5 plus 1. if we reach an agreement that our partners are enthusiastic about, they are able to get domestic support for and congress disapproves it, what happens in that situation? our partners have consented to and the administration has consented to but congress rejects? >> you're putting the spotlight on a fundamental point that's important to keep in mind as a general proposition, which is we're nots the only ones who have a vote in this. it's our partners who are critical to a sustaining and if it comes to that actually increasing sanctions. so we'ringorking to keep them on board has been a critical effort by the president repeatedly over these years. there are several partners, for example, for whom implementing these sanctions is a real economic burden or poses real

burdens. keeping them on board is going to be an effort. so if we wind up in a situation where we reached an agreement that all of our partners believe is in their security interests, our security interests, the security interests of other partners beyond those making the agreement and then that agreement was to be in some fashion unravelled here i think what would result is the sanctions regime that so many in this chamber have labored so hard to put in place, that would likely unravel. implementing additional sanctions, we would be unable to implement the existing regime. iran would be off in that sense potentially scot-free. that's at least a danger we would have to grapple with. >> one question on sanctions. as a potential tool to the negotiating table, consider a resolution from the united states congress stating our

clear intent upon the failure of negotiations to reach fruition to enact the kind of crippling sanctions that we're all beginning a discussion about today. clearly it would be nonbinding, but would put the majority of the senate on record stating our intention to move very quickly and expeditiously with sanctions. would that resolution be a violation of the jpoa and would it be helpful to your negotiating position over the course of the next few months? >> i don't believe it would be a violation, and i think it would be consistent with the approach that we have taken enabling us both to make clear what would follow if theolkñ' iranians do not reach an agreement anz$kyt5ijn n(xzqw÷ at the same time not putting us in position where we risk destabilizing the strong coalition that we built to impose sanctions. so it sounds at least on the surface that that would be

consistent with the approach that we're taking. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> senator johnson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd likqi to thank the senator for switching positions with me here. mr. blinken, just reviewing the security council resolutions, the goal or the requirement of u.n. 1696 was to ask or call for iran to suspend enrichment of uranium. same requirement, suspend enrichment. 1747 state edd that the nuclear program must be verified as only peaceful, and i'll come back to that. 1803, reaffirmed the previous four resolutions. 1929 calls for the halt of enrichment by iran. who or at what point in time did we abandon that requirement? >> senator, thank you. i think what we know is and what

we have seen is that iran has mastered the fuel cycle. nothing we do can do that. we can't sanction away that knowledge, we can't bomb it away, they have master eded it. so in our judgment what is critical to our security and that of our partners is to establish a comprehensive solution that gives us the confidence because of the extraordinary stringent restrictions on that program as well as the exceptional access that inspectors would have that as a practical matter they cannot produce the material to make a bomb. that is the way to get at the concerns that motivated the u.n. security council. >> pretty simple question. when did we abandon the goal of not allowing them to enrich uranium. >> in the course of the negotiations with them, i think it became clear not only to us, but also to all of our partners that iran was not going to give up as a practical matter some

very limited forms of enrichment in the event of an agreement. >> we basically abandoned that, correct? >> in the course of the negotiations and they foresee a final resolution that includes a limited and constrained enrichment capacity. >> mr. cohen you said there's no higher priority to prevent ooin from obtaining a nuclear weapon. i believe this is your quoteñqw# your goal was to guarantee. how can you possibly guarantee they will not obtain a nuclear weapon? >> senator, the intention and i think it's consistent with what sec nar blinken has said is to ensure if there's a deal to be had here that the time line for breakout is such that we would be in a position to respond so

that if iran does not adhere to its commitments under an agreement will be able to take action to ensure that they do not obtain a nuclear weapon. >> there would be military action then. give ourselves enough time so they cannot obtain a nuclear weapon? is that the administration's policy? >> there are a variety of steps that could be taken upon the detection that iran was not adhering to its commitments. >> we have had testimony how expensive it is to enrich uranium and also if you have a peaceful nuclear program, there's no reason to enrich uranium because you can obtain it readily in the open market, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> with that in mind, mr. blinken, you said earlier, you can't imagine the country would the harm to its economy that iran is subjecting itself to. why is iran subjecting itself to

the isolation the sanctions and the harm to the economy if it were not other than to obtain a nuclear weapon? >> i think it's an excellent question. away we believe is they clearly had military aspirations for their program and indeed at least until 2003 were pursuing weaponization activities. one can certainly ask why a country that's so rich in oil resources would need an expansive nuclear program even a civil nuclear program. those are all extremely good questions. here's what they say, and i'm not saying that i agree with any of this. they say they want to devote more of their oil resources to exports and remain energy self-sufficient, hence a nuclear power program. >> again which they could obtain the material on the open market. >> that's exactly right. >> so again isn't the answer obvious that they can make this pain go away tomorrow, end the

isolations, end the sanctions, improve their economy by just suspending, ending, halting their nuclear enrichment program, but they are not doing that. >> that's something we have pointed out to them repeatedly. >> how do we ever have a successful negotiation? how do we ever get a good deal with the regime that's behaving this way? >> so i think a few things should happen, and this is the subject of a lot of analysis and assessments and also this is something we can discuss in a different setting. i'm not vouching for any way, shape or form, but i do think what's developed over time is a sense of national pride about the program, a huge investment ironically, made in the program and a desire to sustain some pieces of it. from our perspective what's critical to our security and that of our partners is if they are going to have a nuclear

power. program it's so constrained, so limited that it cannot as a practical matter be used to produce material for a nuclear weapon and would give us plenty of time to do something about it if they did. >> why does the president of the united states believe he's the sole person that can actually decide whether or not the deal with iran is a good deal or a bad deal for our entire nation? why does the president believe he's the only person that should have that authority and does not believe this is really more like a treaty that would require ratification by congress? >> senator, i don't think that he believes that or that we believe that. as we discussed earlier one of the most powerful levers we have to make sure that iran makes good on any commitments it makes under an acord if one is reach ed is precisely the ability of congress after iran has made. good on its commitments to

actually end big pieces of the sanctions that congress has put in place. that's a tremendous power. congress has to be fully part and parcel in doing this, just as congress was critical to establishing the sanctions regime just as we seek these consultations going forward on the details. at the end of this, the role is absolutely critical. so you'll have a strong vote. that's why we want to keep ending the sanctions to the far end of the process to hold iran to whatever commitments it makes. >> thank you, mr. bg[?)ásp'. >> senator kain? >> i have been a strong supporter of the administration's diplomatic efforts with iran. we all share the goal of an iran with no nuclear weapons and the determination of such intent diplomatically rather than militarily is preferable to everyone. i think the jpoa has been a

success. there are those who predicted it would lead to unraveling. those predicted it would lead to a surge in the iranian economy it didn't. i think skeptics at the origin now realize that the jpoa has largely been successful. with respect to a final deal, i have a series of very2?-4ñ significant concerns. first a deep skepticism about iran. with u.s. has had to position to potentially engage in an evacuation of the u.s. embassy. a very, very serious contingency that's likely enough we have had to position military assets there it. all understand that the effort to topple the government in yemen has been supported and funded through tehran. tehran is basically turned the

assad regime into a puppet state. they have done that in iraq for years. they are currently involved in activities to destabilize the governments of nations as near as bahrain. so separate and aparts iran is engaged in activity today that should make us be deeply skeptical about their intentions. second, i'm worried about the negotiation and the potential consequences of it. the united states was engaged in a negotiation with libya over the dismantling of the nuclear program and they gave up their nuclear weapons. libya is no good example for anything now, but imagine the chaos if the weapons had had survived. we were involved in a deal and it dismantled their weapons program. the united states was involved in a nuclear negotiation with north korea where we asked them to freeze their program. they cheated and they have nuclear weapons now. i want this deal to look more like the deal with libya a

dismantlement than trying to make a deal about let's freeze it it with a nation that has proven to be untrust worthy because if it's only that kind of a deal the end result is more likely to be the north korean situation. iran has made it plain in the course of this negotiation. this is not an negotiation about iran dismantling a nuclear weapons program. it's a negotiation about trying to buy a year of time to have an alarm bell ring and act. we're already going down a path in this negotiation, in my view, where it's more like the korean scenario than the libyan scenario. the number of sent fujs that have been contemplate edd. the enrichment capacity does not trouble me and that could be part of the deal, but it would have to be a capacity consistent only with the civilian nuclear program and not civilian plus a whole lot more and the kinds of

things i've been hearing about the number of centrifuges contemplated in this deal. this is not consistent with a purely civilian program. and finally, the point that was made by senator gardner this is going to trigger an arms race in the region. our allies and others are telling us this. and if all we get with a deal like this is iran agreeing to we'll give you a year before we break out, other nations are going to say, okay i have to be able to have nuclear capacity within a year. they are going to have to engage in those behaviors. if it's just a year we're buying they will undertake similar activity. i think congress has to weigh in on a final deal. i support the jpoa i support the administration's diplomacy, but we have to weigh in and the reason we have to and i understood senator murphy's point, he's right about many such deals, but he's not right

about this deal. because this it deal is fundamentally about one thing on our side. under what conditions will a congressionally imposed sanctions regime be dismantled. if the administration was negotiating about other things and saying we're not going to touch the sanctions regime at all, then congressional approval wouldn't be warrant eded. but there's no condition under which you're going to bring a deal back that doesn't want relief from sanctions. and so since this deal is fundamentally the only lever we have is the sanctions regime effectively implemented by the administration that's bought iran to the table. the only lever is the congressional imposed sanctions regime, and i don't think that while limited waivers were certainly contemplated, i don't think a blanket suspension was contemplate edd by that language. it's very important for congress to be able to weigh in in this deal.

