analytical point. it's important your point is critical, expand the options. if every problem is -- if you only have a hammer, then every problem is the proverbial nail. that's the way we think about things. there's no question. but we also can't forget the other piece of this. >> i would like to continue to follow up what you ask. it is very important. we all speak about the nuclear project. there is another project. this is development of ballistic missiles which can deliver it today, today, deli, moscow, athens are inside the range of the iranian missiles. the next stage of development, which may take another two

years, most of western europe will be under this range of missiles. so if you ask me about implication, the leverage of the nuclear blackmail will apply to many important countries. if you remember, the clear ambition of the regime is to be the defender. you can imagine what leverage the ambition to defend muslims will have. now i want to address another point, issue of enrichment. you take discussion to the very technical issue of enrichment. the problem is not that we are beyond this point and why. the amount of enriched uranium is very high now. what the regime prepared is a

huge number. ahmadinejad says 9,000 of centrifuge. how you produce material for a bomb, spinning quickly as many sfli centrifuge as you can with the largest raw material you have. the issue of enrichment is actually beyond because they need between six months to a year to a what they have and to turn it to a military grade uranium. that's the point. they are beyond it. the issue of they cross the threshold of enrichment to a point they are in a very short distance from a bomb. so the issue is not the technical problem of enrichment but where this regime is leading to, what strategic goals. the long-range missiles, the

bomb. that's the question. it's not a seminar on nuclear physics. it's about geo politics and the fate of nations. and israel is not the only one. the gentleman mentioned the gulf countries. the gulf countries, bahrain, uae, they are under threat. fortunately we have the ability to confront this threat but we are not the only ones. >> quick response. >> tiny one. this has turned into a seminar of fuzzy physics. at the end of the day if you're focused on the intentions, you are left either with bombing or an ability to monitor and verify what they are doing. as president reagan said when he signed the agreements with the

soviets, he talked about trust but verify in the case of iran, which is mistrust and verify. but in the absence of any verification, you have no way of being able to make any real judgments about the intentions of the other side. even if you bomb -- this is the other thing. we talk about a military solution. that's quite a charitable way of describing it. it's the best military option. it's not a guaranteed solution to receive that title. even in that case in the previous situations we have had, all that it has done, it has doubled and tripled the exact designer you pointed out, which is to get nuclear deterrents. the administration made it quite public in the last couple weeks, if there is military action we're more likely to see a nuclear state in iran within two years than we are if we continue on the path of trying to find a diplomatic solution. >> may i ask a blunt question, almost a personal question. you are the chairman of the

iranian american association. what is your opinion about the regime. >> my opinion of the regime as i said early on, deeply repressive, undemocratic regime. i find it somewhat not convincing to hear that one cares a lot about people but taking military action, imposing crippling sanctions against the country, a pain borne not by the regime but the people. >> i read every single publication of your organization. you are diligent enough to send me by mail, and i am diligent enough tadand i fail -- >> i appreciate it. >> i read it and i fail towhat

recommendation. >> absolutely. >> are against military option. you are against sanctions. on the other hand you say it's repressive, regime. do you think that this regime will voluntarily relinquish power at some point? >> in spit talking point, ephraim, i think i have more faith in the iranian people than you do. i think they will deal with this regime, get rid of this regime and iran will reach democracy. the history of iran has shown when you have these tensions with the outside world, that has repressed and pushed back the pro democracy movement in mor them. their space, in order to pursue what they were doing more successfully in the early 2000s has become almost minimallized as a combination of repressiveness of the regime, further millerization of the regime, which all are weathered with increased tensions with the outside world f israel really

wants to see a democratic iran, rest assured, bombing iran is not going to bring that about, nor bring back the friendship that existed between the iranian people and jewish people prior to the 1979 revolution. >> as i say my first comment, bombing iran is not my desire. i say 1,000 times it's the last resort. for all the reasons i would like to avoid it, if possible. but how you think without sanctions that make iran in -- this regime will be toppled. how it can happen? by -- actually what you recommend is keeping the core regime, offer them more incentive. say at least some incentive for the iranian people, not for the iranian regime. >> if you take a look at what actually has happened, the greatest amount of flux inside

of iran incidentally coincided in 2009 when the u.s. significantly reduced pressure. i don't think that's a coincidence. i think there's a connection between the two. furthermore you're assuming sanctions actually bring about democracy. we have 10 cases of states that had the level of intense embargo-like sanctions that we currently are pursuing on iran. in 10 of those cases, only one, only one has democratized and that was south africa. in the 35 cases in which nondemocracies this transitioned to democracies since 1955 only one was under these form of sanctions. all of the others transitioned in aso this connection of belie sanctions bring about democracy is highly unconvincing because there isn't any empirical evidence to support it. ephraim mentioned something important in the beginning, to pursue policies that have a good combination of what reality is and what we like to see. i think this is turning more towards what we like to see with

absence of empirical support for it. >> we -- >> you need to get into the conversation here. >> i would like to refer to this point, because the bad presidents, like cuba, for instance, like cuba, does not mean that the best bloodless way to bring down the regime is by making it hard for iran -- >> make it difficult for regime, target decision making instead of the people. >> to justify being -- the -- >> i'm not a physicist so i don't understand these conversations.

