i use the word "system" because science has taught us to realize that the chesapeake is a collection of the rivers and streams that feed in to it from the six states, the district of columbia, 18 million people in the watershed and of course the main stem. fortunately, there's a plan in place to restore the chesapeake and all of the rivers and streams. it's called the chesapeake clean water blueprint or, in clean water act terms, the epa called it the mother of tmdls. it's a heavy lift, though. and global climate change will add to the burden. we're seeing the impacts now, right before our eyes.

chesapeake bay foundation has environmental education centers on smith island and tangier island. inhabited islands in the mid bay. residents of smith and tangier are losing their homes. they are losing their island. day after day, week after week, losing their home. on a property in the chesapeake bay foundation, in just the last 25 years we have lost an entire pine forest, several dozen acres, several hundred trees to sea level, bay level rise. i've submitted my testimony, but let me just summarize briefly. the impacts of climate change are multiple, but let me tell you about three for chesapeake bay.

warmer waters have a decreased capacity to hold dissolved oxygen exacerbating the bay's dead zone. temperature-sensitive species like eel grass and many others are really, truly at risk. second, the bay region is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise exacerbated, exacerbated by land subsidence. approximately one foot of net sea level rise in the chesapeake over the last 100 years is roughly twice the world average. thousands of acres of environmentally critical wetlands and shorelines have been and are now further threatened with inundation. and third, increased intensity and frequency of storms create

more erosion and runoff, increasing the flow of pollutants, especially nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment into the streams, rivers and main stem of the bay. let me give you one very specific example of how global climate change and bay pollution are conspiring to possibly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory of one of our greatest success story s. science said that the chesapeake bay rockfish, striped bass were fully restored species. well, with pollution and increasing dead zones, the

bottom waters of the bay are uninhabitable all too often for rockfish. with increasing water temperatures, 75, 80 degrees and more, the upper levels of the bay are all too often uninhabitable for rockfish. so they are literally getting squeezed and therefore stressed in to a much narrower amount of the water column. to wrap up, let's instead of focusing on the problems, let's focus on the solutions. addressing climate change, mitigating the impacts of climate change, and implementing the clean water blueprint are more than just two sides of the same coin. we not only need both to save the bay, but each will reinforce and add value to the other. one plus one can equal three. thank you very much. >> thank you. dr. ekwurzel. i hope i'm pronouncing it correctly. >> it's great.

perfect. thank you on behalf of the union of concerned scientists, i really thank you ranking member pallone, congressman sarbanes, congressman tonko and congressman van hollen for the opportunity to testify here today before the panel and the panelists and the interested audience. i'm a senior climate scientist at ucs. we are the nation's leading science-based non-profit who is working on some of the world's most pressing problems. we have over half a million supporters who are hoping that there are changes that we're talking about today. so as we all know, burning coal, oil and gas tropical deforestation are increasing the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane at unprecedented levels.

it is warming the atmosphere and acidifying the oceans. as a result marine life are facing multiple stresses. the ice is diminishing. we have many regions that are dealing with decreased snow pack, increasing the risk of wildfires, the list goes on. it's quite depressing, actually. but sea level is what i'm going to focus on today. that one um pact. because it's really accelerated. and that, combined with extreme precipitation, really are having an impact on severe flooding which is part of the reason why we are gathered here today in the city of annapolis in this beautiful naval academy. the pace and amount of greenhouse gas emissions really determine how much worse things get. what does this mean for maryland and the location of this hearing? parts of maryland are already facing the risk of loss of land. everyone who cares about maryland should care about reducing emissions. the future of key economic resources and cherished places

like where we are right now really depends on these decisions. today the capital annapolis is one of the most frequently flooded cities on the east coast, and as sea level rise accelerates due to climate change the flooding will get exponentially worse. there are other countless other communities up and down maryland and the eastern seaboard that are facing similar vulnerable risks. according to a recent usc report, the highest tides that occur each year are flooding further inland causing more damage. and some places are likely to be under water in the lifetime of a typical 30-year mortgage. so recent trends help explain why this is happening. over the last 50 years, sea level rise has risen much faster in the gulf and east coast of the united states. and i included a figure and it's really quite stark.

sea level at annapolis has risen by more than a foot in the last century and the global rate over that time period is 8 inches. to give an idea of the accelerating sea level rise for places like annapolis, let's look at this. if we stay in our current business as usual which is the highest trajectory of emissions, annapolis would likely see another 8 inches -- it took that much over the last century for the globe -- in just 15 years from now. and just the lifetime of 30 years, we could see 17 inches here in annapolis. instead, if we embarked on a low emissions scenario, annapolis could prepare for only about an additional 3 inches in 15 years and 6 inches by 30 years. a little bit more manageable

buys a little more time. today the popular city dock, it's a gathering place in the water front of annapolis that is central and sees around 50 times a year flooding. annapolis is projected to experience 262 flooding events by the year 2030 and roughly over 380 by the year 2045 if we stay on this high emissions trajectory. this means that likely half the days of the year will have flooding at annapolis. other coastal communities in maryland are similarly vulnerable. ocean city is highly vulnerable to storms and high tides. tide flooding occurs eight times per year today. and in we continue on the high emissions path way they could face 60 flooding events by 2030 and 411 per year by the year 2045. the floods would be far more extensive than the limited flooding typically seen today. the case for emissions reduction

could not be more direct. if we limited it to a low pathway ocean city could prepare for 42 flood events per year by 2045 instead of 411 on the high emissions pathway. tidal floods will be more severe by 2045. today tidal floods typically last a few hours or less. several locations in the chesapeake bay area, including baltimore and its flood-prone inner harbor, are projected to be under water for more than 875 hours per year, that's about 10% of the year by the year 2045 if we continue on the high emissions. even when a hurricane forms naturally, conditions brought about by climate change are contributing to the power and destructive capacity of hurricanes in the north atlantic through more severe storm surges and more intense precipitation. to make matters worse, the

latest science suggests that hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones are shifting poleward, higher latitude and in our hemisphere that means more to the north putting mid atlantic states more at risk. damage can be expected to be raised as the increase of storm surges. the u.s. and the global community must start rapidly reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases to slow the level of sea level rise. the future welfare of maryland, new york and other coastal communities depend on this. thank you. >> thank you. thank you all of you. so what we're going to do now is have questions from us and the congressman. i'll start and go to the left. we're going to try to limit it to five minutes from each of us.

i -- we don't have a -- mike is actually doing this manually. we're not high-tech here even though we're the high-tech committee. so ug i'm a little-- i guess i'm a little embarrassed. but you'll be fine. i wanted to start with the admiral. but you actually answered most of my questions, admiral. i was going to ask you questions about what is happening at the academy and the courses that are offered at the academy, so i'm not going to repeat that. but can you give us an idea how much it has cost the naval academy to repair the damage caused by severe storms or what you estimate the cost will be for some of the things that you mentioned. >> it actually is very difficult to put in an exact dollar figure. i mentioned the damage from hurricane and tropical storm isabel. that was well over $100 million. that was actually more than just

repairing the costs. it actually gave us more protection. we used some of that money to build berms, to do as you heard me describe, to build some of these flood doors as well as build some internal pumps. so we were able to get that money to make the naval academy better and safer. as you see here at the academy grounds the majority of the structures here are over 100 years old. everything from the chapel to the hall where all of the shipmen live many of the bulds here were built at the turn of the century by earnest flagg. there is a cost to maintaining them and making sure they can handle rising waters and major events. we do within the budget that we work within the navy have currently enough money to handle some of the upgrades we are planning for the long term. you heard me talk about the cooper road project and some of

the others. so as we do some of the other projects, whether it be setting up the new advisory committee i would tell you we are able to do those things within the construct of the funding that we have. but i have not gone to congress to ask for more particular monies. just as we build more structures here, the cyberbuilding that will serve as an new academic building on board but as a source of flood protection for that part of the yard. to say that i have a specific number this is what we are spending on just flood protection it would be very difficult except to say that there are monies that come to naval facilities that support us in that effort. >> all right. thank you. let me ask the mayor according to a special investigative report, historic downtown annapolis experienced at least

half a foot of flooding at high tide no fewer than four times last year. how has this increase in the nuance flooding impacted local communities and businesses? what are they saying to you about this and have you heard from mayors of other coastal towns who have to deal with impacts of climate change. >> i serve on the maryland municipal league. a lot of the cities are close to the water. it's something that we talk about and something that the other mayors effect. and there is consensus built upon. talking about politics earlier and getting out of d.c., out of the 157 cities in the state of maryland only four have partisan elections. the other ones you just run on your name. in annapolis it's a big deal. people talk about it all the time. a lot of concern from business owners. what are we doing to address it. but we have a plan in place. we just need the funding to implement it going forward. >> okay.

