all the factors as we move toward the end of the year could result in loans potentially being defaulted on or -- so i just ask that we be understand of those proven barrels in the ground. the last time we were together before this committee we discussed. basel 3 leverage ratio rule as it relates to the treatment of segregated margin. i appreciated your response of on-balance sheet accounting treatment. i would like to go a little further today and specifically talk about the basel leverage ratio extending to off-balance sheet exposure. in this off balance sheet context, why is customer margin collected by a bank affiliated member of a clearing house being treated as something the bank can leverage? when congress very explicitly required such margin be

segregated away from the bank's own resources? for the benefit of my colleagues, i suspect on any given day we're talking a couple hundred -- $200 million -- oh, big numbers here. $200 billion in resources on any given day. cue enlighten us a little on that, chair, please? >> well, the leverage yashratio was meant to be a nonrisk-based measure that are carried on a bank's balance sheet and that includes derivative transactions. it's not clear for many kpdz the leverage ratio is what's minding risk-based capital standards in many cases, but this is something we're having a look at. i recognize it's a concern. it's something the basel committee is discussing and

trying to gather additional information on what impact it's having. and it is something that is very useful to put on the agenda that we will have a close look at. >> that's all i can ask, chair, that you work with our friends at cftc and foreign regular later friends to come up with an approach. $200 billion that can't be touched by the banks but yet you have to have extra resources to cover. seems like the net effect would be more cost and strained on those resources. i appreciate your comment. so with that, mr. chairman out of character i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. i want to thank you for your testimony. pursuant to our customer, we look forward to having you back soon, separate and apart from your humpry hawkins appearances. will have five days to submit written questions for the

witness to the chair, which will be forwarded to the witness for her response. i would ask the chair please respond as promptly as you are able. without objections, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials to the chair for inclusion in the record. this meeting stands adjourned.

the federal reserve chair janet yellen spending three hours in front of the house services committee today. tomorrow she'll be in front of the senate banking committee. if you can find it online at c-span.org. we'll take live to the east room of the white house to await the arrival of president obama for

his news conference, which will likely focus entirely on the iran nuclear agreement announced yesterday here in washington and also in vienna. they tweet senator corker, chair of foreign relations committee, says he expects the iran deal to come to congress, quote, bit end of the week, starting the 60-day clock. that 60-day review period for congress and then a vote up or down on the agreement. the president saying if they disapprove they would veto that. live coverage of the news conference. we'll follow this with your thoughts and comments on twitter and on the phone when the president wraps up.

waiting for president obama his 12th news conference of the year according to cbs news.

it's expected to focus largely on the iranian nuclear agreement. amber phillips of "the washington post" writes that congress has 60 days to review the nuclear deal, just signed with iran. lawmakers will vote on a yes or no resolution that could give the deal the go ahead or halt it, at least temporarily. she writes that obama has vowed to veto any no vote or effort to dilute a deal he says will keep iran from building a bomb. "the washington post" has started monitoring the senators' comments and how they might vote. the current state of play in senate, 34 voting yes needed to uphold a very toe and keep a deal. 25 are leaning yes. on no 67 are needed to override the veto or kill the deal, 53 are leaning no. so that's from "the washington post" and an early count. congress hasn't even received the deal yet. they'll have 60 days to review

it. look for hearings in the coming week, in senate foreign relations, acourt willing to the chairman of that committee. no vote likely until after the august recess. president obama will do the news conference here. he is headed later to oklahoma viflting the choctaw nation and he'll be the first president to visit a federal president as he has this week been focusing on corrections reform in some of his speeches and comments. live coverage on c-span3 following the president's news conference today. we'll take your phone calls and comments on twitter as well. you can tweet us @yspan.

question becomes what happens to any suspicious sites? that's what you get into potential cat and mouse game. this anywhere, any time access to sites around the country. an official said that's just a myth. no country is going to allow internal inspectors to go any

time this negotiated process -- >> some white house reporters doing their stand-ups in front of the room waiting for president obama and his news conference to get under way. here on c-span3. we'll following with your comments your calls your tweets following the president's news conference this afternoon. and meanwhile, over in the senate, the senate voting on moving forward with the no child left behind rewrite. that's happening now. you can follow senate debate on c-span2 and senate comments from the floor on the iran nuclear agreement reached early yesterday in vienna. in the house, meanwhile, they're taking up a measure today which would extend highway funding through december. a five-month extension. you can follow that over on the companion network c-span.

ladies and gentlemen this is your two-minute warning. you may have heard the announcement, two-minute warning. news conference set to begin scheduled for 1:00 p.m. eastern. president obama expected to focus largely on the iran nuclear agreement. after the news conference this afternoon here on c-span3 we'll take your phone calls and

comments and tweets as well. all of that ahead here on c-span3.

ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. >> please, have a seat. good afternoon, everybody. yesterday was an historic day. the comprehensive long-term deal that we achieved with our allies

and partners to prooenlt iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon presents a powerful display of american leadership and diplomacy. it shows what we can accomplish when we lead from a position of strength and a position of principle, when we unite the international community around a shared vision and we resolve to solve problems peacefully. as i said yesterday it's important for american people and congress to get a full opportunity to review this deal. that process is now under way. i've already reached out to leaders on congress on both sides of the aisle. my national security team has begun offering extensive briefings. i expect the debate to be robust. that's how it should be. this is an important issue. our national security policies are stronger and more effective when they're subject to the scrutiny and transparency that democracy demands. as i said yesterday, the details of this deal matter very much.

that's why our teamworked so hard for so long to get the details right. at the same time as this debate unfolds, i hope we don't loose sight of the bigger picture. the opportunity that this agreement represents. as we go forward it's important for everybody to remember the alternative and the fundamental choice that this moment represents. with this deal, we cut off every single one of iran's path ways to a nuclear program. a nuclear weapons program. and iran's nuclear program will be under severe limits for many years. without a deal, those path ways remain open. there would be no limit to iran's nuclear program and iran could move closer to a nuclear bomb. with this deal we gain

unprecedented, around the clock monitoring iran's key nuclear facilities and the most comprehensive and intrusive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated. without a deal, those inspections go away. and we lose the ability to closely monitor iran's program and detect any covert nuclear weapons program. with this deal if iran violates its commitments there will be real consequences. nuclear related sanctions that have helped to cripple the economy will help snap back into place. without a deal the international sanctions regime will unravel. with little ability to reimpose them. with this deal we have the possibility of peacefully resolving a major threat to international security. without a deal, we risk even more war in the middle east and other countries in the region would feel compelled to pursue

their own nuclear programs threatening a nuclear arms race and the most volatile region in the world. as i said yesterday even with this deal we will continue to have profound differences with iran in support of terrorism it's use of proxies to destabilize parts of the middle east. therefore, the multilateral arms embargo on iran will remain in place for an additional five years and restrictions on ballistic missile technology will remain for eight years. in addition, the united states will maintain our own sanctions related to iran's support for terrorism, it's ballistic missile program, human rights violations and will continue our unprecedented security cooperation with israel and continue to deepen our partnerships with the gulf states. the bottom line is this, this nuclear deal meets the national security interest of the united states and our allies.