especially given the actor we're dealing with. a couple quick questions. how confident are you for either of you that the united states or can detect nuclear sites? i understand newer and newer it rations of technology are harder to detect. how confident are you and talk about the way you're approaching the inspection? >> thank you senator i can also address the other important comments you made. what we know is this. the access that has already been achieved under the agreement is beyond anything we have had and that's already enhanced the ability of the iea and our own people to have a better understanding of what iran is doing and what it's not doing. any agreement that we reach this is something we can go into in a classified setting, would have to have more stringent requirements still in terms of monitoring, in terms of access in terms of transparency.

can we significantly increase our ability and the ability of the international community to detect an effort by iran to develop a covert program or to break out from its program? i think we can be in a much stronger place clearly a much stronger place if we're able to get the agreement we want, and clearly in a much better place we would be if there's no agreement or if we were in the world. by the way, i should have mentioned earlier in response to several questions including senator markey, one of the other reasons i don't think countries are going to rush to do what iran did is precisely because of the limitations in terms of tran parent si, inspections monitoring that will be imposed on their nuclear program in the event of some kind of resolution. that's something that, again, most other countries will not want to live with because this

would have to go well beyond what's required of other countries. i would just say also very quickly, senator, we share your concerns and the concerns of other members of the committee of iran's actions in other areas. that's precisely why we're vigorously implementing sanctions and taking other actions to push back on efforts to destabilize other countries on their efforts to proliferate and support terrorism. that will not end even if we get an accord with them on the nuclear program. >> senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. the administration was very clear, mr. cohen, and thank you for being here today at the start that the sanction relief would be very limited, but the enforcement would be very stringent. yet in the last six months, we have only had one public announcement of a sanction enforcement action. can you speak to that and speak -- has iran stopped its procurement efforts and attempts to bipass our financial

sanctions? >> as i noted since the jpoa went into effect we have imposed sanctions on close to 100 entities that were related to iran including some just the end of december. a set of individuals and companies involved in trying to assist iran in getting access to u.s. dollars, which remains forbidden. we have had a series of actions taken over the last several months. some in august some previously. we act when we have the information available to us to take the public actions and announce them. that's the tip of the ice burg. we have been continuing to work on ensuring that the sanctions remain in place and remain firmly in place throughout this

period as we were previously. that means things that don't quite get as much attention as a designation action but working directly with partners around the world reaching out directly to companies that we think might be getting close to the line and making sure that they understand the peril that they are courting. so there have been actions well beyond the 100 designations that we have taken that have altogether, i think, resulted in the sanctions remaining in place, remaining robust over the course of the jpoa. and as senator noted there were a lot of people who questioned whether the sanctions architecture would remain in place. i think we have managed to keep our sanctions regime very firmly in place and have managed to

ensure that the pressure on iran from the sanctions that have been developed in congress with the administration, with our partners continued to apply that pressure throughout this period and continue to provide the leverage that our negotiators need. >> i yield the balance of my time. >> senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you both for being here. you know deputy secretary blinken, i certainly share the view that it's important for us to keep our coalition together if we're going to be successful. and one concern that i have is to what extent we're going to be able to do that given what's happening with russia. i wonder if you could talk a little bit about what russia is doing today. there's a notice of an agreement that iran and russia have just

signed and clearly the sanctions that we have taken against russia over ukraine seems like it's going to have an impact on what's happening are iran. can you talk about russia's willingness to be part of this effort and to what extent we're seeing their commitment being reduced or not. >> at least as of this moment, what we have seen in the context of the negotiations with iran is russia continuing to play a constructive role. and i can see how that would be surprising and indeed one of the things that i think was a concern was whether russia would because of what we are doing to impose severe penalties for its actions in ukraine because of disputes over other courses of action they have taken that this would rebound in the negotiations, but i have to tell

you that at least to date as of now, they continue to play a constructive role and they have been very helpful in pushing iran in the direction that it has to go in if it's going to get any kind of resolution. david may want to address anything on the sanctions piece. >> i think we have imposed a whole set of very powerful sanctions on russia. it has, i think, we won't go into great detail here in this setting, but it's had an effect on the russian economy and on i think, how they are perceiving what's happening in ukraine. i think secretary blinken is right. it has not, to our knowledge, sort of bled over into the iran negotiations. >> if you would talk a little bit more about that because one of the things that i thought was

very telling was when russia cancelled the missile deal with iran several years ago and we've got putin, i was in an armed services committee hearing where the former national security adviser talked about putin's comments about using nuclear weapons during this ukraine conflict and suggesting that that might be a possibility at some point. so to what extent do we believe that russia continues to be very concerned about iran developing a nuclear weapon and how is what's happening in ukraine affecting that? >> senator, i think it does share that concern, which i think explains largely why it has been at least again until

now a constructive partner in the efforts to make sure we put in place something that denies as a practical matter the ability to develop material. there have been reports over the course of the negotiations of iran starting to do deals -- excuse me, russia starting to do deals with iran. none of that has materialized and if any other country seeks to evade the sanctions thez.1w treasury department will come down on them as they have throughout this process. there's pressure on russia to look for new markets, new customers, new countries with whom to engage precisely because in ukraine we have had had a significant impact on their economy and on their ability to do business in some areas. at least as of now within the context of the negotiations they remain a good partner. >> if i could just elaborate on one point that secretary blinken illuded to there the first reports of a potential

iran/russia oil for goods deal came up i think in the fall of 2013. at that point, i recall testifying and saying if russia were to do such a thing that we would take anxious and impose sanctions. it was met with skeptical looks on the notion we would ever impose sanctions on russia. i think we have disabused the russians of any notion if they were to engage in behavior that sanctionable including working with iranians on a goods deal. >> shortly after the jpoa was negotiated there was a lot of noise in some of the european capitals about trade deals with iran and trade delegations that were being sent to iran.

can you talk about what's happening to date if any of those have successfully negotiated any deals assuming there was an agreement that would be reached and sanctions would be lifted? >> this has been a long standing concern of yours and something that we have been watching very closely, as have our colleagues at the state department. we're not aware of any deals that have been struck in the event that a negotiation is successful. and i will say under our sanctions authority executive contracts of that sort where you have an agreement that goes into effect when a future event occurs are sanctionable. a deal, a future is immediately sanctionable today. >> do we have any idea how many delegations have actually visited tehran? >> i don't have that number right at hand. there have certainly been quite

a few that have visited no question about that, but we have tracked it. we have reached out on many occasions to some of the sponsors of these trips some of the entities that are involved to make sure they understand what the rules of the road still are. >> thank you, thank you mr. chairman. >> senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank the witnesses. like many in this room i have been supportive of these negotiations. i applaud the administration for undertaking them. i think it's incumbent on us to look for every avenue. we often say that the purpose of sanctions is to get parties to the table. they are at the table and so i'm confused by the notion that some would want to impose additional sanctions while negotiations are

going on. reck recognizing that the purpose is to bring people to the negotiating table. having said that, i'm a skeptical as anyone that tehran will actually come through and follow through on their agreements for the long term. and i certainly hope they do. i am as concerned as you are about breaking up this coalition that we have. these sanctions have been effective because they are multilateral. and i'm very concerned that that will break up. they are at the table because this has been iran versus the west rather than iran versus the u.s. and i think that's what we need to make sure continues. so i'm sensitive to the administration's concern that congress move ahead now with additional sanctions even triggered that might upset the negotiations and fracture the coalition, effective coalition