i'm going to skip mr. baker because my questions were about rock fish and striped bass. and i think you mentioned that on the one hand, you know, rock fish are back. but on the other hand, what's happening in terms of climate change could severely impact them. did you want to add to that? >> one of the big concerns is a wasting disease. there is no real absolute knowledge as to what causes it. but we know that when fish are stressed, they're more prone to disease. so the general thinking is that a fish under stress has a lot more problems than one that isn't. and certainly, the population is starting to dip again. >> okay. let me then go lastly to dr. ekwurzel. because the noaa recently released the state of the

climate in a 2014 report that represents data from scientists around the globe. and i know you stressed -- you gave us a lot of information about annapolis and maryland. but i -- if i could just go, you know, beyond that, you know, according to the state of the climate 2014 report, 2014 was the warmest year in the historical record. in fact 17 of the 18 warmest years on record have occurred in the last 18 years. this is worldwide. just give us -- if you could talk more globally. the average global surface temperature for 2014 was roughly half a degree above the 30-year average. doesn't sound like a lot, but what effect does that increase have? and also the upper ocean heat increased significantly over the last two decades. how does that impact us on land? >> those are disturbing trends. in fact we've -- even just a couple months ago, noaa found

that the global ocean surface temperature is the warmest ever since we've been keeping records, and the land, so combined. that meant at the time, for example when there was extreme inland flooding in texas, where -- and in oklahoma where unfortunately tragically, a lot of people lost property and in fact loss of life, the hugely warm waters of the gulf of mexico bringing in this extra precipitation and fueling some of the intense thunderstorm activities are something that are causing inland concerns for people who are living along river valleys. and then with the tropical storms, you mentioned irene, congressman tonko, we see the warmer oceans in fact when hurricanes naturally occur they are carrying more precipitation. so when it comes on shore and going inland and moving up into the united states it is dumping intense levels of precipitation.

you're washing out bridges in vermont. you are having -- the bulls-eye of -- is causing incredible damage to people who are not used to having their basement flooded, black mold, a lot of costs that are happening. children you don't want to be exposed to some of these longer term effects of flooding. the other aspect are the wildfires. in some areas we have too much rain and other areas out in california, up in alaska we have intense wildfires. alaska is burning right now, we have the pacific northwest. we don't have enough resources to fight all these fires right now. part of that is because of the polar jet stream pattern that is set up. this extreme high pressure that some think are relating back to sea ice decreasing in the high north. that means alaska all the way down to california immense drought conditions. and we get a lot of our food from the central valley of california. the almonds. we have a lot of economic damages that are related to

shifting climate and the extremes that are setting up. dry places are getting extremely dry, mulit-year droughts, and other places are getting too much rain all at once and too intense. we have high flash flood risk. this is the type of situation that is -- unfortunately climate change we have to get used to more extremes and the infrastructure of the past century is not built to handle the type of extremes that so-called mother nature is throwing us with a little assist by human activities. >> thank you, doctor. congress sarbanes. >> mayor pantelides you mentioned you had a town hall recently and the turnout was very large, 150 people. i'm curious, what are the residents saying to you? i know you mentioned they talked about who should take responsibility local. but what's the basic input that they're providing to you? and how are they projecting

their own willingness to be -- help be responsible for the solutions? i'd be curious the perspective you've got there. >> i think it's a very interesting town hall. different than most ones we have because there are so many key players that are involved. you have people from the insurance company that obviously have an interest in updated fema maps. you have the residents who are concerned about their property. as the doctor eluded to if it's going to rise this much where should they live? i think they want a sense of what's being done, what we're doing going forward. and it's been rewarding to tackle this challenge and i'm glad it has gotten attention in the local media. for far too long it's an issue that has been worked on but not really talked about. now that we have some more people are engaging. i want to take a point of personal privilege to mention my colleagues from the city council. i could do it without them. we have alderman kirby and joe

budge as well. and ross arnett. half of my council is here. we technically have a quorum if we want to vote on anything. they have been big supporters on this as well. >> admiral carter, the students that are taking these two courses that you mentioned, tell me a little bit about the perspective they are bringing and the level of enthusiasm, interest, ownership of the issue which i imagine is helping to inform the naval academy in terms of the focus on the issues going forward. but i am interested on the perspective that the midshipmen have on the offerings that the naval academy is offering. >> i want to make a highlight of

my colonel steve lewzewski. he is leading the brigade of midshipmen and on two and a half weeks of leading the class of 2019. you may have seen them walking around today. this is key to your answer because these are the talented young men and women that you provide from your districts and that we have here representing every state and voting district in the country. i'm very proud of the talent that families of americans send us to come here to the naval academy. as a lot of you may know we have 25 academic majors at the naval academy. we focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics. 65% of our graduates leave here in a discipline that is involved in some sort of scientific endeavor.

and oceanography is one of our science majors. i'm an oceanography major here. it's one of our more popular majors. it's a technical science and it's a science that has application to what they're going to do whether they're going to be an aviator, a submariner, a marine, a fighter pilot. it impacts all their communities when they go out to serve. the talent we get here at the naval academy is such that many are finishing the 140 core credit curriculum in less than four years. that is significant. regardless of what their major is a lot of them are able to go into advanced studies which we do with partner colleges and universities or more importantly to get involved in capstone projects. this is the area where many of our midshipmen can do work in understanding climate change and

understanding patterns in the study. many of our oceanographers go on international trips. we have sent some to antarctica to do ice measurements. the midshipmen are out there. they are doing cutting edge research and development as part of their curriculum here. that's not just so they can be smarter when they graduate. part of our charter is not just prepare them to be future commissioned officers, but they are be the talent to help solve these problems 15, 30, 100 years from now. >> excellent. thank you. will baker, thanks for speaking from the heart as you always do in your testimony. i wondered if you could talk about what you hear in terms of the economic impact of these challenges to the bay.

because oftentimes we can put an exclusive environmental lens on it. but i imagine that businesses are coming to you all the time and expressing their anxieties related to the fortunes of the bay. and if you could describe that with a little bit more detail, i think it will drive home why -- why economic opportunity and empowerment is very aligned with preserving and protecting the health of the bay? >> thank you, congressman. about a year ago we began working with dr. spencer philips a distinguished economist who works in virginia and maryland. we asked him to assess the value of the chesapeake bay and its watershed to the economy of the region now, if it's improved, and if it's not addressed.

