following the great recession. the typical black and latino family own a little more than a nickel, 6 and 7 cents respectively to every dollar held by the white family. the typical black family has a little over $7,000 in wealth. while the typical white family has close to $112,000 in wealth. research and public policy has focused primarily on higher education as the driver of mobileity mobility. education alone does little to explain differences in wealth across race. it's more likely the case that wealth differences across race explain educational attainment differences. nonetheless, conventional wisdom is that to address racial disparity, blacks need to get over it, stop making excuses and take personal responsibility for racial inequality.

it's as if the passage of the civil rights legislation, conventional regulations have evolved from biological cultural determining. >> the implication of this rhetorical shift, is a public sentiment away from pbl responsible aeblts for the conditions of black americans and other sub altered groups. >> affirmative action is designated as a policy aimed at desegregating elite institutions including elite university admissions. a common perspective is that affirmative action amounts to reverse discrimination, where unqualified blacks take the admissions swlots for qualified whites. this argument underscores white entitlement and assumes that whites generally qualified while by default blacks are generally not qualified. it includes the historical

advantage for university legacies, and other channels which serve as hidden forms of affirmative action of privileged groups. it ignores the well documented evidence from experimental psychologists, involving the phenomenon of serial type threats, serial type boosts and serial type lifts. they collectively demonstrate that outcomes on high stakes standardized tests like the s.a.t. underestimate the achievement of college readiness for test takers for groups socially stigmatized as cognitively inferior while exaggerating the scores for individuals from groups deemed inferior. the conventional wisdom is only if black youth were more focused on education they could get a good job and pursue a pathway toward economic security. at every level of education the black unemployment rate is twice as high as the white rate.

since his data reveals that white high school dropouts have lower unemployment rates than blacks who have completed some college or earned an associates degree. a recent report by janelle jones and john schmidt indicates that unemployment rate for black college graduates exceeds 12% and is as high as 10% for black recent college graduates with a major. college degree is positively associated wealth within race but it does little to address the massive racial wealth gap. for families whose head earned a college degree. the typical black family has about $23,000 in wealth, while a typical white family has close to 8 times that amount with $80,000 in wealth. furthermore, and perhaps two

thirds of the wealth of white families whose heads dropped out of high school. it's note worthy that a good job is not a great equalizer as well. whitehead of households where the head is unemployed have nearly twice the amount of wealth for black head of households where the head is fully -- is employed full time. that's education is not the anecdote for the enormous racial gaps in wealth and unemployment. none of this is intended to diminish the intrinsic value of education, there is clear intrinsic value in education along with a public responsibility to expose everyone to a high quality education. what is concerning is the over emphasis on education as the panacea to address socially established structural barriers and racial inclusion. the racial wealth gap cannoting explainedably higher education, it is explained by inherited requests which -- these

interester family transfers provide young adults capital, to purchase a wealth generateing asset, like a home new business or debt free college education that will appreciate over a lifetime. access to this nonmerit based seed capital is not based on some action or inaction on the part of the individual, but rather the familial position in which they are born. in so far as we're truly interested in living up to the american promise of a civil right to economic opportunity and upward mobility for all, we need to acknowledge and address the role of intergenerational resource transfers and recognize the limitations while also recognizing the value of education. one such route would be to write to upward mobility and economic transformation. child trust accounts which i

will be happy to talk about in the q & a. but i think my time is up. >> that was a very sobering analysis. to put into perspective that nothing's a panacea but i also appreciate your recognition this is a significant issue, and one that does address at least partially the aspiration for upward mobility and improvement in one's socioeconomic status within generations and beyond. i'd like to ask chancellor white to comment on the strategies

that have been utilized in the california state university to address the challenges with respect to persistence and degree attainment. and if you would, talk about the way those strategies may have differed, may differ from the strategies discussed by dr. miller and dr. apree. given the differences between the comprehensive university and the flagship university as well as any other important differences to take into account account. >> thank you, trustee commissioner for the next three and a half hours, i'll be happy to answer your questions.

i think to step above the program, what really i think is at stake here for students who come from the dispar at sectors of society is how do we make them be prepared? feel welcomed and challenged and supported all at the seem time? and so the various programs such as the summer bridge program or an early start program, take to the san bernardino campus. they have a high number of students, a lot of poor kids. this upcoming summer, the president morales has as a requirement all incoming students need to be in residence for two weeks on campus before the start of the full term. the idea being, during those two weeks, students may come feeling

that they can't succeed, will end up leaving knowing they will succeed. they know where the library is, the laboratories are, they know how to interact with some new students, and faculty are there to support. i think before getting into specific programs, i want to say that the idea here is sort of a velcro idea, students who come from first generation don't have a family member to say hey, how do i go about being successful. how do i recover myself when i stub my toe on american history. we have to provide that level of support at the same time holding a high level of expectation for achievement. these programs that take at scale for us but individualized in experiences, in the weeks and months and years before they get to us in the university. once they're there, to also have early in their first and second year, the place with the greatest attrition occurs, the fact that they can get into a

small learning community by whatever design, whether it's a peer mentoring group or a co hort faction or into a laboratory or clinic or a studio, where they get that personal attention and realize that they are both welcomed and challenge ed challenged we often get criticized in can cal for having a low four and six-year graduation rates. you have so many that are average age is around 25 years of age now. ones that are working 30 hours a week or more. in order to manage life they cannot take a full load all the way through. we could rate our graduation rates by excluding those students from normal. i think we have to be prideful about who we graduate not who we

exclude. we're working hard to get many students to graduate sooner recognizing that they're not a monolith across any race or ethnicity, rather recognize the programs that help support them have success and achieve and move to a degree sooner. that may differentiate between the flagships who have a different admission standard. and coming together as americans, all of those pathways, i think is the other point i'd like to make multiple portals of access, multiple ways to be successful that's the american dream in this multicultural world of ours will succeed going-forward. >> could i ask -- yes. >> i'm going to tag on to the back end of chancellor white's comments. with specific remarks from the vantage point. i recent lyly made a new addition

my past experiences for a number of years have been working on student retention persistence and timely graduation. in selective institutions. and so i thought, i'm coming to cal state fullerton, i've done my research i have a good idea of what's going on here, entering an environment that is 98% commuter, 58% pell a lot of the methodologies that are enormative are limited in their scaleability. so the emphasis at cal state itemer ton has been on persistence of timely graduations that are imminently scalable. the importance of things like technology. we don't have the funds to hire the number of academic advisers to meet standards. we're not going to get to that

250 to 1 ratio to do truly transformative advising every step of the way, what we can do is on board technologies that allow the academic advising staff that we do have to use a much more sophisticative platform, to make sure that the advising time they spend with students is spent on the students that need the help the most, and on the students that are most likely to benefit from 1 to 2 points of academic engagement. so really leveraging i think what in the private sector would be called big data to benefit core practices like academic advising, ultimately putting technology in the students hands, allowing them to use a mobil platform to bring a sense of coherence to the pathway. whenever students see a diffuse murky sea of you have 9 million options on your way to graduation, it actually can result in some level of analysis and the inability to move forward.

