carriers, these downloadable apps can work much better than they do today. just the fourth when a cad in five believe the kind of wholesale prevention of numbers spoofing could also be the job of enforcement much easier because it would need much more difficult for illegal telemarketers to spoof nonexisting numbers which is quite common today. >> thank you. the point is that technology does exist to deal with the problem. senator mccaskill. >> thank you, senator collins. professor, is there any law we

made for the encryption to ensure validity of the caller i.d.? cannot be done without any kind of change in federal law? >> i am not a lawyer, but my sense is adding cybersecurity and this is an example of that to technology does not generally require additional authorization just like things don't need to ask for permission of the fdic or comptroller of the currency to a protection to websites. indeed longer term we need to reverse the discussion, namely what obligations do they have to protect it? >> i think, you know, i will follow up with the fcc and make sure i am hope wayne along with the clarification that there is no barrier to the common

carriers suffer to help consumers block this call that they would also do what they can to encourage the encryption possibility. i think it is a twofold problem. one is make sure the caller i.d. is to assess the days and being able to block the calls. deputy attorney general, i know your office has done great work in this area and i made and 28 telemarketers. as you know, i am an old prosecutor. are we going to have to start putting people in jail? the people doing that, the reason it is waccamaw was because they don't fear any authority at this point. they are fearless of authorities. if we began picking off and i know is that likely we are going to get u.s. attorney's office ball then on this and i am

painfully aware of the limitations of your office in terms of criminal prosecutions. but are there laws in missouri you think currently would allow you to put these people in prison? >> i don't think we have laws that give the attorney general's office initial jurisdictional -- >> i'm trying to think they could be prosecuted under stealing by the sea. >> protection laws are there. can prove the intent rather than a simple violation that makes it more difficult. right now it is difficult. the feds have been helpful in that regard and are multistate efforts to criminally prosecute folks said doj is assisting in that regard. we are fairly well handicapped without additional criminal jurors diction a nasty note that it's hard to come by.

>> i'm not even saying i am for that. i am saying we might want to look at what state statutes can be utilized in the communication you have with local prosecutors to help facilitate them bringing these cases. i do think the more people criminally prosecuted here, the more quickly you will claim some of this up. let me ask you this. does that work when he began his 28 telemarketers? do they fail? have you got them coming out? >> we haven't caught the same named companies twice, but we believe they changed the name of the outfit and move somewhere else or they just networked and state to state until they get another state and continue to do this. the waccamaw theory is truly, truly difficult to get a grip on. >> what about cooperation from the common carriers.

you are at our hearing in 2013 and you know -- i don't get this candidly. any carrier -- forget about cut your bill in half. forget about can you hear me. look at my network and how good it is. i don't think they could handle the business they would get. i don't get why they have been dragging their feet and why it will take the fcc clarified this is not a problem. do you believe that the fcc goes the way we hope they vote tomorrow that will see a land rush of carriers coming to the forefront a mass, we will offer the service to our customers because primus in canada does it now at no charge. >> i'd like to be cautiously optimistic not hold my breath on that.

for years as you know we've been firmly urging carriers to do just that. the ftc formally commenting on the preceding and expressing its view that there is no legal and patent it to providing a service of subscribers are desperately asking for. we are eager to work with them and they do participate in the working groups we preferred to end again i'd like to be optimistic. >> the companies are so smart about marketing. i don't get why the marketers are so on this. it's amazing to me. >> one reason i believe it's often part of a standalone service. most people do service as part of a broad and video and voice bundle. >> i don't think they realize they've got choices. two or three places i can go for the bundle.

i would rather go for the bundle when they bought these robocalls. the vast majority of americans agree with me. >> senator heller. senator tillis. >> ranking member, i just gotten a copy of the bill in terms of the robocalls and calls spoofing and i look forward to speaking about it. i want to continue the line of questioning about the reason why some of the common carriers would not be motivated to do it. they would seem to me that the product differentiation that raises the question of some other economic crimes are caused croupier do any of you care to become out? >> economic value differs. it's usually termination charges. my sense not being a carrier

business person is the amount of money to get for termination charges is to minimize, particularly the largest carriers for good reason. they are not the ones complaining about the ability to do blocking. the large carriers are available because they are trafficked with each other. i have a hard time believing it is simply a lost revenue one. but i have heard is often the voice technology deployed as not seen as a revenue opportunity. it is essentially a must offer technology. we have to offer is that the cable company offers e-mail service but they don't differentiate so they seem a lot and in some cases to invest resources in improving technology they have. >> i wanted to ask you some

questions about the technology you are talking about some of the emerging technologies for voice over ip. i know how bout irks with a voip providers and how apis could be used in the underlying technology but then there is still this area out there with the older exchanges that even if we make headway in the ip infrastructure voiceover ip that it seems like the more vulnerable areas will be almost disproportionately on the more aged population. the folks that still have the traditional exchanges. what sort of technology options are there for those sword of residence is better still two generations a high and arguably

most of the telephony that people in urban areas use. emacs and under, most of these robocalls, i would say almost all of them originate in voiceover ip. >> they can originate ultimately end up in a private exchange. >> what happens is always the gameplay between the two world as it's called in voiceover ip world. the gateway providers are in a unique position to do the filtering with modern software controlled a quick name. >> what sense do you have two implement between the originating and the exchange. besides the technology exists out there today and what kind of cost are you talking about?

>> i don't want to speculate too much but generally speaking the devices that are interfacing called session border controllers are designed to be programmable. they are to have interfaces for other purposes such as billing upper fraud control measures they take to prevent toll fraud. my sense with existing deployed gave a technology and requires not adding hardware but adding additional software functionality within the realm of feasibility. >> thank you are a match. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator kaine. >> thank you to the witnesses for being here today. i noticed earlier today was announced to how superb relations will was released and it proposes the fcc and fy 16 to

$315 million budget which is a $25 couple of and $73 billion below the budget request. a lot of budget issues that this is an issue that demands vigorous fcc enforcement another time when we need it for this challenge another challenge is of dramatically reducing the fcc budget seems unwise to me. i want to talk about the issue of consumer education and i would assume that's a key part of this. there's approaches to solving the problem but i'm a little bit into your testimony. you started to get this blog because you need these calls briski owns. what is the best way to get information out to seniors or

rather are vulnerable and what is the best advice we should be giving. don't you telephone solicitations. i hear my wife all the time say i don't do solicitation by phone. what is the best channel to give advice to people in your view? >> the best advice is to not answer the calls. you give them more information than you want them to have. if you don't answer the calls, they eventually will stop calling you. but then they will change and get a new number and try again and think maybe this time we'll answer the call. i think that is the best thing you can do is just not in area. you can get robocall devices, blocking devices in use robo, but those have to be programmed. you have to say don't answer this number from this caller i.d. had been a change which