first of all, from my point of view, with all respect, not about democracy, not about the iranian people, it is about interests. what i'm hearing you saying is i should trust an uncertain process whereby iranians might or might not at some point arise against their government and this will change the equation. in the meantime every indication is the iranian regime is that's my sense. so trusting this is going to change through a more lovey-dovey approach, i'm not sure that's going to work of at the end of the day,e said, therr iran. if you look at iran so far at least in the arab world, support for organizations, you say we're giving too much iran's influence, i would say hamas and others, yes, they would still exist, and yes they would be unfriendly to iran and israel and others but they would

not be as capable without iranian support. today we have other organizations like islamic jihad and what have you that are not beyond using a lot of unpleasant things to achieve certain goals. i personally am for the view have you to push hard. we have a very limited time to act, as i agree with ephraim ultimately the military is not the preferred option. consequence is very hard and very high. the nuclear iran, the way it's going to transform the arab map and regional map and ultimately our interest in the region could not be left simply to let's trust iranian people to change the government. that's my view of this. >> we have time for two -- one additional question, one additional question.

>> i'm the head of the iran delegates of the european parliament. i would like to come back to the question of iranian enrichment. i believe that's the only way there's a diplomatic breakthrough, not a technical question, it's the politics of uranium enrichment. i was interested to hear obama administration has not said zero enrichment. actually many of the other countries have not said enrichment. they still hope. the possibility of compromise. iranians will never accept zero enrichment because they think, and it is true, according to international treaties they have the right to enrich for peaceful purposes. so this is one of the things. the other thing is that rainium enrichment is so much in the iranian identity today that

actually saying zero enrichment would be a suicide for anyone. so there has to be some kind of acceptance of peaceful purposes. this can be done, the inspectors can do it. limited uranium ould israel enrichment in iran as they have the right in the treaty. >> you represent european parliament. for years, the last 15 years, during i think 10 years, the european countries did exactly that. they negotiated with iranian regime about enrichment, about variations. finally they came to the conclusion that the smart

ayatol ayatollah. you call it smart dialogue. all the leaders, french, british, who so advocated that this dialogue, this negotiation about enrich went, they discovered they were cheated. the regime used the time to progress towards weaponized uranium. so there is no sense to go back to this futile talks about enrichment. this is not the case. now because of the sanctions of this administration started to be affected, started to be affected -- effective, now they are asking let's go back to the game of gaining time. no, ma'am.

no. no. the secular and democratic iran let them have all the technologies in the world. whatever they like. not this regime. not this regime. we should despise the culture and values of your society if you don't know it. >> we have come to the end of the hour. please join me in thanking our panelist for a fascinating study. [ applause ] >> thank you all for coming.

the chairman of the house armed services committee buck mckeon joins us to discuss defense cuts by obama administration including decreasing the eyes of the army and marines and the the affect that could have on the military. >> people are just starting to understand how serious this is. i mean, they are just starting to come to grips with the 487 billion that's being cut out of the president's budget that we're dealing with right now, starting into. then you add another 500 to $600 billion on top of that that's just across the board cuts that no thought, no planning, no nothing. in fact, when we have the secretary of navy and the cno and marine commandant in week before last in hearings, i asked them, i said, what are you doing to plan for sequestration. they said omb ordered us to not even think about it. totally

irresponsible. >> mr. panetta did say yesterday that come summer, he would consider planning. >> well, somebody better. in the meantime, i am. >> you can watch newsmakers with house armed services committee buck mckeon sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span. appearing before congress epa administrator lisa jackson defended her agency study of hydraulic fracing and water contamination. they testified before two subcommittees on the the president's 2013 budget request. the epa budget would decrease by 1.2%. also in the news epa's limits on greenhouse gas emissions are being challenged this week in the u.s. court of appeals. this hearing is just over three hours.

