>> >> when asked why did you do that? they said the fbi assets to it was approved. ben apple said give us a phone to see what we can do. at that point the leeway to respond would be the password and nobody knows if you guess over 10 times so

it is suspicious that there will be a smoking gun or a cache of data in the phone. so people of color it is difficult of the device is better in your hand. but the kinds of loans that is like the older iphone. is the encryption release

stopping us from having evidence that we need? with murderers and things like that? we live in the amazing world face the cancer view and add love a lot of information and tools available. with that pre-circumvention so if you think the only crime is the phone bin then to say that is untrue as well as any questions? [applause] >> questions? really? i'm good.

>> there is an arms race going on. so far my impression is apple is winning. is that true? >> i would say it is not actually true. at the end of last month was a study that shows there was a message that there was a big hole. it could have been exploited that is the message since its inception that there is some technology.

for those tom cruise of the world and they are ahead of the company's. and the government will be behind those. that as consumers they care about our privacy to help the government doesn't try to explain how to lock that up or how they should operate. and they are working to protect the data. >> would you expecting to

see the you were surprised? >> how about what i wasn't? >> of cryptoanalysis there is the idea of the trap door. gravity will allow you to roll over and slide down but how you get back up? to say somehow you can reverse encryption you didn't speak to anybody in the field. because that is borderline. [laughter] >> but we don't know what that looks like. so hopefully the new deal comes out tomorrow. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> i will be brief. part of what i think when i was so excited to work on this is the dark conversation about the color of surveillance. so very briefly if you care about the issues to collaborate.

many of which represented here today working on this issue. if you go on twitter to the twitter account i will give you the list reach out to crypto and matthew and to the color of change in the center for media jockeys. with their working together. follow equal justice newsletter. aclu. stopped lapd spying. if you want to come to more of these events justin

google georgetown privacy center. i am thrilled to see so many of you here and i want to pass that over to the professor but before i do that the open society foundation and all of those at georgetown on behalf of the facilities and this was a lot of work. and for all the people that made this possible. >> i so lucky to work with him.

[applause] professor paul butler will close us out. [applause] >> i want to send that out with a bit of hope that the professor had in her presentation the 45,000 is a number of stop and frisk n.y.p.d. conducted in 2014. those that they have conducted is 600,000 so they went from 600,000 in 2012 to 45,000 the professor is absolutely right that is way too many. but it is also a better.

so what happens? with four regions like this and activism like this. so if we stay in touch and stay connected to come together to argue and to strategize we can create change. i just want to go out the first song my mother made me learn was we shall overcome. with this new civil-rights movement is a little more rambunctious. [laughter] but like we shall overcome overcome, it is optimistic. let's listen.

♪ ♪ ♪ [applause] ♪ ♪ >> so professor she sees a beautiful crowd and a diverse crowd is engaged in the beautiful struggle. with beauty and diversity

and if we work together we will be all right. you're all invited to the reception outside. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> they have a specially

powerful positions. >> the president said when you're dick cheney's voice you hear mine. >> i often think about the way that it did in my watch but none of them could make the constitution and to work with congress i have been a member of the house tenures shortly after i was elected vice president. with the chairman ways and means committee.

but you know, you will be the president of the senate but we thank you as a man of the house. and the ways and means chairman at that time looking all away at the lincoln memorial and the other one that we had went write-up. out to the house floor. and we can have either one of those officers but partly

because they know that aggravated him. [laughter] covers six years we control the house. natalie on the senate side and went down to the west wing and disabled to work with some logjams on top. and now was based on personal relationships.

v

m dash ability so i have learned maybe i was an athletic set was just so focused i told the reporter is my skin color was an issue that was not mind

[inaudible conversations] if

[inaudible conversations] spread the committee is called to order ambassador cnn congratulations on your confirmation for your continued service to our country the luxor to working with you in this capacity. we're looking forward to hearing your thoughts today j.p. california and to remain skeptical there is also a bipartisan frustration that previous

commitments made by the administration are not with reality. secretary kerry tells us the ballistic missile test stays in place to testify before the committee the exact same language and we challenge them when they have that called upon language to say that we can to the agreement that is very concerning and now the european friends say that was a consistent and steady state within violation to support the position that was very disappointing it is a violation of u.n. security council resolution with the called upon language would violate the u.n. security

council does not view that that way from what we have been told. that we could get some type of access you like to get your insurance we did have a very good call yesterday that it i was assured that was not the case then this morning secretary kerry is on a television program as acting as if that is the case and we will find accommodations but i felt reassured yesterday we were not returned u.s. dollars to help them outside of the agreement but yet this morning it seems that secretary kerry indicated that we were. whether or not the administration has sanctions authority i begin know it is

bipartisan support for the jpcoa. the president clearly stated to take steps if we need to push back harder. into a desire to purchase all types of weapons that increase of up bush back is necessary so we can know what the administration is thinking regarding these matters. thank you for your service i am glad you were confirmed in the timeframe you were we appreciate you being here. and now to our distinguished ranking member. >> thanks for convening this hearing on the jpcoa

implementation date of two you very 16 if we look at how we looked at that era. they give for your continued commitment to our country you hold that position as enforcement with the jpcoa and other activities that iran is participating. it is clear to me we need to work together in regards to make sure everyone fully complaisant -- complies with the jpcoa and look at other nefarious activities mention being of ballistic missile test it did ballistic missile tests that were clearly in violation that

was out of compliance with the security council resolution whether a formal violation that is being debated internationally it is clear that those types were supposed to end and they have taken action throughout the middle east to have conflict and with the financial support of terrorist groups and violent militias committed to the path of sectarian violence to take action as the chairman knows where the senate was not in session as

the senators join me when i spoke at length with the israelis of the security cooperation and i witnessed this first hand visiting the iron dome. it is a real project that saves lives with the israelis are working with the united states in regards to the missile defense system. is very important and i expected to hear that from the israelis but when i was in saudi arabia i heard similar types of concerns for gulf and they're all

very concerned and then we just saw in today's articles in to support assad regime the cease-fire does not appear to be holding with a delicate cease-fire will yield results and there is concern what iran is doing typically that has bolstered the capacity including the patriot missiles shutting down the scud missiles and then i visited u.s. troops stationed of the combined

operation center. with the dedicated men and women. to go against isil so i saw firsthand the impact of the region. and with the unity to have the role to make those challenges more difficult. i vaguely have to talk so we can most effectively deal with these challenges. i oppose the jpcoa but to see aggressive oversight to make sure there is strict compliance in regards to the nuclear obligations.

and with those activities that are continuing the support with the ballistic missile test and to give a stronger hand to these types of activities from continuing. and to accomplish the mutual objective to raid in iran's activities with ballistic missile violations and human-rights violations. >> linda you have been in before in the past if you can summarize your comments will probably read your written testimony but it is

centered into the record. >> it is the pleasure to be here following my confirmation. it is our pleasure to be here to talk about u.s. policy towards iran. i will summarize the remarks i have admitted officially. but the first is the intent to insurers iran adheres to that jpcoa and is not develop a nuclear weapon and with the ballistic missile program and also working diplomatically and with respect for human rights.

iran has taken end steps that have changed the trajectory of the program. and to get that fissile material for a weapon if they choose to pursue that path. any attempt to do so is the attempt of the international community. with the key jpcoa commitment to the united states and european union of the nuclear related sanctions on iran. they retained our ability to step back should they walk away from the jpcoa but as long as iran continues to meet its commitments they will continue to meet our commitments. of we are encouraged i want to emphasize the jpcoa did

not resolve our differences with iran. we remain focused in determined to address those differences to take all necessary actions with ourselves and allies. and to the rebels in yemen with the core interest depots fundamental threats to the region and beyond. . . cooperatively with our allies to deter and disrupt iranian threats. this is why we increased security with the gulf cooperation and have provided additional assistance to israel. further more, we continue to coordinate with our coalition partners to to interject

throughout the region. are a threat to regional and international security. while full implementation of the jcpoa will ensure that iran is unable to develop nuclear war head, we will continue to use all available multilateral and unilateral tools to impede the development of iran's ballistic missile program. our human rights policy has not changed as a result of the jcpoa. iran violates fundamental human rights by restricting civil liberties and including peace, assembly and religion. human right related sanks are not subject to release under jcpoa and we continue to enforce these things. while our concerns about iran are substantial, we believe it's in u.s. national interest to address issues where we can and

make sure that iran is hearing publicly and privately what we stand for and what we won't stand for. we will continue to hold iran to commitment about the whereabouts about robert levinson and will continue to raise unjust detention of citizens. the congress plays an essential role in shaping our policy and posture toward iran. the legislative and executive branches should continue to work together as we did to build international pressure on iran to calibrate our approach to counter iranian threats. i look forward to consultations with progress as we strive to find the right balance and we keep lines of communication open and standing strong in face real threats. again, i thank you for the

opportunity to testify and i look forward for your questions. >> we appreciate it. thank you for your service. tell us what is going on with the dollar transactions. officials don't know where those rumors were coming from and i thought that last night who was very reassuring that we are doing nothing to accommodate dollar transaction. the president state that on friday and yet secretary kerry was on television this morning acting as if we were doing something. what is going on relative to us accommodating their ability to use dollars in transactions?