they do you start all over. i hate to say it again it's waccamaw. there is one company that keeps calling that is associated with five different companies with a bunch of different phone numbers and you can't chop off all those heads. they go from one to the other to the other and there's nothing you can do about it. >> what is your thought about the advice we should give one of the things the committee does well and we have a hotline for complacency which i do here at these hearings. what is your thought about the best advice >> with the same information into consumer education awareness across the state and another piece of the ice is not

don't answer the phone. if you answer the phone and there's any hesitation, hang it up because that often is what you'll get if you say hello, you will be dead silence until the robocall kicks in. the problem i see in why we need help is my father would be 85 next month. he tells me nobody ever calls me. i don't care what we tell them our how often we tell them, if the phone rings, they answer the phone and they are thrilled to talk to anybody. we need more help than consumer education which we beat the drum daily on but the question is a good one. >> consumer education is a critical component of policy work. our consumer message is pretty clear and generally consistent with what you've heard. if you pick up the fun at the

robocall her and you don't know who it is, hang out. don't press one, don't press too. hang up the phone. we disseminate that through the aarp consumer federation of america consumers union with tremendous outreach with educational initiatives. >> ms. blase, back to you. when you start to do the log and everything, was that your realm and meet you are mad at these folks are suspicious or has he received consumer education is enough to know these are his fans that i need to keep a record. >> i was annoyed eon believe and had kept her britain things than this one did this and this one did that and kept it on a piece of paper, sometimes taking notes in the drawer. when a consumer union decided to take this on, they asked people to start keeping a log. i changed my format from scribbling stuff down to

actually making this blog and did it because that is what they asked to do. there are several places -- several requirements where you bought your blog admin user robo collared and then you turn off and logged in again so you can see if the blocker, if that made any difference. is mostly following instructions on what to do but then my attention to detail got out of hand and i kept a whole lot more information than i needed to. i would like to make a correction in further answer to your question. i went back and looked at my written testimony. 74 calls with the number of calls i got. it was less than that before when i sent you the log adding the ones i got back from the 62 or robocalls that were not charities. those are actual telemarketing

or scam calls. it was 62 out of 74. i even cap to answer some other questions, i kept carrier vocations to see if i could find some kind of a pattern but i couldn't. they are all over the map. >> you have an interesting story because you kind of combine robocalls that might be direct did toward seniors with robocalls directed to businesses and you run a business out of your house. you're not that successful if he just don't answer the phone so you have to answer the phone. have you had conversations with other small business owners and are they experiencing the same thing? we're talking about two different kinds of scam calls and i am wondering how can't do and it is on the business side, especially small business side. >> i have looked at testimonials from business people and it's

all over. these people call my business three times a day. i get this call five times a week i tell them to stop calling and they keep calling. it is pretty much rampant across the board. one more thing about people having some information. of course someone trying to sell the bracelet for a start telecom and seniors. yet enough information to know i'm a senior. >> i forgot i was on the clock. i so interested in the questions i ran way over. >> thank you. senator donnelly, you are the one that complain to your colleague. >> i'm going to give him a pass today. i'm not going to. [laughter] >> you are like that, richard. thank you all for being here. this is for mr. dandurand.

in your written testimony said example of a complaint from an 8-year-old woman from st. louis, ranking member state receives an unwanted call for a back rates paid for by medicare. we've heard about calls from senior organizations, physician from the folks in indiana on the receiving end of harassing phone calls, medical equipment suppliers offering back races that they neither want nor need the suppliers use aggressive tactics to persuade into ordering unnecessary items that medicare expands. we have an obligation to protect the privacy seniors have and also taxpayer dollars. can you talk a little bit more senior position as deputy attorney general about the trends you see in regards to calls like these?

>> i would to sort of talk about what senator mccain had been senator mccaskill as well. if we are going to cut funding we will have more of a problem. our office operates 15% less than we did in 2009 but when we increase the ability to register your cell phones, we increase the phone is responsible for from 2 million to 4 million with no more folks to deal with. the trends are somewhat towards cell phones now that they are getting this figured out and it's going to mushroom because so far we still get a lot more complaints from the folks unregistered landmines. the trends are they are getting ahead of technology and working on people's cell phones with the sophistication of cell phones have to block these. >> if you look at the federal level, what are the one or two

things we can do to help you. >> is a no call working group the feds have right now about the state to want to join that do and they stay abreast of all the cutting-edge things available to use. any help we can receive and senator mccaskill's though she's lucky not that i haven't seen that hopefully will help with this. i have to give credit as i can throw the assistant day care tuesday as it is. >> ms. blase, you are a tireless bulldog on this issue and as you look at this, one of the things that struck me when a caller i.d. comes up displays fbi. that means so many things to people in our country. i'm interested, how did you know

when he sought fbi that was a scam? >> i didn't know when i saw fbi. i picked up his phone and answer the call that did not take me 15 seconds to figure out what is scaled because the man said we are conducting this investigation in your name popped up. it was a drug investigation. i said sure, my name will pop up on a drug investigation. so i basically told them he was a fraud and hung up because that's what i felt about it. i had second thoughts and looked at the area coded with that washington is the area code and i thought my goodness what if i just really screwed up. so i called my local office at the fbi and said you have any record of any of this and they said it totally is scamming you did exactly the right thing. >> if you have one or two recommendations for folks around the country i see what you've gone through a lot of days. what would be the one or two

things you would say to them. here's what he really needs to be when this stuff starts. number one, not pick up the phone. do not press on, do not press you and if you can not pick up the phone, that's what you should do. too many of us have to know what's on the other end of the line. you want to know i have friends who are private callers who are not to display. you don't know when you see private caller if that is your friend in new zealand or is that if somebody calling to cmu or sell you something. you are tempted to pick up the unknown callers are private caller things just to find out what it is. astute as you know, hang it up. i have a friend who will always pick up the phone to matter how many times i tell her not to.

>> thank you very much. madam chair, right on time. >> you get a gold star. senator blumenthal. >> thank you, senator donnelly. you know, i served as attorney general in a battle against these kind of scams and often we look to the ftc because of its broader authority. we are members of a working group. let me ask you first, can you give us examples of alleged violations you couldn't pursue because of lack of authority. >> what i would say in that regard where we encounter challenges is presented by the common carriers exemption. there's a blurred line and we

work with our colleagues to where we received that carriers but the distinction between carriers and noncarriers can be very grave. >> is that authority or enforce that? >> we are precluded from the common carrier exemption. is this part of the ftc statute? >> there is a vacuum there that has to be filled. >> correct. >> any other areas where authority has to be broadened to give you the enforcement jurisdiction. the amount that can readily comes to mind, but let me think about that. >> that is the basis for legislative changes to broaden authority so the enforcement can be more effective because the authority essentially turns the violation into garden-variety

scams. they are dressed up in new technology, but they are basically scans, con artists using a different ballot. >> rate, thank you. >> you mentioned mr. dandurand do you been talking in the working group against some of the cutting-edge issues. can you give us some idea of what those are? >> i again refer to them because i don't sit on those calls and i don't want to talk about something i'm not versed in. i know people on the calls can do that and i would not to talk about it and i'm not versed in. >> way are doing that is cutting-edge ms. greisman. >> are discussed in calls with our colleagues at the state level. the different types of tech logical solutions we've been