it prevents the most serious threat iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, which would only make the other problems that iran may cause even worse. that's why this deal makes our country and the world safer and more secure. it's why the alternative, no inspections, iran closer to a nuclear weapon the risk of regional arnl says race and greater risk of war, all of that would endanger our security. that's the choice that we face. if we don't choose wisely i believe future generations will judge harshly for letting this moment slip away. no one suggests this deal reovls all the threats that iran or neighbors pose to the world. more realizing the promise of this deal with require many years of implementation and hard work. it will require vigilance and

execution. but this deal is our best means of assuring iran does not get a nuclear weapon. from the start, that has been my number one priority our number one priority. we've got an historic chance to pursue a safer and more secure world. an opportunity that may not come again in our lifetimes. as president and commander in chief, i am determined to seize that opportunity. so, with that i'm going to take some questions and let me see who i'm starting off with. here you go. i got it. andrew beady, afp. >> thank you mr. president. yesterday you said the deal offered a chance -- a new direction in relations with

iran. take to enable a more moderate iran and does this deal allow you to more forcely stabilize. thank you. >> if you don't mind, just because i suspect that there's going to be a common set of questions that are touched on i promise i will get to your question, but i want to start off just by stepping back and reminding folks of what is at stake here. i already did in my opening statement. i want to reiterate it because i heard already some of the objections to the deal. the starting premise of our strategy with respect to iran has been that it would be a grait grave threat to the united states and to our allies if they obtained a nuclear weapon.

and so everything we've done over the last 6 1/2 years has been designed to make sure that we address that number one priority. that's what the sanctions regime was all about. that's how we were able to mobilize the international community, including folks we are not particularly close to to abide by these sanctions. that's how these criming sanctions came about, because we were able to gain global con sen us that iran having a nuclear weapon would be a problem for everybody. that's the reason that iran's accounts got frozen and they were not able to get money for sales they've made. that's the reason they had problems operating with respect to international commerce, because we built that international consensus around this very specific narrow but profound issue. the possibility of iran getting a nuclear weapon.

and by the way that was not simply my priority. if you look back at all the debates that have taken place over the last five, six years, this has been a democratic priority, this has been a republican priority, this has been prime minister netanyahu's priority. it's again our gulf priority. is making sure iran does not get a new weapon. the deal negotiated by john kerry, wendy sherman, ernie monese, our allies our partners, the p5 plus 1 achieves that goal. it achieves the top priority making sure iran does not get a nuclear weapon. but we have always recognized that even if iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon iran still poses

challenges to our interests and our values both in the region and around the world. so when this deal gets implemented, we know that we will have dismantled the immediate concerns around iran's nuclear program. we will have brought their stockpiles down to 98%. we will have significantly reduced the number of centrifuges they operate. we will have installed an inprecedented inspections regime and that will remain in place not just for ten years but, for example, on the stockpiles, we'll continue to 15 years. iran will have pledged to the international community that it will not develop a nuclear weapon and now we'll be subject

to an additional protocol a more vigorous inspection and monitoring regime that lasts in perpetuity. we will have disabled a facility like iraq the iraq facility, from allowing iran to develop plutonium that could be used for a bomb. we will have greatly reduced the stockpile of uranium that's enriched and we will have put in place inspection as long the entire supply chain so that if uranium was diverted into a covert program, we would catch it. so i can say with confidence more importantly nuclear experts can say with confidence, that iran will not be in a position to develop a nuclear bomb.

we will have met our number one priority. now, we'll still have problems with iran's sponsorship of terrorism. its funding of proxies like hezbollah and in the region the destabilizing activities they're engaging in, including in places like yemen. and my hope is that building on this deal we can continue to have conversations with iran that ib incentivize them to behavior differently in the region, to be less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative to operate the way we expect nations in the international community to behave, but we're not counting on it. so this deal is not contingent on iran changing its behavior.

it's not contingent on iran suddenly operating like a liberal democracy. it solves one particular problem which is making sure they don't have a bomb. and the point i've reachedly made and hard to dispute is that it will be a lot easier for us to check iran's nefarious activities to push back against the other areas where they operate contrary to our interests or ally's interests if they don't have a bomb and so will they change their behavior? will we seek to gain more cooperation from them and resolving issues like syria or what's happening in iraq to stop encouraging houties in yemen? we'll continue to engage with them, although keep in mind that

unlike the cuba situation we're not normalizing diplomatic relations here. so the contacts will continue to be limited. will we try to encourage them to take a more constructive path? of course. but we're not betting on it. in fact, having resolved the nuclear issue, we'll be in a stronger position to work with israel, work with the gulf countries, wok with our other partners, work with the europeans to bring additional pressure to bear on iran around those issues that remain of concern. but the argument that i've already been hearing and this was foreshad doed even before the deal was announced that because this deal does not solve all those other problems that that's an argument for rejecting this deal, defies logic. it makes no sense.

and it loses sight of what was our original number one priority, which is making sure that they don't have a bomb. john karl. >> mr. president, does it give you any pause to see this deal praised by syrian dictator as assad as a great victory for iran or praised by those in tehran who still shout death to america and yet our closest ally in the mideast calls it a mistake of historic proportion? here in congress it looks like a large majority will work to reject that deal. i know you can veto that rejection but do you have a concern about seeing a majority of people's republic in congress saying this is a bad deal? if i can just ask you a quick political question a very quick one -- >> i think -- >> donald -- >> let me answer the question that you asked. it does not give me pause that

mr. assad or others in tehran may be trying to spin the deal in a way that they think is favorable to what their constituencies want to hear. that's what politicians do. and that's the case throughout. you'll recall over the negotiations, every time the supreme leader or someone tweeted something out we all bought into the notion, well, the obama administration must be giving this or ka pit lating to that. well, now we have a document so you can see what the deal is. we don't have to speculate. we don't have to engage in spin. you can just read what it says. and what is required. nobody has disputed that as a consequence of this agreement iran has to drastically reduce

its stockpiles of you rainuranium, cut off plutonium. the facility underground is converted that we haven unprecedented nmgss regime, snap-back provisions if they cheat. the facts are the fact. i'm not concerned about what others say about it. now, with respect to congress, my hope -- i won't prejudge this. my hope is that everyone in congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts. not on politics. not on posturing. not on the fact that this is a deal i bring to congress as opposed to a republican president. not based on lobbying but based

on what's in the national interest of the united states of america. and i think if congress does that then in fact, accidents based on the facts, the majority of congress should approve of this deal. but we live in washington and politics do intrude. as i said in an interview yesterday, i am not betting on the republican party rallying behind this agreement. i do expect the debate to be based on fact and not speculation or misinformation. and that i welcome. in part because, look, there are -- there are legitimate real concerns here. we've already talked about it. we have huge differences with

iran. israel has legitimate concerns about its stability relative to iran. you have a large country with a significant military that has proclaimed that israel shouldn't exist, that has denied the holocaust, that has financed hezbollah, and as a consequence their milss are pointed toward tel aviv. and so i think there are very good reasons why israelis are nervous about iran's position in the world. i've said it to bet yeah hue. i've it said to the israeli people. what i've also said is that all those threats are compounded if iran gets a nuclear weapon.