>> the rumors and news that appeared in the press that the u.s. is preparing to reinstate an authorization or allow iran access to the u.s. financial system are not true. >> why would secretary kerry said the things he said this morning saying that we need to accommodate their ability to have the economic growth that they thought they would have under the sanctions relief if. >> what the secretary -- the point the secretary was making is that as iran attempts to access money that is being made available to it, through lifting of sanctions, that there will be instances in which we have had to help iran access the money by clarifying the regulations under which money can be transferred to them. we have found that as iran seeks those funds, that are banks that are unclear about the nation of the regulatory structures and

what sanctions have been lifted and what have not. and the secretary believes that it is in our national interest to ensure that the commitments we've made are being followed through on. this is part of a larger engagement that we've had with the iranians on different aspects of our commitments, both the commitments they've made and the commitments we have made. >> so the dollar issue is bogus? >> as of this moment, as far as i know, yes. >> the person in charge, i know he's acting, i hope he'll be permanently put in that place, i think in my opinion is very good, he told me, there was some concern that there was a little bit of a wink and nod that we were saying to institutions, just know that in spite of what the agreement says, we are not coming after you for this. you know of no instance or no one urging or secretary kerry, treasury department to turn their head relative to the black and white agreement that is before us relative to this

issue. you know of no incidents of that? >> i do not. but again, the point the secretary was making is that we have commitments under the jcpoa and we need to live up to those commitments and ensure that the iranians are receiving for what they have done what they believe we have committed too. and what the secretary has been clear about and what secretary lew has been clear about is ensuring that iran has assets -- has access to the assets that are now open to them. >> well, i just -- i don't think the administration is on the same page, and i think there are some people that are invested in this and developed relationships and i think are trying to bend this in a way that will benefit iran. i hope secretary kerry and the president and azam zuman will end up getting in the same page. i guess if we acted to codify

that those things would not occur, that would be consistent with the administration and that would not be a problem, would that be correct? >> by codifying if you mean not authorizing u-turns or not authorizing access to u.s. financial system, that's already present. >> we could codify and iran would not consider a violation? good. we will attempt to do that. on the ballistic missiles, you know, i pointed out testimony from secretary kerry, em embassador mall, we knew and the language said call upon the situation would likely occur. i was disappointed that the letter from european partners said it was inconsistent and didn't say there was a violation. obviously there was words missing taking place. would you have any problems with us codifying, putting in place some sanctions against them for

clearly in our opinion violating the agreement as the administration explained to us the agreement said? >> thank you for the question. a very important one, and as i noted, we remain oppose to iran's ballistic missile program. and we believe that we have both multilaterally and union laterally the tools to attack the missile program and do whatever to interdict technology that iran is seeking to advance its ballistic missile program. we believe that we have the necessary authorities now and we continue to designate entity that is are supporting the ballistic missile program as we have done in response to iran's several ballistic missile launches. in regard to potential legislation, our only concern about the legislation is that it

does not interfere with jcpoa implementation or give iran any excuse to walk away from the table. at that point, we believe that we can address the punitive side of iran's ballistic missile program with the authorities we have, but also we are as i noted in my opening remarks, we are very intent in helping our partners in the region from iran's ballistic missile program. we are going to ensure, not only delay and deter missile program but we do to support others to defend themselves. >> well, look, i think the majority of people up here whether they supported the agreement or didn't support the agreement were very concerned about the call upon language and we saw assurances because we knew call upon was very different than what had been in agreements in the past and unfortunately we are where we are. my sense is that most people

here want to take some action against that whether they support it or not. let me just ask one last question, and by the way, i'm disappointed that what the administration said didn't come to fruition and i'm disappointed for our country, i'm disappointed for all of those who are counting on this agreement to deter that type of type. russia plans to sell them su-30's, you know, do you consider this a violation of the growment, i know that it's not a violation until they actually do it, i know they've entered into discussions and may not come to fruition. i think it likely will, but if it does, do you consider to be a violation of the agreement that we have with them? >> are you talking about the missile? >> no, su-30's.

>> we would block the approval of any sale of fighter aircraft under the restrictions. >> so if we decided to take action here just to ensure because the assurances we've had, haven't worked particularly well and we are getting mixed signals right now about the dollar transactions. if we were to take action here to make sure that that could not happen without additional sanctions, you would not have a problem with it? >> sir, it's hard for me to tell the united states senate how to legislate, but i would just say that -- that the sale of this kind of aircraft is prohibited without the approval of un security council and we would not approve it. >> thank you so much. with that, senator cardin. >> thank you for your explanations. i want to follow up with the questions of senator corker of how the united states senate and

congress can help to achieve our objectives. i think the oversight of this -- of the congress will be helpful in making sure iran does not become a nuclear-weapon state, but as we discuss storing debate on the jcpoa congress and the administration has full abilities to deal with those issues not covered under the jcpoa. so when chairman corker asked you about certain congressional action, i would be very clear, i will not support any congressional action that is out of compliance with the jcpoa because i think i think that would not be helpful by the united states congress. but where i disagree with one of the statements you made, i'm not going to allow iran and your statement that we don't want to

give iran a reason, iran has used interpretations that are far beyond any reasonable coverage of what's in the jcpoa. so i would urge us to be very careful as to how we interpret the jcpoa. we will use the international standards but we will not use an iranian standard. so i want to bring you back to how the congress can help. we are an independent branch of government and i remember very clearly the testimony before this committee when your predecessors secretary sherman gave a similar answer like you did, we don't need congressional action, but congress did act and we did strengthen the iran sanctions' act and it was, i think, partially responsible for bringing iran to the negotiating tables and was helpful to get a

stronger agreement because congress did take action even though the administration had the ability to take action on its own. so there are two areas that i want to get your view on, one is the extension of the iran sanction's act that expires at the end of this year, that action, the administration has taken action under the waivers in order to implement the jcpoa, but having that has a backstop as we go beyond 2016 would seem to me to be critically important for u.s. leverage to make sure iran complies with the agreement. so i just want to make sure of your view if congress takes action to extend the iran sanction's act whether the administration would look upon that consistent with jcpoa and the appropriate actions for an independent branch of government. and the second point i want you to respond to is what chairman corker talked about and that is

the ballistic missile sanctions that have been posed by the administration under executive order basically, not under congressional mandate. it seems to me that ballistic missiles which are not covered under the jcpoa that the united states would be in a much stronger position if we had congressional sanction authorization in law, and as i said, i never met an administration that they never think they would do without the congress, but having congressional authority to impose these sanctions, i think, gives us a stronger position. so will the administration work with us on legislation to both extend the iran sanction' act and provide congressional basis for the ballistic missile sanction that is are being imposed? >> thank you very much, senator.

in regard to the first question, my understanding is that isa expires at the end of this year. our view is that we should not be in a rush and we should begin to understand how iran is meeting its commitments under the jcpoa, and based on that, that will give us a stronger idea and feeling for what a renewed isa might look like. but i can tell you that we would be happy to engage with this committee and the congress on renewed iran sanction's act, again, assuming that it does not complicate or prevent us from meeting jcpoa commitments. >> in regard to the statutory authorization for sanctions against iran for its ballistic missile violations?

>> again, we are oppose to iran's ballistic missile program and we are going to do everything in our power to delay and deter it and to protect our allies. as noted and as you noted, we believe we have the authorities to do that and we believe we have acted responsible to ballistic missile, but, again, we would be happy to talk with this committee and this senate about what that legislation might look like. >> i thank you for that. i just urge you to go back and take a look at the congressional record from when we passed the sanction regime in 2010 and look at what has happened since and how absolutely essential it was for congressional action in 2010 to lead to where we are today which the administration is pleased with the jcpoa.