that we have. i do believe that if the administration thinks that they can include an agreement and move on without congress weighing in however at some point on that agreement that's a bridge too far. i think it's our right and responsibility to weigh in on an ultimate agreement. and so i will be anxious to see the administration's formal response to the chairman's proposal and look forward to those discussions as well. but i also as a side agreement i'm glad to see that treasury has lessened its load a bit by changing our policy toward cuba. licensing americans to travel to cuba and can free up resources and time and effort to make sure

that these agreements and the sanctions that we currently have and future sanctions if they should be ramped up that we have the resources to actually do that. a lot of the questions i had that i was going to ask have been answered already, so i would just say that i applaud the chairman for putting forward the proposal that he has in terms of congress weighing in on an ultimate agreement. but i hope that we are sensitive to these negotiations. i do believe that as many of us have discussed here if this jpoa to continue, it wouldn't be such a bad thing as long as that breakout time is significant enough and that iran isn't progressing toward a nuclear weapon, that's what our goal should be. so i hope that we can stick with these negotiations. i hope they are fruitful in the end, but i'm certainly willing

to play as constructive a role as i can as a member of this committee to make sure that that happens. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you for this constructive relationship you have had on this important issue. i too support the administration's determined efforts to bring iran to the table and congressionally enacted and administratively implemented sanctions have made a critical difference in changing the trajectory of iran's nuclear weapons program. like many of my colleagues i have deep suspicion of iran's intentions and actions rooted in their human rights violations. their support for terrorism around the world developments even today in yemen that suggest they continue to engage in activities not just their nuclear weapons program but in many other ranges that should give us pause about any agreement with them.

nonetheless, i think you have made significant progress in getting them to the table and in continuing negotiations. but i will just reassert that no deal is better than a bad deal and that a deal that we cannot ultimately enforce and that we cannot ultimately live with in terms of where it leaves us in the long-term or short-term is worse than no deal at all. one of my core concerns is whether or not we'll have the time to react, we'll be really able to detect cheating. first, just a comment if i might just to the nominee the deputy director of the cia. my congratulations on your great leadership and work in sanctions enforcement. one positive of the that i think was not widely remarked on was an increase in the resources for

sanctions enforcement. and whether it's the lightning of the load or an increase in appropriated resources. it is my hope and my confidence that your success will continue the same determined and vigorous enforcement of sanctions that's been the hallmark of your sanctions there. let's get into where this deal would leave us and then where we are today. first, where it would leave it us. one of my concerns expressed earlier is we are no longer negotiating the dismantling of iran's infrastructure. we're negotiating for them to retain capacity and enough facilities that we have confidence that their breakout time iq ' less than a year. what does that leave us in 2021 or shortly thereafter? the length of the agreement isn't yet finalized, but how do we avoid the proliferation that would come from an agreement

that essentially locks in iran as a threshold nuclear power and how do we ensure that the message that the region and the world takes from this it agreement isn't that we have a assented o to a nuclear weapons capable power? >> senator, thank you very much. very quickly, we share your deep suspicions about iran and its action. that's why we're driving to get a deal if we get one that satisfies very stringent requirements. we also agree with you and other members of the committee that no deal is better than a bad deal. there have been opportunities to take a bad deal. some partners would have been willing in some of these areas to settle for things that we are simply not prepared and will not settle for. we agree with the premise that you and other members of this committee have put forward. in terms of where iran is at the end of this. it's also conservative.

besides the material for a weapon they need a weapon itself and so we will be vigilant about their efforts to return to weaponization. they need an ability to deliver the weapon. we will remain vigilant about that. we're being conservative because quite frankly it's a little hard to imagine iran or any other country breaking out in that fashion when they get to one weapons worth of material. it would be much more logical if they were to go down that path to accumulate for enough for all weapons. if we have the one-year period, that would give us plenty of time if it proves necessary to take whatever steps are necessary to reverse that skpax may be resuming economic pressure, military action or other things. in terms of where they are left, they won't be in a sense a threshold state at the end of this. they can't become a nuclear weapon state through the front door. there will be a permanent ban on weaponization activity.

they will have to apply the protocol to ensure there's no undeclared program. there will be extensive safe gourds on the declared program to ensure that there's no diversion. for the duration obviously, we'll have the enhanced monitoring and access. that will allow us to understand better than ever before every nook every cranny every person, every place, every document involved in the program. so that even beyond the duration of the agreement, that knowledge will give us a much greater ability to detect whether they are trying in any fashion to break out. at the end of whatever the duration is, we retain exactly the capacity we have today to take action if they do something that threatens our security. we will be no worse off and better off given the knowledge we'll accumulate over time about their program. so the idea that iran would be treated at the end of this kind

of agreement as a nonnuclear weapons state was one that was first advanced by the previous administration. and indeed our partners around the world and this goes to what senator flake said a moment ago. the purpose of these sanctions has been to get iran to the table in order to negotiate something that gives the international community confidence that any nuclear program is going to be for peaceful. purposes and should they violate any of those commitments, we would be able to do something about it so it's an effective matter, as a practical matter they can't break out. that's what we're striving to achieve and again, we hope we can get there by march. >> i'm concerned that also be a central part of the negotiations because perhaps in the first phase of the jpoa it wasn't as fully embraced as it should have been. my sense moving forward it now is. there are two different ways that they could expand their breakout time. one would be the accumulation of

material. the jpoa has dealt with that effectively and my understanding of the negotiations have that clearly in its sights. a core concern is they not be allowed to engage in the sorts that would change their time on the backside. whether it's in 2021 or through elicit means we need to shut down. >> we agree it has to be a critical component of any agreement. >> if i could for just 10 seconds in response to the senator. i want to assure you and members of this committee and anybody else who may be watching that the team that will remain a treasury after i move along is completely committed to ensuring that the implementation of sanctions will be robust, probably even better without me being there. but that team that has -- i worked with very closely is the team that will remain. i'm certain that our sanctions

will continue to be very, very vigorously enforced. >> you have done a great job with limited resources. i wish you the best of luck in your new opportunity. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator paul? >> thank you, mr. chairman. when our founders brought together our government, the hope was that they would pit ambition versus ambition and that the ambitions of congress would be pitted against an executive would check and balance power. i'm glad to see today that there's some exhibition that on both sides of the aisle, congress is trying to pit their ambition against the executive and check the power of the executive. in saying this, though, i believe that we have all concluded, both congress and the executive, that the final passage has to be done by congress. we're arguing over waivers and how long these waivers will be. if we could get to the crux of

the argument, maybe there could be an agreement that could be found. the lesson to us when we rewrite this legislation, we need to be a little more careful with waivers we give because they won't want to give them up very easily. as we move forward, i've been one who says new sanctions in the middle of negotiations is a huge mistake and may well break up the sanctions coalition. may well drive iran away from the table. i have been one who wants sanctions because i don't want war, frankly. there are many on our side who say we don't need 535 generals, the president should just do what he needs to do in times of war. there's a certain analogy to diplomacy that we don't need 535 negotiators, but i dent want to give up my. right to approve of the negotiation. at the end of this, you want a suspension until the end of the president's term. why would i care to go through

all of this to have sanctions for a year and a half? you have greater ability to o negotiate once you affirm which is the law, that will have to pass the final negotiation. just admit to it. come to an agreement with senator corker admit to it what is the law and we could have permanent sanctions relief, trade with iran again if they will submit. they will be;ñ< more assured of what we are doing and of the agreement if they know it has to pass us. i have heard whisper when i talk to people. those republicans will never approve to anything. a z you have listened to us, all the way around, i think there's a nuance of opinion. there's several of us on this side who do not blanketly say we'll not vote to approve an agreement. but we want you to know we have the right to vote to it so you come talk to us talk to the the chairman. i have been working with senator boxer an an agreement that wouldn't be new sanctions. it would basically be if they

don't comply with the current agreement, sanctions would renew. i also would like to marry that with what senator corker is talking about is the admission, and this will be admission and a signal, but it is the!séçs law that you will have to get our agreement in the end. is there any kind of compromise in there? maybe, i think you need to talk to senator corker. could there be something on the suspension that's a period of time. i don't know what 90 days really gives you. years of negotiation to get 120 days of sanction relief. they want permanent relief. that's the carrot we're dangling and we want something from them. we want them to live in a safe, non-nuclear world. we keep asking for more and more. but i don't know that you gain a lot in the administration by saying, we're not going to agree to what senator corker is saying. in doing so, you bring us to an impass, there's a chance of an override of a veto. i'm someone who wants to work to

find a middle ground, but i want you to include some of the language that senator corker is talking about admitting that we don't want to be consulted. don't come pat me on the back and say this is what we just did. i want you to ask me for permission and present the agreement to us and present an agreement we all like. you're not going to get everybody, but i think the vast majority will vote for a reasonable thing. my argument is let's see if we can actually read proposals, talk to individuals and see if there's some kind of common ground we can find. thank you. >> senator thank you very much. just to respond very briefly. just as a matter of basic principle, we and i personally absolutely welcome the opportunity to consult closely with every member of this committee on any of the other issues that are before us in. foreign policy and national security. so we can absolutely continue

this conversation. this is a question of judgment, i think, and our best judgment right now is this. and i think you pointed to something very important. you're exactly right. what the iranians want is permanent relief. it's precisely by holding back that permanent relief until a significant period of time they have demonstrated -- >> and i agree with that point. so the idea of suspension is not a bad idea. however, then you need to work with us -- why don't we vote. we vote on a one-year suspension, let's find out if they are complying. let's vote again in another year. but don't just think that you're going to be able to do it by yourselves. if you'll acknowledge to bring it to us sell us democracy is messy and that's the thing. you've got to come and sell us on something. it isn't consultation. you have to sell us because we're your boss. we're your co-equal in this.