and for all the objections of prime minister netanyahu or, for that matter, some of the republican leadership that's already spoken none of them have presented to me or the american people a better alternative. i'm hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about this is a bad deal this is an historically bad deal. this will threaten israel and threaten the world, threaten the united states. i mean, there's been a lot of that. what i haven't heard is what is your preferred alternative? if 99% of the world community and the majority of nuclear experts look at this thing and they say this will prevent iran

from getting a nuclear bomb and you are arguing either that it does not or that even if it does, it's temporary or that because they're going to get a wind fall of their builts being unfrozen they'll cause more problems then you should have some alternative to present. and i haven't heard that. the reason is because there are only two alternatives. either the issue of iran obtaineding a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it's resolved through force. through war. those are the options. you'll hear some critics say we could have negotiated a better

daye deal. what does that mean? i think the suggestion among a lot of the critics has been that a better deal, an acceptable deal is one in which iran has no nuclear capacity at all, peaceful or otherwise. the problem with that position is that there is nobody who thinks iran would or could accept that and the international community does not take the view iran can have a peaceful program. they agree with us iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. so, we don't have diplomatic vestige of a peaceful program in iran but we have the leverage to make sure they don't have a weapon. that's exactly what we've done.

so, to go back to congress, i'd challenge those who are object objecting to this agreement. number one to read the agreement before they comment on it. number two to explain specifically where it is they think this agreement does not prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. and why they're right and people like ernie monise, who is an m.i.t. nuclear physicist is wrong. why the rest of the world is wrong. and then present an alternative. and if the alternative is that we should bring iran to heal through military force then those critics should say so. and that will be an honest debate. all right. >> reporter: president f i can, prime minister netanyahu said

you have a situation where iran can delay -- >> aim happy to -- that's a good example. so, let's tat issue of 24 days. this has been swirling today the notion that this is insufficient in terms of inspections. keep in mind, first of all, that we'll have 24/7 inspections of declared nuclear facilities. iraq, the uranium mine facilities known to produce centrifuges, parts that entire infrastructure that we know about, we will have sophisticated 24/7 monitoring of those facilities. so, then the issue is, what if they try to develop a covert program? one of the advantages of having

inspections across the entire production chain is that it makes it very difficult to set up a corporate program. mines in iran. and if in fact we're counting the amount of uranium that's being mined and suddenly some's missing on the back end they got some splainin' to do. so we're able to track what's happening along the existing facilities to make sure that there is not diversion into a covert program. but let's say that iran is so determined that it now wants to operate covertly. the iaea the international organization charged with implementing the nonproliferation treaty and monitoring nuclear activities in countries around the world the

iaea will have the ability to say that undeclared site we're concerned about. we see something suspicious. and they will be able to say to iran, we want to go inspect that. if iran objects we can override it. in the agreement we've set it up so we can override iran's objection. and we don't need russia or china in order for us to get that override. and if they continue to object we're in a position to snap back sanctions and declare that iran's in violation and is cheating. as for the fact it may take 24 days to finally get access to the site the nature of nuclear programs and facilities is such this is not something you hide in a closet.

this is not something you put on a dolly and kind of wheel off somewhere. and by the way if we identify an undeclared site that we're suspicious about we're going to be keeping eyes on it. so we're going to be monitoring what the activity is. and that's going to be something that will be evidence if we think that some funny business was going on there. that we can then present to the international community. so we'll be monitoring that entire time. and, by the way, if there is nuclear material on that site your high school physics will remind us that that leaves a trace. and so we'll know that in fact there was a violation of the agreement. so the point is, jonathan, that this is the most vigorous

inspection and verification regime by far that has ever been negotiated. is it possible that iran decides to try to cheat despite having this entire inspection verification mechanism? it's possible. but if it does first of all, we built-in a one-year breakout time which gives us a year to respond forcefully. and we've built-in a snap back provision so we don't have to go through lengthy negotiations at the u.n. to put the sanctions right back in place. and so really the only argument you can make against the verification and inspection mechanism that we've put forward is that iran is so intent on obtaining a nuclear weapon that no inspection regime and no verification mechanism would be

sufficient. because they'd find some way to get around it because they're untrustworthy untrustworthy. and if that's your view, then we go back to the choice you have to make earlier. that means presumably that you can't negotiate. and what you're really saying is that you've got to apply military force to guarantee they don't have a nuclear program. and if somebody wants to make that debate, whether it's the republican leadership or prime minister netanyahu or the israeli ambassador or others they're free to make it. but it's not persuasive. carol lee. >> thank you, mr. president. i want to ask you about the arms and ballistic missile embargo. why did you agree to lift those even with the five and eight-year durations. it's obviously a sticking point on the hill. are you concerned that arms to iran will go to hezbollah or

hamas, is there anything you can do for future president. and if you step back and look at this iran deal and all the other issues issues, what kind of middle east do you want to leave when you leave the white house in a year and a half? >> so the issue of the arms embargo and ballistic missiles is a real concern to us, has been a real concern to us. and it is in the national security interest of the united states to prevent iran from sending weapons to hezbollah for example. or sending weapons to the houthis in yemen that accelerate a civil war there. we have a number of mechanisms under international law is that

gives us authority to interdict arms shipments by iran. one of those mechanisms is the u.n. security resolution related to iran's nuclear program. essentially iran was sanctioned because of what had happened at fordow, its unwillingness to comply with previous u.n. security resolutions about their nuclear program. and as part of the package of sanctions that was slapped on them, the issue of arms and ballistic missiles were included. now, under the terms of the original u.n. resolution, the fact is that once an agreement was arrived at that gave the

international community assurance iran didn't have a nuclear weapon, you could argue just looking at the text that those arms and ballistic missiles prohibitions should immediately go away. but what i said to our negotiators was given that iran has breached trust and the uncertainty of our allies in the region about iran's activities let's press for a longer extension of the arms embargo and the ballistic missile prohibitions. and we got that. we got five years in which under this new agreement arms coming in and out of iran are prohibited. and we got eight years with respect to ballistic missiles. but part of the reason why we were willing to extend it only