2010 was a major in establishing that. we are -- this administration has nine months left and the jcpoa goes well beyond that. i would just urge you to be aggressively working with us to set up the appropriate statutory framework to make it clear to iran that we won't tolerate ballistic missile violations and it's not just a president, it's the united states and the congress working with the president that won't tolerate that type of activities. let me move onto just one other issue if i might, just very briefly and that deals with the issue that the chairman raised on the russian participation. how does it complicate the enforcement of the jcpoa, the fact that russia is preparing to give missile defense support to

iran? >> as you know, the russia has been in the process of selling s-300's to iran since 2008 and for any number of reasons has not done so, the purchase has not been finalized and the delivery has not been made. there was a press report indicating that russia is preparing to move an f-300 system to iran. the s-300 is not prohibited because it's a ground to air missile and considered a defensive weapon system. >> i understand that. >> nevertheless -- nevertheless we have made it very clear to the russians that we consider this to be a bad move, that we consider it to be destabilizing and not keeping with what we

have been trying to accomplish not only through jcpoa but broadly in terms of our engagement with iran. >> well, i would just take a one step further, it seems to me that a missile defense system modernization from russia to iran makes it much more challenging for us to deal with the security concerns of our partners in that region, so it ups the anny for the united states and very much takes us to a new level of what we need to do. >> thank you, no doubt a missile system would do that and the sale of fighter jets which is a sale that russia is looking at, su-30's would complicate. senator perdue. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just got back from a week in the region and a common consensus from four heads of state is that things have gotten

materially worse and not better in terms of domestic security in terms of foreign countries that we visited. but i'm a little confused particularly with comments coming out this week and i would like to get you on the record, embassador, about the un violations are not violations, but in december, embassador mull in this committee state that had ballistic missile launches would be in violation of resolution 3231. we have seen the missile firings and this week american diplomats submitted a joint u.s. says that the launchings are inconsistent with 3221 but not a violation. for the record, do you think the baa ballistic sis mill launches are in violation of resolution 231? >> thank you very much, senator. from our point of view, un

security council resolution 2231 prohibits bhirran from launching ballistic missiles. the language in 2031 is different 1921 as you know. 2231 calls upon iran not to undertake any activity designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons and in international parliaments, there is a distinct here be without a difference. 2231 is telling iran that it should not be undertaking any activity related to both ballistic missiles and that's how we act. in other words, we responded to the ballistic missile launches with designations and we will continue to respond. >> so we responded as if it were a violation? >> we did. >> so you think it's a violation? >> violation is a -- let me put

it this way, i believe it violated the intent of 2231. whether our international lawyers will say it violated 2231, this is why we use the word inconsistent, but from our point of view the launches are prohibited and we will do anything we can to stop them. >> on the sanctions that we put in and i agree with the administration and i also agree with ranking member that it would have more teeth if it were congressly sanctioned, 11 individuals were named, but it was interesting that transportation companies that were involved in the delivering of these technology were not included, the financial partners were not included, members up and down the supply chain weren't included in that, it seems to me that if we wanted to stop the activity we would pull sanctions on the full supply chain from a to bk you speak to that -- about the omissions of those major players in the supply chain? >> since 2010 when un security

council resolution 1929 was approved by the un security council, i believe that we have designated over 27 entities and people that look not only at those providing equipment but also those who are facilitating the provision of equipment. i would be happy to talk with you about specific individuals or entities that interest you and respond to that question, but i believe we have been focusing not just on providers of technology but those who facilitate that technology or provision of that technology. >> thank you. i'm also concerned about the liquid assets that are now available through the jcpoa for iran and what they're going to be doing about that. the administration when they were supporting jcpoa before its enactment were adamant about ensuring that iran would not continue to subsidize hezbollah,

can you ensure what is being done to assure the people of the region are being implemented? >> let me answer this way, in regard to the money made available to iran through jcpoa, we assess that iran has access to about $50 billion scattered throughout banks. >> that's pretty much cash? >> if they can get it. >> there's another asset that is are liquidateatable. >> i'm not sure. there was a $100 billion in overseas accounts. >> right. >> but that about 50 billion of that was already called for either through financial commitments that iran has made through contracts or because of other aspects of the financial

instrument that is are being used. but that the money available to iran is about 50 billion. but again, it's scattered throughout international financial system and held at different banks and therefore has to be accessed and over time, and this is something that we have been watching closely. and this is what the secretary was -- secretary kerry was refer to go when he said that there are times when we have to clarify our guidelines in regards to sanctions so that iran does have access to moneys that we have commit today make available to it. in regard to whether or not iran continues to fund terrorism-related activities or destabilizing activities in the region, there's no doubt that that's true and we are seeing it. whether it's in syria, whether it's in lebanon, in hezbollah, whether it is in yemen, with what they are doing with the

hudi rebels and we continue to do what we can with authorities given to us through iepa and through other legislation and through executive actions to -- to sanction when possible and to counteract the activities of iran in the region. >> thank you. real quick. given the increase activity that iran is showing in the region since the jcpoa, can you give us an update on the memorandum of understanding with israel relative to the military assistance there. i know it doesn't expire to '18, i believe. also given that iran has continue today make antiisrael statements even putting death israel on the missile that they have been testing, i think this is really important that we -- that we reassert that support for israel in light of this increased activity. can you give us an update on the mou?

>> we are in the process of negotiating the nou with the government of israel, looking at how best we can continue to meet the defense needs of israel as it faces the threats posed in the region, some of the most significant being from iran since the beginning -- since the beginning of the administration over $20 billion has been provided to israel in defense spending, including $3 million to help finance the missile system. >> over what period of time would that be? >> over the -- this administration, eight years. >> eight years. >> yeah, and i can get you that kind of the latest data of our negotiation with the mou, but it's a constant theme of our engagement with israel. >> continued to have the military -- quantitative military edge that we have past in the? >> correct. >> thank you.

>> thank you, senator menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have the greatest respect for you and i've supported you in your role as embassador and i've supported you in this role. it is with that respect that i have the following statement, though, i am seriously surgeon as i listen -- having the tv on and listening to your answers about statement that is suggest that we have to watch what we do because we don't want to have iran walk away from the table. well, this administration led by the secretary of state before this committee after question after question said very clearly that we were free to pursue all other actions of the iranians that are against the national interest and security of united states outside of the nuclear portfolio, and so i see all the cautionary remarks all of the time, i see all of the caveats,

i don't understand them. i don't understand them. i don't understand when the president himself in remarks this weeks said that while iran may have followed the letter of the agreement, they have not followed the spirit sending signals to the world community that is of a serious provocative actions and among that failure to follow the spirit, the president himself acknowledged launching ballistic missiles repeatedly calling for the destruction of israel and shipping weapons to hezbollah. not my comments, the president's comments. to that i would add a status of state sponsor of terrorism, acts of aggression designed to destabilize allies in the region, it's illegal detention and des -- cyber-attacks events and i think many of those you

recited in your opening statement. so what bothers me is that we seem to create a permissive environment as the missile issues that have been raised and i want to further pursue with you, we are on egg shells about doing anything else in the whole universe that we admitted recognized is against the national security and interest of the united states. so why are we, for example, knowing that resources -- whatever amount it is, is in part doing to fund these very activities that we acknowledge collectively is against national interest? why are we, for example, when the president says we are not going to use dollars to do business with iran, which is good news, goes onto say it's possible to work through european financial institutions which ultimately tranceact with

the united states and ensure that u.s. regulations do not deter companies from providing insurance coverage for iranianian shipping. that's two examples. why are we outside of meeting our strict obligations facilitating the possibilities for them to use their resources in such a way that is against our interest? >> thank you very much, senator, and again, thank you for your support. i'm very grateful for that. let me be clear if i was not in my earlier comments. when i talked about wanting to make sure that actions taken in regard to sanctions and legislation did not interfere with jcpoa commitments, my purpose wasn't to say that we were walking on egg shells with the iranians, my purpose is not to say that we are somehow pulling punches or stepping away from -- from firm pursuit of jcpoa commitments or as you

noted, broader understandings of concerns about iran, that's not the case. we just want to make sure that as iran meet its commitments we meet our commitments and we understand what those commitments are, and as we look at iran's behavior broadly in the region, i would agree with everything you've noted. we are concerned by it, we are appalled in some instances by it but we are working actively to push back on it and stop it where we can, whether it is in support for regional terrorism, groups like hezbollah or the hudi rebels or pursuit of missile program, the secretary and the president noted, we are not going to caveat that and we are not going to soft-pedal that. >> well, let me interrupt you. i appreciate what you're saying but specifically, for example,

if we wanted to pull no punches and make it very clear that instead of sanctioning individuals which is like playing wacamol, we are helping institutions that help finance ballistic missiles and activities, that does not seem to be the administration's efforts which we have recognized from the congress that when we sanction financial institutions the broad reach and effect of that is consequential. let's turn to the missile issue. last july when secretary kerry was before the committee, i asked him and i quote, is iran ban from ballistic missile work under terms of security council resolution 2231, the un instrument endorsed the jcpoa and that superceded previous un security council resolutions with respect to iran, and his answer was radder unequivocal,

he said it's exactly what it is today. it's the same language. well, i disputed that because there's a difference between shall and calls upon. and, in fact, it's exactly the same language, if the interpretation was correct, then explicitly prohibits from testing ballistic missiles, why would the united states and european allies not push for the toughest language in the letter that was sent to the security council, why not call it what it is, which is a violation? which is it? is it a violation or did we soften the language in such a way that permits exactly what iran is doing now? >> the language used in the letter was that iran's launch was inconsistent with un

security council 2231 and not it was in violation of 2231. again, i would argue that this is a distinction without a difference because we are convinced that 2231 prohibits these kinds of launches that there is a strong international commitment -- >> well, if that was the case, why did we not use the word violation? if we believe that it's prohibited, why did we not use the word violation? >> i'm not an international lawyer, sir. >> okay, so let me close on this. you're not an international lawyer. i'm not an international lawyer but i was a lawyer before i came to this institution and i understand the difference between call upon and shall. and there is a fundamental difference, and finally, i would say to you that as the chairman and the ranking member have discussed, the iran sanction's act, it needs to be reauthorized