and i fully believe that you can bring -- if you have all on board with a negotiated settlement, i think you can sell it to us. it's not an impossible sell. >> thank you senator. i will say consultations up until this point have been a phone call in the morning that something is happening and generally speaking while we're receive ing receiving that phone call we're reading "the new york times" or someone else reports. i do want to associate myself with those comments generally speaking and do hope we'll come to some accord. >> thank you, senator corker. let me join with others in thanking you and senator menendez in terms of trying to work through things and try to -- you have shown it when your positions were reversed, move us in a bipartisan way and get agreements and i hope we can

continue that as we move along. and i very much appreciate having the witnesses here today. a the lot of what i'm going to say -- you repeat many things that have been said but i also support the negotiations. i think it's very important that congress doesn't torpedo them and disrupt them. but i think the message you're getting from us is we want a hard nosed negotiation. we want to be involved in the process and part of it is going through this hearing. and i think one of the things you're saying that's absolutely key is if we were alone doing sanctions without all these other countries, we would be in a much different situation. i mean it's holding the coalition together that's tremendously important. i think we need to remember that

when we move forward with whatever the negotiations produce that we want to keep all those countries together and keep the pressure on because -- and i'd like you to just comment on that. i have a couple questions here. one is how quickly could we put additional sanctions in place if you had a failure? that's one. and another is an observation on the side of we hear a lot about the supreme leader in iran. we hear a lot about the president and then we hear about the hard line. and what role do the various players there -- who is going to really determine that iran signs on to this deal. as you follow this, you begin to wonder who is in charge there.

so then that leads to the question is if you have an agreement, who could undermine it in the future? so i'm going to go ahead and let you take a shot at a couple of those and maybe follow up here in a minute. >> why don't i take the question about how quickly we could impose new sanctions. i think the answer to that is very quickly. it has done in the past in some of the legislation that has been enacted. there have been sanctions that have gone into effect in a matter of weeks in some of the executive actions we have taken those sanctions almost always are immediately effective. so the answer is we would be able to working with congress as well as working on our own impose additional sanctions frankly as quickly as we want to. >> do you think, secretary cohen, the other countries the

ones we're working with -- if things developed in a negative way that they would then be willing to join us on that? >> crucial question, and i think the crucial question and the willingness of other countries to continue to work with us on imposing sanctions, contrary to the economic businesses, is continued on their continued believe is we are seeking a negotiated resolution and in the future if the talks break down the ability to hold together the coalition to intensify the sanctions is going to depend, in large part on who our partners perceive is to blame for the break-down. so long as we do everything in our power to try and achieve an agreement that meets our needs and meets the needs of our partners and it is iran that is to blame for not reaching an

agreement, i think we'll have a much better chance of holding together the international coalition and to intensify the pressure on iran. >> thank you. >> and senator, with regard to the various players and who is in charge, we have imperfect knowledge of this. but i think what we've assessed -- and again this is something we can go into in more detail, there are clearly different power leaders in iran. we think they don't have politics but it does in every intense. the supreme leader has been the first among equals for some time but there are critical other constituencies that factor into the decision-making. and one of the most powerful thing that happened in iran is the election of president rouhani because that is a reaction to the desire of the people to approve the economy and get out from under the isolation they are under and

move around in a different direction. and in the confines of the system, that is what rowhani was trying to be responsive to it. i think the supreme leader has to measure that in factoring in how much leeway he will give to the negotiators in the nuclear context. to date, again as the i. e. continues to confirm, they have held to the agreement. and then going forward if the power center changed as we've made very clear iran if it violated the agreement in any fashion, would be subject to an intense reaction from us and as sect cohen said, if we are able to keep with the coalition that will give us a much greater ability to sanction iran for

violation of the mistakes it makes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> sect blinken, much of the debate is about the role of congress and our need to trust into the ability of the administration to craft a good deal and the fact we'll be consulted. that is the question you asked. and the last time you were before this committee and i asked you during that time during your nomination and if there would be any changes in cuba and you answered, quote anything done on cuba would be done in consultation, with the real meaning of the word of consultation would be with this committee. you said that when you were here last. who did it consult with on the committee? >> senator, i regret i did not live up to the tapd ard in that hearing and in the remarks you just quoted.

i think i could have done a better job in engaging with you and consulting with you in advance. and i regret that. >> did you consult with the chairman of the committee. >> so a number of members -- i think we reached out to -- were consulted. >> who were the members that were consulted. >> if i could come back to you on that -- i would first need to get an accounting of that and make sure any members who were consulted would want that -- >> if i could interject, i assure you i was not consulted. >> mr. chairman, you were the chairman at the time. were you consulted? >> well, no. there is a difference between notification and consultation. >> the reason why this -- >> to notify when it is going to happen is not consultation. >> and this is relevant because we're told we're going to be in the loop of everything happening in iran and we have an example we are not in the loop. you were aware of the conversations with the cubans

were you not. >> i was aware of them. but this was a delicate situation in which we were trying to get our asset back and in the end game of that there was a lot going on to make sure that happened in a safe and secure way. but again i come back to what i said at the outset, i think you are right to point it out. >> but i'm not quarrelling with the alan gross release -- but with iran we are asked that we'll be fully consulted. well the word consultation as it's been defined that is problematic and i don't want to make this all about cuba, but i asked if there would be changed in policy absent democratic order and i asked whether those changes -- when you say move forward, move forward on democratic reforms and not economic reforms and you said not simply economic reforms and

we don't see any political reforms. there was a prisoner released and one had been released a year before and now 200 more political arrests have acured in cuba. and we have been asked as congress to sit tight because we will be fully consultanted but it seems like the only people consulted if you agree with the administration. and if you don't, then you'll just be notified. and senator johnson is why the iranians would undergo such pain. and the answer who is in charge is the supreme leader. >> he does have other constituency. >> can he agree to the changes

with his approval. >> given his branch, that is highly unlikely. >> so who is this ayatollah. it is not just the head of the state, the head of a nation state, he is a radical cleric who views himself -- just doesn't view iran as a nation state, but as a cause as henry kissinger has described it and the cause is to have the entire world living under the flag of islam and that is in their constitution. and the ayatollah is not just the leader of iran but of all muslims in the world. that is his position. iran is where he lives but he views his mandate as extending to the whole world. and these are unambiguous statements on their part. he doesn't just view himself as a cleric, he views himself as the temporary fill--in for the

imam who under shiite who will emerge one day and govern the world in the state of islam and their state is to serve as a basis of that throughout the world. that is what motivates him. we are ascribing to his regime, character ichtices that has a cost balance of what is going on in iran, but the supreme leader doesn't view it that way. he views not just his calling but obligation to bring about the arrival of the 13th imam and unify the world under radical islam and that is why it is important. his interpretation the 13th imam cannot occur until there is a showdown between the muslim and the nonmuslim world. and when a country is led by someone who wants to have a kata

clix between muslim and the real world, when we talk nuclear weapons is scary. and they reject everything not islamic, they reject the legitimacy of the u.n. and the united states. but they are crafty. they accept the benefits of the international order, their seat at the u.n. but rejecting their obligations under that international order so what have they done with all of that. let's go through the time line. in 2003 there was no enrichment. and then it was you can enrich up to 20%. and then you can enrich up to 20% if you send it overseas. and now you can enrich up to 20% as long as it is for your country. it is impressive is how -- how

they are enriching and in the meantime we'll build it for them. a weapon design can you buy that. you can buy that. you can buy a weapons design right now. you can download it online if it is a crude weapon. and they continue to test long-range missile capabilities and adding to their already considerable conventional weapons capability. and so this is why we are concerned and have a right to be concerned. this is not a traditional state undergoing a cost benefit analysis. this is a clerical regime with a clerical government with ultimately one time unifying the world with their radical flag of islam and led by someone who believes that will only happen after a cataclysmic event with the west. and so we are willing to believe they are willing to accept short-term suspensions because

the long-term view is at the end of the day they will be at the showdown and if they have nuclear weapons they are better off. and that is why we are so skeptical. we are not dealing with belgium or luxembourg, we are dealing with a radical leader and wants nuclear weapons and i don't think anyone here could dispute, even if they agree to a short suspension, that is the goal in the long term. and as the north koreans have shown, you can agree to short-term conventions and create the pretext of why you need the weapon. because it is time for the hitting imam will emerge. but they will take all of the infrastructure to enrich and they will have the delivery system and the missiles and at some point, three years five years, ten years they build the weapon and the world is at their mercy. that is why we're skeptical. >> senator, just to respond.