an hour ago, we were talking about community college swirl, and the inability to really leverage that associates degree effectively, we're able to put technology in students hands now, and soon we'll be better at it, that allow them to really see their degree path way mapped out from them, from their first year forward so they can say, you know, i'm thinking about switching from this major to that major which is very common. what will the implications be on all the credits i brought into the system and how will that reorganize itself, so my time doesn't change what do i need to do as a result of this career and a need for a new major so they don't have to be able to sit down with an adviser for an hour to map that out, we've been able to access the technology that will remap it for them. i think the combination of some of these scalable enterprise wide solutions we're looking at are important in the thinner budgets and the very high risk ecosystem that an access is

comprehensive like the cal state's embody. >> i would imagine that those principles although slightly different have some resinance to the presentation you made? >> thank you. i do think we make the mistake of scaling across too soon. we find a successful program a little too quit to try to save money, and, therefore, try to get everybody into that system. i put my business school hat on and say short bursts scaling across is the way to go. >> you don't say, oh, this program has a wonderful program let's do it for everybody. you have to systematically think

your way through it. there are very specific things we have done that i think makes students successful and i would do this whether i'm in a small university or large university. there are specific advising and mentoring skill sets to impart. students don't typically -- students from underrepresented and underserved groups don't do well in certain areas, unless special efforts have put into those. so the very specific strategists like make sure they have course sequences in the right place, making sure no one take ss economics because you've got to get them oriented to the idea that quantity and change comes

before quantity and chance. quantity and chance come before quantity and prediction. if you have these kinds of specific strategies in place. they can do economics, they can do experimental psychology. >> thank you. can i ask one more question, both for dr. hogan and chancellor white. can you talk about the number of students who come to your campuses from the community college, and so at least my recollection is almost two thirds of the students who are graduated by the california state university came to the university as transfers from the community college.

and yet the commissioner -- the answer to missioner yaki's question about hughow predictive success is going to the community college in the first place, what is the relationship between those two seemingly contradictory statistics? chance lower white and dr. hogan? >> briefly, we admit about 110,000 students every fall, which about 50% come from the community colleges so about 52 53,000 students and the balance are either restarting or coming out of high school. you're right the community colleges tend to be more successful. and result from it being 60% or so. a couple things have come to

play. first of all, in various regions, there is an affiliation in the k through 12 system, cal state campus and long beach, to where the faculty and administrator s administrators do the right thing in k through 12 you're assured admission in a long beach state and you can get through in two more years or three more years, that partnership is developing many different areas. that's one thing. there's legislation that occurred a handful of years ago in california. transfer challenged the community college faculty, and the california state university faculty and to a lesser extent the university of california

faculty, to create model transfer curriculum, in which students take a certain set of courses at a given community college guaranteed access when they pass those at the appropriate level, guaranteed access to the california state university campus. and that has just started about two or three years ago with some degree of success, this last year, some 6,000 or 7,000 of our students came in with an associate degree for transfer that means their entire lower division work is taken care of, they can get right into their major and have much better probability of success. the swirl part that happens when they just get thrown out of high school, into a community college without any direction. i think the paralysis of too many choices and the distractions of life is what gets in the way. if they get thrown into a community college without some kind of a lifeline, we will

never see them again. never fulfill their potential. i don't think they're correctly, but i think it's the evidence of where their success meets some structure and some expectation to go beyond the community college. >> thank you. dr., do you want to comment? >> some of my comments will sound similar, i'll give you some specifics. 15 years ago we took in thigh first time full time freshmen in the university system for everyone transferred, in 15 years, now today, it's a one to one ratio, we're taking in. that's a huge shift. why? i think societal i think parents in society have deemed community colleges as a good -- i'm not a spokesman for the community colleges maybe i'm just lucky in maryland we have -- i'm sure there are great community colleges all around the country. we have 16 phenomenal community colleges, and if you think

about -- people always say, it's so expensive to get a college degree. there is an affordable way if you want. and there's no more affordable way than going to community college, living at home. you might be living at home for work reasons for family reasons, all kinds of reasons, and then transferring and doing your last two years at a four-year institution. for that to work there's got to be some structure to it we have a program in maryland called aces, it's a collaboration between the university system of maryland, the community colleges and k through 12 where the community colleges send coaches down into the k through 12 schools. identify students low income, first in family, potentially going to college who just with some structure that frankly they don't have at home or there's

not a family history of you know, it's not a question of where are you going to go to college, that question is, if we're going to go to college. and they help them they get them on a guide path to college. we have a way to go maryland program system runs. we go out into middle schools around the state. and especially low income middle schools, and have seminars, invite the students and parents in. this is what -- this is the academic track you need to get on. okay, starting in middle school, so you're college ready. and by the way here's -- start thinking about scholarship programs and financial aid programs, if you can put away a little bit of money. $25 a month. i mean, a college savings program, all of those structures are in place, and we have a

very very almost seemless articulation system between our community colleges and four-year institutions. that is key also. there's nothing worse than going into a community college, taking 60 credits and having 40 of them trans per. to be successful, they need to be real courses, they need to be aligned with with the courses for a freshman and sophomore year, when that student comes in in their junior year they're truly a junior. >> there are programs that work? >> we even have one last one, if i may. we found a lot of students who talk about this churning or swirling or sometimes we call it credit accumulation with nothing to show for it. we saw a whole group of students

who went to a community college got 30 or so credits there, then transferred to a four-year institution and got another say 40 credits and that's it. they now have 70 credits nothing to show. we identify those students communicate with the community college and that student is likely with 60 or more credits, is eligible for an associates degree. and so they have some certificate, some -- also, i'm sorry to go on we established by legislation a 2 plus 2 program, that rewards students for going to community college, getting an aa degree, and transferring to one of our four-year institutions. they go to community college, get their aa degree. they get a $1,000 semester

scholarship. if they're regular, all majors, if they're a stem major it's $2,000 a year. there is a financial reward incentive for doing that. an institution, a historically black institution they're woefully low six-year grugs rate. but the students who transfer from community colleges four times as high graduation rate. i was actually quite concerned when i heard statements that community college transfers don't succeed. i -- we don't have evidence of that. >> i want to acknowledge that for some time now the commissioner has been on the line and. he's listening and participating

by tellephonetelephone. it may end up taking most of our time, if we have additional time. >> thank you mr. chairman this has been very informative. at some point in the future we're going to be writing a report that is making recommendations with respect to persistence for underperforming minorities. we've had several panels that have been phenomenal and they've recited a number of programs that increase all of those rates, but when you write a report to congress and the president. it comes down to one thing, money. i've heard from a number of panelists that you need substantially more funding. i also heard from panelists, that some of these programs have

been in effect for 50 years, we've had a department of education that's been in existence for 36 years syears. it's spent twrls of dollars, we hear that our college attainment rates have gone from number one in 1990 to number 11. we have very little to show for it. i saw another graph today that shows that the achievement gap between blacks and whites is now up by two pointses. two points that means it's going to take 300 points to be -- 300 years before its erased. that to put it char itably, is just a modest improvement. i'm being very charitable. i don't mean to be throwing cold water on all this but if we're writing a recommendation to congress, if it comes down to money, of the myriad of programs i heard about here there have been a number of interesting ones. dr. apree has a lot of interesting approaches. bang for the buck which ones in

your estimation are the most effective? >> well, i would say the ones that allow our students to engage with faculty on a campus and not be scurrying off for a part time job, so they can engage in a learning enterprise are the ones that bring the most value. you're working in a laboratory the faculty member says, you have organic chemistry exam coming up tomorrow, do really well on it, somebody cares about these kids to me, it's -- education to me is more than just the abc's, it's learning how to work in group settings it's learning how to set goals it's learning how to aspire for success, but manage defeat. it's much more than just going

to sarbanes oxley. if i were to say what matters the most are the types of support mechanisms from a low income status what college is all about the opportunity to be engaged and to stick and focus and not just be dropping in and dropping out. >> just trying to -- >> >> i think one of the things you said really struck a cord right now, the largest public effort to try to address a lot of the problems, is the access of success initiative. it's a national effort it's over 22 state systems are involved.