stimulating the marketplace to develop discussing offers with common carriers as i have alluded to before to be more proactive in their anti-fraud effort. >> do you have data how often the do-not-call registry is abuse? >> that's an interesting question and senator mccaskill referred to that earlier. to the best of my knowledge we are not aware of telemarketers or others accessing the do-not-call registry in an improper manner. in our law enforcement work with prop up for 100 cases involving the do-not-call provisions. it is truly the exception for any single one of the telemarketers to access the registry. they are getting calling minus from other sources. >> i believe the other sources are readily available to them and they don't need to abuse the

registry. >> that is correct. >> they can do sequential dialing and it's easy to find out the exchanges besides that they can simply go through numbers one by one. and they have publicly available list as well. >> i want to thank the panel for this informative helpful testimony and thank you for the hearing. i have 45 seconds left which i will yield to senator kaine. [laughter] >> thank you very much. i'm just going to ask one final question and if everyone including senator kaine wants to have one final question, they are welcome to do so.

you gave really startling statistics in your testimony. he said that the end of 2009 the ftc received approximately 63,000 complaints about illegal bobo calls per month and now that number is up to 150,000 complaints per month. so that is an explosion of complaints. i can tell you most people don't call the ftc and register a complaint. they don't even know that's an option. so what do you do with those 150,000 complaints you are getting? >> they are incredibly valuable for one for a spin in a database accessible to authors they colleagues and federal colleagues. we mine the data appeared to

generate targets from the data so i cannot under emphasize how critical it is for consumers to file complaints with us and i appreciate ms. blase has done just that. >> that is very helpful to know because when consumers filed complaints, they often wonder was it worth it, was anyone listening, is anyone going to get back to me? do you actually try to respond to the complaint? >> that is just not practicable. given the volume it's not possible. >> when people put a complaint on your site, do you have a list of tips for god for advice for them to avoid becoming a big? >> when they file a complaint online is flat of buttons with

other tips on what to do. >> i put out a senior newsletter that we put in area agency on aging, senior centers, it better and what we think of as having some sort of clip out coupon that consumers can take with them for that week and tried using aarp to put into people's homes so they know what to do. i think there are very few people who were like ms. blase and really know what is going on. prior to looking into this matter, if i've seen the irs or the fbi or the police department, by my landline at home, you can bet i would answer that call. i hope i would have been able to discern that it was not legitimate, least i hope it

would not be legitimate. for most people, that is a pretty scary name or number two seed come up, especially when it is a legitimate number. >> maddened shared, one thing we're also seeing and i'm sure you know this may party convention this week the e-mails now with fbi as well and telling you you have to contact them immediately in regards to investigations taking place involving humans touch. >> one of my hopes bizarre hearing today will help heighten public awareness and it's been particularly valuable to learn from you that the technology is out there and to me that is the most take away from this hearing today. i think we need to push the telephone companies, telecom to

implement the technology and the name of consumer protection and i will be following the ftc's work with great interest in this area. senator mccaskill. >> while we were talking i went on to file a complaint and pretty straightforward. there's a lot of good information when you go to the homepage and just put an ftc robocall complaint and it allows you to link through. the one thing i don't find this please file a complaint because it helps us catch them. >> that's a very good point. >> you know, i think ms. blase made a point. you are barely, barely hitting the tip of the iceberg in terms of these complaints and i think there are people out there like ms. blase who obviously is my favorite goodness we've had in like forever because i can tell you are my kind of woman.

no non-sense, rack them up, let's get this thing solved. i think there are a lot of people out there like ms. blase who if they knew that filing this complaint but hope you find these guys and catch them, they would be much more interested in going through the process. maybe on the front page where you have the different options of learning about how to avoid robocalls if you did a big dinner by filing the complaint it would increase the number of complaints. >> i think that is exactly right because i stopped filing them. i filed several and didn't hear a word document things seem to go away. i didn't also is making a difference. if you tell me this to make a difference, i'll go right back to doing that. >> you may not need any podesta file complaints to catch the bad guys because ms. blase is back on it. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> 's senator kaine. >> i appreciate the chairman o. allowing me to ask an additional 15 questions. i don't have any questions. i want to thank our witnesses that this has been eliminating and i think we can make a real difference here and help in the public be more aware. i love the idea of having an automatic response that goes to consumers who file complaints and tells them it is helpful to them. that would help them feel it was worthwhile even if it does not not -- if you are not responding to their specific complaint. people like to feel they make a difference and this panel has certainly made a difference.

this hearing is about to adjourn if i could find my closing statement which tells you how long the record is to be open. and i have it. i want to thank all of our witnesses and as you can see there's a great deal of interest in the hearing today by our excellent attendance the committee members will have until friday, june 9th team to submit any additional questions for the record or testimony. i want to thank both the majority and minority staff for their work in putting today's hearing together. this concludes the hearing. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

.. we will be hearing today from

national security advisers to the president and a vice president, and also a state department official who coordinates sanctions policy. the event should be getting underway in just a few minutes. live coverage here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. we have a somewhat unusual

format this afternoon, because in a city where this issue has been filled with debates, when we are tempted to do is bring you three of the expert who helped draft and negotiate these agreements, and dvd opportunity to ask the most challenging questions you can. let me emphasize the word question. if you look around you will see that this is probably one of the worst formats to make a long speech in lieu of the questions imaginable. i used to tell my students when i was teaching, you couldn't ask a question while in three sentences, and not only shouldn't get a degree, you probably shouldn't get a job. [laughter] and beyond that i don't want to put any limits at all. i think the issue is you have three leading experts, colin

kahl who is one of the key negotiators, a very wide background in the middle east within the office of the secretary of defense as well as background in teaching. you have jon wolfsthal his greatest achievement was to be here at csis, but also as deputy director of the martin center for nonproliferation studies and has played a key role in arms control at the national security council. and chris backemeyer who has the enviable job of being the deputy coordinator for sanctions policy. public one of the most challenge jobs in the city. i'm going to basically simply start by asking a few questions, if you'd opportunity to formulate the questions you would like to ask. i know a few of you. i do not by any means no qualities i'm going to have to call upon you by row and

physician. when i do i would appreciate it if you could give me perhaps just your name and affiliation -- position. and then just move on to the question. so let me begin, gentlemen, by asking you to questions about the way this debate has unfolded and what do we seems to be problems if not addressed. one, it has focused on the idea you combine the future 10, 15 our many years in advance rather than start an arms control process where there's strategic conditions will change, you have to renegotiate and adapt with time. what is the capability to do that? the other and to me perhaps the most damaging aspect of this debate is to focus on how quickly you can get one crude