we scare your concern and skepticism due to their long-term transaction and confidence to make sure they don't break out. with regard to consultations going forward, i think on this issue, and it is my sense that over the past months and in the past years, the administration has been here in closed sessions obviously in open hearings, in one on one conversations and smaller group conversations to lay out i think extensively where we are and where we are going on the iran negotiation. i commit to you mr. chairman ranking member rubio and others, going forward, we will continue that and expand that and be up here any time you want to talk about where we are -- and some of that we have to do in a closed session or in a private group because the negotiations

are ongoing. but we want to make sure that you see the full details of what we're trying to achieve. with regard to the suspicions about iran and the supreme leader, again we share them. we could spend all day going through the outrageous things he has said in the past including the recent past, about us, about israel, about other designs. but sometimes reality has a way of in truding. and no matter what it is that he may believe and he may want and no matter his exception role in the system i think you are right about that he has to deal with the realities that iran is facing and he has seen a country that has been subjected to extraordinary pressure economically that has been more and more isolated and he's seeing politically that a lot of the iranian people don't like that and rouhani was a response to that. we've seen him give the

negotiates more leeway than frankly we would have expected at the outset. he's kept the talks going. we continue to make progress. and at the end of the day we'll have to judge whether what we've achieved in any kind of solution meets our security interest and we will not take a bad deal because we share your concerns and share your suspicions. but this is not happening in a vacuum and i think we also have to ask ourselves continuously as compared to what? it will be -- if we are not able to reach an agreement it may become increaseingly difficult to sustain the regime. and i think what secretary cohen said, who is responsible for failure to get a strong agreement. many partners have come along and the sanctions have held them there because they believe we are trying to drive to an agreement and that is the purpose as has been said of the

sanctions to got them to the -- to get them to the table. so we have to set this out. we start from the proposition you do. things are suspicious. but we do see the supreme leader's thinking. thank you. >> thank you. i would say again this committee is not proposing anything that breaks us from the international partners that we have. and i know you keep referring to that and there is a red herring that is throwing out, but we are asking for consultation and ai vote on the deal that we've been so involved in making happen. senator rush. >> thank you. i'll be brief. put me in the column of exceptities -- skeptics and others. i have been with this from the beginning and i've been

convinced they are going to scam us and they set up for a real disaster u. think about how they went about this. look at the background as articulated by senator rubio, but in addition look at the efforts we've had in the past. go back and read the chapter in rowhani's book in what he did with the negotiators and how he kept them at the table and easing the peace process to continue their ambitions to get a nuclear weapon. use that as the background. and then think about the u.n. resolutions that said look, iran you can't do it any more. and they said we are going to do it no matter what and we won't negotiate unless you agree we can have some kind of program. now they have crossed that bridge. and now they sit down -- if you are going to do this and you are going to continue with your nuclear ambitions going in the direction that senator rubio has

suggested, why won't you sit down with enemy, negotiate this kind of a deal and now you know exactly what the enemy is going to know. you're going to know what the inspection regime is. you are going to know how they will go about this and you can put together a system where you can continue your ambitions while the people who are supposed to be curtailing you are going about what they are going about and you knowing all of the ways they are going to do it. i think you guys are being bam boozeled and i home you can come in -- i hope you can come in one day and say to us you don't know what you are talking about. i don't believe that. these people are bad people. every time i'm on an intelligent committee. whether it is syria or iraq or hezbollah, wherever it pops up

whose finger is on this? it is the iranians. it is getting late and i appreciate what you are doing. i bless you. i hope you can pull it off. i have to tell you i thought from the beginning you will get scammed and as every day goes by, and how you listen to the negotiations, i think you are getting scammed and i hope i am dead wrong. >> thank you, senator. >> i would say quickly a couple of things. with regard to what president rouhani in his past life as a nuclear negotiator we were very much inspired by that. in looking at what we insisted on in the interprimim agreement. and we don't want to spend endless time at a table when they kept going forward and we have increased inspections so we were inspired to that. i also think he is a politician. i expect some of what he wrote in his book was to appeal as a

politician to other iranians and successful since he got elected president. but we start from your premise, that this is not about trusting. this is about absolutely verifying all of the movements they make. with regard to the inspections and access, again, this is fundamental to any resolution that we would reach. and i believe that we will have the ability, if we reach the kind of agreement that we want to reach to significantly enhance our ability and the ability of the international community throughout the entire production line and the program to know what they are doing, when they are doing it and where they are doing it. and we will develop a basic knowledge we don't have now about the people, the places, the techniques that will stand in stead even beyond our agreement. so we think it is in our best interest. and so even beyond today.

and do you remember benjamin netanyahu came in and drew the line and he was filling it up, and it was 20% enriched and it was being produced as a facility that is harder to deal with, well that has stopped. no 20% reduced and that stockpile eliminated. the other pathways looking at what they might do at the iraq facility, theç facility we had deep concerns because once that facility is turned on and fueled it is very problematic, but not impossible to deal with in other ways if we had to do that. we stopped that in its tracks. no fuel, no components, no progress. the third pathway natants building up a stockpile that can be converted to a higher grade. there too no centrifuges

installed and the stockpile capped. so i believe that you were right -- >> you've said that before and i appreciate that. and like i said. i hope it works. and my problem is this, any inspection regime that you put together for doing this, they are going to know all about it and the details of it. and just remember their objective is not your objective. your object and our objective is to stop them and their objective is to get to that point and doing such that they won't get attacked in the meantime. they will know all of the details to do it and in any regime there are technologies that can get around that. and i hope you are right. and let me close with this as we are speaking right now, the president is on his way to idaho, pursuant to a request from us and we're happy he did so he will meet with a woman by the name of mrs. aberdeeny.

her husband is in prison in iran. he shouldn't be. and in wendy sherman's head to listen to me say this month after month. why you guys cut loose of all of that money when they are so cash hungry without putting your hands on it saying we're going to take it off when they are free i couldn't believe they won't cut those guys loose. i want to urge you again, the administration said it is the compassionate arm of the government. so be it. but use some compassionate and help mr. aberdeeny and those who little kids. he has no business being in jail in iran because he was a christian and over there doing christian kinds of things. with that, my time is up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator can i say, you are right. they must be released regardless of anything else we are doing with iran. it is an entirely distinct issue, they are wrongly

imprisoned and we need to find robert levinson and bring him home. but we think tieing that to any agreement, success or failure of an agreement is not the best way to get them out. i can assure you and i think you know this, the only issue that we raise with them on the margins of the nuclear talks every time other than the nuclear talks are those that are unjustly imprisoned in iran and we are working every day to get them home and not stop until we do. >> get it done. >> thank you senator. >> senator menendez. >> thank you for your courtesy. just a couple of quick questions and observations. secretary blinken let's be honest as it related to consultation. there was long consultations with members who were in agreement with the president's proposed policy changes but not who might be in disagreement and that is on cuba. and that gives rise to the

concern that there will be no consultation but notification only to those of us who may be concerned about the nature of any agreement or continuous rolling extensions. so i hope you understand that as it relates to moving forward. it was the subject of your conversation with me when you were a nominee of questions i asked you here before the committee and your nomination and i'm disappointed. with reference to march 24th. if there is a quote, unquote, deal will that deal be written? >> at this point, i can't tell you. my expectation would be that we would be able to show you all of the critical elements of the deal, whether there would be an initial agreement then turned into a -- a tactile agreement at this point, i can't tell you. >> but wouldn't the outlines of