now because otherwise we do not send a very clear message to iran that if they violate terms we have something to snap back to. the administration sat before this committee and the senate and said, well, we can snapback, well you can't snapback to something that doesn't exist at the end of the day, and so again, worried about iran will do seems to have frozen us and the suggestion that the senate should be frozen as well. i hope the senate will not, mr. chairman, and on missile sanctions which i think should be pursued particularly on financial institutions on this question of reauthorizing the iran sanction's act among others, i would urge the chair and the ranking member and i have legislation, i'm happy to engage with the chair and ranking member onto do some of this because i think we are headed in the wrong direction. >> i couldn't agree more. i just think that there's an issue and that is the most of us don't want to let aing inial --

let a national security waiver be entered into an agreement. if we can get past that issue, we can end up with strong bipartisan legislation. you were working on venezuela and other issues which we appreciated your efforts there, but this called-upon language was a message to us that we were going to wink and nod on this issue and give the other countries the ability not to enforce and that's why many of us were concerned, while you were working on venezuela, we were concerned that we were given away leverage that on the front end, iran would get relief and we would be on the egg shells that senator menendez mentioned and all of a sud tennessee administration would be concerned if we pushed back, they might walk away since they got everything they wanted on the front-end. so just know that you're resiting, you're like exhibit a to why there was so much concern about the agreement and the

things that are saying today. senator braso. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we all agreed with you we oppose of what's happening in ballistic-missile testing, we want to do anything to delay it, we just question if that's happening with the administration. i don't believe it is. i think that the administration is not doing all that it can. i look at the recent sanctions, senator mend ease mentioned playing, can you tell us here today that those recent sanctions are actually going to change iran calculus and have impact on missile program given that they have done testing in october, testing in november, march last month, two days of ballistic-missile testing. >> thank you very much for the question. iran is intent on pursuing ballistic-missile program. it sees it as not only part of its larger strategic weapon's

program, but it also plays an important political role in iran specially in the aftermath of the jcpoa. iran lost on the nuclear issue, their intent on doubling down on the ballistic-missile program. so we can expect more launches, but in that regard, we are very intent on doing everything we can to deter and delay that program and at the same time work with our partners in the region to ensure that they can protect themselves and that it becomes clear that the strategic weapon's program that iran has continues to politic cait its existence internationally, continues to call into question how it behaves internationally and it becomes increasingly less relevant as our partners and our allies increase their ability to protect themselves. but since 2010, if i have my numbers right, we have designated over 27 entities and

individuals related to brazil -- to iran's ballistic missile program. and we will continue to designate individuals and entities as we determine their role and not only in response to ballistic missiles but also as redetermine which entities and individuals are playing a role also in facilitation of technology. >> i think what you're hearing here is is that congress believes that congress needs a stronger backbone and legislation to allow you to accomplish the goal that you've had to delay and deter. with regard to the russian sale to iran, it came up earlier. requires approval of any sale, major of combat systems to iran. for russia to sale su-30. the combat, helicopters, just to

clarify, with -- will the united states veto with such a sale at the un council? >> yes. >> can you talk about how the sales of the system contemplated that they're talking about, could affect the balance of power in the region? >> are you talking about the system -- >> yeah. at this point -- >> su-30's or s-300's? >> the 30. >> fighter jets. >> obviously we have no interest in iran having enhanced either fighter air fighter capability or ground combat capability and any weapons that iran can use offensively, we would see to oppose in whatever way we can. >> i want to talk about the tear in the -- terror in the area.

continues to threaten with ballistic missile testing. it appears that the administration could be afraid of iran threatening to pull out of the nuclear deal and might risk ties with the united states. you read the journal this weekend, more dollars and the latest administration could have been predicted from every previous u.s. copitulation. what other sanctions relief beyond what has been committed at this point? >> i think it's important to note at this point that the way the jcpoa was structured, it's

really iran that gave everything up front as opposed the united states. it's iran that poured concrete into heavy water reactor and because of this as i noted in my opening statement, we have been able to push back iran's breakout period in pursuit of a nuclear weapon from a few months to -- to over a year, and as we continue the -- the implementation of jcpoa, we believe we are in a very strong position to ensure that iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon. that's a huge accomplishment and it's an accomplishment that this senate can take huge pride in as can the executive branch because we have had to work together in pursuit of that both true sanction's authority that this legislative body authorized and through the diplomacy that we were able to fashion, built

around that kind of legislative authority. but as we look into the future, we are intent of meeting our commitments period. we are not intent on providings -- providing additional sanction's relief and intent of jcpoa. >> just to get this clarified, what i heard from the chairman is that many of us believe it's the administration that gave away everything up front. you're testifying today, no, no, it was in fact, iran that gave everything up front? >> indeed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator cain. >> i want to repeat an element of your testimony and do follow up on page two. iran has taken steps that have fundamentally change it had trajectory of nuclear program, simply put the jcpoa is working, cut off all of iran's pathways

to develop a nuclear weapon, this has made the world safer and more secure. that is your testimony. i don't need to ask you about that, it's for the record. i was interesting that there is now starting to be public comment by israeli officials that might be somewhat different but essentially making the same point. the israeli chief of staff is the equivalent of head of joint chief of staff in january, the nuclear deal with iran contains quote, many risks but also opportunities, the israel chief of staff said monday. speaking at the conference at the institute for national security studies, quote, the nuclear deal with iran constitutes a strategic turning point compared to what idf faced over the past decade. long-term assessment, quote, iran will make great efforts to fulfill the side of the bar gabe

and enjoy the benefits, however, iran will continue to see as regional power and after 15 years when the terms of the deal expire my turn again toward expanding nuclear capabilities. in the meantime the deal reduces threat to israel because it rolls back nuclear capability and deepness the monitoring capabilities of the international community into, the tehran activities. israeli officials say to us privately, many of us have seen anonymous reports from israeli officials publicly or have seen reports from former israeli officials, general venny after the deal was done in september. a better deal may have been possible but also acknowledged the final agreement success in putting off a nuclear armed iran for at least 10 to 15 years. diplomacy had prevented war from breaking out.

it is israelis who have been the moe focused as they should be to some degree whether this deal would work or not. you now have the former chief of staff, equivalent chief of staff and immediate predecessor saying that this deal will prevent war and will stall nuclear deal for 10 to 15 years. it's validation of the point that you make on page 2 of your testimony. let me now ask this, if that is the idf, current idf head's position about the deal, three of the five individuals currently running for president of the united states, two said that they should rip it up, one said the u.s. should withdraw from the deal. based on your testimony and the stated public position of the head of the israeli military,

talk a little bit about what it would mean for the united states a loan among the nations that negotiated this deal to rip up the deal or back away from it? >> thank you very much for the question and thank you for highlighting the comments of the chief of staff. we would agree with him completely. we share that assessment, we believe that through jcpoa, iran has given up its ambition of a nuclear weapon and has submitted to an international structure of intervention and compliance that allows great insight into the nuclear program and will, if complied with, create a program that is exclusively peaceful. that is our purpose and our intention, that is the intention of the international community.

in an environment as conflictive and combustible as the middle east, making sure that a country like iran does not have a nuclear weapon has to be a strategic goal of most importance. and we believe that we have accomplished that. we would argue that any effort to step away from jcpoa would reopen a pandora's box in that region that we do not think could close again because it would highlight an inability of the united states to maintain a continuity and when we accomplish what the u.s. congress has been seeking for more than a decade, which is no nuclear weapon in iran, hypothetically if we were to contemplate stepping away from

the jcpoa, we would not be followed by our p-5 plus 1 colleagues. quite the continue -- contrary. this would be concern of our p-5 plus 1 colleagues, but most importantly to assert that we were an unreliable and they need to return to nuclear weapon's program with greater urgency. >> isn't it in the interest of the world that we keep everyone's eyes on the iran activity instead of the u.s. tactics? >> as i noted and as you noted,

we are very focused on what iran is doing and it's very important in our diplomacy and in your engagement with partners that we highlight where iran steps out of bounds, and this is what the president was referring to that the iran was not complying with the spirit of the jcpoa. the spirit was one of engagement, highlighting the peaceful nature of the nuclear program or the ambition of creating a peaceful program, but what it is doing elsewhere indicates otherwise and therefore our ability, while we implement the jcpoa and while we consolidate this important strategic accomplishment that we continue to highlight and focus iran's bad behavior in terms of regional activities, in terms of support for hezbollah, in terms of the support for rebels and assad regime, its support of

terrorism and ballistic missile program it's a center piece of how we are going to deal with iran. >> thank you. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> if i could, i know that we worked together. i think the types of efforts that legislatively people are looking at are not inconsistent with the jcpoa, i just want to restate that comment. it's to push back on those areas. an agreement could bare the fruit that would make sure it's not violated and i think that there's those issues. in addition to that, the activities in the region, and that's where the focus legislatively is not to counter the jcpoa but to make sure that it's enforced and to push back on other activities that are destabilizing the region. senator rubio. >> thank you, thank you for being here. so i want to go back to this issue to access to the dollar.