for five let's say as opposed to a longer period of time, is because we have other u.n. resolutions that prohibit arms sales by iran to organizations like hezbollah. we have other u.n. resolutions and multilateral agreements that give us authority to interdict arms shipments from iran throughout the region. and so we've had belts and suspenders and buttons a whole bunch of different legal authorities, these legal authorities under the nuclear program may lapse after five or eight years but we'll still be in possession of other legal authorities that allow us to interdict those arms. and truthfully these prohibitions are not self-enforcing. it's not like the u.n. has the

capacity to police what iran is doing. what it does is it gives us authority under international law to prevent arms shipments from happening. in concert with our allies and our partners. and the real problem if you look at how for example hezbollah got a lot of missiles that are a grave threat to israel and many of our friends in the region it's not because they were legal. it's not because somehow that was authorized under international law, it's because there was insufficient intelligence or capacity to stop those shipments. so the bottom line is carol i share the concerns of israel, saudis, gulf partners about iran shipping arms and causing

conflict and chaos in the region. and that's why i've said to them, let's double down and partner much more efktdive iveeffectively to improve our sbemgsintelligence capacity and interdiction capacity so that fewer of those arms shipments are getting through the net. but the legal authorities we'll still possess. and obviously we've got our own unilateral prohibitions and sanctions in place around nonnuclear issues like support for hezbollah. and those remain in place. in terms of the larger issues in the middle east, obviously that's a longer discussion. i think my key goal when i turn over the keys to the president -- the next president is that we are on track to

defeat isil that they are much more contained and we're moving in the right direction there that we have jump started a process to resolve the civil war in syria which is like an open sore in the region. and is giving refuge to terrorist organizations who were taking advantage of that chaos to make sure that in iraq not only have we pushed back isil, but we've also created an environment in which sunni, shuia and kurd are starting to operate together more effectively. and to be in a conversation with all our partners in the region about how we have strengthened our security partnerships so

that they feel they can address any potential threats that may come including threats from iran. and that includes providing additional security assurances and cooperation to israel building on the unprecedented cooperation that we have already put in place and support we've already put in place. it includes work we've done with the gcc at camp david making sure we execute that. if we've done those things, then the problems in the middle east will not be solved. and ultimately it's not the job of the president of the united states to solve every problem in the mid 8dle east. the people in the middle east are going to have to start to solve some of these problems themselves. but i think we can provide that president at least a foundation for continued progress in these

various areas. the last thing i would say, and this is a longer term issue is we have to address the youth in the region with jobs and opportunity and a better vision for the future. so that they are not tempted by the nihilistic violent, dead end that organizations like isil offer. again, we can't do that entirely by ourselves, but we can partner with well-intentioned organizations, states, ngos, religious leaders in the region. we have to do a better job of that than we've been doing so far. okay. all right.

michael crowley. >> thank you. you alluded earlier to iran's role in syria just to focus on that for a moment. many analysts and some former members of your administration believe that the kind of negotiated political settlement that you say is necessary in syria will require working directly with iran and giving iran an important role. do you agree? and is that a dialogue you'll be actively seek sng? and what about the fight for isis? what will it take tor explicit cooperation between the u.s. and iran? >> i do agree that we're not going to solve the problems in syria unless there's buy-in from the russians the iranians the turks, our gulf partners. it's too chaotic. there are too many factions. there's too much money and too many arms flooding into the zone. it's got caught up in both sectarian conflict and geo

geopolitical jockeying. and in order for us to resolve it there's going to have to be agreement among the major powers that are interested in syria that this is not going to be won on the battlefield. so iran's one of those players. and i think it's important for them to be part of that conversation. i want to repeat what i said earlier earlier, we have not and i don't anticipate any time in the near future restored normal diplomatic relations with iran. and so i do not foresee a formal set of agreements with iran in terms of how we're conducting our counter isil campaign. but clearly iran has influence in iraq. iraq has a majority shia

population. they have relationships to iran. some are natural. we expect somebody like prime minister abadi to meet with and negotiate and work with iran as its neighbor. some are less legitimate where you see iran financing shia militias that in the past have killed american soldiers and in the future may carry out atrocities when they move into sunni areas. and so we're working with our diplomats on the ground as well as our military teams on the ground to assess where can we appropriately at least deconflict, and where can we work with prime minister abadi around a overall strategy for iraq to regain its sovereignty

and where do we tell abadi, you know what, what iran's doing there is a problem. and we can't cooperate in that area, for example, unless you get those folks out of there. because we're not going to have our troops even in advisory or training role looking over their shoulders because they're not sure what might happen to them. and those conversations have been ongoing. i think they will continue. the one thing you can count on is that any work that the u.s. government does or the u.s. military does in iraq with other partners on the ground is premised on the idea that they are reporting to under the chain of command of the iraqi government and iraqi security forces. if we don't have confidence that ultimately abadi is directing those soldiers, then it's tough for us to have any kind of

direct relationship. major major. >> thank you, mr. president. as you well know there are four americans in iran held on three trumped up charges and one whereabouts unknown. can you tell the country, sir, why you are content with all the fanfare around this deal to leave the conscious of this nation, the strength of this nation unaccounted for in relation to these four americans? and last week the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said under no circumstances should there be any relief for iran in terms of ballistic missiles or conventional weapons. it is perceived that that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations. meaning the pentagon feel you left the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff high out to dry. would you comment? >> i got to give you credit major, for how you craft those questions. the notion that i am content as

i celebrate with american citizens languishing in iranian jails -- major that's nonsense. and you should know better. i've met with the families of some of those folks. nobody's content. and our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out. now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release think about the logic that that creates. suddenly iran realizes you know what maybe we can get additional concessions out of the americans by holding these individuals. makes it much more difficult for us to walk away if iran somehow

thinks that a nuclear deal is dependent in some fashion on the nuclear deal. and by the way if we had walked away from the nuclear deal, we'd still be pushing them just as hard to get these folks out. that's why those issues are not connected. but we are working every single day to try to get them out. and won't stop until they're out and rejoined with their families. with respect to the chairman's testimony, to system degree i already answered this with carol. we are not taking the pressure off iran with respect to arms and with respect to ballistic missiles, as i just explained. not only do we keep in place for five years the arms embargo under this particular new u.n. resolution, not only do we maintain the eight years on ballistic missiles under there particular u.n. resolution, pu we have a host of other multilateral and unilateral authorities that allow us to

take action where we see iran engaged in those activities whether it's six years from now or ten years from now. so we have not lost those legal authorities. and in fact part of my pitch to the gcc countries as well as to prime minister netanyahu is we should do a better job making sure that iran's not engaged in sending arms to organizations like hezbollah. and as i just indicated that means improving our intelligence capacity and our interdiction capacity with our partners. okay. april ryan. >> thank you mr. president. i want to change the subject a bit. earlier this year op the flight to selma you said as matters of race you said as president your job is to close the gaps left in

state and federal government. now, how does criminal justice reform fit into that equation? and what gaps remain for you in the -- towards the end of your presidency presidency? and also, what does it mean to travel to kenya, your father's homeland in the next couple weeks as president of the united states? and lastly, would you revoke the medal of freedom for bill cosby? >> you stuffed a lot in there, april. >> i learned -- >> who'd you learn from? jonathan jonathan karl? is that what you said? on criminal justice reform obviously i gave a lengthy speech yesterday, but this i've been thinking about a lot and working with first eric holder and now loretta lynch we've been working with along with other prosecutors of the u.s.