and the numbers are staggering. the economic -- current economic value of the bay and the region, environmental value to the economy is about $107 billion annually. if the clean water blueprint is successful by 2025, that value can increase to almost $130 billion annually. if we are not successful, it will decrease. so in terms of ecosystem services to the economy, the numbers are staggering. but when you get right down to individuals who are making their livelihood, certainly the commercial watermen, charter boat captains, people who are involved in the tourism industries, the impact is dramatic and immediate as well. i mean, when you talk to folks on smith, tangier and across the eastern shore and you hear how their livelihoods have been

impact it over just the last 35 years it's just extraordinary. so you can go beyond that to seafood restaurants to -- i remember the impact of the chesapeake bay on our region. someone once said if you look at a telephone book from a major metropolitan area, the number of columns of companies that use chesapeake in their name is staggering. this is our identity. we can't let it go. >> thank you. i have a question for dr. ekwurzel but maybe we can come back around for a short mini round at the end. >> go ahead. >> you were conveying probably better than anyone in this room could the urgency of the issue. and it appears that what i'm hearing from climate scientists and the testimony we get on this issue is just how things are accelerating. it's not a linear progression,

right? and you know, even two, three, four, five years ago as we were projecting out, people -- it was still an abstract concept for a lot of folks. and we would talk about, sort of, these scenarios about the future. but they're really here now. as you were talking about within the life of a mortgage getting to places where you are going to have 300, 400 flooding events in the city of annapolis. you talked about a high trajectory path and a low trajectory path. can you comment briefly a little more on the concept of the acceleration of the impact that's happening? because i think that is creating an urgency that really ought to make this the number one overarching focus of policymakers in many different places. if you could talk to that. >> absolutely.

these are impacts that we're feeling already and we're playing catch up. and unfortunately, as a scientist i see all the curves for how fast it's taking off, and we've only barely tasted whatever in store. we're at the point where how we make the changes over the next ten years really do play out. and whether we go that low emissions or the high emissions pathway make a big difference on lives, economy, and cost of doing business anywhere along the coast, as well as interior to many of the land areas. and i would like to say that doing emissions reductions is one of those adaptation costs is the tide that floats all boats. when we reduce the pace of change it allows the mayor of annapolis, the naval academy to put in flood barriers at a more

cost-effective way and do plans that are reasonable and not hurting the economy as much as if we just keep reacting to this -- we're ready to take off. if we can avoid taking off, it makes a world of difference. as some people say, it's a difference between suffering and a somewhat manageable world. >> thank you. congressman tonko. >> thank you, congressman. the stewardship, again, vice admiral, that comes via the navy, is so incredibly important, and i thank you and the navy in general and our military in general for addressing climate change. when i look at operations that are far inland like that at saratoga where you once served that i represent and some of our coastal situations like norfolk and annapolis, there's no denying that as we create these perfect storms, if you will, as

spoken to by, you know, congressman van hollen, it's impacting some of the most unstable -- you know, the fight for available land, and some of the hardships with droughts and flooding will impact people that can least endure around the world. and so it's obvious this becomes an issue of national security. so given that, and recognizing that the navy is speaking to these concerns, where is the prioritization within the navy? how would you characterize that? is it a concept that has risen to the higher levels or -- of priority? >> sir, first of all, i'm going to make sure everybody recognizes that i represent the naval academy, but i will not deny i have served 34 years in the navy and sailed many of the oceans of the sea on many different aircraft carriers and other ships.

to answer your question, from my personal opinion i do believe our united states navy and the department of defense has raised this up to a very high level. my good friend, rear admiral jonathan white who is the oceanographer for the navy, he leads a panel called the navy task force climate change that has multiple partners within the navy staff to take an operational risk view of some of these challenges. so they're trying to apply science. they're trying to apply all the data that we see so we are leaning forward in making sure we understand what these future challenges are. i would also give you my global view as a sailor. i think everyone here would agree that the earth is covered by 70% water. so as a navy that gives us a pretty big area which to patrol with our ships. we are a global navy. we are everywhere from the

strait of hormuz to the inland coasts. this is the environment in which we operate. 90% of all of global trade moves through the water specifically through key choke points like the strait of hormuz and the canals. we have a responsibility to make sure that those sea lanes of communication remain open because our world trade requires that. so as we look at the science and the risk analysis of what's happening here, those are potential risk areas. i will tell you, just three years ago, i was the admiral in charge of the uss enterprise and all the carriers in that strike group. we were charged with going through the strait of hormuz

many times to make sure that waterway remained open as the threat of the iranians was to potentially do something there to disrupt trade and movement of oil through that strait. we took that aircraft carrier through the strait in the summer of 2012 ten times. the sea water inlet temperature in that part of the world is often above 90 degrees in the summer. but in that particular year it approached almost 100 degrees. that is a difficult place for anyone to operate. and of course as we've already talked about on our return journey home one of the greatest environmental disasters ever known to man was hurricane sandy. i had the distinct bad timing to have to bring enterprise home right in the middle of sandy. we threaded the needle between three tropical storms.

sandy was the lesser of the three as she was forming and our journey home to cross the atlantic was a to deal with hurricane sandy in a way that as of course we were worried about our homes on the eastern sea board i had an aircraft carrier and the men and women on that ship, a cruiser and three destroyers going through seas that exceeded well over 20 feet. i saw water come over the bow of the enterprise 60 feet above the water as we were coming across the middle of the atlantic. i was a thousand miles away from sandy. she hadn't even reached a category 5 storm yet. so i saw firsthand what it's like to try to deal with a storm of that magnitude and what that impact is for my role as part of that national security apparatus. i was very thankful that due to a lot of hard work of my sailors we didn't damage any equipment. the enterprise came home on all nuclear reactors and all the sailors flew off.

and then, of course, what that did here to the united states. the other part of that 70% water, 90% trade is maybe one of the most important aspects, and that is 80% of not only the united states but the world's population lives within 500 miles of the shore. as we talk about the impacts of what sea level rise has been, even here in the chesapeake, that has an impact. it's something we're not only worried about here at the united states academy, i know the navy is paying close attention to it. as we are setting up our own advisory committee here, we want to make sure what the local impacts are. i know that our united states navy is taking a look at this at a much larger scale to help not only protect what we know from data in the past but look forward to how to present solutions from the future. >> i think just looking through the lens of our military you would think that would be enough

to push the moral compass in washington to get this issue resolved. mayor, you mentioned the order of planning that's required for you and the members of the city council. what sort of relief would be doable, do you think, if the federal portion were a true player in this regard? would you think that a major piece of the pie that you need for that planning, was that a million plus i think you said? >> it was a million plus just for the design phase. and that kind of puts it into perspective. but our total budget is $98 million. but just to understand how it works. and i will say the superintendent's leadership with the two courses that are offered ak academically and the capstone chances we have we can make annapolis the model.

i don't say that selfishly, but it has an impact for legislatures in the state. the legislation has 47 senators and 140 delegates and they all live here three months out of the year. so when we work on environmental projects they will have an opportunity to see it. i think if the funding was in place -- our public works director was a cb in the navy -- we have the opportunity to make a significant impact on it. we need the resources to make that happen. >> just an observation, the nakedness of the eye of a visitor, you can sense the richness of the heritage and history. when we were impacted by irene and lee, there were tremendous damages that impacted our inherited infrastructure, which is something that's very difficult to replace and so we need to be sensitive to that also. and to mr. baker, the construct of the chesapeake bay is dealing

with a multistate impact. is there talk amongst your group about the role of the -- or the -- the issue of boundaries, state boundaries, whatever political lines coming into play with this discussion of climate change? because it takes these incidents to realize that we're inexorably linked. maybe you can just share some of the multistate culture that addresses this issue. >> as we were talking about before the hearing started, the environment and everything about the environment knows no political boundaries. if you look at a watershed like the chesapeake bay, whether talking about pollution or climate mitigation global climate change mitigation, the only jurisdiction of government that can treat this system the way science tells us we must is the federal government. >> absolutely. >> and the federal government

has been through epa, through usda and other agencies a great partner with the states. the states and the federal governments have entered into this partnership willingly. we see that as the real hope for the future and that this effort now, which is really the third major one in 30 years, has the potential to be a game changer if in fact, all players stay at the table. >> it's national strategy and why the president reached to an executive order, because congress simply did not act and they had plenty of time. we are still trying to accept the notion when we should be addressing the concept. and, doctor, you spoke of -- in your encroaching tides study you speak to the high and low emission issues. what is -- can you just elaborate on that a bit more? >> sure. >> we the way when you talked about irene and lee in my

district and the heavy amounts of precipitation, 14 inches within less than 24 hours. and neighboring communities got perhaps, three. not only was it saturation of precipitation, but sporadic activity within a small given radius of geography. >> it's very difficult to plan for the extremes that climate can deliver. it's on a scale that we just haven't had to face in the past. and so the past is not helping us. so the difference is really, you know, local communities dealing with the flooding of irene or annapolis, is it really fair to ask local community to bear the brunt of the cost to adapt to this when many of us have contributed to the challenge? and again, the federal government has a key role to play. either we're reacting to disasters and disaster funds are

there, or we're proactive, planning for 2030, the time of a mortgage and making plans with local community input that is so key but having the decision support that all of our federal agencies can provide that help planners. so the two levels of planning, i say, we should -- we should mitigate for the low emission scenario but adapt and plan for the high emission scenario. all the numbers i gave you, let's give the example in new york. for example, kingspoint, new york if we prepare for 264 flood events but reduce emissions and they will be protected because maybe in 2045 it would only be 67 flood events if we reduce the emissions of the united states and global partners around the world. it's a very different world and we'll be much safer. >> thank you.