i saw a recent example cited in the blog and i wanted to get some pretty clear understanding of how this would or would not work, so the example that was used is a swiss company that sells a product of any kind oh to iran. i think the president and everyone has been pretty clear of what they're not allowed to do, they're not allowed to go to a u.s. bank and then the dollar to swiss bank, that's pretty clear and that's been outlined. but here is what i want to get at and that is an alternative mechanism and i want to understand whether or not this alternative mechanism is allowed or not under this agreement. the way it would work under this scenario is the u.s. would allow u.s. bank to provide dollars to a none u.s. clearing house somewhere overseas. what would happen is iran would pay a european bank in reals. the european bank would then exchange those reals for euros and would then go to the clearing house and swap the euro

out for a dollar, bring the dollar back and exchange the dollar for swiss franks and pay that to the swiss company. is that sort of arrangement something that would be allowed under the agreement? >> i'm not sure. i would have to check because if it doesn't touch a u.s. bank, if it doesn't touch the u.s. financial system, because what our sanction's legislation has done and what we have been able to accomplish in terms of limiting iran's access to our larger financial system is we have not permitted u-turn authorization. in other words, no exchange of dollars inside the the u.s. financial system and we have not allowed it access to our larger financial system. but i do not know -- again, i'm not a financial expert here. i would have to check with

treasury. i do not know if what you described is authorized. >> well, do you know if that kind of mechanism was discussed as part of the negotiation. in an interview today, secretary kerry implied that iran deserves the benefits of the agreement they struck, is there within that agreement some sort of understanding with iran that rewould be -- we would be helpful to them even through a one-step remove process like the one i've outlined? >> we believe that we met those commitments. my understanding of the secretary's remarks is that we have worked with u.s. treasury and with banks to clarify what sanction's relief is and what banks are allowed to do in order to avoid any kind of punitive action on steps that are not

permitted under the jcpoa. my understanding is that our efforts to ensure that iran has access to asset that is we have commit today release to them is really about ensuring the banks understand how that money can be accessed. it is not my understanding that there's anything beyond that. >> has the department of state received instructions from the white house or has the department of state in anyway signaled to treasury that it needs to search for ways to allow that it doesn't impact u.s. bank? >> i have not received that instruction. >> the fundamental strategy, by allowing a u.s. bank a general license to move this money offshore it is in essence allowing them access to the u.s. dollar, it's not technically happening with the united states per say, but we know what that money is going to be used for, to provide liability protection to the u.s. bank, but the only reason why that money would be

moving to an offshore entity, clearing house so that iran can get access to dollars. i think that's an important point we need to get clarity on. i guess it would be from treasury. but that sort of mechanism has never been discussed from congress from my understanding and it is, in fact, this agreement we have never been notified as well. what i'm trying to get -- the core of it, you're saying that your testimony here today is that that's not the case but was there ever a moment or is it part of this agreement that we would somehow help iran get access to dollars in some way that did not violate the need to deal directly with the u.s. bank, and you've said here today that you're not aware of being part of this agreement or conversation in anyway? >> again, i did not take a part of the negotiations of the agreement but my reading of the agreement indicates otherwise. >> one more point on access to the u.s. banking sector. this is not just about punitive action. it's also the fact that

irrespective of the nuclear program, they posed a hazard because of laundering activities. has iran taken use for other elicit behavior? >> my understanding is it's much more careful about which institutions it uses but it still is engaged in money laundering activities that we attempt to block and stop. >> all right. thank you. >> good. so if i could since there's a minute left. i think it was the money laundering and financing that put these restrictions in place in the beginning and that is still occurring and just my observation is that secretary kerry and or others within the state department that spent a lot of time on this agreement are trying to find a way to accommodate iran.

my sense is treasury at this point still has held firm and hopefully they will, but i do think it's not congruents in the administration level and i'm glad pressure is being applied that we not try to accommodate and iran only gets which was negotiated, which to me was too much and we try not to make the agreement working for them specially when they're violating the ballistic-missile testing. ..

additional relief from us financial sanctions as an obama stated restrictions would remain in place and that iran's difficulties in doing business abroad with its own aggressive actions. this morning secretary kerry reiterated that they deserve the benefits of the agreement,agreement, but if they want to capture the broader arrangement the need to change aggressive behavior. rather than changing any current rules that restrict access the pres.president suggested that the treasury department clarified a foreign financial institutions the kind of activities that are permissible under current restrictions, what kind of changes we would have to see with respect to muscle

development, support for terrorism and human rights violations before we would consider changing restrictions iranian access to our financial system. >> they have to stop. i mean,, in terms of sanctions that limit trading access to us financial systems, this is related to a whole series of her any behaviors that we find reprehensible. but what you said at the beginning is important, but the president and secretary make clear that while we will meet our commitments, the ability to benefit economically and financially from the greater openness to the world depends not just

on the lifting of the sanctions that the environment creates inside, 1st to attract businesses but also to establish the degree confluence as iran engages generally within the larger international community command as long as iran behaves as it is with terrorism and regional destabilization there will be a natural prejudice against some aspects of economic and financial sanctions. engage behavior that that helps to give the united states the ability to relax sanctions on access to the financial system. >> yes. >> in addition to imposing sanctions comeau one of the great opportunities that is provided is to raise the

standards of the overall military regime. i recently joined senators in writing a letter detailing a number of steps the administration could take to do that. one of these would be to expand the worldwide application of the additional protocol that provides the iaea with enhanced inspection rights including the right to inspect the country's entire country's entire fuel cycle and to conduct of our mail sampling the undeclared facilities. their on-site additional protocol in 2003. the jcp away has agreed to implement in full. what steps have been taken to sign and implement additional protocol back. >> thank you for the additional protocol and the iaea points. the commitment by iran to

apply additional protocol and ultimately accept fully additional protocol is a huge deal. and indicates that the iaea will have enhanced capabilities to measure and track iranian compliance, not only with the jcp away but this is a huge concession on the part of her on and one that is viewed with concern around the world. and so committed to the additional protocol is much of what we are trying to do. it is something that my colleagues at the state department working on to address and we will continue to do so, and it is our hope that in this regard iran's willingness to accept additional protocol should

be seen as a point of reflection. >> another step the administration could take to strengthen would be a ban on the production of fissile material in the middle east under the terms of the jcp away from a rating interest beyond the 3 percent threshold. expressed a willingness to extend the restriction to his neighbors. what steps is the administration taking to discourage any additional countries from the middle east from engaging in that kind of effort? >> i think the jcp away itself is a powerful reason for countries in the region not to develop their own capability because they are not facing a threat from iran to nuclear weapons at this point in time.

but continuing in our regular engagement, regular security to begin to identify and understand the security threats and vulnerabilities that are partners face and to help them find ways to address without approaching a nuclear threshold. with the gulf coordinating council secretary kerry will be meeting with the gulf coordinating council in bahrain at the end of the week. >> of the administration is encouraging all states in the middle east to not pursue uranium enrichment? >> anywhere we can. yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. i want to clarify remark that was made earlier.

i believe that came in response to your exchange where believe you said that iran was the one who gave up everything up front. i think perhaps another question-and-answer, senator, you mentioned that there on a givena given up its ambitions of the nuclear program. what did you say? >> i want to go back and check the transcript. my intent was giving up its ambition of a nuclear weapon. >> you believe iran has given up its ambition nuclear weapon? >> at this point the jcpoa, as implemented, prevents iran from achieving a nuclear weapon. >> at this point. do you believe that iran is testing ballistic missiles with the hope of someday putting a nuclear warhead on it? >> this is one of the reasons why and especially about the capability or

design to watch nuclear weapons, but the jcpoa as implemented today and overtime will not allow iran to develop a nuclear weapon. should -- >> today are over time. >> correct. >> the counselor countries degrees. >> how many of our allies in the region agree with you? >> i think at this point they would agree given what has been done in terms of tearing down. >> leadership in saudi arabia and qatar. >> they have given up their ambitions to nuclear weapon. >> testing a ballistic missile for the conventional more it on top. >> i don't know.

i have been in saudi arabia. view them as a real danger in the region. and they view them as a danger for a number of ways. but. >> if i may, do you believe they are testing a ballistic missile in the hopes? >> that was the purpose. >> is it no longer their purpose? >> you know, it is not the purpose if they can achieve a nuclear weapon. >> the my with a testa test of ballistic missile? >> it is a strategic weapon system that can carry different payloads. >> indeed. >> this is important. if the administration is so concerned about ballistic missile they have given up their ambitions for nuclear weapon, do they believe that they would like to -- do you believe they continue to

test of ballistic missile in hopes of putting a nuclear warhead on it? >> i understand the point. i would just agree we are opposed to the program. >> i understand that. >> yes or no, do you believe iran hopes to prove that their weapon on top ballistic missile? >> at this point know because they can't. >> i think the conversations i've had with allies in the region no one believes that have given up there nuclear weapons ambition. and i think that it is important to address this outrage over ballistic missiles. we have to put in a measure of responses in order to prevent them from continuing to test of ballistic missile command i don't believe they are testing it just to show that they can do it. they are doing it with the purpose of developing a

nuclear weapons program. they talk about at the end of his 12 year period, a short amount of time to indeed possess and develop a nuclear weapon. that is with the leaders in the region will tell you. secretary kerry said in the letter in september to the senate, the full measure of us response would be effective if iran continues to push. i don't believe that we have done that. do you think we have done everything possible to stop the testing of ballistic missiles? >> within the authority we have been given, we have. this is an evolving situation, and as we determine -- >> within the authorities we have been given. what authorities are preventing us from fully and effectively countering? >> the authorities we have under sanctions authorities

are being used and being used effectively. >> by effectively the main stopping the ballistic missile program? >> no, but it has deterred and elated. proliferation. iran has an indigenous capability that we cannot affect on the short-term, but we can limit and delay to build out the ballistic missile program and gametime through that to work with partners to ensure that they have the capability to defend themselves and that we have the capability. >> let me get this straight, by the continual testing of ballistic missiles we believe that is a delay of the ballistic missile program? >> considering what it would be, yes. it is not where we want to be, obviously, but iran

seizes ballistic missile program as an important part and will continue along this route. we need to make sure that it does not get there on fast terms. >> you believe that our sanctions efforts have been a success or failure? >> it has been an effective tool, but it has not been a complete success, obviously not. >> april 4, the uae ambassador put out data. it is now clear one year since the framework for the deal was agreed upon they have accepted this has an unfortunate reality. the must intensify actions to check strategic ambitions. have our allies expressed similar concerns?