attorney's office. it's an outgrowth of the task force we put together post ferguson and the garner case in new york. and i don't think that the criminal justice system is obviously the soul source of racial tension in this country, or the key institution to resolving the opportunity gap. but i think it is a part of the broader set of challenges that we face in creating a more perfect union. and the good news is is that this is one of those rare issues where we've got some republican and democratic interests as well as federal, state and local interests in solving the problem. i think people recognize that

there are violent criminals out there and they've got to be locked up. we've got to have tough prosecutors. we have to support our law enforcement officials. police are in a tough job. and they are helping to keep us safe. and we are grateful and thankful to them. but what we also know is this huge spike in incarcerations is also driven by nonviolent drug offenses where the sentencing is completely out of proportion with the crime. and that costs taxpayers enormous amounts of money it is debilitateing communities who are saying huge proportions of the young men in their communities finding themselves with a criminal record, rendering them oftentimes unemployable. so it compounds problems that

these communities already have. and so i'm very appreciative of folks like dick durbin and cory booker alongside mike lee and rand paul other folks in the house who are working together to see if we can both reduce some of these mandatory minimums around nonviolent drug offenses. again, i tend not to have a lot of sympathy when it comes to violent crime, but when it comes to nonviolent drug offenses is there more we can do to reduce mandatory minimums create more diversion programs like drug courts, then can we do a better job on the rehabilitation side inside of prisons so we are preparing these folks eventually going to be released to re-enter the workforce. on the back end are we doing

more to link them up with re-entry programs that are effective. and this may be an area where we could have some really bipartisan legislation that doesn't eliminate all the other challenges we've got. because the most important goal is keeping folks from getting into the criminal justice system in the first place which means early childhood education and good jobs and making sure we're not segregating folks in impoverished communities that have no contact with opportunity. but this can make a difference. i met these four ex-offenders as i said yesterday. and what was remarkable was how they had turned their lives around. and these were some folks who had been some pretty tough criminals. one had served ten years, another was a repeat offender that had served a lot of time.

and in each instance somebody intervened in their lives once they'd already been in the criminal justice system, once they got in trouble said i think you can live a different way and i'm willing to help you. and that one person, an art teacher or ged teacher or somebody who's willing to offer a guy a job. i want to give a shoutout to five guys because one of the guys there was an ex-felon and five guys gave him a job. and he ended up becoming a manager at the store and was able to completely turn his life around. but the point is somebody reached out to that person and gave them a chance. and so part of our question should be how about somebody reaching out to these guys when they're 10 or 11 or 12 or 8 as opposed to waiting until they've already gone through the

criminal justice program. that's part of why we're doing my brother's keeper. but this is an area where i feel modestly optimistic. i think in the meantime we got to stay on top of keeping the crime rate down because part of the reason i think there's a conversation taking place is violent crime has significantly dropped. last year we saw both incarcerations and the crime rate drop. and this can always turn if we start seeing renewed problems in terms of violent crime. and there's parts of the country where violent crime is still a real problem including my own town of chicago and in baltimore. and part of what i've asked attorney general lynch to do is to figure out how can we refocus attention if we're going to do a package of criminal justice reforms, part of it would be actually having a greater police presence and more law enforcement in the communities that are really getting hit

hard. and having seen some of the drops in violent crime that we've seen in places like manhattan, for example. with respect to the visit to kenya, it's obviously something i'm looking forward to. i'll be honest with you visiting kenya as a private citizen is probably more meaningful to me than visiting as president because i can actually get outside of a hotel room or conference center. and just the logistics of visiting a place are always tough as president. but it's obviously symbolically important. and my hope is is that we can deliver a message that the u.s. is a strong partner not just for kenya but for sub saharan africa generally, build on the progress that's already been made on the issues of health and education focus on counterterrorism issues that are important in east africa because of al shahab and

some traj jigedyies that have happened inside kenya and continue encouraged democracy and the corruption that's sometimes held back this incredibly incredibly, this incredibly gifted and blessed country. and with respect to the medal of freedom, there's no precedent for revoking a medal. we don't have that mechanism. and as you know i tend to make it a policy not to comment on the specifics of cases where there might still be if not criminal then civil issues involved. i'll say this if you give a

woman, or a man for that matter without his or her knowledge, a drug and then have sex with that person without consent that's rape. and i think this country any civilized country, should have no tolerance for rape. all right. have we exhausted our questions here? i think there's a helicopter that's coming. but i really am enjoying this iran debate. topics that may not have been touched upon criticisms that you've heard that i did not answer. go ahead. go ahead. i know josh is getting a little stressed here. i just want to make sure we're not leaving any stones unturned here. go ahead. >> thanks mr. president.

i'll be brief. the argument is that iran now has a cash windfall billions to spend. your people seem confident they're going to spend it at home. why are you confident they're not going to spend it on arming hezbollah, arming bashar al assad, et cetera? >> i think that's a great question. and i'm glad you brought it up. i think it is a mistake to characterize our belief that they will just spend it on day care centers and roads and paying down debt. we think that they have to do some of that because rowhani was elected specifically on the premise of improving the economic situation inside of iran that economy has tanked since we imposed sanctions. so the notion that they're just immediately going to turn over $100 billion to the irgc or -- i

think once contrary to all the intelligence we've seen and the commitments that the iranian government has made. do we think that with the sanctions coming down that iran will have some additional resources for its military and for some of the activities in the region that are a threat to us and a threat to our allies? i think that is a likelihood that they've got some additional resources. do i think it's a game changer for them? no. they are currently supporting hezbollah. and there is a ceiling, a pace at which they could support hezbollah even more, particularly in the chaos that's taking place in syria. so can they potentially try to get more assistance there?

yes. should we put more resources into blocking them from getting that assistance to hezbollah? yes. is the incremental additional money that they've got to try to destabilize the region or send to their proxies, is that more important than preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon? no. all right. so, i think, again, this is a matter of us making a determination of what is our priority. the other problem with the argument that folks have been making about, oh this is a windfall, and suddenly iran's flush with cash and they're going to take over the world. and i say that not tongue in cheek because if you look at some of the statements by our critics you would think that iran is in fact going to take over the world as a consequence of this deal. which i think would be news to

the iranians. that argument is also premised on the notion that if there is no deal, if congress votes down this deal, that we're able to keep sanctions in place with the same vigor and effectiveness as we have right now. and that i can promise you is not true. that is absolutely not true. i want to repeat we're not writing iran a check. this is iran's money that we are able to block from them having access to. that required the cooperation of countries all around the world, many of whom really want to purchase oil from iran. the imposition of sanctions, their cooperation with us has cost them billions of dollars, made it harder for them.