gun device that you haven't tested in terms of fissile material, rather than how it will affect iran's ability to develop a meaningful nuclear force, and a meaningful military capability. let me begin an affair, and we will start. >> great. tony, thanks. thank you all of you for coming out on a lovely day. as my students at georgetown would say, can we have class outside, which is -- at least my experience was can we play frisbee instead of going to class? thank you all for having as here to talk with this important issue. i should put one biographical clarification, which is i was not one of the poor souls like chris who lived in vienna for weeks and months at a time in vienna, geneva and other places negotiating the deal on the front line. people like jon and i had the

harder task of negotiating a deal of bacteria in washington. i just wanted to make that clear note. obviously, secretary kerry and secretary moniz and others and people like chris deserve all the credit for what i think is a very strong agreement. i think asking whether this is a final, with this is a treat at the end of a sense as it relates to this issue, the final long-term answer to all the controversies with iran, it's not. the agreement itself puts in place a series of very important long-standing amendments to iran that we put to the international committee confidence they will not develop a nuclear weapon. includes significant strides over the next 10 to 15 years, puts permit constraints on the arak heavy-water reactor proposal them as well. it puts permit on iran as it

relates to interested inspection and generational commitments on certain types of inspections that are frankly unprecedented. there's a whole series of long-term deals in this deal that would not exist in the absence of this deal. it is true that the are inevitably going to be issues and controversies within the four corners of the deal where even with a document that is more than 100 pages long and is extraordinarily detailed and precise, there will be disputes. there will be disagreements. people may find ambiguities. one of the good innovations about this deal is there's a mechanism for addressing the in form of the joint commission which is basic modeled after the joint commission we had to the existing interim nuclear agreement, the jpoa, joint plan of action. there is a mechanism for working through the issues.

i'll give you a brief example. several months ago there was a question under the existing interim nuclear agreement about what the iranians introducing gas into an advanced centrifuge, the ir-5, was a tactical valuation of the agreement were not. reality was that in this particular instance the text of the jpoa was unclear but when the iaea pointed out that around in this gas into the ir-5 centrifuge we raised it as a strong objection to that saying it was inconsistent with their obligations and limitations on centrifuge r&d under the jpoa. the rest of the p5+1 agreed with us and iran stopped. so that was an example of something that wasn't completely settled in the text of the jpoa the couple back in the box as a consequence of this mechanism and it will undoubtedly be things like that moving forward. it will also be issues outside the four corners of the deal. the reality is that this deal was never intended to solve every problem that we have with

iran for every problem that we have in the middle east. and that they will continue to be conflicts of interest in some places, animosities. and other places perhaps opportunities for more constructive engagement as it relates to a whole host of regional issues. that this deal doesn't address all because it's a nuclear deal. it's not a grand bargain with tehran. so undoubtedly we will have to address those issues and we are committed to doing so. the only thing i would say on the second question which is the deal focuses on what you called the rush to one gun type device. i would say for those of you who are following this less technically there's been a lot of emphasis in the public discourse on the deal of the notion of breakout. and we defined break it in a very small key conservative way. that is the time to take from a political decision to do so for iran to produce the first bombs

worth of fissile materialcome and to celebrate the discussion is focused on a rainy impact because given iran's current uranium capacity that would be the fastest route for them to develop the explosive fuel, explosive material for the first nuclear weapon. as it currently stands iran's breakout timeline for weapons grade uranium is two to three months. if the supreme leader woke up tomorrow and decided to go for bobby bodek 60-90 days iran develop the first bombs worth -- under this deal because it reduces centrifuges by two-thirds by 98%, for the next decade or more of breakout timeline, the commission will be at least a year, ambient -- beyond your 10 we expect the breakup, and to be meaningfully greater than it is today that it is to their other aspects of designing a weapon. just because you're a nuclear fuel doesn't mean that you have

a sophisticated implosion warhead that could fit on the tip of a missile. there's lot of other types of research into the at work after going to the. one of the innovations of this deal to go beyond the framework we reached and people in lausanne is that for the first time that lott fabricated a series of commitment that restricts their village of research into public weaponization. very consequentially for examples of a 15 year ban on doing any research whether to uranium or plutonium metallurgy which is hugely important ever going to design a nuclear warhead. the other dual use kind of research, high speed, high speed cameras, work on certain types of trigger devices, et cetera, many of which are -- iran's allegedly worked in the past that they are explicitly forbidden this deal from doing forever. it is true that this deal does not, does not address specifically the very large arsenal of ballistic missiles

that iran has been iran has the largest number of short and medium-range illicit males of any country in the region, and, obviously, what this deal does address is, ma is deal with the problem of putting a nuclear warhead on that missile by prevent them from getting the fissile material and a limiting the r&d on the weaponization peace but the missile issue itself will continue to be something that we're going to have to work through. we have eight more years of restrictions under the u.n. security council at all ballistic missiles with other international agreements, sanction those and other efforts like the proliferation security initiative to go after this issue. we have ballistic missile defense work we are doing on our own and with the parties in the gcc and with israel. that's an issue are committed to continue getting after but again i think it's one of those the false in some sense outside the four corners of the do because while these could be delivery vehicles for a nuclear weapon in

the theory they are also based on iran's point of view central to the conventional deterrent. they have a nuclear relationship but they are not solely a nuclear related activity. but i don't know if chris or jon want to violate any of that before we open it up to others? i have as good a too much so far? >> your good. >> i think this gentleman on the third row, would you wait for the microphone spent time with the atlantic council and i want to i've been chastised on several occasions by jon kerry for referring to this group as a deal so i will defer to his terminology. i support the agreement but have several concerns. first i don't see that the white house at this stage hasn't had a strategy to market and support the deal like to note what its plans are for to do between now and september 17 when the congress votes but more

importantly what is the longer-term strategy for the region that will support this deal or in the case that fails, will deal with it. in many ways this is like a prenup between two spouses who believe the other is going to cheat. so what are we going to do to put in place a structure for the long-term that allows this agreement to work and if it fails what are the off ramps? >> both great questions. on the day of the do we have a 30 page rollout strategy that deal just with the days and handful of weeks after the announcement of the deal, and we've been building on that document ever since. we are doing tons of events like this to help further educate and already extraordinarily educated group of folks. we are doing a lot of public outrage. the president has probably done more interviews on this topic than almost any other issue at least in recent memory, and the venues for the have been all over the place. off heads, testimony, and then

all of us -- op-ed's -- from the president to the vice president, secretary of state, energy, treasury and all of us minions below that are basically, i am spending half of my day every day on the phone with members of congress, or going up to the of to provide briefings for members of congress or staff et cetera. there's no question that make their ad hoc on the outside. i think we have a plan and its adapting as circumstances and sentiments are adapting that we are pretty focused on this, even though it's august. in terms of a long-term strategy for the region, i think that you can think of it in terms of different buckets. this deal is about the nuclear issue. putting that issue aside for a moment, we are still, have all sorts of challenges in the region. many of them are related to iran