>> yes. >> of reacted appropriately in response? >> we are working closely with our partners to ensure they have the ability to defend themselves. >> iran sees the agreement. >> outlined some of those. >> as i noted in my testimony, what iran is doing in syria and lebanon, what it is doing in yemen a destabilizing actions are significant we dangerous to our allies. we are responsible. by working with allies and partners and enhancing their capability to defend themselves, looking for ways to build broader diplomatic connectivity and allow them to push back in a significant way.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i think this is an important part of the testimony. i know you are new to this particular division. for you to stay, you know they will continue to do the ballistic missile testing. in clear violation. space to the fact that certainly we don't need to be accommodating, but we should be punishing them for violating the intent, and you mentioned the need within the authority we have. i assure you that on a bipartisan basis if you guys feel you need additional authority, we can pass it out of your very quickly. i think it is unsatisfying to listen to that line of

questioning and for you state you know they will continue to violate. it we have the secretary of state acting as if we need to accommodate them. >> thank you,you, mr. chairman and undersecretary. it is nice to have you here finally. i want to continue some of the questioning around the ballistic missile program because i was interested, the us response of the program last week, we blacklisted to iranian companies for supporting the ballistic missile program for sanctions to british businessman for helping an airline that was used by the iran revolutionary guard and france is also suggested they could be unilateral european union sanctions. as we know one of the reasons for the sanction regime to get us is because

the international sanctions that really work together to put pressure on. so can you talk about how realistic it might be the europeans to put additional sanctions on over the ballistic missile tests? >> thank you very much, senator. thank you for that question. i know that our european colleagues agree with us on ballistic missile testing. if you as a danger nota danger not just to the mission but to themselves. and for this reason we are working in concert with them in response to ballistic missile tests. it is why they joined us. and writing a letter to the un security council

highlighting the recent ballistic missile tests. so they are partners that are effective and important in implementing the sanctions regime. and i believe that they will work with us to attempt to address the ballistic missile launch issue. it would have to have a larger discussion with them about what an enhanced sanctions regime might look like, but they were at least be prepared to have that discussion. >> secretary general of nato here this week. is there a role given that the ballistic missiles pose a potential threat? is there a role in thinking about how we should respond? >> i am sure that there is. i am not capable of delineating except that it

will be related to how we work the defense systems and the protection of nato countries, which we do already. >> i know that whenever iran has launched a missile that there has been activity to try to condemn that and that russia has really been the obstructionist in many of those cases tower taking stronger action. so can you talk about what other actions we might feel to take the counter will rushes doing? >> well, been engaging with the russians regularly on this for several purposes. first, in order to try to

ensure we have coherence and cohesion as we address jcp away implementation in any other activities that are dealt with and in this regard we have a difference with the russians. and so we have been engaging with them at many different levels to try to find a way to address that. we have got a commitment from the russians in terms of wking to prohibit the transfer of technology to iran's ballistic missile program. and on this very trying to ensure that they stay firm command at this point they are.

>> the russians are helping on that front? >> they are in the sense that they are complying with their commitment not to transfer these kind of technologies to facilitate the transfer. >> thank you. >> i want to switch topics little bit to the iranian elections and ask what our analysis of the state department was back in february and larry think there is any room to believe that reformers the beginning support within a ran and whether those reformers are actually doing anything that is going to moderate the iranian stance with respect to actions in the international community. >> an important question. the elections are still in play.

and so it is our 1st to give global understanding our estimate of the impact of those elections. however, if we just look at what happened in tehran and the extent to which reformers kind of swept the board in terms, i think it highlights the fact that he is intent on opening up to the world and addressing the fundamental stumbling blocks has resonated in a positive way. it is not easy for us to determine the impact that will have on how iran behave strategically. iran is a mix of conflict of entities in groups with hardliners aligning themselves with religious leadership and with the security leadership to prevent reformists for

moving too fast too far. part ofpart of the work of the supreme leader is the balance forces inside. but it is our hope and intent that as we pursue the jcpoa and as iran begins to connect to our colleagues in the european union and elsewhere, the positive impact is going to help political effect, and it is important to understand that iran faces a huge demographic population, 60 percent is 30 years old or younger. in other words, they were born after the revolution and have lived in a sanction society. and their ability to connect with the larger world is going to become a big factor inside of iranian internal politics.

it is our hope that that will lead to some changes. >> do we see any connection to that? >> at this point we do not see a lot. and that is because there is a political struggle going on. and in moments like that the tendency is for human rights abuses to go up. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i appreciate deeply you making it possible for us to have this hearing today. ambassador, thank you for your testimony. broadly speaking, i continue to be glad that iran is taking critical steps to restraints nuclear weapons

program has mandated to limit its ability to quickly develop a nuclear weapon, and i applaud the administration for sanctioning individuals and entities and 20112013 and then pleased to work closely with our international partners. and i urge the continued thoroughness and figure in the enforcement of all the different mechanisms we have for preventing the iranians from continuing to project power in the region, but i remain deeply concerned that iran continue to expand its influence and increase support for proxies. the missile test contradict its commitment command i think demonstrates that the nuclear deal will not change iranian behavior in the

short run and remains unready to meet the obligations required a responsible member of the international community and remain disturbed iran continues to flagrantly violate the rights. so i believe that if we fail to hold iran accountable for these actions and failed to respond to violations of even minor ones, that the viability will be in jeopardy. why commend the administration i encourage that they continue in the you enhance the implementation of the nuclear accord while we continue to work together on a bipartisan basis to the vigorous pressing back. let me start with a question about iaea funding. iaea officials have

expressed concerns about the reliability for jcp away enforcement activities due to possible donor fatigue over the long run. in a visit i made it reinforce those concerns. does the state department agree that these are significant concerns in the failure of the iaea have appropriate personnel deployed? and do you believe the us should make a significant proactive and long-term investment to meet requirements? >> the short answer is yes. the longer answer, we are grateful for the gal report. we believe the iaea has the resources to address its

responsibilities in terms of compliance verification. but weverification. but we continue to look for ways with our partners to enhance resources and funding. what we are asking is quite remarkable. it is an important organization to begin with in terms of nonproliferation security and safety, but we are asking to take our role so intrusive and interventionist that it will be groundbreaking in many ways. much can be done technologically, but much will require inspectors on the ground, and this will require special funding and training, but we are working with our partners to ensure

the resources are available. we will have a conversation with this congress to discuss in greater detail where we think additional help would be important. >> thank you. my strong impression is that the iaea is a thorough, cautious, professional organization. they are simply being responsible and not leaping forward, but that is not what this moment calls for. the opportunity for searching intrusive inspections, and nuclear inspectors take a while to train and deploy. one other question, earlier this month the un issued a report showing the number of people executed skyrocketed.

in your testimony you highlight this. a tool to potentially draw attention and punish human rights violations. do you believe the authority should be expanded in any way? >> one of our biggest, i noted the three areas of concern. one is human rights. and what it means politically going into the future. when it comes to sanctioning iranian people and entities comeau we believe we had the authority.

we are happy to engage in a conversation with this committee about what more we can and should be doing to address these issues. >> i see my time has expired. i had the chance yesterday to meet the ambassador to the united nations. he made it clear partial block, and i think it is incumbent on us to work closely together to ensure that we take greater action to strengthen unilateral sanctions, and i am concerned about the ongoing debate about the possibility of wider access to the us dollar. i am determined that we make sure that iran and its

efforts to expand its reach in the middle east and support terrorism and finance terrorism. thank you for your testimony. >> i just want to make a comment about us leadership. obviously it will be deferred to have the security council take action it would also be preferred that in addition to us actions we have our coalition partners including beyond the jcpoa. very helpful. but we have seen it over and over again. take a very strong stance. it is difficult to get that type of attention internationally. we did that recently in north korea. it is a strong bill strong message.