they've been willing to do that because they believed we were sincere about trying to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully. and they considered that a priority. a high enough priority they were willing to cooperate with us on sanctions. if they saw us walking away. or more specifically, if they saw the u.s. congress effectively vetoing the judgment of 99% of the world community that this is a deal that resolves the iranian weapons program, nuclear weapons program, in a equitable way, the sanction system unravels. and so we could still maintain some of our unilateral sanctions, but it would be far less effective as it was before as we were able to put together these multilateral sanctions. so maybe they don't get $100

billion, maybe they get $60 billion or $70 billion instead. the price for that that we've paid is now iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, we have no inspectors on the ground we don't know what's going on. they're still getting some cash windfall. we've lost credibility in the eyes of the world. we will have effectively united iran and divided ourselves from our allies. a terrible position to be in. okay. i made some notes about the other arguments i've heard here. okay. yeah, that's a good one. the notion that -- [ inaudible question ] >> so let's address this issue of -- because that's the other big argument that's been made. let's assume that the deal holds

for ten years. iran doesn't cheat. now at the end of ten years some of the restrictions have been lifted although remember others stay in place for 15 years. so for example they've still got to keep their stockpiles at a minimal level for 15 years. the inspections don't go away. those are still in place 15, 20 years from now. their commitment under the nonproliferation treaty does not go away. that's still in place. the additional protocol that they have to sign up for under this deal which requires a more extensive inspection and verification mechanism, that stays in place. so there's no scenario in which

a u.s. president is not in a stronger position 12 13 15 years from now if in fact iran decided at that point they still wanted to get a nuclear weapon. keep in mind we will maintain a one-year breakout time, we will have rolled back their program, frozen their facilities, kept them under severe restrictions had observers, they will have made international commitments supported by countries around the world -- hold on a second. and if at that point they finally decided, you know what we're going to cheat -- or not even cheat. at that point they decide openly we're now pursuing a nuclear weapon. they're still in violation of this deal and the commitments they've made internationally. and so we are still in a

position to mobilize the world community to say no you can't have a nuclear weapon. and they're not in a stronger position to get a nuclear weapon at that point. they're in a weaker position than they are today. and by the way we haven't given away any of our military capabilities. we're not in a weaker position to respond. so even if everything the critics were saying is true tharks at the end of 10 years or 12 years or 15 years iran now is in a position to decide it wants a nuclear weapon, that they're at a breakout point they won't be at a breakout point that is more dangerous than the breakout point they're in right now.

they won't be at a breakout point that is shorter than the one that exists today. and so why wouldn't we at least make sure that for the next 10, 15 years they are not getting a nuclear weapon and we can verify it. and afterwards if they decide if they've changed their mind we are then much more knowledgeable about what their capabilities are, much more knowledgeable about what their program is and still in the position to take whatever actions we would take today. >> none of this is holding out hope they'll change their behavior -- >> no, no look, i'm always hopeful that behavior may change for the sake of the iranian people as well as people in the region. there are young people there who are not getting the opportunities they deserve

because of conflict, because of sectarianism, because of poor governance, because of repression, because of terrorism. and i remain eternally hopeful we can do something about that and it should be part of u.s. foreign policy to do something about that. but i'm not banking on that to say that this deal's the right thing to do. again, it is incumbent on the critics of this deal to explain how an american president is in a worse position 12, 13, 14 15 years from now. if in fact at that point iran says we're going to pull out of the mpt, kick out inspectors and go for a nuclear bomb. if that happens, that president will be in a better position than what happened if iran as a consequence of congress rejecting this deal decides that's it, we're done

negotiating, we're going after a bomb right now. the choices would be tougher today than they would be for that president 15 years from now. and i have not yet heard logic that refutes that. all right. i really have to go. i think we've hit the big themes. but i promise you i will address this again. all right. i suspect this is not the last that we've heard of this debate. >> president obama wrapping up an over hour long news conference largely focusing on the iranian nuclear deal. you'll see this later in our program schedule and also online to c-span.org. we'll take you to a senate

hearing that's been under way on allegations of corruption and bribery at fifa, the organization that oversees the world cup. there may be breaks coming up for senate votes in just a bit but this is live coverage here on c-span3. >> -- and i think it has to answer them not only at this hearing but for its fans around this country. clearly we can no longer indulge the idea of fifa, a multi-billion-dollar, nonprofit global enterprise being run behind closed doors. that is a recipe for disaster and moral catastrophe. only reforms that install greater transparency and accountability can shed the necessary sunlight required to dis dis disinfect this corrupt organization. one proposal is in fact to reorganize it as a public corporation, or some part of it as a public corporation.

i'm proud that the united states has led the world in bringing these scandals to light and holding individuals responsible. but that job is far from over. there needs to be additional action. and it should involve not only members of public and public officials, but also, and let me emphasize, the private corporations that sponsor these events, corporate organizations that sponsor international soccer like mcdonald's, nike, coca-cola and visa play their part by ensuring that they stand as guardians of good governance. they must do so rather than silent beneficiaries who benefit from opaque governance. and at least one of those corporations is mentioned without naming it in the

indictment. as my colleague senator moran has just mentioned, these actions have real life consequences not only financially but in potential discrimination against women in the game and potential physical harm to the workers who may have been involved and may be involved in other countries where major physical construction involves human trafficking and human rights abuse and worse. the international community must collectively work to ensure human rights are upheld wherever our athletes compete. the betrayal of trust is no less when human trafficking is involved in building the stadiums where our athletes compete. it's a betrayal of trust on the

part of those organizations that sponsor the game and it implicates the entire sport. we should not tolerate the world's most preeminent sporting competitions being staged at the expense of our most vulnerable citizens. today's hearing is a first step. and i want to thank all of you for being here today. i look forward to your testimony and to restoring the trust of american fans trust which has been betrayed but which they certainly deserve. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the ranking member. our panel today for this hearing is consistents of four witnesses, mr. dan flynn, who's the ceo and secretary general of the u.s. soccer federation. that is the united states's representative at fifa and concacaf. mr. michael hershman.