and its destabilizing activities in places like syria and lebanon and iraq and yemen and bahrain, and elsewhere. we are going to to contend with it. we have a number of other challenges in the region to include the so-called islamic state, isil, daesh, which we're confronted in iraq and syria through a coalition of more than 60 countries. but to focus on the iran peace, i think it's instructive to note when the president announced the framework, he announced he is going to have the leaders of the gulf countries come to camp david, precisely this conversation i used to in the middle east office at the pentagon at the beginning of the obama administration. so thought we are working close with the gulf states, because the region is a good architecture, is not new. but the president did feel like it was time to be energized some aspects of that and h they built off of the work was already done with the gulf states to expand

out to address some of the specific concerns as it relates to iran. the gulf states already have, you know, an extraordinary quantity of sophisticated military conventional armament. i think there's a sense that iran is the unstoppable juggernaut in the region, and that iran was a little more money will take over the entire globe. i think it's instructive to keep them unless you iran spent $15 billion on its defense and the gcc combined spent $115 billion on its defense. the saudi alone spent more than $80 billion on their defense. so that eight or nine times as much as iran, if you put the gcc together. so the challenge is not whether they are is not whether they are sophisticated enough aircraft. the ea you suppose those sophisticsophistic ated plans incorporate the sounds have the most sophisticated f-16's, et cetera. or post a passionate ballistic missile defense is that we have taken to build on or other defense were i think more can be

done is build up the capabilities, to go after the challenges that iran poses. cyber defense, protection for critical infrastructure, the village of conduct freedom of navigation and maritime interdiction, expansion and sharing of intelligence, training or special operation forces to be the expeditionary. you all areas of major and this is coming out of camp david. and then, of course, we had a relationship with israel. which is politically tense at times, no question about that. but again as if the guy who used the issue in his portfolio at the dod there's never been an administration that has done more from a defense perspective or an intelligence perspective that this administration has done with israel. we already do a tremendous amount vis-à-vis israel in terms of protecting called it of its military as providing the joint strike fighter, preventing, providing technologies in support as a relates to the rocket and missile defense, iron

dome, arrow, et cetera. the presence of our cruisers in the eastern mediterranean to protect israel against missiles coming from iran or anywhere else in the region, and we also want to have, take th that to te next level as which iran's regular activities in the region. this is a complicated time to have that conversation because as the president has made clear and other folks have made clear, we understand prime minister netanyahu is not a fan of the stupid we're trying to make the case that we get that you're not a fan of this deal but we have all these big issues to include under and will ready to roll up our sleeves and deal with them. and get to work with you on those issues compartmented off the political controversy on the iran deal. the challenge of the moment has been at the israeli political leadership has not been willing to take us up on the offer because they feel like that's mixed messages, if you're somewhat working with us on iran in one space, working against us

on the deal that sends mixed political message. we are constrained by that body help that as we get beyond the congressional review period that those constraints will fall to the wayside. >> the gentleman in the third row here. arlan got two questions for the price of one. from now on you only get one question for the price of one spent josh with a policy resolution group. i have a process where the question for the deal. if we get to implementation day, do you envision it takes more congressional action to unwind some of the statutory secondary sanctions, or is it your view that executive action alone could largely get us to the withdrawal of the secondary sanctions under the deal? >> so that's a good question. actually it's one that we really tangled web as we worked out in negotiations and as the ultimate

decide that i would want to do this. the sanctions with the setup and a couple of phases. the first phase which are referring to is the limitation is the faith that happens after iran completes all the major nuclear steps, steps to push the brca1/2 year, cut centrifuges by a third, stockpiled than 2% of what was. wants to do that we will take the steps to we would call suspend the sanctions. in the document it's called the national all sorts of things we call but what we'r we are doings using the present statutory waiver authority to waive sanctions that have been agreed to be listed in this content. the second step, referring to use sanctions in this context. the second step to that would be when we've actually terminate those sanctions are that step occurs at eight years down the road, a cute or when the iaea region is part of conclusion this is the are no more undeclared nuclear activities in iran, something wa which that cd take that long but that's really

the kind of cornerstone, the mountain were looking for. that's the point where you would seek congressional action to actually terminate those sanctions. it was intentionally constructed this way because we know that congress, we cannot tell congress what to do with respect to this. they have their own prerogative to make that decision so we will seek legislation. the administration in time will do its best to seek that legislation. but it's not a foregone conclusion. so those are the two steps. the eu and the u.n. are largely similar to the. the eu is using its own mechanism to suspend that in the first phase due to their economic sanctions that they can place. they you in is slightly different in the sense that the u.n. structure terminates all resolutions but then it reestablishes the most important sanctions that we want to keep the place long-term. those are the ones that relate to missile technologies, relate to conventional weapons, relate to transfers of nuclear

technologies, the core elements of this agreement. >> the only thing i would clarify for those of you who are not in the weeds on it, isn't limitation day as chris indicated is conditions-based but there's a question of how soon is about what the answer is abolished and in iran's court. there are technical and political issues have to sort through. we think we estimate it will take them six to 12 months to fulfill the basic obligations of disabling the arak reactor, reducing their stockpiled by 90%, additional protocol, dressing the issues on possible military dimensions, et cetera. we think it will take six to 12 months but when exactly implementation day will be is a little tbd. >> only to jump on the. this is entirely intentional to have this big strategy because the most important thing for us in our interest for iran to get done everything it needs to assess is possible. people said why don't you

strength out trip drip drip sanctions along the way. we did what do anything before i ran have done, no signing bonus, no drip drip tray. on one big suspension one around us all the things we need to do to satisfy u.s. interest. spent there was a gentleman in the back. i don't know if you still at the question. >> richard fieldhouse, former arms services committee staffer. good to see you all again. and my question is if you were to address your view on the consequences if congress were to reject the agreement, specifically looking at whether we could simply negotiate another deal, whether iran would be able to continue its previous level of nuclear programmatic scum enrichment, arak reactor, all that? and also in terms of what the existing sanctions are likely to remain in place and enforced?

think you. >> leletlet me take a mad to cut deficits if chris wants to pile on for some specifics as to what to sanctions. we all have these humble that none of us can predict with 1% i could see what would happen if congress does of the do. i think the only thing that is certain is uncertainty. the situation will be more uncertain, more messy, less control, less leadership and international community would be less unite. i think we can be certain of all those things but you can gain outlaw cigarettes mr. alves will play a. let me give you to do that i think it most likely. one is that we effectively reject the deal, united states us after having agreed with iran and five other countries your this is a deal between us and the rent is a seven party deal. this becomes the final piece of evidence that hard-liners in iran need to basically discredit president were on and zarif. it over sharpened their knives

for that. and they pushed the lead, the supreme leader to use this to do what iran has done the last two times diplomacy collapsed. in 2005, when iran was negotiate with what was then called the e3, and in 2009-2010 when the reactor deal fell apart. once the leader decided to do those two times with double down on resistance and increased their nuclear program. because it emboldened the hard-liners as iran's program with up. from their perspective this concert dejectedly either driving towards a nuclear weapon or generating leveraged by increasing their nuclear capability. it's highly likely and the politics of iran that a congressional rejection leads effectively for iran to walk away from its commitment to not let the ones on this deal but the ones they currently have under the jpoa. remember if they start doing things like remaking leading 20% low-enriched uranium which sometimes is called medium enriched uranium although