>> i'd like to call today's hearing to order. this is going to be a hearing on fy 2013 budget request for epa. we only have one witness today and that's the honorable lisa jackson, who is the administrator of epa. and miss bennett is there to provide additional information if she needs it, which she probably won't, but we're delighted to have you here as well. i'm going to recognize myself for three minutes for the purpose of making an opening statement. this is a joint hearing of the energy and power and the environment and economy subcommittees of the energy and commerce committee. i think it is important we have this hearing because in washington it seems like we do become anesthetized to dollar amounts. when we all do home and we

attend civic clubs and have town hall meetings, people inevitably get upset about the many dollars that are being spent in washington, d.c. president obama's fy '13 budget request for $3.7 trillion. in that there are $350 billion in new program requests or new initiatives. we're going to be focused only on the budget of epa. and the epa fy '13 budget request is $8.3 billion. and that's less than last year. certainly that's moving in the right direction. i might add that i think all government agencies at this particular time when we have $16 trillion federal debt do have to

be cognizant and aware of how we're spending these dollars. as a result of that, i might just pat because last year, fy '12, congress reduced its own budget by 6.4%. and we anticipate an equal amount this year or very close to it. so, on that front, i know epa's budget request for 2013 is 1.2% less than last year. so i'm going to urge them to try to be more like congress on being prudent with these dollars. but, we look forward to this hearing. it's very important and we look forward to exploring in more details, the five specific goals

that epa has set out for fy '13. so, with that, i would like to recognize the ranking member of the energy and power sub committee, mr. rush, for three minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you for being here today, and i want to thank you for all of your hard work. your dedication on behalf of to american people to protect the public health. i do not envy your task in trying do your job and trying to protect the nation's air and water supply and i understand the president's fy '13 epa budget calls for $105 million less than the $8.4 billion that congress appropriated to the agency last year and on top of these budget restraints you have to deal with the constant partisan issues that are going on in congress about the work that your agency does so well in protecting our nation's most vulnerable population. madam administrator, i want to

commend the epa on your recently issued mercury and air and toxic standards. the first national standards to protect america's families from power plant emissions and mercury and air pollutants like arsenic and acid gas, this will protect millions of families from harmful and costly air pollution and pry the american people where health benefits that far outweigh the cost of compliance. it must be noted that the epa

worked extensively with stakeholders, including industry, and others to minimize costs and maximize flexibility before finalizing the standards. as you predicted, madam administrator, some companies are scaling back their cost as a result of the rule. while other regulations have been blamed for potentially causing wide scale plant

retirements, upon careful notice, we see the limited facilities that are indeed being retired, are among the oldest and the dirtiest and the most inefficient facilities, that are no longer economically feasible. so, madam administrator, i strongly support the work that you are doing and i look forward to your testimony and i congratulate you for being at the helm of one of the better agencies in the government and for the work that your agency does. thank you. i yield back my time. >> you'll notice that our clock is not working up on the wall. they are in the process of fixing that. but in the meantime we have this one that is working, and at this time, i recognize the chairman of the environment and economy sub committee, three minutes for an opening statement. >> i would note for my colleagues that the yellow lights go on when you are close

to time. the numbers are not working but the lights are working. i would like to welcome the administrator and mr. rush. good thing we have drilling and fracking that will have us move to the future, without that we could not access the natural gas. i am hoping that epa will not regulate and try to stop the natural gas. your request is for 8.3 billion to fund the epa, i have been quoted that i want to go line by line, but unfortunately the documents that we have been given does not give us an idea of where the money is planning to go and how it is supposed to be spent. hopefully this hearing will flush that out and we will get clarification so we know where the money you are requesting is designed and going. based upon what i see, only 1%

less spending is proposed from last year, with such a minimum decrease from an agency who has been skyrocketing budgets. we are not using our efforts to scale back spending. whether it's clean air, solid waste, disposal, all the programs deserve a complete review. and i hope we will work together to have a transparent look at where the dollars are flowing at the epa. it will help the public to know that we are trimming spending where appropriate and eliminating duplicate programs. equally as important, i'm referring to the billions of dollars that the epa has that will carryover from the prior year appropriations. some of it not obligated why can we find just a billion dollars in savings when we have billions

of dollars that were not spent this year. rather than sitting on the funds, epa should bring down spending requests in its budget or work to spend down these funds. the actions incur public and private cost. this agency needs to know what taxpayers. more important, especially during the economic times is what those actions could mean in terms of the economy. our economy continues to struggle. we need to get on course with certainty.

this will spark american job creators and help develop the conditions important for job creation and economic growth in the united states. these companies want to stay here or come back, they need to be assured that we can balance public health and protection with administrative growth. i thank you for being here today and we will open a dialogue and we will see how it goes. >> i would like to welcome mr. green who is the ranking member of the committee, for three minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thought without the lights, we were going go under senate rules so we can make this go all day. i want to thank you for holding this important hearing on the epa's 2013 budget request. one, it takes care of our jurisdiction with our committee, that all of us are concerned about in the oversight of epa,

this year, the administration and congress will again be forced to make tough choices, the task of choosing which programs to fund, and i understand it's not an easy task. i reviewed the epa's request and i must say i'm concerned that many of the programs are not funded by cutting programs for the super fund program. our 29th district, we have two super fund sites, the waste pits and u.s. oil recovery. the waste pits was added to the national priority list. epa has begun the early stages of cleaning up the site. the u.s. oil recovery site was added to the list in 2011. what i have witnessed, the epa is making great strides in the