that's music to the ears of an engineer to hear planning time and time again. thank you very much. >> thank you. congressman van hollen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to join my colleagues in thanking all of you for your testimony. very, very helpful. look, it helps provide real texture and specific examples of costs that are being incurred on a real-time basis. and as i see it, there are two types of costs right there, the costs that we're incurring from much more intense and extreme weather events caused by climate change and there are the costs of mitigation, to try to reduce the impact of those longer-term costs. but they all add up. and, mr. mayor, you talked about a town hall meeting where people were trying to decide who would help pay the bill for the mitigation costs with some of

your colleagues. is it city of annapolis? is it the state? and the reality, as dr. ekwurzel has said, is these costs are being driven in many cases by a lack of action at the national level and at the international level. and so, i think the first thing we have to do is make sure the public understands, and i think they increasingly do through the testimony like you're giving today and the superintendent is giving today in terms of people in charge of a city and facility and you add up the costs just to the city and the facility and multiply it by the cities and facilities around the country that's a big bill. and the mayor talked about the insurance agents being present at the meeting. that's just to look at the flood maps for the city of annapolis and the impact on insurance rates there. the increased insurance rates americans are going to be paying as a result of climate change are going up and up and up, big

costs. so i think it's really important to collect this testimony as part of our argument to the public about the need to make the kind of changes that dr. ekwurzel and mr. baker and the rest of you are saying at the national level. and there's a huge cost differential between the business as usual path and the, you know, path where we actually begin to address this issue. and i don't know, doctor, if you could tell us what policies you believe are necessary at the federal level in order to get off the business as usual path. >> i think we do need a preparedness planning and assistance and preparedness and not just disaster response. so that's very important. and there are wildfire disaster bills before congress and that.

and, also, we need to have the externality of the price on fossil fuel carbon burning and so that we can pay for the adaptation costs, help with planning for the future and make the costs more manageable. there are different ways of doing that. there are lots of subsidies that incentivize burning fossil fuel. and even if that money were just stopped, those subsidies, that would bring money back to the state and federal coffers that could help state and local communities prepare. not even a price, a new price, added price, but just stopping the fossil fuel subsidies. to change that calculus of the economic incentives, we need to have some resources to better plan. in the long run it's much more cost effective than just responding to these extreme events. >> right. let me -- right.

so we're actually making things worse in two ways, right? we're making it worse in terms of subsidizing some of the fossil fuels that are accelerating the problem and through lack of action to increase, not just get rid of the subsidies but put a price on carbon. i'd like to ask you, mr. baker, about the impact on the warming water. because mr. sarbanes asked you about the economic value of the bay. the bay obviously has huge value to the state and to the country and to the world beyond just the economic value but the economic value is huge. it's essential to the state of maryland, in terms of tourism, in terms of the watermen, and the rock fish and the oysters. as i look at your report, you point out that there is, based on the inner governmental panel on climate change model, the waters of the bay could

potentially rise to -- by five degrees celsius by 2070 to 2099. now, i'm not a biologist but i guess there are just some things you can't mitigate if you get into that kind of territory, like whether or not certain species survive or not. i'd be interested if there has been an analysis on what the impact to the bay resources would be if the temperatures really went up to something like five degrees celsius. >> thank you, congressman. you know, water temperature is one of the most basic measurements that science takes, and it's something we do on all of our educational field trips. the impact of anything anywhere near that level of increase, let's just take two examples. one, eel grass, the dominant species of underwater grass in virginia.

we have a bit more diversity here in maryland. it really can't survive above 80 degrees. you lose the eel grass and you lose the crab population and it cascades through the system. the hold as much oxygen. we have a severe problem of low dissolved oxygen in the chesapeake bay dead zones. when i talked to some of my friends. i say let's stop the argument about whether or not it's true or not, are you against reducing pollution? st it's all about reducing pollution. and that's the two sides.

it also creates jobs. over and over and over again we see that ways of reducing pollution and doing things differently require new technologies, demand new jobs, new investments. there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be proceeding down this path with all deliberate speed. it will help every aspect of our society. >> thank you. just in closing, mr. chairman, i think clearly the responsible thing to do is to plan for what we see happening in terms of the impact of climate change. but we would be totally irresponsible if we don't work from the other end in terms of trying to reduce the increasing climate change when we know that it's within our power to help reduce the impact. i just want to close by -- there are some things that cannot be mitigated. if you have a five-degree celsius increase in temperature of the bay and it wipes out species it's hard to mitigate for that.

no matter how hard you try. so as we plan to address these challenges, we've got to really on an urgent and emergency basis take -- put in place policies at the federal level to begin to reduce the overall threat of climate change directly. i mean, if we were to have a disease here, i think we'd be spending a lot of money as a country to treat the disease. but we'd also have a full-blown effort to try and come up with a vaccine to get at the root causes to prevent people from getting it at the beginning. we have to do the treatment but also have to address the cause. thank you. >> thank you. i guess we've been here about an hour and 45 minutes. i don't want to keep everybody much longer. but -- and i think it's been extremely worth while in terms of the questions, the responses, what we've gathered here today. but i don't want to stop anybody.

if any member of the panel wants to ask something else or make an additional comment or some of our witnesses feel they would like to add something. go ahead. >> if i could just quickly toss out and perhaps we don't need to discuss it here if you want to get information back our way. but one of the tough lessons learned and experienced in superstorm sandy and in irene and lee in new york was the impact on utility infrastructure and what survived and what didn't. distributed generation, obviously being there where we saw many going without utility service for days upon days, impact on small business, agricultural and certainly households and household budgets. so if you just want to give a brief statement about any ideas you have about the utility infrastructure that recalculation of thinking that we need to do in order to again do the preventive therapies which are hard to advance but they were real lessons learned. and hopefully we'll respond in a

way that moves to those concepts that work. >> in terms of utilities, the city of annapolis has taken on a very ambitious goal. we're currently working to have the largest solar park on a closed landfill in the country. and one of the things we saw is we have an old landfill that is covered up let's make it an asset. it's turning over the land to a private person to put up solar panels. it's part of the ways we are reducing greenhouse gas and addressing the way that energy is transferred. >> congressman tonko as i mentioned in my statement a lot of the actions that we did after the actions that we saw with the tropical storm in 2003 were to relocate a lot of our key

infrastructure here on the yard of the naval academy to higher elevations, the hvac units were moved. there is no high wires here on the campus. so most of the power lines, all the cabling and all of our steam lines, everything runs pretty much underground. so we went through and did a significant overhaul of that to make sure that those keep elements of that are placed in those tunnels in a place that when water does go into there they are not at the bottom. that was all done to make sure in the risk management of knowing that we're going to have the three categories of flooding, the nuisance flooding we described, the flooding after a major rainfall and the big event. how do we mitigate that so we minimize the amount of damage. and finally i'd like to say, we are the navy.