hundreds of institutions to try to connect historic commitments. and the learning that i want to share with you from the midterm report that came out in 2012 is that strategies that affect overall improvements in persistence for graduation in students in 4, 5 and 6-year-old s do not necessarily result in closing the achievement gap. the closing achievement gap often times takes different strategies, than improving the overall 4, 5, and 6 year graduates institutions were able to do a lot of good in the first five or six years of the initiative in moving the needle. when you move the overall by ten points, everybody moves by 10 points, african-american students are still lagging by 15

points. i think that there's almost two conversations to be had, how to improve the overall ecosystem so it supports student persistence and timely graduation, and how to embed identity conscious approaches for specific group members that their identity is at the crux of how they're experiencing higher education. they're trying to work very specifically with higher risk student communities to make sure they're supported men toured engaged with faculty. that has to be done with great intention ailty around issues if you're talking about the achievement gap for students of color, around race i wanted to make sure that was stated for the record today. >> i guess i want to add some

caution, which is, i'm hearing some -- i have concerns about diversion of resources into community colleges at the expense of four-year colleges, the concerns i have is that a fear of taking away choice and creating apartheid like systems that lead to one strategy toward education success and another strategy for another group of people, i mean, we can talk about success, for harvard university, net tuition is the key, the plan that they have, which allows all income qualifying students to get debt free education is effective, we can find effective programs, i want to add that cautionary tale, i want to end by talking about some new findings that mean looking at price using the panel study of income dynamics,

they have an indicator of giving family giving to adult children and one of which is education. clearly that's supporting their children and higher education. it's not the surprise that white families are more likely to engage in that activeity than black families but a resource differences than i cited earlier, what we are finding is that when a black family -- black families that do support their children, their resources are dramatically less than those of whites which suggested there's not a lack of value for education. the other point, when we look at outcomes for their children of the black families that give in comparison to the white familyies that give to their children. they have similar graduation rates from high school, and the black families are nearly twice as -- not twice as likely nearly 33% more likely to get a

graduate school degree. and indeed, 55% of the black children, of the adult black children who receive help from their families supporting higher education, do get a graduate education degree, those results have all types of selection and reverse causality. resources really are key, and there are families that are -- when we think about these deficit models there are families that have resources in these sub altering groups that are able to come up with great outcomes. >> we have a little extra time. >> resources are key, because when our students have the peace of mind to focus on their work we have the strategies to help them get the work done.

rome wasn't built in a day. african-americans and others could not even enrole untilled late '50s. we've got what it takes to do it. protect the resources and we'll get work done. >> if you're done we might have time to get commissioner yaki in as well. >> thank you, i want to first of all applaud uva for moving to a blind admissions and making a commitment of support to make sure that everyone who qualifies is able to attend i think that's an amazing act of leadership. a very important flagship school. i want to note that. it's not that we're all complaining about everything up

here. two quick questions opinion one is chancellor white, you noted you thought in answer to the commissioner's question ss, studying and enjoying in schools would be helpful. you mentioned work study. i wanted to ask about some other options. one of the things that we've had in our reading is the notion that the pell grant amounts have fallen behind in terms of even covering the full cost of college much less providing any kind of stipend. i'm wondering what your position is in terms of raising the pell grant amounts and whether a stipend might be worth exploring. . for those of you who talked about the trio programs, there has been some recommendation that the myriad of different

programs be merged into one more general grant program, i'm wondering what your thoughts are about what kinds of reform in those programs might be helpful. >> thank you, commissioner. yes, i think it's really the combination of the opportunities that are out there so pell provides resources, i am concerned, particularly for students of color low income that it's been in recent times excluded from summer session i think it's an artificial barrier to students if they fall behind by one course, they could get back on schedule if they got some pell support during the summer. there's a policy issue there that ought to be reconsidered. the stipend model is an interesting one that should be tried. we ought to be clear as a nation and as a state and in my case a

system, loose on the means to get there. a case like fullerton differ from the kind of students we have in terms of their backgrounds and so forth. some degree of flexibility would be paramount in how we can -- hold campuses responsible and accountable with success meeting certain objectives i think that's important as well it's a combination of these areas that -- education for a student is so personalized and individualized yet we're doing it on a big scale. i think it's -- that's the challenge in front of us, how do we manage both the flexibility, hold people high on account able but have outcomes that matter for american ss. >> i would just like to echo

what chance lower white is saying about the two pell in one year, the summer pell, we have a limited amount of money that we can use to assist students for summer school, which does allow them -- if they're not meeting satisfactory progress, or they want to do a double major or something along those lines, especially our low income students by having an additional pell for the summer. . a stipend one of the things when we're meeting 100% of need, that nied includes tuition fees, room and board but personal expenses, being able to travel home, to get to school and the bigger issue for us is when we're meeting a zero efc, and we're able to refund some financial aide to be able to assist with throws items it becomes a financial lit rationcy

issue, how do you budget that refund for the entire semester and meet your need in the form of a stipend. >> many of the panelists come from schools where the students are actually having to work full time it's not just the cost of school, you have less time for school because you're working 40, 50 hours a week. >> i'm going do give the vice chair one question and commissioner yaki one question, that will be the last. >> we heard yesterday from other panelists that the federal government was investing in higher education at the tune of two and a half times more money than the states were investing. and it was advocated by at least one of them that we do something -- that we change that

funding model. perhaps a model that would have the federal government match to some degree, the monies that the states were putting in that they needed to have some skin in the game i was wondering if representatives from a couple systems here will care to comment on whether that has any appeal to you at all. >> that would be a disaster for the state of virginia it would be a boone to north carolina but it would be a disaster for the state of virginia because we don't put enough money in our system. >> and we're putting in less and less. >> less and less. >> absolutely. >> i think -- i mean there's some merit to the concept. we're in our final budget negotiations, if you would like

to call governor brown for me, i would be happy to give you his cell phone. what is difficult in this nation, it will happen again sometime in the not too distant future is the next recession. when the state of california took $1 billion, one third of the support of the california state universities over the course of about two years. if there was some -- you know, everybody was suffering across the country. so it wasn't just a california specific thing but more refined partnership, between the federal and state governments on shared responsibility. one of the points i try to make, we're all in this together to help buffer those moment ss, may be something worth doing deeper thinking on. >> we are a state public university system, just by that definition, the state should be investing in the higher education system. knock on wood i've been

fortunate to be in maryland that has not cut higher education funding as dramatically as it has in many states. if i was in that situation, i would submit that the federal money should have some type of maintenance of effort provision to it. why should a state abandon its responsibility and effort to funding its public higher education system and let the federal government pick up the tab or the student or the parent whoever. it is absolutely a shared responsibility. >> thank you. >> did you want to say something? >> quick history has shown us that that shared responsibility, that race plays a huge role. we're interested in civil rights, it it ethically right the states should con club unite, we've seen i guess i'm

rambling on i could site many examples, the gi bill. administration of the gi bill that led to disparate outcomes at the higher education level. even though the money came from the federal level. if we were to come up with a program like this we can look at exams of mississippi which has a high concentration of blacks, may not contribute as much as a state like california. if the goal is to increase access for all groups where we had more agency within states of how those funds were administered. >> a quick question. >> i don't know if it's going to be too quick. i'm glad to hear what was said about the cal state system with regard to the community college program, i would add that cuny

has a similar type of structure program that tries to take people and get them into the kind of curriculum to get them into the four-year college, called the asap program. what wasn't said but a separate conversation i had. you run out of pell grant eligibility if you're caught in that swirl. you may go into the four-year institution, and after your second semester you're out and you're in deep trouble. access has always been a particular concern of mine. the impact of standardized tests is something that has always concerned me and we don't need to get too much into that right now, i want to ask this question because i have you all here. have you seen, and i'm not an

sad vow cat for or against have you seen any impact in terms of minority application rate or minority scores in applications with regard to the consequence of common core coming into the curriculum at the high school level? has someone seen anything there is it too early to tell, i would suppose? it's something you could watch for and look for that's obviously going to have some critics that common core is testing or curriculum may decrease the number of minority graduates from high school. >> i think we're actually unlike some places in the country are leaning forward pretty strongly on common core, as we go through the transition recognize there's going to be some water in the numbers that emerge our folks have been doing the sur gates for the standardized

testing. and the answers, things like psat and so forth, trying to use other measured variables to make sure we don't inappropriately exclude anybody. and exclude anyone of color or poverty. i think we've thought about it and recognize it will smooth out on the back end, we just have to get through it first. >> anyone else on the panel? >> if not i remind you the record is open for an additional 30 days if you would like to supplement your presentations, we encourage you to provide us with that information over the next 30 days. thank you, everyone, and we're going to take a break now until 1:00 we'll reconvene at 1:00 for the afternoon panels, thank you.