mr. barry advocacy director for the middle east north africa amnesty international. he will testify about findings of the may 15 2015 amnesty report regarding working conditions. and finally mr. andrew jennings who's traveled perhaps the furthest to join us. he's an investigative writer and filmmaker credited with blowing cover on fifa scandal. we will start with mr. flynn. mr. flynn please testify. >> thank you, senator. on behalf of the united states soccer federation i would like to thank senator moran senator blumenthal, senator from my home state of missouri and other members of this committee for giving soccer to appear today and answer questions you may have. on behalf of our womens national team, i would like to also thank president and mrs. obama vice president and dr. biden, distinguished members of this subcommittee, your senate and house colleagues and the tens of millions of fans in the united states including the largest

television audience ever to watch a soccer match in this country who supported and cheered this wonderful group of women to the women's world cup title just ten days ago. i am daniel flynn and i have been u.s. soccer's chief executive officer and secretary general for the last 15 years. and i'm ultimately responsible for the day-to-day operations of the federation. we are a nonprofit membership organization recognized by the u.s. olympic committee as a national governing body for soccer and by fifa, the world's governing body for the sport of soccer as national association member for the united states. as required by fifa we are also a member of concacaf covers the north and central america and caribbean nations. for more than 100 years u.s. soccer's mission has been to make soccer a preimeminent support in the united states and to continue the growth and development of the sport at all levels. u.s. soccer directly fields 17

national teams including the women's national team which has won three world cup titles and four olympic gold medals and the men's national team which is in the process of defending its 2013 concacaf gold cup title. we also field the national paralympics team and numerous aged based boys and girls teams. u.s. soccer is made up of various organizations including among others our professional leagues, the adult amateur leagues, soccer organizations for disabled athletes and the youth amateur organizations. u.s. soccer is governed by a 15-person volunteer board of directors elected by its members which includes independent directors, athlete representatives and directors representing different segments of our membership. our annual tax returns audited financial statements, business plans, bylaws, policy and board of director meeting minutes are all publicly available on our website.

in fifa, we are one of 209 national association members. fifa members must vote on any substantial changes to the organization. and a vote of every member, regardless of the size number of players or the quality of their national teams, counts the same. until two years ago when our president was elected to the fifa executive committee, the federation did not have a direct representative on that important policymaking body. although our role and influence in fifa has historically been limited, the federation has been a strong advocate for reforming the organization by among other things improving governance increasing transparency and strengthening ethics rules. u.s. soccer supported fifa's decision in 2011 to engage experts to conduct a review of its governance structure and then urge the adoption of the reforms after the governance report was released. u.s. soccer supported the investigation by the fifa ethics committee into the bidding and

award processes for the 2018 and 2022 world cups. and publicly advocated for the release of the full investigative report not just the summary report released by fifa last fall. u.s. soccer was one of the national associations which nominated prince ali and then publicly supported his challenge to fifa's long standing president mr. seth blatter in a recent election. we did so including potential impact on our possible bid, the host the 2026 mens world cup. but u.s. soccer believes good governance and good leadership at fifa is paramount and more important to the sport than hosting any individual world cup. going forward we believe reform will have to start at the top beginning with the election of a new fifa president in light of mr. blatter's stated intention to resign. u.s. soccer will look to the new

president to lead this reform. we understand many traditional soccer powers also believe it is time for a change. u.s. soccer will continue to work with like minded national associations and confederations to promote change and to alter the culture at fifa. at concacaf appointed a three-person special committee which includes u.s. soccer's president to help guide through this period of turmoil. and over the july 4th weekend concacaf recommendation committee unanimously approved a series of sweeping reforms to discuss governance, and compliance and transparency. thank you for your time and i look forward to responding to specific questions you may have on this or other subjects. >> mr. flynn, thank you for your testimony. mr. hershman. >> good afternoon, chairman moran, ranking member blumenthal

and members of the subcommittee. thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today alongside such esteemed colleagues in the field of transparency and integrity in the global world of sports. i'm honored to speak on an issue that has been a passion and drivingeing force throughout my career including having served on two years on the independence governing committee of fifa and as co-founder of transparency international, the world's leading ngo on issues relating to transparency and accountability. additionally i'm currently spearheading an integrity project in sports as an advisory board member for the international center for sports security. as senator moran has stated before soccer is by far the most popular sport in the world, and it is attracting a wider audience by the day in the united states. however, the upper echelons of the sport's governing body have been notoriously corrupt for many years. until the laudable recent

efforts of the u.s. justice department and the fbi many allegations were mostly swept under the rug. now that fifa's lack of transparency and accountability has been brought into the global public attention there's a tremendous opportunity to discuss the inherent autonomy in sporting organizations. sports organizations have long maintained that autonomy is essential to the preservation of the values embedded in sport. this is a difficult concept to argue with. that is until the core values in sport are undermined by a lack of accountability and trust which we've seen recently in one of the world's largest, most profitable sporting bodies fifa. the growing commercial interests at play, the protection that many governments offer large sporting organizations and the rapidly growing sports gambling industry, both legal and illegal, are all converging to

create a situation where self-regulation is increasingly challenging. the sports industry must put in place governance and compliance standards which demonstrate the best practices in transparency and accountability. fifa is a big business with revenue of about $5.6 billion every four-year world cup cycle. and fifa had a chance to be a leader in reform when the scandals first began popping up about ten years ago. despite multiple chances to change after being presented with reform proposals by transparency international as well as our own independent governance committee fifa held to the irresponsible notion that it was autonomous and did not have to adhere to outside oversight or interference. the u.s. public cannot assume fifa is the only sporting body with endemic structural problems.

every single governing body in the sports world from the international olympic committee to the icc to the nfl needs to agree to modern standards of transparency and accountability. while many people around the world hold sport as sacred, it has become an incredibly profitable industry that needs to be regulated and treated for what it is big business. these recent events are bigger than fifa. they require coordinated global action across all sporting bodies. and i believe there is a way we can achieve this reform with the cooperation and support from governments and sport industry leaders around the world. the international center for sports security, which is also a nonprofit organization, has bourn the idea of the sports industry transparency initiative. i serve on their board of advise advisers and we have established a set of global standards which would be voluntarily adopted by

sports organizations. this collective action agreement would form a governing group that would work with the sports community to promote transparency and accountability while strengthening a higher standard of ethics and values in sports. the standards would finally create a benchmark to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of sports governance and compliance programs. the standards would include but not be limited to professionalizing boards of directors in sports managing conflicts of interest, building a democratic foundation embracing transparency and accountability, leveling the playing field for athletes, men and women, motivating ethical behavior for staff and volunteers engaging with key stakeholders showcasing sport event integrity, considering the positive role of sport in society and establishing effective risk controls. this approach will be comprehensive and far reaching

while every principle does not apply to all sports organizations, there is enough common ground to ensure that sports groups understand what is expected of them in terms of integrity and transparency. as attorney general loretta lynch so rightly pointed out in her speech after announcing the fifa charges, many of the individuals and organizations we will describe today were entrusted with keeping soccer open and accessible to all. they held important responsibilities at every level, from building soccer fields for children in developing countries to organizing the world cup. they were expected to uphold the rules that keep soccer honest and protect the integrity of the game. instead they corrupted the business of worldwide soccer to serve their interesting and rich themselves. mr. chairman, thank you. i look forward to answering your questions and those of the committee members. >> mr. hershman, thank you. mr. barry, welcome.