we operate and live at sea level. this property here, 338 acres, much of it was reclaimed from the river and the creek here. so we are what we are. and we teach our midshipmen from day one, time, tide, and formation wait for no one. we live this here. >> i want to thank the panel and make a couple of closing comments. i also want to recognize the members of the annapolis city council that are here and thank them for their good work stepping up to this challenge and to each of our witnesses your testimony has been powerful and will be useful as we go back to washington and try to push for this. and thank you, mayor pantelides, for having the city of annapolis host us and for vice admiral carter for not just hosting us today but for everything you do here. it's a source of incredible pride for all members of congress when we the opportunity to nominate people to the various service academies, including the navy academy. a particular point of pride for

me that i represent the naval academy here in the third district. i want to salute again the members of the audience who have come, all bring a deep interest in the issue of climate change. and i want to try to not overstate the urgency dimension of this. but why not? you know, congressman van hollen presented the scenario, if there was a disease looming before us out there, that posed the same kind of threats in terms of not impact on infrastructure, not impact on wider nature, perhaps, even though those are key concerns but just the human toll that is coming from this threat, it seems if that was coming from any other place we would be -- every command center in the country would be occupied right now and congress and state legislatures would be meeting in

emergency sessions to deal with the threat. we need to move to that level of urgency if we're going to address this before these trajectories overcome us and before it's too late. i hope that this testimony that we received today will be helpful in conveying that sense of urgency on to our colleagues and to the wider congress. i know that the audience is activated behind the importance of this issue and will continue to work with everybody for whom this is a real priority. thank you, mr. chairman, for coming to maryland, to annapolis, to naval academy to be a part of this hearing and thank you to all of our witnesses. >> thank you. i couldn't have asked for a

better group of witnesses to basically relate some of our concerns and give us important information. before we close if any of you wanted to add something, speak up, otherwise -- all right. this truly was -- i don't -- you probably say he says that to everybody. but we really don't. some of our congressional hearings are rather boring and not terribly helpful but this is not in that category. thank you all again. we really appreciate your testimony. thanks. >> thank you, everyone. this morning on c-span 3, we are live in the senate foreign relations committee. they're going to hear from the president's team this morning of the secretary of state john kerry, energy secretary ernest moniz, jack lew today on capitol hill defending the recently agreed to iran nuclear agreement

reached between the six nations, the p-5 plus one including the united states in there, and iran. that approved before the u.n. security council on monday. and a first look at the committee chair, bob corker standing in the center of the screen is there. ben carr den of maryland. yesterday's closed door meeting for members of the senate and the house should get underway shortly live on c-span 3. we'll look for your communities on social media at facebook.com/c-span and also on twitter. see if you support or oppose the agreement. see if you support or oppose the agreement.

the audience at the senate foreign relations committee. you see members of code pink the protest group. the leader of that group will be our guest on in-depth on book tv on sunday, august 2nd, noon eastern, three hours with madia benjamin on her organization. her latest work called drone warfare. that's book tv every weekend on c-span 2. the committee awaiting the arrival of secretary of state john kerry, ernest moniz, the energy secretary and jack lew the treasury secretary.

this is the senate foreign relations committee. they're getting set to hear from secretary of state john kerry, ernest moniz and jack lew on the

iran nuclear agreement. the administration also sending defense secretary ashton carter overseas. he's been meeting with foreign officials. at a meeting yesterday, the visiting u.s. defense secretary ash carter saudi king solomon and the defense chief expressed their support for the iranian nuclear deal albeit with a couple of reservations about how the deal would be implemented. israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu, meanwhile, made clear to mr. carter on tuesday in jerusalem that he hoped to kill the deal. that's from the "wall street journal." the secretary of state and energy secretary briefed behind closed doors, the house, as well.

it would a appear most of the republican members are there. at least two members two of the presidential candidates i should say. rand paul and marco rubio of florida waiting for the secretary of state, the energy secretary and treasury secretary to arrive to the hearing.

>> come to order. >> i want to thank the witnesses for being here today. and we look forward to a fulsome

hearing. i want to thank those, also in attendance. i know there was a little bit of an outbreak prior to us convene convening. we thank you for being here. we do hope you'll respect that now the meeting's in order. outbursts of any kind are unwarranted and will respect the democratic process that is taking place here. so, again, we thank you for beg being here. we also thank you for your courtesy as we move ahead. i know the witnesses have agreed to be here as long as we wish. so we'll start with seven-minute questions. i do know based on last night's presentation, there's sometimes a tendency for witnesses to want to interject. and what i would say is, obviously we conduct our meetings with a lot of respect and courtesy. and i would just ask the witnesses if they would to respond directly to the question

from senators on both sides of the aisle as if they ask -- when you ask it directly to a witness witness getting them to respond. if someone else wants to interject, they can indicate they want to do so. senators should feel free to say, no, i just wanted that witness and move on to the next to make sure that we don't end up in a somewhat filibustered situation. we're able to fully get our questions answered. we would not be here today we would not have the information that we have today if we had not passed the iran nuclear agreement review act. this would not be taking place. i think the american people now understand what this debate is all about. when congress put in place sanctions to bring iran successfully to the table as we

did, we granted the executive branch something called a national security waiver. what that meant was the executive branch had the ability to weigh our congressionally mandated sanctions to suspend them until such a time as we permanently waive them down the road. and as you know, unfortunately, over the objections of senator carden and myself, unfortunately, the executive branch went directly to the united nations this monday morning. something that was certainly not in the spirit of this this was what was always intended. while secretary kerry said it's one point in time. we read the agreement and realize what they meant was eight years from now, they would have the opportunity to weigh in

because that's what it's -- that's what's stated in the agreement. so i want to thank everybody. all 19 members for coming together unanimously making that happen. and giving us a role, it's a heavy lift, as we know. but a role that did not exist prior to that passing. i would like to say we had a briefing last night and i talked to both sides of the aisle. i was fairly depressed after last night's presentation. with every detail of the deal that was laid out our witnesses successfully batted them away with the hyperbole that it's either this deal or war. therefore, we were never able to appropriately question or get into any of the details because every time we did, it was either this deal or war. i believe that to be hyperbole.

by the prior administration. i don't know if he'll refer to that today but as i thought about it laying last night in bed, i realized that what he was really pointing out with that letter is unless we give iran what they want x, that's what that letter was used for last night. let me walk through that. we've been through an incredible journey. we began 20 months or so ago with a country that was a rogue nation. that had a boot on its neck. and our goal was to dismantle their program. we've ended up in a situation where it's a deal on the table basically codifies the industrialization of their nuclear program. it's amazing, amazing transition that has occurred. and yet, everyone here, not a

person in this room, including our witnesses, everyone here knows there's not one practical need for the program that they're billing. not one. not one. we've not had a single scientist, not a single witness can lay out any reason. not a single reason for iran to be developing this program from the standpoint of what it means to them from a civil standpoint. not one. nine months after this agreement goes into effect, we realize that after monday's u.n. adoption unless congress intervenes, in 90 days this will be implemented. and then six months after that all the sanctions will be lifted. incredible. now, there'll be a few remaining sanctions. but the big ones that matter will be lifted. so we'll have access to billions and billions of dollars.