tackled a there's no such thing, turn on the advanced -- installed 1000 ir to ends at natanz, they can go from 60 to 90 days to a month or less in a relatively short period of time. it is very difficult to imagine that we would be able to hold together the international coalition that we have isolated iran even in that circumstance where iran is closer to nuclear weapon. the reason is that most of the countries that signed up for the sanctions regime did so for the coup d'état under the understanding that there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and that is we would lift sanctions on iran would be back open for business, whether that's on the hungry consumers in asia or whether it's banks and businesses in europe. and some of those countries may stay onside and comply with existing sanctions but some of them will not. at the very least the international community will be

less united at the sanctions regime will be weaker. iran will be driving closer to a nuclear bomb and the international community will be more fractured and the sanctions regime would be at least somewhat weaker. that's a very dangerous scenario. because it suggests to me that you're going to approach a decision to use military force before you could cobble back together an international coalition to get back to the parking table a special in the world where the pragmatist and a better discredit we saw what happened when folks like julie lee replicable versus folks like zarif. iran is not a monolithic place. a second scenario is congress most of the deal and i ran sticks with the deal. this is also a nightmare scenario but it's slightly different version. iran can basically say the americans are out of compliance but we will live up to our obligations going up to

implementation day as long as the europeans, russians, chinese et cetera lift sanctions. this puts our allies in a horrible dilemma. because they either need to live up to obligations under the agreement because iran is living up to its obligations and risk getting sanctioned by secondary sanctions on or they keep their sanctions in place and they are in violation of the deal, right? i think china and others are going to have frankly and less complicated decision calculus, countries like china, india, south korea, china, taiwan, turkey, the rain -- remaining customers iranian oil company debate economic hit. there are all sorts of ways that you could imagine other countries, if they believe that iran was in compliance and we are out of compliance, doing things to circumvent our secondary sanctions.

they could set up that banks that are not connected to our financial system other to transact through the central banks and there is to start trade wars. those six customers firing at us was that occur to mention currently control 47% of all u.s. foreign owned , treasury. like hathcock foreign owned debt. what allows the sanctions regime to operate is not just the influence, power of the u.s. economy. decides our economy, the ability to force banks incumbents to make countries. but the underlying political associate with it because most of that we don't have to sanction the banks and companies to get them to comply. the political leadership in these countries agree with the objective it once that consensus goes away then we're in real trouble if the iran deal, point out the iran deal, unraveling the sanctions regime. let's imagine you believe, we make this argument a lot,

secretary kerry has made this argument a lot, let's imagine you believe it is hyperbole. extensions regime is not completely fixed collapse. we can all admit it will get at least a little weaker relative to what it is today. this is a big audience or the bunch of people who believe the regime, sanctions regime will stay exactly the same court raised your hand if you think it will stay exactly the same if congress walks away. there's like 400 people in this room. so let's imagine it's only 10% weaker. let's imagine it is only 10% weaker than it is today. will make this, batman. how to get a better deal with less leverage? you can't get a better deal with less leverage and international support for its, it defies the laws of gravity. the notion that dogs can walk away from this deal, blow it up, keep the international community together, wrap up the pressure

and dry, dr. gabaudan table for a better deal is a fantasy. you can't get more wit with lesd we will have less if congress those of us do. the last data point to this as an important thing. want to do things that american officials encountered when we travel the world given this sense of dysfunction and partisanship in this town is a question of whether we can govern. i think there's going to be real collateral damage on our ability to do business in other areas with other types of agreements is an agreement that has the support not only other u.s. president but of treatment every other major power in the world and a destitute of other countries, period, that congress just blows up i think it's good harder for us to do business conduct credibility and delete on a host of other issues, and that's the problem. ivan if there's anything related to stop. >> before i move on, i want to ask you, also carson, potential

pressures do not give the opportunity to make speech. [laughter] but seriously -- >> i didn't want to do any remarks at the outset. >> i do have a fairly large list of bands already some going to come back and recognize people when they get to the group i would have. there's a gentleman in the front who had a question and if you wait for the mic, please. >> it was this gentleman here first, sorry. >> thank you. my name is andre, russian diplomat in washington, d.c. thank you for doing the panel, and i want to follow up on what you just said about the importance, the second estate i was also -- [inaudible] on the difficult and importance of keeping the deal together.

basically he said we walked away from, iran's people start walking with a nuclear. so my question to you is what are you doing, what can you share with us to keep the team together, especially -- a special with russia which is a separate case at a difficult case because -- >> we have to focus on the question. >> are you looking forward to unraveling the sanctions against russians? how do you see that? >> if you want to take, i could take a geopolitical cut or you can take account. i think the geopolitical and just we don't know, it is true as we apply sanctions in a lot of different areas, but a lot of times the wa way we do it doesnt make other countries all that pleased with this. and not just countries that we target the sanctions against the franca our allies and coalition reform to go along with us on the sanctions because there are

real costs associate with it. i think there is, one of the things i worry about is that if congress blows up this deal and we try to keep the sanctions regime together simply by threatening everybody in the world, not only will undermine the political consensus as well as to iran's policy but it will feed the anxiety concerned, tensions that under gird our sanctions policy in general what to make a host of national security batteries were difficult to execute. but you have to do that on a regular basis. >> i think that's exactly right. with respect to russia, separate policies and we've been able to damage throughout this process that while we have concerns in one area where able to work closely with russia on the particular quotation we have everything coming out of his we had a very successful outcome where we were working out on our own sanctions but working to

ultimately remove the sanctions u.n. security council that we and russia must agree on both the timing and ultimately when those things happen. and so these are, this is a separate policy issue, and i think generally speaking it's instructive of how you can use these sorts of things as a tool to get to the diplomatic outcome. >> we have a gentleman with a question in the far back who raised his hand early on. we may have lost the main interest, so let me pass it onto the gentleman in the second row there, please. thank you. >> ima command sergeant out of fort meade. i want to ask a question, different kind of question. who wants this deal was to iranians want this deal psychologically and culturally? is this for internal use, or do

we want t this deal more? just hearing the gentleman whether congress approves it or not, why are we pushing for this are the iranians pushing for it more? >> i mean, not to be glib, i think the answer is we both want to do probably for different reasons. we want a deal because one of the most significant challenges to international security, not just in this administration but in the previous administration, the prospect of a nuclear-armed iran. because it's troublesome if iran is an actor and as ambitious as a regional agenda sometimes is it would be put on steroids in a world where they had nuclear weapons. with exceptions of the wars in afghanistan and iraq i would say the iran issues public and the issue the president is focused on more since day one because of the recognition of that problem. but is also consistently said all options on the table to do with this but this is such a