tonight on the communicators, at this year's consumer electronics show we met up with andrew keen and asked him why he feels the internet is not the answer. >> the internet is not the answer at the moment. it's not the answer in the sense that it's not working currently. it's lending itself to undermining jobs, it's compounding the inequality of an economic life, it's creating new massive minorities that were unimaginable in the 20th century. it's creating this economy which all internet users have been turned into products. we've been packaged up when we use google or facebook, it's like a big hitchcock movie. >> tonight on c-span2. earlier today, president obama told reporters at the g

life 7 summit that leaders are ready to impose additional sanctions against russia if they do not abide by the current minsk agreement. the president answered questions agreement. and he also answered questions on isis, cyber security and policy. tonight on c stash. and more on the transportation security administration. and with a former tsa official who has written stories about his tenure with the administration. live on tuesday at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. last week the senate foreign relations committee examined a potential iranian nuclear agreement. we heard about the plet nuclear proliferation poses in the region and the impact of lifting sanctions. this is a little more than two

hours. >> come to order. want to thank ambassador jeffrey and indyke for being here. i know ambassador indyke has a hard stop at 11:00 and we'll try to honor that. this is a part of series of events we're holding to veekt a possible nuclear agreement with iran. we're not here today to focus on the specific parameters just for he hadification last night we met in a classified setting with three fleerds the labs around the country and it was a technically focused briefing and

we had tremendous attendance and people were most interested in the technical details of the deal. the rest of the month we'll have similar hearings to people are prepared as of june 30th if an agreement is reached to assess that and not start from a cold start if you will. we appreciate you being here today to help us understand the regional implications of a deal. this is intended to high lie the concerns that the administration is so concerned about reaching an agreement with iran. some of the regional alliances that we have are not being really looked at. some of the u.s. interested. so against the back drop of turmoil in the east negotiating the agreement with our closest allies. instead of reassuring that the united states would remain our friend, some would say the

administration has implemented incoherent and self-defeating policies and i know will -- you will discuss those back and forth. the administration has revoked support for israel at the u.n. and dedicated to destruction of israel and asked them to strike isis and syria and withheld military equipment to egypt, bahrain and qatar and criticized saudi arabia and providing them military assistance for the same operation so there is a lot of cross currents here that are difficult for some of us to string together. in iraq, leaders are turning to iranian backed militias in the fight against isis and in syria, thousands continue to die at the

hand of assad and his backers while the striegs implements a strategy consisting of the ineffective use of milt force to be used only against isis itself and i think you saw a communication that came from one of the leaders of the syrian opposition where they were saying they are being trained and equipped by the united states but can only use that potential against isis and not against assad. i know they sent out a communication saying they were going to stop the training and not participate and that is a negotiating point but somewhat alarming. as iran deepers the influence from baghdad to dam as cass and beirut to sannia, the perspective is that the air force in iraq. i will say i was in iraq recently and it really did feel like, while i support what we're doing with the 3100 personnel we

have there, you really felt like what we were doing is helping create a better country for iran and iraq. even though again i support what is happening there. it feels very much that way with their infiltration into the parliament and the tremendous efforts on the ground. as we begin to look at how to evaluate a perspective nuclear agreement we cannot ignore the lack of coherent american leadership in the reegean and has left a vacuum that will continue to be filled by violence. without engagement to counter aggression and to support our partners the need for american involvement will continue to grow as conditions deteriorate. in your testimony today, i hope you will touch on what i will see as some of the puzzling claims from the administration about what an agreement with iran would mean for the region. one of the claims is apparent view of the administration that iran will become a stabilizing

force in the region. president obama said in recent npr interview that opening up the economy through sanctions relief makes it harder for them to engage in behaviors contrary tonight norms. i know again many allies are concerned thattin accessing $150 billion over time and having a growing economy will have just the opposite effect and cause them to be more strident in the region. do you accept the view that the world's leading state's sponsor of terrorism a nation contributing to the deaths of thousands of americans would somehow reform their behavior being -- after being enriched for pursuing an illegal nuclear program and i hope you will touch on what the administration portrays as the touch between war and a deal. i think that is a false choice and i look forward to your testimony today. i want to turn it over to our

zifrpg wished ranking member and appreciate his cooperation in every foef art and look forward to your comments. >> chairman, thank you for convening this hearing. this is an important month and i think we have already started with the briefing last night and today's hearing in the right way to keep not only our committee but the united states congress very much informed and involved in what is happening in the middle east. as i explained to you last night after i left the committee briefing, i went to the french embassy, and mr. indyke was there, along with about 50 other people who are very much engaged in middle east policies. the theme of the evening was a discussion about the middle east. and there were many people who expressed grave concerns about what is happening in the middle east, for good reason. just about every country in the middle east is at war and there is a lack of stability in that

region that affects u.s. interest. there is no question about it. but i found last night they were very short on recommendations. on how to -- we should proceed. and let me just point out united states is deeply involved in the middle east. there is no question about that. we're deeply involved with our military, we're deeply involved with our diplomacy and we're deeply involved in building coalitions to advance goals in the middle east which i think are universal and that is respect for human rights and all ethnic universities, and these are important goals in the middle east and not easy to achieve and cannot be obtained without the u.s. involvement and the u.s. is clearly involved. throughout that discussion last night iran was mentioned. probably the country mentioned the most was iran. and we know there are many, many

problems in regard to iranian behavior. we know that iran is one of the major violators of the basic rights of its own citizens. we know that it is a sponsor of terrorism. we know they have influence in so many countries in a negative way. yemen, and the saudis have expressed their grave concerns about the influence in yemen what they are doing in syria and iraq and compromising our ability to go after isil. there are so many areas that we are concerned about iran. but what we have concentrated on at this particular month is whether we can achieve a diplomatic solution to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. and mr. chairman i want to under score your leadership and how incredibly important that was in order to get the iranian nuclear review act of 2015 signed by the president and enacted into law. it is now the law.

and this committee played a critical role in achieving that accomplishment. and it did several things. but i still want to under score this one. it shows unity. unity here in our government. that we are focused on iran, not on the fights in congress. and it set up the right way to review a potential agreement on the p5+1 in iran and that is what we should have done and i do applaud your leadership and the work of every member of the senate foreign relations committee. which brings us to what do we do this month. and as the chairman pointed out last night we had a helpful discussion in a closed setting in regards to the technical aspects of what an agreement needs to include and today we're -- we have two experts who can help us understand the consequences of an agreement with iran as to u.s. involvement in the middle east, which is --

is not in isolation. there are many other areas that are involved and what will an agreement mean for the u.s. in the middle east. i understand we're not going to talk about the specifics of an agreement today, but i think we all agree that the diplomatic course would be the best with iran complying with an agreement that would provide ample time before any potential breakout that we could discover if they are violating the terms of the agreement and take appropriate action because any agreement is not based upon trust, it is based upon terms of an agreement to make sure that we can keep iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. one last point if i might. if we're successful in reaching a diplomatic agreement, we've removed one threat. that is, a nuclear iran. that is an important goal for us to achieve. but then what does iran do next? do they take a course of joining the community of nations in peaceful activities and