their economy will be growing, they'll be shipping all around the world. it's an amazing thing. and so what happens, i think all of us figured this out as we went through the deal. right now, we have some leverage, but 9 months from now, the leverage shifts to them because we have a sanction snapback. what they have if we ever tried to apply that is what's called a nuclear snapback. the way the deal is structured, they can immediately just begin. they can say well, if you add sanctions, we're out of the deal. they can immediately snap back. the possible military dimensions i think most of us call it the previous military dimensions because we know they were involved in that. basically, that has no bearing, no bearing per the agreement. and i know our witness will say, well, if they don't deal with this properly, it won't implement. according to the agreement, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether the sanctions are

removed or not. and that was such an important piece for everyone to know. last night, we had witnesses saying, i never said that. it's been a part of our mantra from day one. it's been a part of their mantra from day one. anywhere, any time. inspections. now, we have a process that they're declaring is 24 days. but we all know that's not right. 24 days begins after by the way, the ia/ea has found violations they're concerned about. and then you give iran time to respond to that. and then by the time it kicks in, there is a 24-day process. but it could be months. and as we know, in laboratories when they're developing a nuclear warhead, it's about this big, it's very easy to cover things up like that. and all the -- all the focus has been on finding uranium and other aspects of this that are very difficult to find.

i know this is the most comprehensive inspection regime we've had -- that's not true. that's not true. i've talked to secretaries of state and others, we had a far more comprehensive and rapid inspection program in iraq. far more. and that certainly didn't service particularly well. ben and i've written a letter asking for the additional materials that we don't now have. one of the items we don't have is regarding the agreement between iran and the iaea. and my sense is, we're never going to get that letter. so the inspection entity that we're relying on to find out whether iran is cheating, we're not even going to have access to that agreement. well, let me tell you this, we do know one of the characteristics is very interesting. we have a professional athlete

that spends about a month there. he's incredibly the role model. he is -- having incredible integrity. he's a role model to the world. and i was talking to him a couple of weeks ago about the program that professional athletes go through for drug testing. it's incredible. that is any time, anywhere. there are qualities to this, i'm told i cannot get into. but there are qualities to this program that would not be unlike causing athletes to just mail in their own urine specimens in the mail and us believing that's where it came from them. so, look, i've got some questions. we're going to talk a little bit about who we're dealing with here. most of us have been to iraq

many times. and i'll never forget visiting odierno in baghdad and every time he'd have on the coffee table the ifps. that were used to maim and kill americans. they were laying there on the coffee table, every single one of them made by iran. once we developed the technology to counter that what they did next was develop something called an efp. explosively formed penetrator. what they do is have an explosion that heats up copper to go through a piece of machinery to maim and dismember americans. this was all iran.

every single bit of it. we've visited these incredible heroes that have lost in some cases, two rm aarms and a leg. in some cases, two legs and two arms. we see them all over the country. they're living with this today. this is the country that we're dealing with. a country that created some of the most disturbing types and methods of maiming americans that have ever been seen. they tried to kill an ambassador here in washington, d.c. not long ago. i mean, we know that. ben and i went over to, with others, to the other day to see something the holocaust museum put together. a young man named caesar had taken photographs of the syrian

presence, which by the way, iran supports. syria would not even be in office if it would not be for iran. we went over -- many of you have seen it on the internet. it's an amazing thing. it's happening right now by the way, as we sit. some people might say, well, that was iraq and i don't know should we have been there or not? this is happening this very second with the support of iran. do you understand that? people's genitals right now being amputated. people are being electrocuted. this is happening. this very second. in a prison in iran. i mean in syria that iran -- some would say we haven't done as much as we could to stop it because, because of these negotiations. when i was in college i wasn't

a particularly good student. first part of college, i was interested in sports. the latter part, i was interested in working. i learned one thing i learned about the critical path. and all over our country. and i learned that you can start with something like this and you lay out a vision and you build it out. and begin with the end in mind and put first things first. it's the critical path. and what i've seen our secretary do is develop a tremendous warmth with iran's foreign minister and talks about it often. but what i think you've actually done in these negotiations is codify a perfectly aligned pathway for iran to get a nuclear weapon just by abiding by this agreement. i look at the things that they need to do the way it's laid out, and i don't think you could more perfectly lay it out.

from my perspective, mr. secretary, i'm sorry. not unlike a hotel guest that leaves only with a hotel bathrobe on his back, i believe you've been policed. fleeced. in the process of being fleeced, what you've really done here is you have turned iran from -- no now congress. a few weeks ago, you were saying that no deal. is better than a bad deal. and i know there's no way you could have possibly been thinking about war a few weeks ago. no way. and yet, what you say to us now

and said it over and over yesterday and i've seen you say it over and over in television that if somehow congress were to turn this down, if congress were to turn this down the only option is war. whereas a few weeks ago, for you you, for you to turn it down, the only option is war. i don't think you can have it both ways. let me just say this. if congress were to say these sanctions cannot be lifted, it wouldn't be any different than the snapback that we now have where in essence the united states on its own, the united states on its own can implement snapback. but my guess is, the other countries as you've stated before wouldn't come along. so, we've got to decide which way that it is. i know you speak with a degree of disdain about our regional partners when you describe their reaction to this deal. one of the things we have to

remember is if we had actually dealt with dismantling their nuclear program they wouldn't be responding in the way they have. but not only is this not occur, in addition, we are lifting the embargo in eight years. i have no idea how that entered into the equation, but it did at the end. we are lifting conventional weapons embargo in five years. and in a very cute way with language in the agreement. unbelievably, we are immediately lifting the ballistic missile testing program. we're lifting that ban. so i'd have to say that based on my reading and i believe that you have crossed a new threshold in u.s. foreign policy. where now it is a policy of the

united states to enable a state sponsor of terror to obtain sophisticated, industrial nuclear development program that has one real practical need. that is what you're here today to ask us to support. i look forward to our testimony and the appropriate questions. senator carden? >> well, first, mr. chairman, thank you very much for convening this hearing. thank you to your entire negotiating team. incredible service to our country. incredible sacrifice to their families. and thank you for your dedicated service, hard work and what you have your service to america. the iranian nuclear agreement

review act that senator corker referred to passed earlier this year was an effort by the members of congress to set up the appropriate review for potential deal with iran. we are extremely pleased after difficult negotiations we were able to get the vote of this committee, get the support of the white house and we accomplished two major objectives in passing that statute. first, of course, we set up the appropriate review for congress. it allows us to take action, or we don't have to take action. it recognizes the fact that the sanction regime was passed by congress and that we have a role to play in regards to implementing any agreement as we now see in the jcpoa, that congress has a role to play.

so it's set up an orderly process. and this hearing is part of that process. it took you two years to negotiate this agreement. it took you two months in vienna to get to the final details. we're on day 4 of our review of 60 days. i have not reached the conclusion. and i would hope that most members, i would hope the members of the congress would want to get all the information allow those who are directly involved to make their case. we have hearings set up next week and the following week, and we'll get outside experts. many of us have taken advantage of that opportunity in the past. and i would hope that we've all used that opportunity before drawing a conclusion. this is a very important agreement from the point of view of u.s. foreign policy. iran in that region is critically important to the united states security.

but there's a second objective to the act, and that is to concentrate all of our effort on the bad guy, iran. and speak with unity as much as we could in the united states. so our negotiators could concentrate on vienna and not on washington. in dealing with getting the very best possible agreement. and i must tell you, mr. chairman, i looked at the framework that was agreed to in april. and looking at the final agreements that we've gotten today. and our negotiators got an awful lot. particularly on the nuclear front, which is beyond my expertise. we got things that there were many rumors during these last couple of months of what was going to be in this agreement and how it was going to be weakened from the april framework that, in fact, have been strengthened since the april framework. so i just want to applaud our negotiators for taking the strength of our unity and

turning it into results in vienna. and we'll be talking a little bit about that. as we go forward. the objective is clearly to prevent iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapon power. that is our simple objective. we know who we are dealing with. this is a state sponsor of terrorism. this is a country that abuses human rights. violates the ballistic missile area. we know all that. but we singularly are trying to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power because we know that is a game changer in the region. that's the objective of this agreement. and the standard that we have to use because there is no trust in iran, the supreme leader on friday after the agreements were entered into said, we will

trample upon america. we don't trust iran. but we've got to leave a motion out of this. we've got to look at the agreements. and we've got to determine whether the compliance with this agreement by the united states will put us on a path that makes it less likely or more likely that iran will become a nuclear weapon power. that's got to be the test that we use. mr. chairman, i have many questions. that i hope we will get answers today. i hope those answers will provoke a debate among us in congress and american people and help us make the right decisions. since there is no trust, the inspection and enforcement regime is particularly important. we need to understand how it works. do we have sufficient time to discover if iran is violating the terms of this agreement in order to take effective action to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power? that's a question that we need to understand.