vital threat to u.s. national nl interest, if i ran one of the a lot to get a nuclear weapon. that continues to be the policy of the united states. this deal substantiates that commitment even more deeply from iran's point of view. the president has been equally clear all else being equal, a diplomatic solution is better. it's better because it's more sustainable, enduring and it doesn't accrue the costs of another war in the middle east with all its unpredictable consequences and, frankly, different perspective of pushing back their program it's hard to imagine a military strike that destroyed 90% of the stockpile and disabled two-thirds of the centrifuges and all of the rest of you are not going to get 10 or 15 years. you would be lucky to do that five years out of it. so we have an interest in resolving this issue and impossible doing it dramatically. our allies should interest and also our partners, the folks we partner with in the p5+1 to include the russians who disagree with a host of issues

also -- also shares that integrate i think iranians are very invested in the program. they've invested between 100-$230 developing their civilian nuclear infrastructure, much of which has dual use capabilities. they've invested a tremendous amount of the regime's legitimacy, pride and national identity in this something most americans don't get franklin is the degree to which the nuclear issues wrapped up in iranian nationalism and things like that which is why the notion of driving iran 20 forever was probably always a fantasy because of how much the regime investigated. the regime had an interest in maintaining their nuclear program even if a symbolic and civilian purposes but also the interest in getting the sanctions lifted. lessons and lifted over time because the sanctions about a crippling effect on the iranian economy. it's about a 15-20% smaller than

it would have been had the sanctions that have been opposed by a couple of years not been imposed. that's the challenge to the iranian people and in the iran is not a democracy, rouhani did get elected on a campaign to break iran's isolation and get the economy going again. in the aftermath of the 2000 elections in iran the supreme leader was sensitive to the domestic political cost of ignoring the fact that the public wanted it. i think the deal is in the interest of both parties, but for different reasons, which is why you have to trust them and don't have to trust us. you just had to make a capitalist about whether it's in the interest of the two parties to comply with. >> a couple of questions in the front of her on. let me begin with a gentleman and then the lady.

>> i'm school, retired federal employee. there's deceiving for non-muslims but they have relationships with russia and china and japan. those country have also psychological deception techniques, economies and east asians but i'm wondering what particular technique the leaders of iran are using to deceive us? on the using those techniques and sang if the shoe fits, wear it? >> i believe the academics debate whether cultural essentialism makes sense or not as an exploration in these types of issues. i would say the broader issue is not whether this is some out and viewed in something in the beginning of the islamic republic but just the empirical fact of the matter which is that iran has engaged in a lot of secret nuclear activities over the years. all the iconic nuclear

facilities would talk about today, natanz, fordo, arak, these are all once covert facilities. so we don't trust that all else being equal to iranians will not do things in secret because they've done things in secret before. which is why the president has emphasized his deal is not about trust, it's about verification which is why we believe there's never been an agreement in history of arms control and nonproliferation, ma a negotiated agreement that more intrusive inspection of nuclear programs than the one that we got here because it's not only 24/7 coverage of known nuclear facilities, natanz, fordo, arak, those facilities but also greater access to uranium mines and mills and send it is production and enrichment facilities. for those who want to know why that matters, if you want to build a secret enrichment site five years of malcolm it's not just about drilling a hole in the ground. you've got to do with stuff, centrifuges, scientist, uranium,

natural source, just to convert it into gas and what this deal does know the deal of time has in the past is great surveillance across the entire supply chain which makes it effectively inconceivable iran could divert large of a senator from his nose associated secret facilities. and then because iran want to buy the additional protocol which allows a time bound procedure for getting the iaea access and suspicious vessels which is also unprecedented because countries that have protocol elsewhere don't have such a procedure, we have confidence that if you block them as a march down the field, u.s. significant goal line defense as well as you can get into suspicious site if they don't let us in we can snap sanctions back or take other action figures to be in violation. all of that is to say what of the great ironies of the iran debate in this town is that so much of the criticism is focused on the transparent

interpretation mechanism, when i think and nonproliferation and arms control when you look at this believe that the strongest part of the deal. we agree with that assessment. spent the lady in the second r row. >> i work for the bbc and the one if you can tell us more about the marketing plan you came up with what someone it what you can to be the most hard argument to overcome i may be the most surprising where we thought they had a point in washington. i've lived here from the other panelists as well. >> i don't blame you. look, i think the hardest argument to overcome in general is that iran is not a good regime. why would you make a deal with a bad actor? i think that argument is completely understandable. it's understandable when members of congress make it. it's understandable when --

threatening statements they support a bunch of actors that our allies in the region, israel and others a great deal of harm. they are not a good regime. but we spent the entire cold war. only since the 1970s making our arms control group of arms control agreement with an entity ronald reagan called the evil empire because we recognized reducing the risk of nuclear war was such an important priority that you could strike deals to reduce that risk in the arms control of domain while still pushing back against the others things the soviets did all over the world like subverting our allies and supporting terrorism and killing american forces all over the world. we won't pashtun to do same thing here. rethink the notion by which could do with a bad regime kind of an understandable reaction we've had to push back against.

jon, i don't want to add, you've been involved in public outreach as much or more than i am spent thanks. beginning to feel like dr. carson at the republican debate last night for me -- [laughter] spent the most difficult argument, this is a complex technical agreement and relies on a certain assumption of knowledge. to explain to people who have not dealt a blow with the international atomic energy agency why safeguard confidentiality is important, why the united states has championed that principle for decades because we don't want to reveal proliferation sensitive information the u.s. facilities where we have confidential agreements. where the israelis have safeguard confidential agreement that they want to keep confidential with the ie. that's been a real challenge. this debate, we recognize people

are trying to posture themselves as saviors these ideals we have been able to see because they don't have similarity with the iaea and the work that they do has led to questions like had we know we can trust these guys. nuclear power in 45 plus countries around the world because the iaea has been demonstrating their job for over 60 years. these are the guys who got it right in iraq and said there was no ongoing nuclear weapons program. that's been the biggest chunk and what i don't think we can overcome. is where i think the support of people like enough 30/10 double scientist including six nobel laureate balloting for the ie can do the job, the inspector regime is able to work because they understand and help develop it, the people looking for touchdowns like the. that's a process we will have to go through. >> the gentleman and far back. >> daniel from johns hopkins. october 15 is an important date in the agreement because the

iranians are supposed to account for possible millage dimension to the iaea. what are u.s. government criteria for successful and accurate accounting? and by the way, what's happening at parchin? >> i think it's important to take a step back and about ourselves what we are talking about. oven to 2003 iran had an active program to develop a nuclear weapon. how do we know that? the united states declassified the fact that the iaea documented information provided in part by member states in the november 2011 annex by the director-general. to 13 areas of possible military dimensions the iaea was investigating. one of those was the possibility of conventional explosive work to develop a nuclear implosion device which the united states believed was conducted at