nonproliferation? we hope that would be the case but we don't have any illusions that that will automatically occur? or do they act with the increased economic empowerment to have more negligent impact in yemen and syria and iraq and spreading terrorism? we need to be prepared on how the united states can best act to make sure that the iranian activities are channeled toward positive rather than negative activities. and then lastly, if we're not able to reach an agreement, we also need to be prepared as to how we act to make sure iran does not become a nuclear weapons state. i look forward to hearing from the weapons. >> thank you veach. we'll now turn to our witnesses. the first is the honorable james jeffrey, currently with the washington institute ambassador jeffrey previously served as the security adviser to president

bush, ambassador to albania turkey and iraq. thank you for being here. the second witness is the honorable martin indyke from the brooks institution ambassador has twice served as ambassador to israel and recently as the special enjoy for the israeli palestinian negotiations, both of you have done this often. you can summarize your comments and obviously your written documents will be entered into the record. we thank you very much for being here and look forward to your testimony. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member cartin, members of the committee it is an honor to be back here. the question of iran, as you've just said, be it in the nuclear context or the regional context is one of the most important issues today in the middle east. but it is not the only one because we're dealing with a reegean, again as you said senator cardin that is in

crisis that we haven't seen since the end of the ottoman empire combatting terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and supporting our allies and partners and ensuring the free flee of hydrocarbons for the world economy. passing the act is a step in the right direction because it will allow the american people to have a say in the importance of their security and the people around the world. as we don't know what an agreement will look like, at best we only have a step of the possibilities based upon the april 2nd understandings, we can't make a final determination. obviously that will be based on verification questions what happens with the nuclear materials and the status of the infrastructure. but in any case, in looking at iran's program it is important,

again, as you said to put this in the context of actions in the region and i would propose the following as areas of consideration. first, agreement cannot be considered without looking at iran's record of destabilization throughout the region. either an iranian nuclear weapons capability or an agreement that grants iran a special status just short of having a nuclear weapons capability would pose extraordinary threats to a region already under threat. second, it the nature of the regime itself. two of my co-authors wrote that they have aspirations, a country seeking to assert dominance in the region and will not play by the rules. any discussion on iran's nuclear deal must bear this sobering thought in mind, it must not

read the willing to sign an agreement about a change of heart about its ultimate goals. we signed agreements with the soviet union on nuclear issues when we knew they were out to as chris jiff said, bury us but we did this withoy eyes open and we need to do this with iran as well. and third given iran's role in the ruthon, no nuclear agreement is better than iran's ability to break out iran's capability if it will under cut the current coalition. and fourth if there is no agreement, it is incorrect and tant amount that any agreement is better than none. were iran to walk away from the agreement laid out in general terms in april, the united states could probably ensure that the international sanctions currently in place stay on. if we decided in the end to not go along with an agreement such as the one laid out on

april 2nd, i think it would be hard, frankly, to keep the international sanctions that the e.u. and other countries have put on but we would have other means to do this but in the end getting to your point mr. chair any agreement is based upon our willingness to use military force to stop iran from trying to achieve a breakout capability, trying to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. we can't get around that fact. the administration officially has that as its position that it will act if iran does that. but these words are under cut constantly by arguments that military force will have no or little effect or lead to war. having spent a fair amount of time in war i don't say this lightly, but it is unlikely that we would see anything like vietnam or iraq. we have tremendous capabilities if we need to. i hope we don't. finally, there is the issue, as you said of reassuring our

friends and allies. camep david was a step in the right direction but it focused on conventional steps to the right states. they are focused on iraq, lebanon, syria, yemen, by iran in many different ways, the little green men. so in short in, looking at this agreement, what is important is not only what is in the agreement, but our willingness to use force to back up our commitment that they do not ever get a nuclear weapon and our willingness to push back against iranian efforts throughout the region. those are the three issues that i think are crucial. thank you, sir. >> mr. ambassador. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. gentlemen, i greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify today on this critical issue and i want to applaud all of you if i

may, for the way in which as many cardin said you came together and drafted and passed legislation which will give the senate a very important role in overseeing the details of this agreement. and i also applaud the deliberate way in which you are going about making sure that you understand the technical dimensions of which i couldn't come close to understanding. so thank you on behalf of all of us for taking this so seriously. i think if you are presented with an agreement, you will likely have to make a choice either to endorse it -- an agreement that will remove sanctions on iran but should ensure it remains nuclear weapons free for 10-15 years. or on the other hand to reject the agreement which would leave

iran three months from a nuclear weapon under eroding agreements. it is a difficult choice. in making that choice you need to take account of the regional implications of the deal and what can and should be done to amealier ate the negative fallout in the region and that is what i've endeavored to address in the short time available to me today. in my view if the arrangements currently being negotiated for inspection and monitoring together with the mechanisms for reimposing sanctions should the iranians be caught cheating if those are robust enough to deter and detect iranian cheating the deal will be worth upholding. in other words, the likely implications of the deal in my view are not sufficiently negative to justify opposing it. indeed, given the state of turmoil engulfing the middle

east ensuring a nuclear weapons free iran for at least a decade and tight monitoring of the nuclear program for much longer than that will help remove a primary source of tension and trust a greater cohesion amongst our partners in the region in dealing with the other sources of conflict and instability there. put simply everything that we're all concerned about in the middle east will become much greater -- much greater concern were iran to acquire nuclear weapons. one question that i think is on the minds of a lot of people is whether this deal will lead our regional allies to decide that they too, should pursue a nuclear weapons program or at least a civilian nuclear program that would give them ability to cross over to nuclear weapons

the former saudi ambassador to the united states said that whatever iran has, we will have the same and that has fueled speculation that the saudis and others egypt, jordan, perhaps turkey will go down the nuclear road as well as a result of this agreement. that would be a bitter irony indeed, mr. chairman since the whole purpose of this agreement is to prevent a nuclear arms race in the region. so it would be ironic indeed if it were to spark one. i actually do not believe there is a high risk of that happening. and to put it simply why would saudi arabia, which has not embarked on a nuclear program for the decades in which iran was pursuing one now decide to go for a nuclear program in the context of a deal in which

syria's curbs are going to be placed on the program. and plus if they want the same they have to agree to the same kind of inspections and arrangements that will be imposed on iran as a result of this agreement. and i find it hard to believe that the saudis would be prepared to do that. much the same applies to the others. egypt talks about a nuclear program, the same with jordan but they do not have the scientific capabilities the costs, the time, and the restrictions that they would have to accept including the additional protocol that iran will accept as part of this agreement. it seems to me it will make it unlikely we need to face that kind of problem. what about israel? i think that israel's leadership is deeply alarmed by this, to say the least. and has good reason to be concerned about the intentions of the iranian leadership. and they have the duty to take that seriously. but, since this agreement will

turn the clock back on iran's nuclear program placing it at least one year away from a break-out capability for the next 10-15 years israel has no reason to preempt for the time being and i think that israel's concerns later on about the way in which this agreement to pave the way to a nuclear weapon can and should be addressed, including by the congress in terms of entering into agreements with israel, to expand its assistance to give it the capability to defend and deter against a possible nuclear iran which as a result of this deal i believe will be put off long into the future. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i know we have a line participation. mr. indyke has a hard stop at 11:00. and i may inject some questions and refer to ranking members so others have the opportunity to ask questions. >> thank you. and thank you to our witnesses.