we need to know the breakout times. we need to know what happens after the time periods. do we have sufficient opportunity to prevent iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapon state? the commitment they make under this agreement. are the inspections robust enough to deter iran from cheating? and if they do will we discover and be able to take action? mr. chairman you raised the 24-hour window. i think all of us recognized there was going to be a protocol for inspection. but we need to know whether the 24-hour delay knowing what iran is likely to do. does that compromise our ability to have effective inspections? and i hope our witnesses will deal with that today because that is a matter of major concern. we need to note the answer to that. have we cut off all pathways for iran to obtain a nuclear weapon?

particularly the covert military operations. we know that's a major concern. that's why the pmd is particularly important, the chairman mentioned the pmd. and the work that the iaea are inspectors, international inspectors. they have great credibility in this area. but we will want to know whether they have the capacity to do what we're asking them to do. will they have the access that we need? because we do need to know about their prior military dimension in order to be able to go forward to make sure that we can contain any opportunity they may use for covert activities. will we discover it and be able to take action? these are questions that we -- we're going to ask. we've read the agreement and still have questions. and we hope we'll get answers as to whether we have effectively prevented iran from using covert activities to develop a nuclear weapon. will this agreement provide us

iaea with sufficient access to the people, places and documents? so that we know their prior military dimension? are the snapback provisions for reimposing sanctions adequate if iran violates this agreement? that's an issue that i hope we will have a chance to talk about. at the end of the time limits in the agreement, iran will have the capacity to expand as the chairman rightly pointed out to an industrial capacity. they can get through there and nuclear enrichment and uranium enrichment. that, they can do. do we have sufficient capacity knowing their commitments for nonproliferation, knowing their requirements of the additional protocols. is that going to be adequate to prevent iran? do we have a sufficient enough breakout time that if iran tries to become a nuclear weapon state after the time period that we have sufficient tools to prevent them from becoming a nuclear

weapon power? these are questions we need to have answers to. before we can make our judgments. now, there are other areas. i wanted to be reassured that the united states still has the flexibility to impose nonnuclear sanctions on iran for the support of terrorism, human rights abuses, and against a ballistic missile program. no one expects iran's bad behavior to change on implementation date. we know who we're dealing with. will we be able to use the powers we've used in the past and build upon them to take action against iran, particularly in light that they'll have additional resources? can we do that? and can congress work with the administration to strengthen those tools? without violating the jcpoa? i want to know how the administration is updating the regional deterrent strategy against nefarious and stabilizing iranian activities and how we're going to work with our partners to build up their capacity to counter iran, especially israel.

the chairman mentioned the lifting of the international arms embargo. that's of great concern as to how it would impact on our regional partners. how will it impact an arm's race in that region of the world. these are questions we need to get the best information we can in making our decisions. and lastly, let me mention this because i think it's critically important. what are our options? if the united states walks away from us. how will we be perceived internationally? will we be able to maintain effective enforcement of sanctions with our international partners? and will iran come back to a negotiating table with a country that has walked away from an agreement? these are questions that we need to understand. we need to know that the options are right now, do we go forward? and what are the options? what are the consequences if we don't go forward? mr. chairman we have a full plate. and i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. and i hope that the members of

this committee will use the information that we get today to debate the issue take the time that we have, and do what's right for the american people and ultimately make the decision that we think is best to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power. >> thank you senator carden, i appreciate so much the way we've worked together on so many issues and the entire committee. with that, i know that our witnesses here today need no introduction. they're well known not only here, around the world in spite of our policy differences. i think each of us deeply appreciate the -- that make this. that may not be policy differences in some cases. but we deeply appreciate the tremendous effort that you put up put out on behalf of our country. we thank you for being here today. we thank you for being willing to be here today as long as it takes for everybody to get their answers. and with that, i'd like to introduce collectively secretary

john kerry who used to serve with us and sit on this side of. helpful to all of us in understanding the technical aspects of the deal. and someone we all appreciate deeply. secretary lew who served in multiple positions here has been certainly affirmed by this committee in several towns. we thank you all for your great service to our nation. in spite of some of the concerns that we have here today. i think you all understand the drill. take five minutes or so to explain as i've looked at your testimony. i know it's very brief. just to warn people in advance. i'm going to defer my questions ben, and move to you immediately thereafter. and use my time to interject as things move along. so with that, secretary kerry. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member carden,

members of the committee and friends and former colleagues. we really do appreciate the chance to discuss with you the comprehensive plan that we in our p5plus 1 partners have developed with regards to this program. let me emphasize to everybody here, this isn't just the united states of america. these are other nuclear powers. france, britain, russia china, they have a pretty good understanding of this field and of the challenges. and i appreciate the way in which they and germany which was the plus one all came together, all contributed, all were part of this debate. so you're not just looking at what this table negotiated. you're looking at what the international community, the p5 plus 1 negotiated. and they're not dumb. they're experts every one of

them in nuclear technology and ratification and verification. smart people who spent a lifetime at this. i thank all of you for the role congress played. i was privileged to be the chairman of this committee when we passed the iran sanctions effort. and we all remember the debate, we passed it unanimously and it played a very significant role in bringing iran to the table and in helping to make it clear that we needed to bring about a serious and productive negotiation with iran. from the day that those talks began, we were crystal clear that we would not accept anything less than a good deal. and we defined it up front. as a deal that closed off the four pathways to a bomb. the two iranian pathways

plutonium pathway and the covert pathway. so we set our standard and we believe we have achieved that standard. after almost two years of very intensive talks the facts are really crystal clear. the plan that was announced last week in vienna is, in fact a deal that does shut off those pathways. and provides us with guarantees for the lifetime of the npt and the participation of iran that we will know what they are doing. now, the chairman mentioned in his opening comments, some phrase about unless we give iran what they want folks, they already have what they want. they got it ten years ago or more. they already have conquered the fuel cycle. when we began our negotiations iran had enough material for 10 to 12 bombs. they had 19000 centrifuges up

from the 163 that they had back in 2003 when the prior administration was engaged with them on this very topic. so this isn't a question in giving them what they want. it's a question of how do you hold their program back? how do you dismantle the weapons program. and we've achieved that. nobody has talked about dismantling their entire program. because when that was being talked about they went from 163 centrifuges to 19,000. everybody here at this knows what it takes to stop that. it's called military action.

they're not going to stop it otherwise. they've proven it. proved it during all those years. so under this terms of this agreement, iran has agreed now to remove 98% of the stockpile. voluntarily, they're going to destroy 98% of the stockpile of enriched uranium. going to dismantle 2/3 of the installed centrifuges, and they're going to take out the existing core of an existing heavy water reactor and fill it with concrete. iran has agreed to refrain from producing or acquiring highly enriched uranium and weapons grade plutonium for at least 15 years. and if they began to do that, ernie moniz will tell you we will know it immediately. iran has also agreed to accept the additional protocol and the additional protocol is an outgrowth of the failure of the north korea experience, which put in additional access

requirements precisely so that we do know what iran is doing. and they have to ratify it before the u.n. sanctions are lifted at the end of this process. they have to have ratified it. they have to have passed it -- they've agreed to live by it from day one. they're going to live by the additional protocol. in addition, there are additional transparency measures. we can go into in the course of this hearing. now, if iran fails to comply we will know it. and we will know it quickly, and we will be able to respond accordingly. by reinstituting sanctions all the way up to the most draconian options that we have today, none of them are off the table at any point in time. so many of the measures that are in this agreement are therefore not just for ten years, not just for 15 years, not just for 20

years, not just for 25 years of which there are measures for each of those periods of time but they are for life forever. as long as iran is within the npt. by the way, north korea pulled out of the npt. iran has not pulled out of the npt. remember that two years ago when our negotiations began, we faced an iran that was enriching uranium up to 20% at a facility that was secret and buried underground. and they were rapidly stockpiling enriched uranium and had installed nearly 2,000 nuclear centrifuges. they were building a heavy water reactor that could produce weapons grade plutonium at a rate of enough to produce one or two bombs per year and experts assess that the breakout time then as a result the interval required to rush to be able to produce enough material for one nuclear weapon was about two to three months. if this deal is rejected, we

return immediately to this reality. accept that the diplomatic support we have built with these countries that we have accumulated would disappear overnight. let me underscore the alternative to the deal that we have reached is not what i've seen some ads on tv suggesting disen disingenuously. some sort of unicorn arrangement involving iran's complete capitulation. that is a fantasy plain and simple. at our own intelligence community will tell you that. every single department of our intelligence community will reinforce that to you. the choice we face is between an agreement that will ensure iran's nuclear program is limited, rigorously scrutinized and wholly peaceful. or no deal at all. that's the choice.