parchin. the iaea has been trying to get into that facility for soviets. the iaea have been able to string this out for me is because there is no obligation to provide access any time bound framework unlike other the jcpoa where would've gotten access way back in 2011 had been in place. however, we believe that if iranian entities their nuclear weapons research in 2003 we have not seen any signs that research has resumed. and this question is was not the iaea will be allowed to pursue their legitimate investigations and with a country like iran which is utter safeguard has responsibility to provide the iaea access to the places, people and things, documents that 18 necessary to complete an investigation. what we've been working to do is not forget what went on and parchin because with a fairly good sense of what went on to even things we haven't necessarily disclose publicly, but to make sure that the principle, that iaea kids what it says it needs come is what we

are working to support. in five years iran can't say if this facility that the iaea is interesting, because it does not a legitimate claim, you didn't have to go to parchin so you don't have to go in your. so what we're working toward and what we urge the iaea and ran to work out and what we have now linked to any sanctions relief is that they iaea must be able to do what they believe is necessary to pursue the investigation. that includes ensuring that they're able to investigate parchin to their satisfaction. now, the exact nature of that's going to work has been worked out confidentially between the iaea and i ran. that has been briefed in full in a classified session to all members of congress. they had that information ago have to judge whether believe that is sufficient but we believe been submitted as our with a plan that it is sufficient. so we recognize that is elite

that has been made. entrance was going on and parchin, i've no idea. i would like to iaea to find out. but if we believe that they were doing nuclear weapons research in parchin under this do we get in in 24 days to the iaea could get in into authorities the anything we the pretensions of clerk up on civil dimensions of the past only apply to the previous investigation anything moving forward what opera does the rule laid out by the jcpoa. >> this judgment over there on the far right have raised his hand early on. >> steve, manchester could congratulations to the sponsor to i think he set a record for attendance august 12 at an event and congratulations on the format which i wish i going else would follow women are the subject of my question is off because it will make it quick. we did the u.s.-israeli free trade agreement, supposed to be

view as the egyptian-israeli free trade agreement which will it was not put on the table idea. the u.s. has five things but agreements in the middle east with oman, bahrain, israel, jordan and morocco and so one. were thinking it was one to send a signal to like-minded countries why don't you consider proposing perhaps beginning work agreement including the alternate countries in the middle east. i will go beyond trade and, obviously, include things like understand, malicious understanding, energy security, et cetera and, of course, most important agreement we have fast-track authority for that so we could begin the administration. thank you. >> so i don't know, that's the free trade area is beyond my area of expertise. i will say as a general i was if chris wants to chime in because it's at least closer to his expertise than mine but i will say this. and major research made the gulf

states at our airports are looking for at the moment are nonot any economic dummy bigots that they would be interested, so it doesn't breaches any of the issues you raised. really what you're looking for shn of security assurance that will protect them at their extra attack which the president we get rid at camp david and this goes back to eisenhower, nixon, carter, you know, the gulf war in 1991 to liberate kuwait and the rest at reaffirming that and then putting meat on the bone by deepening our security cooperation in the area that talked about before. that's what they're focused on at abu. i don't know if you it is anything else. >> the group you describe might be the one that is much more complicated than the one which is touched which was i thought one of the most complicated agreements. i think as colin said the concern amongst the gulf partners and other aetna to be outpaced economically. iran is to a huge hole economically.

over have between dollars in present needs that is a whole that has been pulled by the sanctions enforced the a side issue iran will become the economic center of the middle east. our focus for the mochas making sure iran takes these immediate steps to address our proliferation concerns and that we were close with our partners to address their security concerns. >> there is a question year and the third thing. the gentleman right there. if you wait for the mic, please. >> i guess the repercussions of this -- [inaudible] also another dimension taken into consideration which is the fact that emerging access of sodomy the, emirates might ask for the same field become limited and develop the own ability -- >> you need to move the mic

closer. >> not being clear >> let me take the first cut and jon will have more details. for those of you who have trouble understanding, this is a general concern that because the agreement leave some of iran's nuclear into shock impact that will set off an proliferation cascade in the middle east as saudi arabia, the embers, egypt and others perhaps turkey try to match these capabilities and that set in motion a nuclear arms race and middle east. a couple of things to keep in mind. first, iran's the program has been around since the 1950s. so if the mere existence of a nuclear program with sufficient to set in motion the chain of events, the number of decades of empirical this proof of that. they have been developing in earnest enrichment capability since the 1980s, close when they started the arak facility. they accelerated that in the '90s. this is not a new challenge and if it was sufficient, we would

have seen it already. as an empirical matter, reactive proliferation is quite rare. so, for example, india, china and pakistan, india but then it stopped. north korea did what it did and it didn't lead to south korea, japan or taiwan take other action. is neither inevitable nor as a historical fact you can see reactive -- utc wind countries that are rivals in the region acquire nuclear weapons. why does that matter? is still prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. what's odd about this argument about a proliferation cascade is iran's nuclear programs here in terms of their capacity. the programs quickly going to go to here and they might get all the way to a nuclear weapon. with this deal that program goes down to here and then gradually ramps up. so explain this. how is this more of a risk of regional proliferation than this? it's not.

it's not the answer. fully understand this is because potential that the same critics who made this argument years ago were sent you can never allow iran to ge go nuclear then becae the second they did the saudis will acquire, egyptians and turks, fixated on a nuclear weapon peace, not just leaving some enrichment capacity to the last point i would make is none of our other partners in the region are immune from the obligations under the npt. not to get nuclear weapons. i'm not sure any of them would like to pursue the course to building a large nuclear program iran has pursued at the expense of $200 billion maybe half a trillion dollars in economic damage. if i look at iran and i say that's not a model i want to pursue as well as building a nuclear program. so it's a concert i think will have to be mindful of but it's a risk that is higher in the absence of this deal that with

this deal. >> all i would say it's all countries that are fully compliant with obligations under the nonproliferation treaty are entitled to benefit from the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. if egypt going as a country in the region wants to develop nuclear power reactors, they're fully capable of doing so. i have no doubt a cautious like egypt, just like the uae, can rely on the international market to provide fuel and fuel service. the u.n. is under a legally binding restriction not to acquire enrichment and reprocessing. they signed an agreement to buy to modern advanced south korean nuclear power reactors, if you have no problem having fuel services provided to them and they will benefit from the people -- they will ever let on enrichment and reprocessing. if they said a lot of enrichment or reprocessing because iran has it, they feel that the security argument, that is a much

different type of competition and what i don't think most of the interest other countries in the region or their relationship with the united states. >> on the side, far left. she's raising her hand. >> my question is with regard to sanctions. are there any regulations or framework being set into place that doesn't introduction of terrorism related sanctions will not support iranian claims of sanctions being a repackaging of nuclear related sanctions or preventing foreign application of -- [inaudible] >> that's a good question. i did i was every time i do a briefing, certainly several times when i'm doing them on the hill. so we were very clear throughout

this negotiation with iranians and very well understood that we are only talking about one category of our sanctions that were going to be released because of the sanctions that were put in place over the last several years physically to address iran's nuclear program. .. >> for their support for terrorism. now, this is one of the core