as i said in our opening statement. if we reach an agreement with iran and if we are successful in having an agreement that prevents them from moving forward with a nuclear weapon program, there is still many issues in a relationship with iran. so i just want to sort of crystal ball where we are after an agreement. iran could very well continue current policy of supporting terrorism and interference in so many other countries that are making it very challenging for our -- our partners in the region region. how do we influence the iranian calculations. we've seen in the past that the passage of sanctions in regard to the nuclear proliferation was bricking them to the -- bringing them to the table for an agreement and what type of strategic alliances should the u.s. be contemplating to effect the calculation iran is using in

its engagement in yemen and in lebanon and in iraq and syria? do you have any advice as to where we should be trying to develop those types of alliances and strategic partnerships? one last point on this, and that is in the last, 10, 15 years our strategic partner shirps in the region have changed. we've had close relationships with egypt and that went through a difficult period and we're trying to rebuild that and jordan has been a trusted strategic partner for a long time but there have been issues in regard to that relationship. the only partner that we've had that has been a consistent partner to the united states has been israel and they of course have problems with where we're heading on the iranian arrangements and what advice would you have for a post-agreement middle east with

iran? >> thank you senator cardin. the problem of rolling back iran's nefarious activities in the region in the places that you've focused on lebanon, sear, iraq yemen in particular, is that they have been able to exploit two advantages which we have a hard time dealing with. first of all the collapse or erosion of the effectiveness of state institutions in these countries provide fertile and low-cost ground for them to exploit by building parallel institutions, in effect to exercise considerable influence in these countries.

and when they do so they do so by taking advantage of the fact that there is a shia population in each of these keernts -- countries that is open to their influence, whether it be to cash or arms or training. and they have, of course iranian revolutionary guard corp specifically designed for that purpose. and they are very effective at it. and that combination presents a great vulnerability and therefore presents a great difficulty in terms of how we can counter it. the answer lies essentially in strengthening the institutions of governance in those countries but that is a difficult challenge which we don't usually do very well. i think you use the word partnership and partners and i

think that that is essential in this effort. first of all, yes we have to provide strategic reassurance we are not about to abandon our strategic allies whether it be egypt, israel jordan, and saudi arabia in the gulf states and that is a very important adjust to doing this deal with iran. but then we have to work with them particularly of course the sunni arab states in terms of building capabilities to go in and bolster the institutions there that can counter the vulnerabilities that iran exploits. people are fond now and particularly the administration spokesperson of this is a long-term project and thereby trying to escape direct

responsibility for making something happen on their watch. it is a long-term project but we have to start now and we have to start in the context of this nuclear deal precisely because the fear of abandonment, which i think is vastly exaggerated by our allies and traditional partners in the region, needs to be addressed if we are to ensure that we start a process of containing and rolling back iran's destabilizing activities in the region. >> mr. jeffrey. >> senator, ambassador indyke has outlined exactly what the problems are and a lot of the steps we could take. a few specific short-term ones. long-term we could do anything in the world but the question is what are we going to do right now. first of all, we have to restore our military credibility.

we have to have congressional support for use of military force, if iran goes to a break-through. we have to know what the administration and the next administration's red lines are for when they would strike if iran did that. besides the impact of that on a nuclear negotiation, that would have an impact in the region by making people think we would live up to our commitments and restoring our power. in terms of specifics in region, we need to do more in syria against assad i'm not advocating overthrowing him or go to war but a no-fly zone or arming the resistance fighters to not just fight isil but assad, but to make sure that assad and russia and iran understand we are not going to let them win. we are pushing for a negotiated settlement to make sure that area remains independent. and same thing in iran.

there are steps we can make sure that this is not just security from a land invasion but the infiltration of the region but an iranian ambassador. indyke said shia supported almost an i deal logical religious movement. >> senator purdue. >> thank and thank you both for being here in your testimony and your service to our country. i have a question about the money and the sanctions. today it is estimated that we have about $140 billion in held cash through these sanctions on just their oil exports alone. president obama back in april mentioned there would be a signing bonus. we don't know details about that, as high as $50 billion on that. iran right now is producing -- potential capacity around $36 billion annually in terms of oil exports, larger than

venezuela. and they spend about $10 billion to $17 billion on their military and that seems low but those are the estimates that we've seen but it puts in perspective their about to have a cash wind fall and with their history of supporting terrorisms around the world, what is your opinion about what we can expect from this wind fall of cash. i don't think it will go to domestic programs. and so the question is it looks like we have to different points of view and i would be interested in your point of view given this wind fall of cash given these windfall, if we get a deal. >> it begins if do we think that signing this agreement is going to either flip iran into being a status crow power in the region or service some kind of encouragement that will happen

over the longer term. i see no evidence of that given iran's past and the ideological and religious role in the region and the very strong efforts it has made not just under the current region but under bashar to have a position in the region. i think we can expect that to continue and we've seen this around the world with other countries that have achieved regional power and iran is probably not all that different. totally aside from the religious aspect. it is hard to believe they will not use part of that to further enhance their efforts from gaza to lebanon to iraq to syria, to yemen and find new places as well. so it will be more of a threat because of that. i also think that they will take some of the money and deveet -- devote it to the domestic side because the rowhani government came to office on that basis.

>> thank you, senator. i think that we need to first of all bear in mind that this is kind of inefitiable cost of doing an agreement that puts meaningful curbs on iran's program. we need to make sure that they are meaningful and that we can ensure that the iranians' don't cheat and we can put the sanctions back on if they violate the agreement. but if with we go ahead with the agreement, we don't have an option but to lift the sanctions. that is the deal here. i think you are right to be concerned about the windfall and how it will be used. i think as jim has said, some of it will be used for -- for the economy. there is a high expectation amongst the iranian people that this will produce economic benefits and i think the regime

will want to do some of that but they have a lot of money to spend for other purposes and i find it hard to believe that the guard corp and the ministry of intelligence who are the main vehicles for spreading their destabilizing influence across the region are not going to get paid off to go along with an agreement, which they have made clear that they are not happy about. and it doesn't cost a lot of money to do what they've been doing. so a boost to that activity could be problematic. one example is that the assad regime is hurting economically and also hurting militarily but were the iranians toin fuse cash it would help it hold on. and there are other ways in which it could provide funding and arms and so on, for

instance to the shia militias in iraq, which would filt the balance even further in the favor of shia militias versus the lacent sunni militias that are barely able to stand up. and that is not a good thing. and so there are all sort of ways it could become problematic. having said that, there are things that we can do and need to do, to prepare for that and to counter it. and that is what is so important about needing to recognize that as a complement to the deal, there has to be a u.s. strategy for the region that is designed to deal with iran's destabilizing activities. >> have you seen such a strategy yet? >> you know, it is nascent i would say. i would think that the camp david meeting with the gulf countries is the start to that.

it has some specific references which i think would be worthwhile for you to get further explanation from the administration. in some closed hearings. but there are public references to working on counter insurgency counter-terrorism, in that regard cyber security other things. those are the kinds of things that they need help with that we need to be focused on. we've too easily responded to their needs by selling them more aircraft. and that is good for our industries and i understand that. but in these circumstances as we can see in yemen, aircraft aren't the most effective thing. we need their troops on the ground because of our own reluctance to put troops on the ground. >> i'm sore yoi to interrupt. i only have a few seconds left. russia have announced they've done a deal and are going to sell surface to air missile programs, russia has used these in the ukraine and we are told

and russia has said this is mainly a defensive weapon but it also allowed iran to project power into the region. ambassador jeffries are you concerned about this development? >> very much senator for several reasons. first of all, while there is no u.n. resolution or requirement against that, they say exercise restraint in providing weapons to iran. the russians just blew through that and there is no lifting on this until the u.n. does so. so that is problem number one. problem number two is these do have a capability that is under certain circumstances threatening to our air power and our allies. and thirdly it sends a signal to the region that iran has a big -- and let's face it -- a very aggressive buddy backing it. again, leading to what ambassador indyke and i have

been talking about a desire on the folks in the area saying who is backing us and how are you backing us? >> thienk mr. chairman. >> instead of asking a question i'm just going to interject -- is it in our national interest that iran dominate the region as they are beginning to do, and if not, should congress take into account, as we look at the details of any deal, should we look at the fact as -- or look at whether the administration has that counter availing strategy with potentially this much money coming into their hands and their influence in the region, should that be a factor as we look as whether a deal with iran should be approved? briefly and then we'll move to senator plen endez? >> i think you're right to focus on the details of the deal. it will be complicated enough in itself. but certainly i don't see any reason why you shouldn't