the fact is that there are 189 nations that live by the npt. five of them are as we know the main nuclear powers of the u.n., and 184 of them are nonnuclear. in power. but they live by it. and we have lived by what the iaea does with respect to ensuring the surety of what all those 184 nations are doing. including 12 that enrich. now, if the u.s. congress moves to unilaterally reject what was agreed to in vienna, the result will be the united states of america walking away from every one of the restrictions that we have achieved. and a great big green light for iran to double the pace of its uranium enrichment, proceed full speed ahead with a heavy water reactor, install new and more efficient centrifuges and do it all without the unprecedented inspection and transparency measures that we have secured.

everything that we have prevented will then start taking place. and all the voluntary rollbacks of their program will be undone. moreover if the u.s. after negotiating this multi-lateral agreement with five other partners were to walk away from those partners, we're on our own. our partners will not walk away with us. instead, they will walk away from the tough multi-lateral sanctions regime they've helped to put in place. and we will have squandered the best chance we have to solve this problem through peaceful means. now, make no mistake president obama has made it crystal clear that we will never accept the nuclear armed iran. he's the only president who has developed a weapon capable of guaranteeing that. and he has not only developed it, he has deployed it. but the fact is iran now has. we all don't like it.

whether we like it or not iran has developed experience with a nuclear fuel cycle. to produce the material for a bomb, and we can't sanction the knowledge away. remember sanctions did not stop iran's nuclear program from growing steadily to the point that it had accumulated enough material to produce those ten nuclear weapons. by the way they didn't choose to produce them. unlike north korea that developed one and exploded one and iran has done none of that. the truth is the vienna plan will provide a more strong and comprehensive and lasting means than any alternative that has been spoken of. to those that are thinking about

opposing the deal because of what might happen in year 15 or 16 or 20 remember, if we walk away year 15 or 16 or 20 starts tomorrow. without any of the long-term verification or transparency safeguards we have put in place. over the past week i have spoken at length about what exactly this deal is, and i want to make clear what this deal was never intended to be. first of all, as the chief negotiator i can tell you i never etuttered the words anywhere anytime nor was it every part of the discussion we had with the iranians. this plan was designed to address the nuclear issue. the nuclear issue alone, because we knew that if we got caught up with all the other issues we would never get where we needed to stop the nuclear program and it would be rope-a-dope, staying

there and negotiating one aspect or another and the highest concern for president obama was to make sure iran could not get a nuclear weapon, and we were disciplined in that. we didn't set out -- even though we don't like it and i have extensive plans i will layout if you want them about how we will push back against iran's other activities, and its contributions to sectarian violence in the middle east and all of those are unacceptable and pushing back an iran with a nuclear weapon is very different than pushing back an iran without one. ash carter was there yesterday, and the foreign minister said that iran's nuclear deal appears

to have all the provisions necessary to curtail iran's ability to obtain a nuclear weapon, and saudi arabia, and the foreign minister of iran will be in the emirates this weekend. i would suggests effectively we will continue to press iran for information about the missing american and the immediate release about americans that have been unjustly head and there is not a challenge in the entire region we won't push back against if iran is involved in it but none of those challenges will be enhanced if iran gets a nuclear weapon. so the outcome cannot be guaranteed by sanctions alone and i wish it could but it can't be. by the way, it can't be guaranteed by military action alone. our own military tells us that. the only viable option here is a

comprehensive diplomatic resolution of the type that is reached in vienna and that deal we believe, and we believe we will show it to you today, and in the days ahead will make our country and our allies safer, and it will insure that iran's nuclear program remains under intense scrutiny forever and we will know what they are doing and it will insure that the world community is youtube knighted and insuring that iran's nuclear activities will remain peaceful. we believe this is a good deal for the world, a good deal for america, and a good deal for our allies and friends in the region and we think it does deserve your support. >> thank you. secretary mmoniz.

>> the agreement provides strong verification measures and it gives us time to respond if iran chose to violate the terms and fundamentally takes none of our options off the table. i want to stress that america's leading nuclear experts at the national laboratories were involved throughout the negotiations argan livermore oak ridge pacific northwest, and savannah river and the white 12 national security complex and the kansas city plant all played important roles. they were essential in developing technical proposals and support of the u.s. delegation and as a result of their work i am confident the technical under pinings of the deal are solid. the deal meets the president's objectives verification of

iranian nuclear program that is exclusively peaceful and sufficient time to respond if it proves otherwise. the jcpoa will extend for ten years, the time it would take for iran to build a nuclear weapon. the first point i would like to make is the parameters as the ranking member mentioned are maintained and infact strengthened, not weakened, but strengthened in the final agreement. this means restricting the number, type and location of centrifuges, dialing back the rnd program and dramatically reducing the iran's stockpile of low enriched uranium, and

infrastructure is removed. all the reasons taken together are taken to establish the one-year breakout timeline for accumulating highly enriched uranium. something we have not stressed but i do want to add, at the end of the ten years, iran will have far fewer than 19 centrifuges because they acknowledge the breakage rate and they will not have a large replacement capacity because of the agreement. in addition, iran will have no source of weapons grade plutonium and the reactor is transformed under international oversight and participation to produce far less plutonium than their current design and essentially immediate recognition if they try to deviate from that practice

furthermore, all of the plutonium bearing fuel for the reactor goes out of life of the reactor. iran will not engage in several activities that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device including multiple point explosive systems. these -- and neutron -- special neutron sources. these commitments are indefinite. and for 15 years iran will not pursue plutonium, because iran will not engage in activities where that would be needed. to be clear, the deal is not built on trust it's pretty hard-nose requirements that will hreul. >> iran-- limit iran's activities. this is not what iran wanted.

it's a substantial dialing back of their program. to preclude cheating international inspectors will be given unprecedented access to all the nuclear facilities, and i guess there could be an exception if there were military occupation, but that's not the case and any other sites of concern. as well as the entire nuclear supply chain from the iranian supply to centrifuge manufacturing and operation. this access to the iranian supply chain comes with a 25-year commitment and beyond 25 years even after a quarter century of compliance with a peaceful program assuming we get there, we still have as we have said many times, additional protocol in place to monitor iran's nuclear activities but another thing we have also in perpetuity is their adherence to modified code 3.1 which means they must notify the iaea even before they start building any

nuclear facility. this eliminates kind of a loophole where one could do something covertly and say, oops we were planning to notify before we bought nuclear material. they must do this now in the planning stage so it's another thing that we have beyond 25 years. the iaea will be permitted to use advance the technologies, including things like real-time inreachment monitoring which is a technology developed by our laboratories, in this case by the way oakridge played a major role, mr. chairman. if the international community suspects iran is going to cheat they can request access for inspection, and much has been made about the 24-day inspection period where they could get access, and i did say the words anytime anywhere, and i many