so just make a couple of comments. you mentioned human rights violations. we see an uptick on what iran is doing. we should have a strategy to respond. working with congress to show that we are serious about holding the the various actions accountable. it seems to me this is a relatively easy matter working with the administration to have a statutory framework that goes beyond anyone administration to make it clear. perhaps even adding to un sanctions. i would urge you in the strongest possible way to not only show willingness to

work but to help us, the appropriate legislative response to the realities today command today we see that they are violating the missile obligations, violating international human rights and supporting terrorism. beyond the nuclear responsibilities which i said earlier. let's not be bashful about the need for us leadership in the congress has a critical role in it and you can help us. there is a common agenda but a different attitude in the state department. i think people play an important role bringing us

together. a strong statement getting us to pass legislation. >> thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity. >> you understand it is acceptable for yes or no. yes or no, is sanctions against ballistic missile tests a violation of the jcpoa? >> no. >> sanctions against financial institutions that are financing weatherby ballistic missile tests of the financing of terrorist activities in violation? >> no. >> reauthorization of the iran sanctions act in

violation? >> not that i am aware of. >> i am sure you are aware have been investigating assumptions. the gal observations monitor verify requirements limited analytical capabilities and limited budget operating at capacity and lack of authority and the tyranny of dichotomy.

is a pretty profound how does the iaea communicate potential violations to the joint commission or individual parties kind of a flagged activity. >> thank you so much. the iaea is a central part. as you noted, the demands are going to place a very special responsibility on the iaea, also very special demands that will require

the iaea to transform aspects of the structure and behavior we are prepared to make sure that it does so in a timely fashion. they communicate with the joint commission and the members of the joint commission and the variety of forms. the regular reporting requirements. it also engages with us individually on compliance and it is in a position to identify aspects of compliance that need further attention. >> my specific question is how does it communicate potential violations of the

agreement and have a flag any activity is a violation? >> they are not flagged violations. they a flagged issues in which they're is not a complete understanding between both parties and because of that working within the joint commission and working with our partners in the iranians have been able to address. teeseven trying to get the process here. >> well, it is a two-tiered process. formal reports in the joint commission members engage regularly. that is the reason we do the meetings. and -- >> let me ask you, you said

that they were an interpretation. have there been instances of questions of compliance outside of the dispute resolution mechanism? >> these were issues that did not raise to the issue of dispute. we noticed certain activities that we felt were not in compliance. so, there is -- so those wouldn't -- because if there was a dispute on something it would be more formal and everyone would know about it. the way you describe those issues is rather informal, no one knows where they are.

>> i have to remind you specific ones. >> let me ask you, if an access issue arose when they still get access within 24 days? >> i'm sorry, but they -- >> access to the joint commission, when they still get access within 24 days of any members disagreeing on significance, some might say it is not worthy of having access. with the iaea still get access? >> my understanding is yes. >> even if members -- >> yes. >> and finally, how we will the iaea and a pair, working

group no that exporters are going through the procurement channel? other consequences, penalties, failure to go? >> of the material is being -- is on excluded lists answer is yes. philip the state department. and if any of them need to be modified. interested in facts. >> reconsider your answer. there is a joint commission

vote that has to occur. the iaea can be denied access. i know you are somewhat new to this. i do not think you answered that question appropriately. not intentionally, my senses you will need to correct that. >> none of those are got your questions. new questions raised. >> and i just want to get a definitive answer so that we understand. we need to know what the state department's view is. that way we can think about it. >> i appreciate that. >> and i think that was one of the concerns, the period leading up to the 24 days. and i do think you might want to restate your answer. >> i just would like to say, i know the senator has questions about the

election. which i appreciated. and you know, the fact is, i think he was still observing whether iran is putting on a moderate image or whether the policy will actually want to change. the number of people being executed for human rights violations, the things they are doing in the region to destabilize seem to have been on the ascendancy sense these elections are taken place. relative to the agreement and that is understandable. i don't think a single person today said that they wanted to lighten up.

i don't think there was a push. i may have misunderstood, but i but i don't think that's the case. we want to make sure it is adhered to. i get the sense the secretary kerry got the no the minister well. the developer relationship. maybe so with ronnie. i get the sense that there is a desire by the secretary to accommodate, to bend, to make this work more in the agreement states it should. my senses there are other parts that are countering not. i think the president is someplace in between, but i don't think you heard today from this committee any desire to provide flexibility. making sure that we push back in the appropriate ways because there is a sense

that over time the will to adhere to this could erode. we thank you for your testimony. remain open until the close of business thursday. i know this is a hearing. some of which you are familiar with, some of which you are not. >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]

>> federal reserve chair janet yellen been burning key kamal and greenspan and paul volcker in a discussion on decision-making. >> i was friendly. >> when you hear dick cheney's voice year mine.

>> i often think about why. i think it had a lot to do. >> the personal dynamic. >> shortly after. >> chairman of the ways and means committee. president of the senate. there going to have analysis -- in office on the senate

side. the chairman at that point, one facing the west front. huge office. they gave me my choice. background in the house. [laughter] >> but control the house in

office not only on the senate side but also able to work from that position. but is really all personal relationships. >> former vice president dick cheney's entire conversation at pepperdine university law school is tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> live every day with news and policy issues that impact you.

they join us to discuss the increase in minimum wage he will also look at whether or not americans are sufficiently saving for retirement. he sure to watch washington journal beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern saturday morning. join the discussion. of the >> and joining us now is scott paul, president of the alliance for american manufacturing. joining us to discuss the state of the manufacturing sector react to the most recent trade members. good morning. >> good morning. >> thank you for joining us. >> it is a pleasure to be with you. >> let's talk about your organization.

>> well, a partnership between the united steelworkers union and some domestic manufacturing partners.hington, wh it is unique, as you would imagine. business and labor working together on common public policy goals. mission is to nonpartisan, been around for nine years, and our mission is to develop smart public policies that was strengthen the opportunity for americans to have factory jobs. >> give us an overview of what you think the state of manufacturing and trade is? >> it is a good question, and as always, the truth lies somewhere in the middleest. are there some who say there is a manufacturingth resurgence and a lot of jobs that is not necessarily the case. others say that

manufacturing has been completely destroyed. if you look over the last year, the news has been chanty shaky. that has been buffeted by massive changes in china. the dollar is overly strong which has an impact on our ability to export. manufacturing job growth over the last year has been week. we lost about 30,000 jobs. >> did you take it back? like at we have added 840,000 manufacturing jobs which sounds like a great number commanded is a pretty long streak of manufacturing job growth. during the great and manufacturing is manufacturing is really the only sector that has not gained the jobs recovered about 160 percent of the jobs. it has been adding jobs.

manufacturing only recovered reg about 40 percent of the jobs lost, and the real challenge is for american manufacturing which is always been very cyclical. started with the onset of china coming into the world trade system. at that point since thatut time the united states has shed about one 3rd of its manufacturing jobs. and so that is obviously something that is helped a lot of communities.ues as we heard in ohio and wisconsin and other places these issues keep coming conversati >> we are talking to scott paul for the alliance for american manufacturing. viewers can add to the conversation by calling in. lin) we have a republican line. our democratic line. our line for independence.

and we also have a special line if you work in manufacturing. we want to hear from you.47 let's take a look at the numbers. it widened to 47 billion in february.bruary. up 2.6 percent from january. the 1st increase since september. a drop in oil imports. an increase of 6.2 percent. >> a lot of people. it translates and the jobs.

the trade deficit is a primer it means we're importing into the station more than we are exporting. this happens from time to time. we were importing a lot of oil. but since the onset of global competition we have seen the trade deficit go up products that used to be made for this market are being made overseas.it some of it is the value of the dollar. on the dollar stronger it makes our exports more extensive. a strong dollars a great deal for a tourist.

for firms that do exporting it is a real challenge. we also faced an array of competitors that are supported by the government. mila massive trade deficit in the country of china where the state is heavily engaged and subsidizing and protecting its firms, and it is not really run on a free market system. the trade deficit with china alone is on an annual basis over 360 billion a year, which is an exceptionally mindnumbing amount, but it means that a lot of stuff wes used to do here is now being done in china. that is where you see the impact of manufacturing unemployment and why it has been steadily declining since 2,000. >> what can happen on the american side? talk about the factors in china that increase the deficit. what can be done here to

stem that increase? >> this is a good question because some people step back and said this is a natural process, but it is important to note that public policy plays a keyys role in a couple different ways. first, monetary policy.licy to r ever since the 1990s they have had a policy to keep the dollar strong. there are benefits to that, dolo but one of the drawbacks is it makes exports less competitive. so if we have a more competitively valued dollar it would probably help. secondhelp. second was trade policy. continue to try to open markets overseas because it is true 95 percent of america's customers are outside of our border. should me we still have the richest and largest consumer market in the world and should make access condition him playing by the rules. we have a number of trade partners who do not necessarily play by the rules.

and finally, what can we do domestically to strengthen our competitiveness? we need to make sure the tax code encourages jobs coming back to the united states.there president obama has taken action, but there are other things we can do to encourage capitol investment. we need to make sure infrastructure is in good shape. dramatically impacting the competitiveness of manufacturing and infrastructure, when it a strong investment. of we also need to invest in the skills and training our workforce to make sure they are modern. it used to be a manufacturing job might not take much more training than a high school degree. that is not still the case. .. opportunity to be skilled, to get the training they need to fill these jobs. host: we are talking with scott paul about manufacturing and trade.

our first call on our republican line is from rick in ohio. am i saying that right? imports >> wide we import all these tools of the back of the package they allowed cancer in the lead in their tools which to start making tools here in the state controlled by epa policies. >> it is a good question.ink rit and that points out something that is frustrating to a lot of people you see a lot of recalls from made in china products. the system for regulating the health safety standardsit at is not the approach of the united states or western

europe. channel lock or snap on from the chinese competitors better aided by the fact they're not necessarily complying with the same regulation that we take for granted as protecting consumer safety and the environment and they also a received subsidies from the government. and som it needs to be a priority of congress and the white house to push back and unfortunately i think there is a reluctance to do that that has had an impact on the choices consumers have hardware to tollways the and clothing. >> host: talk about howef current manipulation.