and we welcome your testimony. >> thank you. chairman -- >> you need to turn on your microphone please. >> there we go. chairman moran ranking member blumenthal, and distinguished and senators and distinguished guests. thank you for the opportunity to address the human rights in qatar and the 2022 fifa world cup. the world cup has brought into global focus the shopping conditions that are routine for migrant workers in qatar. foreign migrant workers can not change employers or leave without the permission of the current employer. even if the employer is not paying the employee the employer with block the employee from changing jobs or leaving the country. in 2012, the qatar national research fund funded a survey of some 1 # thousand low income migrants and 90% said a employer possessed their passports. and 20% said the salary was

different prior to leaving their home country and 20% never or rarely receive their salary on time. as documented by amnesty international, foreign migrant workers have become sus sitalar being -- after being trapped without pay and relying on others to eat and many of those in country of origin can face eviction because a family member is trapped in qatar and not paid for work they have done. there is an announcing 1.5 million foreign nationals working in qatar today and 90% consists of foreign nationals. these numbers have increased at a dramatic rate with the population growing staggering 43% since they awarded the world cup in december of 2010. this is due to a massive

construction boom in the kurp. the government is spending hundreds of billions ever dollars into a massive infrastructure program. this goes well beyond stadiums. many of the construction projects aren't solely for the world cup but remain central to the success of the sporting event and the overlapping effort to make qatar a global destination for tourism and commerce. the problems faced by qatar go beyond the cal afa employer sponsorship system. they are forbidden. >> joining trade union. which qatar does offer labor laws they are not enforced effectively. to make matters even worse, thousands of foreign migrant workers in domestic roles are excluded from the protections set out under the qatar poorly enforced labor law. mainly women working in households are exposed to greater exploitation including sexual violence.

the government has failed to address the problem of labor skplonation. in may of 2014 the qatar government promised limited reforms to address the widespread exploitation of migrant workers in the country but one year later none of the reforms have been implemented. in 2014 amnesty international identified nine key issues to address urgently and one year later nothing has changed in the critical areas of abuse. only actions have been taken in the remaining five areas that do not address the structural factors stir the abuse in qatar. the responsibility for the rights of the workers in qatar rest with the authorities but when feef awarded the world cup it assumed the responsibility for the human rights impact of that decision. unfortunately fifa efforts have fallen far short of the concrete action needed to make sure the world cup in qatar is not based on labor skplonation.

i've outlined specific problems with the skplotation. and these rules should be implemented by fifa and countries that migrant workers are from. the united states government can help in specific ways. for the government of qatar the solution is to fix the deeply flaws sponsorship system and address the many other problems i've highlighted today. for fifa it is not enough for the organization officials so simply accept the verbal commitments of the government of qatar. fifa must send a strong message to the authorities and the construction sector that human rights must be respected in all world cup related projects and fifa must put in place effective systems to monitor and report on this. this includes not only training and stadium facilities and hotels and transportation projects and other infrastructure. if reforms are not put in place the facilities for the 2022 cup will carry the permanent stain of forced labor and human

roughaging. thank you for testifying mr. jennings thank you for joining us. >> thank you, chairman and ranking member i don't know the proper way to do this. >> you've come a long way, we want to hear you. >> i testified to john mccain back in 1999 on the olympic scandals but it has all changed since then. would you like to join with everybody else in honoring america's soccer players and the gracious way they and the only 23 teams conduct themselves in the women's world cup. and this contrasts sadly with the massive, massive deficiency of the u.s. soccer federation frightened to upset blatter and fifa and enjoying the elite lifestyle he provides. we're here to discuss how american soccer relates to fifa. i note the absence of mr. slaty.

that is one crucial question today. where is sunil? where is he? he's the man who takes american values supposedly, to fifa and to can cack after and not here to talk about it. it undermines the whole process i think. any way, i'm an investigative reporter and i write books and present documents to the bbc and i worked with the cbs and 60 minutes and frank dee ford at hbo's real sport and reported from beirut, chechnya and central america. i'm not a sports reporter. sent me to the match and i might get the score wrong. it is not what i do. i'm proud of being the only reporter in the world banned by mr. blatter because of my disclosures of his corruption over the last 13 years. before stumbling on the fifa low lives, i had experience of organized crime filming nose to

nose with the mafia in palermo. but as fifa ticks all of the boxes for a organized crime and compromising and outwitnessing the public authorities and hietding criminality behind the world's most popular game. after seven years of probing the sleaze bags and putting up with the legal threats and the attacks on my computers, i was invited to the fbi special agents in london. the business cards said organized crime. i wasn't alone any more. the real people had arrived. in august of 2011 i gave them financial and other documents about american -- that america had hid from the fans and the public. and you say not having blat and chaise was there since 1995. look at who represents.

u.s. soccer was happy to represent american values. i hope you can come back to that. chuck blaze had hidden the financial information from the fans and the public. my source obtained them from the archives of concocaf. as you know, 30 nationals including the usa. they were lake lated privately to all executive committee members of can cackaf including u.s. soccer who also suppressed them. u.s. soccer had to know that blazer and his fellow crook jack warner from trinidad, fighting extradition at the moment, with the approval of blatter, were looting regional football and evading rightful taxes. but they looked away. i have a long list no time to go into now, of the failings of u.s. soccer with concocaf and with blatter. i'd be happy to present it to any of you and discuss it later. now if america's soccer leaders

had taken action when they should have done, blaze and warner would have been in jail, blatter seeking asylum in zom bob way and the 2022 world cup being hosted by the usa. not some graveyards in the gulf. it only took the fbi and the irs to check out the information i gave them. they arrested blazer and he immediately turned informant and fifa has imploded. fifa is now a smelly shell. that is all. it has no credible. we don't want to know it. nobody wants to know it. once upon a time fifa officials would walk down the street with the logo, i'm from fifa i'm important, and who would do that now? who would dare do that now? none of them. and that is how we sum up fifa now. it is about determined to stay in power don't believe this nonsense about his going. watch his words carefully, i've

put down my mandate but i'll pick it up again. his hitman are working to get rid of rivals and his ethics committee -- i'm running over time, to obey his instructions. his p.r. operation briefs the wires services that he's innocent. but this is a controversial sport leader that can only travel to bow huh, russia and switzerland. what america can do is engage with clean decent football associations around the world and create a new organization based in another land and invite sponsors and tv networks to go with them. i can't see coca-cola and mcdonald's and visa preferring the remnants of blatter's organized crime family. and there is one other crucial thing that u.s. soccer should do. spl of you -- some of you may remember when the u.s. olympic committee was in disaway over the salt lake scandal 16 y