question what the strategy is. i believe that the administration is developing that strategy. but definite you should look into that and see what they are doing. because it is critical. it is not, in my view sufficient -- the problems that iran can create in the region additional problems that it is already doing as a result of this deal, is not a reason for not doing the deal, but a reason for insisting there be an effective strategy to deal with the kind of turbo boost that the iranians are going to have in the region. to answer your question about what our interests are in the region well basic interests come down to the free flow of oil at reasonable prices, which is less important to us directly now but still critical for the global economy which we depend upon, and of course the protection of our allies in the region starting with israel. and in that context, domination

by iran would be dangerous for all of those interests and therefore something that we have traditionally opposed and i think should continue to oppose. >> very quickly, senator, i agree. the answer is absolutely not. furthermore, our whole foreign policy since world war ii and since 1989 has been based on not allowing anybody to dominating any region. we went into combat against mill osovich against that in the bakkens, against iran in 87-88, against saddam in 1991 and later several times and if you have that the national order goes down the drain as one regional hegga mond dominates and does not allow people to follow their own will. iran has a model for this. one of the more moderate

sovereign, who was in exile, has laid it out and it is basically a security arrangement in the region with israel weakened, the united states out of the region, armed sales to our allies stopped and iran playing a predominant role. they know what they want and they are working on it. >> i have one quick point that occurs to me is that it is important to understand sunni arab states will not accept iranian domination and so the consequences of a greater success by iran dominating the region will be a counter available effort to prevent that from happening and deepening sectarian sunni-shia conflict. >> and to add to my point, and sunni-arab states have not helped, coached led and back by us are going to go about resisting this dominate, leading to ways we will not like, in the

sunni her shia ways that he just talked about. >> and thank you for your service to the country. the more i listen to your responses, the more i am concerned that the strategy that should exist under the hope that we will get an agreement that actually could be supported and embraced as a good agreement is a strategy that is all on the come when it should be up front because the turbo boost that you said ambassador indyke is something we will be behind the curve on. and what worries me as part of that is when the administration says to those who are skeptd cal about the -- skeptical about what the nature of the final deal will be, based upon the interim agreement and based upon

the basic understanding of the interim agreement and based upon actions like iran increasing the fuel enrichment by 20% which may be within the jappo huh but has to be eliminated by june 30th which is an extraordinary action they have to do unless they ship it out which they say they are not willing to do, so when you tell your adversary you are negotiating indirectly, if not an agreement then what? the suggestion is agreement or war, which i reject. i think there is a third way. but when you send that message, if not an agreement, then what? and when you say that, well, if necessary, we'll use our military capabilities but then undermine the essence of that capability but saying it won't have much of a result at the end of day, the message you are sending in your negotiation, is one of weakness and not of strength and you let the other

side know you want this deal as badly as they do and that is a dangerous negotiating posture. with the lack to deal with the aftermath and already sending their messages it is a dangerous proposition so it is a strategy that we've had two years of thinking about negotiation we would have been evolving a strategy in the hope that we achieve the successful negotiation and know what to deal with in the aftermath. let me ask you, shouldn't our focus in the region be to strengthen the state system in the middle east? >> yes. >> i'll take that for an answer. >> easier said -- it is very good to see you. on the first point, if i might. i don't think that the alternative is war. but i do think that we feed to

look seriously at what the alternative is. given where we are. now, if the iranians do not agree to a regime that provides verification inspection monitoring and snapback of sanctions, then we should walk away in my opinion. because we'll be justified in doing so and we will have a credible case to make to our partners in this negotiation, the p5+1 and others that the iranians were not prepared to agree to a deal that was acceptable. and that is the critical point here. but if they are willing to accept all of our stipulations when it comes to inspection and verification and snapback then i think walking away from that

deal will have consequences. it will mean that we will not be able to hold the sanctions. and faced with the kind of erosion of support we will have a much harder time dealing with the iranian nuclear program, that will continue and pick up steam. >> of course, what is verification what is snap back, what is military dimensions and how far research and development can go and how you define those are incredibly important because when we started this negotiation for example we were told that iraq would either be destroyed -- dismantled by them or destroyed by us and told that fordow would be closed and the reality is neither one of those is the case. and so -- and there is a whole history of goals that have been moved. so my question is what is the

definition of the elements that you describe. but getting back to my question, your answer is yes, we should strengthen the state system. now is it fair to say that iran's influence at least up to this date, has been to destabilize state actors in the middle east? and we see that in yemen, we've seen it in lebanon, we see it throughout the region. is that a fair statement? >> senator it certainly is. there are two major threats to the state order into the middle east. and everything including our security, is based on that. one, is extremist sunni movements such as al qaeda and isis. another is iran, which uses both religion and traditional state-craft to try to sub vert countries. and we know the tools. it is denying a monopoly of

force by governments and winning over the loyalties of part of the population hezbollah and lebanon and some in iraq and more to tehran than their own countries and it is religious as well. it is worrisome. >> and so if our interest is to support state systems and tehran's whole purpose is to undermine state systems is it also fair to say that even with the sanctions an the drop in oil prices that have bit significantly on their economy they are still using a fair amount of their resources to do that to undermine state actors, is that fair to say? >> yes. it is certainly fair to say. and that is part of what -- >> and if that is fair to say, then when you have even greater amounts of money, it would seem to me that yes some of it will go for domestic purposes, but a fair amount of money if you are

suffering, and you are using your money not to help your people but to promote terrorism, so when you have more money you can help your people to some degree and still promote that terrorism. that is a real concern. and finally, let me just say, you know do you think that the gulf partners looking at the budapest memorandum think that our guarantees really mean a lot? we told ukraine that if they gave up their nuclear weapons that, in fact, we would guarantee territorial integrity. that hasn't worked out too well. so if they don't purse eye a nuclear pathway because iran is at the precipice of it and we are going to guarantee your security i think that is a little tough for the gulf partners to believe in and of itself. if you add the obligation to keep is real's military edge to

whatever you are going to gifl the gulf partners and the real concern is a nuclear weapon i don't quite see how that works. >> well, first of all i think that our gulf partners are far more concerned about iran's activities in their neighborhood than they are about iran's nuclear ambitions. and that is the only way to explain why they haven't sought nuclear capabilities themselves. they certainly haven't lacked the funds to do so. so i do think that you could see coming out of the camp david summit that they do care about getting these assurances from the president. and they have committed themselves in that communication to supporting or welcoming a deal that would have the kinds of things that we've been talking about in terms of inspections and vac fissionation

and -- verification and snapback but i think they are looking to see if the united states are going to be with them in terms of the problems they face with iran. and that is a much harder thing for us to do for them. we can protect them against an external iranian threat, but dealing with the kind of sub version that iran is involved in exploiting the chaos and collapse of institutions in that region is much harder to do, especially if we are not prepared to put our own forces on the ground to do it. then we have to find other forces to do it and we have to look to them to do it. that is why we talk about partnership and it is going to require them to work with us on this as well. >> senator isakson. >> thank you, chairman corker and thank you both for being here and thank you for your service. i want to follow upond senator

menendez's. since we pulled out of iraq we have done nothing to demonstrate in the past 18 months exactly what our commitment is in my judgment. you mentioned ukraine and there were comments about whether we backed the right people in the middle east and whether or not we would confront iran in terms of its nefarious activity. and i remember from my business akts tity, the best deals are where i first walked away from the deal before i came back because i find out how bad the other guy wanted to make a deal and the worst deals was when the deal was more important to me than common sense and i worry we're getting into a situation where we would not walk away. you have heard credible either one of you from the conversations from the iranians like we won't allow military bases to be inspected and this and that.

aren't those the type of things to know we would walk away and shouldn't we have made that statement definitively so it is not without question. >> we've heard these statements. for example, the deputy negotiated to sharif had conversations that did come to our attention with the parliament in close session in tau ran that said some things are in negotiation with americans. we haven't seen the agreement in the final form yet senator. but certainly those are very important points. do you not have full eyes on, which supposedly is critical to this agreement if you cannot visit military installations and interview their scientists and other technical officials. so that is very important. and that is something that the administration should insist it and if they don't get it they should walk away or wait until they do get it.