a deal wouldn't be something the iranians or the p5 plus 1 should be signing and say that is not what we understood or agreed to. >> that is my anticipation, but as i said here today i can't tell you what form we would achieve. >> it concerns me we may not have a written agreement. let me ask you this. there is no deal on march 24th and you can't come to an agreement, what then? >> senator i think if there is no agreement on the core elements of the deal by march 24th it will depend on where we are. so what i mean by that -- >> you may very well say let's keep it going. >> if it is clear we are simply not getting to yes, by which i mean it is clear that the iranians will not meet the÷za; requirements then i think we'll have to work closely with you on what steps we will take to try and convince them to do that. if however we have closed off

most of the key chapters but let's say for argument's sake, one of the key chapters remains that is what we would talk to you about what to do. but if we conclude by the end of march they are not going to do what they need to do that puts us in a different position. >> secretary cohen any of the sanctions that you talked about or levied, was iran complicit with any of them in trying to evade sanctions or were the individuals just working on their own? >> i think for some number of them -- i believe some of them in fact were iranian citizens and no question that iran was at least aware of what was underway. >> so during this period of time of the plan of action there were efforts by iran to evade sanctions and in those instances

you caught them. so it gives me concern about the intent. let me just say the reference to senator paul and boxer i'm not sure that legislation that says that this is what will happen if there is no deal or a violation of a deal, which you say you think secretary blinken is acceptable. is it any different than what we are saying which we impose nothing until after the fact, if there is no deal. i think that is nuanced at best. it is interesting to note that sanctions on russia, vis-a-vis ukraine, hasn't had them to walk away from what they believe will need to be achieved. so sanctions that won't happen until after a certain point in time whether you've agreed to a deal or not. but if the russians wouldn't walk away with sanctions with ukraine, if you hurt us with this we'll hurt you with that is

telling. and the overwhelming number of sanctions that this committee has levied through congress have had a much more significant period lead of time than immediate imposition and for it to have effect on iran has been even greater. so there is no such thing as an immediate sanction that ultimately has any immediate effect. there are a few of those. it takes time for there to be consequences. but i don't know if seems it took a fair amount of time to know about parchin, which was a covert operation. so i hate to see that even with what we envision as verification and inspections, that an attempt to do something covert would take us as much time as it took in parch in to uncover and that would be inconsequential. and you say we'll have the same

ability to respond in the future should iran break out and we'll have all options on the table. that ignores the reality that iran will be in a different position. iran will be able to sell more than 2 million barrels of oil, have access to $100 billion in reserves currently being held overseas and the ability to procure critical items for the program. it gets a lot from an agreement that would apparently require no dismantling of the program. we get a one-year alarm bell which just may not be enough time to react in a nonmilitary fashion. so the very essence of what the -- what the president is concerned and sanctions, if it breaks the coalition we would be left with only a military option, i'll tell you something, if you have nothing in place after a no-deal situation then the president may very well be

of his own decision in a position in which his only option is a military option or accepting iran as a nuclear state. and that is a pretty terrible set of circumstances. now maybe you don't fear that because maybe there is another set of secret letters or deals on the side that we don't know about. there have been a lot of those in different transactions. i don't know if they are and maybe you can tell us if there are any we should be waiting on. >> there are not. >> well, that's good to know. hopefully none will surface afterward because then we'll have to have a real conversation. but look, to some degree, no one has worked harder to get you to the point to succeed. i want you to succeed. but you need to succeed in a way that is meaningful at the end of the day and there is a bit of a trust problem here because when you have secret deals or you don't consult -- which is we are

thinking about proceeding in this course, what do you think about this rather than telling us what we've done, that is notification, not consultations. and when senatorco cohen and sherman was here, after all of the alarm bells and i was asked to work with senator kirk to come up with sanctions and have them impose it before this committee, it creates a concern about when you raise alarm bells and that passed 99-0 and now he heralded it as part of the term to negotiate. and so that is a concern. so there is a difference between our aspirations and realism. aspirations is striking a deal with north korea and including one of your negotiators and the end deal is they ended up being

a nuclear state. >> thank you. i look forward over the next few days to see if there is common ground to address congress's role in all of this. i do want to say one thing. i know there is discussions about netanyahu's -- whatever you might call his prop at the event, i think it is fair to note that with the additional research and development that iran has done and they are moving way up the food chain from the stand point of the centrifuge development they can move quickly from 0% to 90% that that is almost an old adage and i think you are aware of that and i think that is the concern we have, on the research and development component and the things they are doing to move rapidly toward being able to get to 90% very, very quickly. but let me give a few closing comments.

i too want you to be successful. i wake up every day wanting our nation to be successful in every endeavor and i think i have shown to this administration my desire to work towards common ground and to try to solve problems. so i want the negotiations to be successful. i think our concerns are and i had one of the most impactful meetings along with a number of people here on the committee in israel just in the last couple of days. but i think the concerns are, as you look back over the history over the last ten years, that some people have alluded to iran has stayed here and the p5 began here and as the negotiations have progressed, what happened is the p5 and us being the major driving force have continued to move toward their position and i would argue that again having congress as a

back-stop, as you enter the final steps, having congress as a backstop, someone that you do in fact not only have to consult with but you have to seek their approval would be somewhat of an anchor to keep us from continuing to move towards their position. and i think it would be very difficult for you to say that there hasn't been a continual movement toward their position. you look at where we began with the u.n. security resolutions and you look at where we began with us potentially agreeing to them to have enough centrifuges so serve their, quote, practical needs. and i understand every scientists have said 500 centrifuges but today we've moved way beyond that. so congress could be an excellent back-stop as you are moving down the road. and i thought senator cain expressed it better than anyone

here. when we entered into the agreements that senator menendez was so much a part of, which is sanctions, i don't think that anyone giving you the security waivers thought the president would suspend them in all likelihood until the end of his term. i don't think anybody ever thought that. so the fact that we know if you do that, the entire sanctions regime falls apart and i have prince william endous respect for soekt -- a tremendous respect for sect cohen but to have to come to us on the front end of a deal before you dismantle the regime is an important step that we hope you will consult with us on and hope you will consult and come into an agreement and takes into account for the nuance you would like for us to take. but to stiff arm me after the role we are going to play and

put the international community at the table to just stiff arm and say we don't want you to play a role and just trust us is solely unacceptable from my point. and the supreme leader, and we keep referring to him and as we negotiate, we are more concerned about the supreme leader's position than anybody else's. the supreme leader has said publicly one of his major concerns is that iran enters into an agreement and somehow over time congress changes its mind. we have a presidential race coming up. i'm assure you that the iran component will be a major part of the next presidential case i believe that to be the case. and since there is concern about the supreme leader and him walking away or whatever i would say that congress's approval of a deal to me would be reassuring that whatever deal that you've done would stand the

test of time. so i would encourage you to sit down to walk through with us some of the concerns you have about timing. but i would say that general movement today is toward congress playing a role. i think again, just stiff arming doesn't take us to a place to a test that both of us need to meet. we urge you to sit down and talk to us. we thank you for being here today. and we thank you both in spite of our concerns for our country. and let me give you some formalities. so for the members the record will remain open until the close of business on friday, including for members to submit questions for the record and we ask the witnesses to respond as promptly as possible. your responses will also be made part of the record with the thanks of the committee and this hearing is now adjourned. thank you. >> thank you, chairman.