>> currency manipulation is a tool that some governments use to make their exports more competitive the way it works is a central government that will intervene in its currencyinterve that it is not necessarily by buying up ble. for the foreign reserves from the treasury bonds of the united states and japan with hundreds of billions of dollars of u.s. debt and another signal is that country is running a persistently high trade surplus. and again mckenzie those that have tried to do that. but this matters because the

imf to which they belongdoing t. they say you should not do this. but unfortunately it is dependent upon two things. the administration in the currency manipulator. there is a lot of criticism to be shared. under the domestic trade laws you can violate tradely case in the form of tariffs with a lot of different unfair trade practices but you cannot do that foris currency manipulation. it, there is a lot of support but unfortunately we have almost gotten over the

hurdle a couple of times. the la the one that is held back. >> talk about the trade manipulator if they do designate a country? >> is designated as the currency manipulator will trigger negotiations with that policy geared toward correcting that behavior. if the country did not come into compliance the reason this matters and whether countries are intervening. instead of pushing back so

you can see that frustrationnk coming through a lot. without starting a trade war.f and we had to wait until lot of damage has been done and then it comes much too late to to stabilize and grow jobs back. >> host: with the alliance of american manufacturing about a major factoring and trade. also allow the council with afl-cio. the next caller is from maryland. >> caller: good morning.

i am calling from the classroom we have this ine the classroom of prince george's county. my students are learning about the great depression and. and a the response of herbert hoover. t with a terror fact hallowed is that helper hurt the american economy? that is my first question. second, my students are newly arrived immigrants to the united states. they have heard a lot of talk from donald trump how united states is beat up with foreign trade. could you. [inaudible] the candidates with john

kasich and what he did with the ohio deficit with the impact of terrorists.idate who is the best candidate. >> guest: thanks for the question i am glad your students are learning history through the lens of current events as well. there is a big musical on broadway with 225 years ago on a report that they had discovered more the they dependey war. they depended on france forr the smuggling.

so hamilton had a vision or there was no tariffs it would not be too high or low but just right to. internal development. and then with the flow of recently arrived immigrants reay that didn't become a reality ha but the terrorists have been a part of u.s. policy for a while.aul as through the economist has said the impact of the accelerating the deep recession is overstated. and they have studied this more than anyone else.ing for

am not calling for 45% tariff like donald trump or anything like that. but just with the examplea tradn there is a trade case on steel that is working its way through the system now. adm and attempting of these tariffs and over to represent that sounds like a lot. interve and those intervened that save harley-davidsonid motorcycles and was facing competition from japan and also with a grand bargain on currency. so even in modern days you see the use of tariffs for economic purposes.we are non

and we are nonpartisan. we will say we are glad the issues are being raised the way donald trump has raised them doesn't do anybody a service.reasons why with those economic reasons to change the trade policy a couple of degrees. and hillary clinton had a manufacturing roundtable in upstate new york talk about trade agreements if john kasich is the governor of a manufacturing state and ted cruz fifth off has beenno particularly helpful on these issues how he would

stand up for american trade policy for the blue caller worker. but that is something of voters are demanding.ctually it is changing policy oncewh they get into the white house. >> host: the democratic line go-ahead. >> caller: are you there? >> we will move ahead. wisconsin on the independent line. what is your question? >> caller: what if they just eliminated the corporate income tax on manufacturing? and as time goes on to be

applied. on an and to eliminate the corporate income tax. >> it is an interesting question. to completely eliminate those corporate income-tax it is an incredible revenue stream. in global with the manufacturer's average global competition in the unique way that says retail stores are not. but not necessarily you have to let those right incentives for the work force you can do that with the tax code and the right incentives to modernize to make it more efficient through the tax code.

the broad based tax cut most of the benefits would go toto wall street or the retail sector that doesn't faze this kind of global competition and. most of the rest of the world has the value added tax that is refundable live not suggesting it isn't a model but that there is no discount in the tax code where every other nation the exporters get this type of hescount. they can be eithe deficits

they could be either depending on the circumstances. again, and trying to do so with the power that let the united states get its way for international politics. int >> how the workers are used as leverage against other foreign policy goals. and to mitigate the nuclear goals. so be but not push back as hard on trade policy. unfortunately that is born on the backs of our workers said to have seen that uprising with political revelation -- revolutions and has done a lot of steam and a lot of power.

exportsficits are one thing that net exports a fancy way to say the surplus is of the gross domestic product if we have a deficit than the economic growth is not as high as it should be. if we balanced our trade accounts by investing more in energy domestically, that would boost exports the also bring imports down a littlett bit the advantage is struggling to get 2% growth right off the top is between three and 4% there is a lot more people getting jobs and accumulating wealth.s of

th the benefits right now accrue mostly or to the foreign policy goals to more than anything else wanted good paying jobs right now. >> the call comes from the republican line. in ohio. >> caller: ratio. i wante what areas of manufacturing a will be promoted in the united states in this latest trade agreement? question. >> guest: that is a great question and i will explain that the trans pacific partnership that is a free trade agreement with united states in 11 other countries including several others.

with japan and vietnam with that economic scale perspective. this agreement has been reached is still needs to be implementing legislation and there is a raging debate. and that he opposes that. and that he supported that. but look at the potential benefits for manufacturing are limited outside the high-tech sector. with the analysis used by the administration to make the case, did the analysis

done with the pro free trade think tank. there could be some positive benefits that is a couple of ticks of the gdp point. but for many factories specifically day estimate the tpp would increase the trade deficit by about $55 billion edward cost first 120,000 now 220,000 bin new factory jobs. because t that is precisely because these are the countries that have mercantile policies outside trade agreements to make it difficult to export or import. their conclusion is even lose a lot of manufacturing. jobs.

is this worth pursuing if there is a thai economic benefit? with a pretty big challenge for manufacturing. >> host: talk about manufacturing from other carsries. the second big expansion announcement performed in mexico in one year. to outline the 2.5 billion investments with 6,600 jobs in the country over the next few years. >> i know that has been in the news. industr the auto industry has been a bright spot of manufacturers

since the end of the great recession. the auto bailout actually worked. and the detroit three car companies stabilized and they have made a lot of investments in united states and hired a lot of workers but selling a lot of cars because people were holding on for a long time. especially larger cars because gas prices are low. he can get the interest rate on a new car it is a great time to borrow. when it comes to locating production because there is less of a margin of a profit margin the primary competition is a japanese

city and. even though it has risen in the last couple of days it is going down and down for no other reason, thene japanese automakers make more money per car than of the detroit three car maker so they have shifted some of the production to mexico. overall there is still lot of investment in the sector but i do worry about what's this all replacement and we do need to find ways to make it competitive.

but it isn't a simply a factor of wages being less. with some policy chefs we to make industry more competitive. >> georgia go-ahead. >> caller: i think the policies building products for america 90% of the stuff that you buy today will not last one year. my wife has a brand-new car and the shifter fell off. it just deteriorated within

five years. that should not be.spond. gues >> guest: he raises the consumer paradox americans love the bargain. everybody likes to thinknk they get a good price at the store. the purchase is often satisfying in the short term. i got a great deal.something so this is something we all face to get a great bargain now or pay for something that is a little higher quality to last longer. so there is a lot of complex consumer behavior. so that immediate gratification that everybody

wants that is why we have quarterly earnings reports. i will get their for the blue light special or the deal but if you invest in quality will spend less probably over five years if you buy a pair of shoes that cost $10 they will fall apart if it is 100 with a lifetime warranty they will cost more money but but don't know that is uniquely american but something that everybody struggles. >> are there other factor to compete in terms of cost? >> for consumer goods if you go into a big box door looking for consumer electronics.

good luck trying to find an american aid project. there is a cost differential that makes it difficult to manufacture in the united states. i'm not someone that says we have to make every thing here but we do need global trade but there are some artificial a vintages that affect that competitiveness.ent. there is the big differential that requires lower skilled labor. it is hard to compete with that right now with the race to the bottom with u.s. wages but there are some other factors that we discuss that our government could address.

. .