>> we must be believable in our negotiation or we'll get taken. that is the point i want to make. and second on what the senator made, it it is not the russian, it is 3900 -- isn't that capable of carrying a tactical nuclear warhead. >> i don't believe. and again it is a surface to air system. in theory the systems can be refigured to carry nuclear warheads but frankly iran has a disturbing arsenal of long range missiles and that is why we are putting the missile defense systems into rurp, 3000, 4,000 miles away and they have missiles that can go that far which is further than it can fly and so it is to shoot down our aircraft and our cruise missiles. >> let me ask both of you a question because i have tremendous respect for your service to the country and the knowledge which i certainly don't have. let me ask you this. what do you fear the most about

making a deal with the iranians or not making a deal with the iranians. what should our biggest concern and fear be? >> in terms of making the deal, i think there are two major concerns which we've been discussing. one, is that they will cheat. they've cheated before on the flon proliferation treaty and korea got away with cheating and built a nuclear weapon and that has to be the concern within the deal to make sure they don't have that ability. and i agree. if we don't get that and we should be prepared to walk and in any negotiation, as you pointed out. but particularly in a negotiation with iran. being ready and willing to walk away if we can't get our minimum requirements is critically important to the negotiations. and i think that the statements that they've been making which actually do not accord with the things that they've already agreed to in the negotiating

room is an indication they are posturing for their public that the public -- that they have a problem with the public opinion and raised the expectation of the public opinion that there is a deal on their terms so i think we have a better ability to walk away than they do at this point. so we are at a stronger position if we focus on the issues within the parameters of the deal and make sure we get what we need in that regard. the second problem is outside of the deal. and we've discussed that already this morning which is how do you contain and rollback their activities in the region. you can't do that as part of the deal but you'll have to have a strategy that deal with it alongside the deal. >> senator, in terms of a deal, the thing that i'm most worried about is that we'll wind up looking like we keep on making compromises and we're seen as weak and that has a huge impact

in the region or people will think that the u.s. government actually believes that this deal will change the tune in tehran and they will be potential status quo power or partner in regional security and i think that is worrisome. in fairness you said what are you woiryed about with a deal or without a deal and taking a few hits at the deal, here is one of the things the deal will give tuesday it. will give us more internet support. that is important for two things. the international sanctions, and they are the most important, they do hinge on a good relationship between us and the e.u. and including china as our iranian oil importer. and secondly, i've second timed cited the importance of us using military pors. our experience has been sadly when we didn't have international support for us, iraq and vietnam being two

examples, we had a much harder time and international support is a value that you do get in this agreement. it has to be balanced against other ones. possibly sending a weakness, possibly people questioning our deterrence in tehran. there is a certain value to an agreement if it's verifying and if it does give you the one year time before they could break out. >> so i'll just follow up so to understand a good deal and the definition -- your definition and mine of a good deal a good deal for the american people and middle east of the middle east would be preferable than not making a deal because it would raise our stature with the international community, is that what i heard you say? >> there is no good deal at this point. a good deal would be no enrichment. a good deal would be they're out of the business of having a nuclear weapons threshold capability. it's a question of a bad deal that may be better than a set of other circumstances or perhaps, living with the other circumstances. one of the things that a deal

does give us is the ability to mobilize the international community. that ability typically has been very successful, when we've had to use military force such as in korea in 1950 or kuwait in 1991. >> thanks to both of you, so much. >> thank you to your witnesses. a couple of comments and some questions. my assessment of the status of the u.s. iran dynamic as adversaries prenovember 2004 was that the combined weight of congressional executive international sanctions were putting deep pressure on the iranian economy, hurting and affecting the iran economy that helped bring them to the table. i don't necessarily think the combined weight of sanctions was slowing down their nuclear program. i think it accelerated it. to the extent they felt

isolated. they were putting an unreasonable amount of efts into advancing the nuclear program. the status before the president and diplomats engaged, i think the sanctions were working against the economy. during the pendency of the jopoa since november 2013. i've been to israel twice and even the israelis who are worried about an ultimate deal, acknowledge some grudgingly, some enthusiastically, that they think the jopoa period has been a positive. that the combination of roll back of some elements of the iranian program together with additional inspections has been a positive. they like that better than the prenovember '13 status quo. now we move to the situation of what we're going to think about with respect to a final deal. this is a sincere question.

it will sound like i'm not sincere. but i'm going to ask it this way, i don't view this as a negotiation about whether iran will be a friend or an adversary. do either of you doubt that the region, the united states and the world, are safer if iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon than if they do? >> i think this is the primary benefit of a deal that is enforceable. that is, that it will give the region and the united states and our allies there, particularly israel a 10 to 15 year nuclear free iran. in which we will no longer be faced with this kind of sense that iran is about to cross the nuclear threshold. >> in other words a bellicose

iran with a nuclear weapon is really dangerous in terms of potentially throwing its weight around in the region and in the world? >> correct. we're talking about a region which is in chaos. and so add a nuclear iran to the michigan mix then the other states in the region will have a strong incentive to get nuclear weapons. then we've got a nuclear arms race on top of all this. we need the breathing space. the breathing space is worth something. time is not neutral in this situation. 10 to 15 years, we can use the 10 to 15 years. roll back iran. >> absolutely.

>> at this point -- the systems

which. iran is being unreasonable. or they were willing to be somewhat reasonable and other parties refused to make a deal. if it looks like iran is trying to be -- if it looks like the u.s. and other partners are being unreasonable. it's difficult to hold the coalition together. would you both agree with that? >> i think it is exactly right. it depends on how the deal breaks down. if there's a deal that meets the requirements of the p 5 plus 1,

and let's say that the congress decides in its wisdom that this isn't a deal they can support, so we're responsible for in effect walking away. i think it would be very hard to maintain the international sanctions in those circumstances. if iran refuses to agree to for instance inspection of its military bases. we have a great deal of credibility in walking away. i think actually we should. because i believe that they will then buckle under and accept what we need. >> let me ask you about the other part of the decision treaty, if there is a deal that generally meets the framework and iran accepts it and we'll have to dig into the details. i'm interested in inspections. there will be inspections. i want to make sure that they're vigorous and immediately every

day. also inintel that gives you the information about how to do it. now we have intel now that's been demonstrated in the past, the intel we have. that's not going away. isn't intel plus the additional information. >> i think that that's absolutely the case. being on the ground, and being able eto go anywhere anytime, is critically important. we're going to still need the intelligence assets that we've been using. and working with our allies and their intelligent capabilities. being on the ground make as huge difference. in iraq i had some experience

when i was in the clinton administration on this. when we had inspectors on the ground even though they were being blocked in various places you remember the cat and mouse game. >> give us an ability to know. and in this case, the inspectors are going to be at the mine head, at the milling at the enrichment process at the stock piling. and iraq, the plutonium reactor.

so we got to have full visibility on their program and that goes on for, i think 25 years. of that kind of inspection. i think that will give us some degree of assurance that we will know if they cheat. >> thank you i will interject that was a good line of questions preciate it. there is -- it's called the iranian nuclearevelopment program. it's a document that outlined that. for some reason the administration will not share it with us. i've asked both at the energy level, the secretary of state level, and the chief of staff and the president. so i think that there are legitimate concerns about what happens after year ten and it makes me concerned that they're unwillingness to share that with