if you missed any of today's hearing on iran nuclear negotiations it will be on cspan.org. president obama reiterated last night he would veto any legislation dealing with iran while the nuclear negotiation are ongoing, but house speaker told congress that they would move ahead with new penalties against iran and has advised netanyahu to attend a joint meeting with congress next month to talk about radical islam. the israeli leader is invited to speak on february 11th. more live coverage throughout the day here on cspan3. we'll join the u.s. conference of mayors winter meeting 12:45

eastern time to hear kevin johnson the state of the cities address. and then we hear about research from the faa and nasa on how to integrate drones into the national aerospace system. and the day after his state of the union address, the president travelled to idaho to talk about the aspects of his speech. we'll have that live for you at 5:00 p.m. this saturday the iowa freedom summit from des moines will feature presidential candidates, governor rick perry scott walker chris christie former senator ben huckabee and ben carson and sarah palin. the iowa summit this weekend on

cspan, cspan radio and cspan.org. and again the meeting of mayors will be coming up. but right now immigration and demographics. here henry sus narrow and george w. bush citizen chief alfonso aguilar discuss the president's 2014 executive actions on immigration and the potential for immigration legislation out of the new republican congress. next is our panel immigration in the new year. ron brown is returning to stage and we have joining him henry cisneros, the chairman of city view and former sect of the u.s. department of housing and urban affairs and chair of the task

force and alfonso ago lair, executive director of the latino project. and sadly ana navarro republican strategist was not able to join us today. >> i'm disappointed my cnn colleague is not with us but the only thing capable of stopping ana is being sick. but we have a lot of fire power here to help us consider these issues. and we are talking to mayors and other experts on the ground about what this will mean in community and how it will be implemented and what the issues are. we'll start on a broader dimension about the president's choice to move forward with executive action. was it the right thing for him to do, mr. sect? >> i think it was the only thing he could do. i have been close to the process through the bipartisan policy center of watching the various

opportunities that congress had particularly the republican house beginning with this time last year when there was a moment and talk about after the primaries and then a window in the summer, and it just never game. and there is no indication that it would. so asking the administration the president, and the country to wait longer and that something great would materialize in the next year was just not probable. so i think he had very little choice. he did the right thing. >> right. well, look i think it was in the right timing. i've criticized republicans in the past congress for not acting constructively on immigration. they should have done something. however you have a new congress. and for the president to say well republicans were not doing anything, there is no hope of anything happening so let's pack our bags and go back home, i think it is a new congress and

the president should have given republicans an opportunity. i think -- i think he could have waited a year. see if by the end of this year if republicans will do something. if they had not done anything then perhaps they could move forward with executive action. but why not give -- his actions antagonized republicans so now it is difficult, i'm not saying impossible, but much more difficult to make it happen. why not wait a year. >> a couple of quick points. a lot of people are suffering across the country and this really touches people's lives in profound ways just like doka did, and i have had exchanges with students, if they had taken a wrong right turn in their car or if their headlight or taillight was out they could be deported. and this affects real people. and the president said he would act and he needed to.

and in terms of the damage done to the process, i think the president threaded the needle almost perfectly. this is probably untouchable from a legal standpoint so it won't be derailed that way. and at some point the republicans, with all due respect, and i have great respect for many of the republican leaders and remembers, they are just going to have to get1n objections they keep throwing up and do something in their own interest to do it. >> let's come back to the legal. on the legislative side, either side, is there any way that you can see for this congress to stop him from doing this? >> um no. they are going to try to do it. there is the idea of somehow through the h.s. not letting the president use funding for this executive action. the truth is the agency called to implement the executive

action as a fee-based agency they have the money to implement it. even if the house passed the vhs budget that does away with the executive actions i don't know if the senate will include that in their bill. but let's say he does pass the senate i think congress would veto it. so the -- >> the president would veto it. >> the president would veto it. and now you have executive action saying it is not legal or congress could get involved because it is aggression of powers and i think i've reviewed the case law and the supreme court has recognized that -- not the president, the law enforcement agencies have ample zegs to -- discretion to decide

whether to file a case and whether charges are filed. but it is on the prosecutorial expression they have. and if they go the route of the court, they are going to lose. so this will happen. >> a sneaking sense and a hope that all of this will pass with time, the republicans will simply say this doesn't make any sense and then leaders like haz bollard was here today and in the different caucuses it will be phased and start with border security but this is just too big of an issue. >> is due course before or after 2016. >> i think you'll see action in '15 and '16. that is a long time. that is my opinion. >> i hope it is '15. '16 will be almost impossible with the presidential nomination

in the way. i think a majority of the republicans know it is difficult to win the white house if they don't do better with the voters. immigration is not the most important issue for latinos but it is an important issue. it is a gateway issue. it is difficult to get their support, even if they agree with you. so to become competitive you have to access immigration. >> i'm not sure that something couldn't happen in '16. i know it is hard in a presidential year. we all know the logic of the way the presidential year plays out but it depends on who the nominee is and who is leading and what the nominee wants to accomplish and get this off the table. >> let's talk about that. but i want to ask you about the impact -- you said in the end whether through congress or the courts, the opponents are in all likelihood not going to be able to stop this and this is going to happen at some point before

the 2016 election? >> well executive action as it is right now would start -- >> in may. >> -- as the administrative order says it would start in may of this year. >> and if people are signing up and this does go into effect, how does that change the calculation of congress. does that make it more or less likely that something will happen after 2016 for that matter? >> i think it makes it more likely that congress will do something. because, for example, at some point reasonable republicans will recognize you don't do things like trying to undo doca which is touching lives and then touching that is not something you reverse is almost long-term disaster. >> i agree. the message the immigrants right

now is one of pettiness. i understand if they want to go to courts and undo the executive action, but at the same time they will be proposing legislation, something constructive and they will be more understandable. they are not doing that. they just say let's undo the executive actions. so when are they going to address something not only border security but the undocumented. and that is the problem. and i think time is running out. i think the next six months are key. however, on the positive side, we've heard mitch mcconnell senate republican leader that he believes something should be done on a piece meal basis. congressman labrador said he will introduce a worker deal. congress stanton from louisiana said we should do a guest worker program, supported by the bipartisan commission. so i think they want to do

something but they can't wait -- at one point they have to introduce something. >> you have said to me in the conversation we had a few months ago you thought it was a mistake for the president to do the executive action, but if the republicans simply ran on repealing the executive action in '16 without having a solution that was tantamount to not winning the election? >> i really believe that. i mean today if you look at the electoral map, you have to win florida -- republicans are not competitive in states like colorado nevada new mexico. we have to change that around. and the only way to do it is to address this and engage the latino community. i'm not saying that by working on immigration issues constructively things will go cold again. they still have to do their work to over come latinos.

>> i think it is a strain that the presidential election lingers on this issue. i think republicans have a long way to go in terms of winning over a decent per sentage -- per sentage of key action. >> i don't know who the nominee will be but if it is jeb bush, he would not do that. >> do you think it is possible to be a nominee and repeal the act. >> jeb bush has already said that. >> he criticized the executive action. >> he criticized it. but a majority of americans don't like the way the president proceeded but they want to see immigration reform. >> i think the sharpness of this will wear down both in the congress and country at large and as happens in american politics, reasonable people will come around and feel they need

to take concrete actions. and we are watching countries struggle with immigration issues and we have done it right over all of this time. we ought to be doubling down and figuring out what we've done right and figure out more of those, including the circumstances in europe today where disaffected immigrants are left on the side lines. and even greatner places like january and spain where the countries are going to decline in population because they have no immigrant strategy. so immigration is absolutely a national security and national prosperity issue for the future and the republicans, i just have to believe, will see that. >> and i will say something to caution because sometimes we follow this narrative that the problem is just republicans, democrats want to get this done. i think that is simplistic as

well. i think somebody that has worked within the hispanic community, i think hispanics see both parties have played politics with this issue. certainly they have not led -- republicans are said things that are unfortunate to hispanics, but they did have a democratic congress the first two years of his administration and he chose not to do anything. and even if they want something done in the house and senate, they need approval. they don't want to see a guest worker program. if we deal with that, that is only dealing with a symptom of the problem. that is not dealing with the problem. the problem we have is that our economy needs foreign workers because our population is not growing fast enough. >> but in 2013 every senate democrat did vote for the

legislation. >> but in -- well in the -- if the guest worker program was limited. and in fact, someone like rand paul, one reason he voted against it is because the guest worker program was not part of it. >> i have to say that while this is all not about politics the president cleaned himself and the democratic party cleaned himself with the party. it wasn't about that. he did it for the right reasons. but the perception is vast today. if you poll how democrats versus republicans how they feel this is a major difference. >> for now. but i think the executive actions have been overplayed as well. i mean it helped how many people? it is an estimate of 5 million people. how many undocumented people do we have? 11 million. this is putting at risk getting legal action for all of them and

it benefits those who don't have political status to go to their home country and get advanced control every time they leave. >> you are correct this didn't solve the entire problem. we know we need come prelensive -- comprehensive order. and we had bipartisan action and we prefer solution but it wasn't happening. >> so to the political side, we talked a lot about latino voters but they are not the only voters. and i'm wondering if you worry at all about taking this into 2016 for a democratic presidential candidate to defend the visitor status. >> if you poll today i haven't seen -- >> today wall street journal had

a slight favor. >> what was -- >> a slight favor. >> in favor of immigrants and immigration reform and this can be explained as a step in that direction when the congress wouldn't doubt. i don't think it issing in any democratic candidate should worry about. >> and do you think they will have to defend the president acting alone on this? will that be a problem in 2016. >> i don't think so. i think this affects democrats. i agree with that. and that is why i recommend republicans -- and again, i understand this is a complex issue that should be resolved legislatively and i believe the president should have waited, but it is time for them to lead. but say the republicans proposed the special path to citizenship.

and if they introduce a more market based government will democrats go along or torpedo those efforts? democrats have to be careful. because if they kill immigration reform, even a legalization package because it is not to their liking, latinos will not respond well. >> that would require ite qt to overcome the package of -- >> we'll pass that bridge when we get to it. when they pass things that make sense. border issues legalization tech, agriculture, et cetera. and then the issue of a path to citizenship which was in the senate legislation, rigorous long, 13-year path and i can't believe democrats would have accepted that but they would have under the circumstances. and there would have been other situations to be made but you

would see democrats getting around to supporting what is available. >> i think there is a political angle there. but if you look at the appeal -- the senate appeal, it was not like that. looking at the root of the problem, every year it would only provide 20,000 work visas per year for our economy. 20,000 more visas per year. that is ridiculous. and after five years the cap would be 200,000. it is not big enough. and that begins the root of the problem. if you don't have enough work visas -- this is not a problem of illegality this is a problem of flows. the problem with the reagan areas is we legalized too many people but we didn't have a mechanism for the workers that we needed and what happened? they kept coming in and now we

have 11 million undocumented immigrants. and the other thing is -- i don't think you can say -- i think it is a carrickicature to say the republican congress is controlled on immigration or they agreed with tech crews on immigration. they represent a small minority. i think the majority of republicans want to do something. they need to get courage. they need to act. but it is not a problem of -- of substance or policy that they disagree with policy. >> let me ask you a question. if there are questions of union or impediments on the republican side i don't see them. i think comprehensive uniform immigration would pass. on the republican side, i don't think anyone is suggesting that ted cruise or king is part of

what they can do but the process set up has given them a lot of power saying it has to be a majority within the caucus. >> right. but the fact serious obstacles in the liberal democratic side. you make it sound like all democrats are from liberation reform and comprehensive reform. >> they're not going to do crazy things like keeping people from ever getting a path to citizenship, but reasonable middle ground solutions, i think they're fast democratic. >> what would be -- the way to put that to a test would have been to pass -- try to pass a bill through the house that democrats in the house would have had to deal with and a conference committee would have had to deal with. why can't republicans get to that point of testing the democratic sincerity by passing their own bill? >> well, and i said this before, not the first time i say this i think republicans lack courage. 7, 8 years ago, when president bush was trying to push

immigration reform i could see -- i was involved in that process, i was at dhs as chief of citizenship, i saw a lot of republicans, perhaps majority, that had substantive problems with immigration reform, with legalizing the undocumented. i don't see that now. i think the problem right now is that many are afraid of being primary. many are afraid of having their conservative recredentials being questioned and they're boxed in this in this false alternative. you're for amnesty or enforcing the rule of law. there is a middle there and a third alternative that is not supporting what obama has proposed with the senate did and the third alternative that it is market-based against worker program, a path to legal status that provides a path to citizenship and securing the border as well. they should feel comfort that as conservatives they can address

the issue. but it requires courage. >> i don't know the problem is a failure of courage. i think it is a failure of a vision of the future of the country. a misunderstanding of what the composition is of the country today and failure of appreciation of what people who look different and have different last name and different accent can contribute to the future of the country. they just don't -- >> i have -- i have to disagree with na whole heartedly. that is not the problem. to think that is just -- >> they're for steve king. >> but steve king is not -- i agree with that. i'm being very critical of steve king, very critical of ted cruz but they don't represent the majority of the party. they understand the demographics. i think it is a question of courage. it is going to happen eventually. it is going to happen. just to say they're afraid of people being different, wouldn't

generalize. >> let me ask one thing before we bring in the audience i'm usually -- both of you think that in the end the legal and the legislative challenges will fail and this will begin to happen. at some point, probably in 2015 -- >> i said earlier i thought the president threaded the new needle perfectly on the legal issues and the -- >> how does the political and legislative environment change if people start signing up in large numbers? does that make it easier to get to comprehensive reform change the way the issue plays out in 2016? what happens if you have -- >> makes it easier to comprehensive immigration reform. the republicans will see all of those retro grade hedge warfare tactics failed and now they're faced with a fundamental reality that they're on the wrong side of the issue and wrong side of history. >> what do you think? if people, 2 million, 3 million people sign up for this, what happens? >> i don't think it will hinge on that. i think once republicans see in the next couple of months, say

by the beginning of march, that legislatively they're not able to do executive action, they're not going to prevail in the courts, i think they'll start moving ahead with regular order, and start to introduce legislation. then i think the dynamic changes and we'll see how willing are democrats to embrace a visionary policy on immigration because, again, without a program, i don't see how we actually are being supportive of immigration to help bring in the foreign workers that our economy needs, to grow the economy. >> if you had to -- if they're not able to pass legislation or if they do pass legislation and can't reach agreement with the president, for a republican to come in do they undo the executive order without legislation in place? >> no i think if republicans pass immigration reform and the press then streetvetoes it i think

the tables are turned. and i think a republican candidate would say, i, if i were president, i would sign that bill into law. this is a very complex issue and i think it is very volatile and things can change. this idea of right now we're in a position, yes, republicans look terribly with latino voters, but things can really change once we get into a policy discussion. i wouldn't underestimate the policy differences over a guest worker program and unions are -- >> almost any scenario you can envision that would be no need to cancel the executive orders because any action that you can see that republicans can reasonably take would incorporate those things at the outset is my sense. so i don't think that would -- that will be the turning point. >> all right. let's bring in the audience.

[ inaudible ] >> henry, good to see you. always a pleasure. but let's be real. let's keep it real for a couple of things. don't you think pressure from the cities we heard mayors here, republican and democrat, saying that we have to deal with this situation now. don't you think the pressure from the senate uses is going to pressure congress into moving in 2015 or 2016 and secondly, again, keeping it real henry, you've been -- the mayor of san antonio, you can't close the border. anybody isn't reaching border security, high wind in the trees, it is not reality not that i've seen, if people want to get over here they manage to find a way to do it. >> i think the cities play a part because they are more diverse as you pointed out in the last panel. there are more diverse and there are some pressure for dealing with the reality of integration and the facts that have to be addressed on the ground. but i don't think it will be pressure from any one particular thing. it is the act lak-ackta@l accumulative

effect so i think it is a bigger macro kind of pressure that is going to finally say this is ridiculous. let's get this done. >> just something very briefly in terms of border security, you're absolutely right. we'll never be able to close off the border. can we improve border security? dramatically, yes. we did it with fencing in california, and arizona. the area that is really out of control right now, and it is out of control, is the rio grande valley. we need strategic fencing there. are we still going to have people coming in illegally because we have -- absolutely. that's why a guest worker program is so important to border security. we want strategic fencing, more assets at the border. we want to make sure good people want to come here to work can find a work visa come here legally, go back to their home country and re-enter legally.

now, so i think that's key to border security. one last point, so far we have had local governments, evangelical churches the chamber of commerce very involved. i think also the dynamic has to change a little bit. it can't be only immigration advocates and the business industry lobbying congress. i think we need more conservative voices, who support immigration reform. who have no ties to business lobbying republicans. i think conservative republicans, even tea party line conservatives are not going to listen to the chamber of commerce. they need political cover from conservatives and there are many conservatives who are supportive of immigration reform, but they also need to have courage to provide the political cover for the more conservative members to be able to support immigration reform in congress. >> you were talking about the 2017 scenario. i guess you were saying that if there is a republican president

they would not feel the need to repeal the order because most anything that would pass in a comprehensive measure would be included. but i guess i want -- it seems to be a plausible scenario we continue to have stalemate within the republican party, possible that not able to pass anything, and that the nominee has to pledge to repeal the order and say, yeah, i'll try to do something legislatively. >> i'm kind of an aca environment where they pledge to do something. and they get here and find out there are limited options. >> right. it may be -- >> not even smart to do it. >> it was -- it was a republican -- the situation in '06 was not that different when bush was in office than when obama was in office and the senate passed it with bipartisan support, over 60 votes and the house was simply unable to build a consensus to act in any direction. >> you could see the scenario that played out. in the final analysis, when they get into what to repeal there

is real people out there, real damage in the neighborhoods, in the streets, in the communities i don't think they'll have the stomach to do it. >> okay. >> over here. >> the center for american progress, and even one major national conservative institute have highlighted the economic benefits and the impact that immigration reform and the executive action would create. could you talk about this, the economic impact? >> the economic impacts are immense. everything from people unleashed to spend money that they earned. buy homes. alejandro is an expert on who just asked the question, on home ownership, and knows that in that business, the greatest percentage of household formations and candidates for home ownership a