we have the environment and we need jobs. that's the merle haggard side. i'm also a chemical engineer. i'm trained to solve problems. i think this last election governor huntsman and senator lieberman alluded to was less about ideology. president trump's message was pragmatic, staying focused on american jobs, energy security, about the need to secure and save social security, medicare, and the need to responsibly manage the fiscal house here in washington in achieving a balanced budget. so i hope we can stay focused on these bigger picture issues. this town suffers from attention deficit disorder. i think the question about the first 100 days very important as roy mentioned. the presidential appointees will consume a lot of our time, at least in the senate.

we've got to think beyond 100 days. the issues we face in this nation are going to take longer than 100 days to solve. more in terms of five and ten year horizons. >> sure. okay. question for the congressman. because you face a different set of challenges in the house. there are certainly elements the democrat party who do not want to see democrats work under any circumstances with the new president. where do you see the opportunity where you can work with the new president and your colleagues here in the senate? >> i'll start. peter welch. the first thing is not the where, it's the whether. republicans have a major decision to make and so do the democrats. there is a tendency when one party gets power to overreach. my hope is that the republicans won't do that. paul ryan is going to have his work cut out for him, even though he continues to have a majority because he's going to have a wing in that party that is going to push him too far.

and if he makes the decision to try to get some bipartisan progress he'll work with democrats willing to work with him, that is going to be a huge advantage for us to get practical things done. the second, the challenge for the democrats is do we fight for failure or do we put out an affirmative agenda that we're advocating on all these topics we know need to be addressed? s and that remains to be seen. the democratic party is in some turmoil now. we are now a bicoastal party. we have white hispanic, working class americans. we have soul searching to do. we don't have the answers credible to a lot of people we think we represent. the bottom line here is a big decision by mr. ryan, will he

work to get things done and be willing to get votes from democrats in order to accomplish that? something john boehner did at the high point of the last congress. and will democrats be smart enough to know that we don't need to be criticizing trump. he's going to do well or he's not. that's going to be on the basis of what he does, not on the basis of what we accuse him of having failed on. so big decision for us, are we going to have a constructive agenda going forward? >> congressman schrader, any thoughts where that space is to be constructed? >> if i play off what peter just shared, we're on the democratic side going to experience what the republicans experienced in 2008 we are going to get a radical tea party equivalent that will clamor for just straight opposition, oppose, oppose, oppose. speaker ryan is going to have a lot of say in whether he wants

to invite democrats to be part of the solution. president-elect trump is going to have some say based on what he chooses to focus on. i think we all know just for politics, the affordable care act, politically they have to do some kind of symbol quick repeal of that. but then beyond that, if the president-elect focuses in on deportations and some of the social issues, i think it's going to be very difficult for democrats to come to the table. if the president-elect sets the agenda on infrastructure and tax reform, it does create and the speaker on our side allows us to be part of that conversation, i actually think it sets a different tone. because we're going to, those of us that are willing to thing it's better for us to be sitting at the table and participating in these conversations as opposed to yelling at the door, we're going to feel some heat as

much as republicans did eight years ago. >> congressman? >> there are things the president is going to do without us, a lot of executive orders that the current president has put in play. you're going to see rescinded or modified, whether it's overtime rules, carpet rules, what have you. we'll have little to say over that. you may have a bigger say over that. actually, your input might be very interesting because you made a lot of business decisions based on what you thought was going to happen, and this could change radically. on the actual party side as mentioned, there will be a reconciliation bill that only takes 51 votes in the senate. probably coming out early, primarily dealing with health care. then that's the only reconciliation bill allowed this year. after that, every vote in the senate will take 60 votes. to my colleague's point on the

house side, there's at least 40 maybe more freedom caucus members that are not interested in governing. they're interested in ideology. anathema to no labels. democrats cross the aisle at some peril to themselves. name of the game is leadership, reward lock step behavior and punish people that actually will step out for the greater good of the country. it's a problem. it's a discussion i know this group has had. the super pac announcement earlier will hopefully be a sign that some of us that are willing to step up for the good of the country are not left behind. i think there's a lot of great bills. the appropriations bills will hopefully become more bipartisan as a result of that. that committee has had a history working bipartisanly. i'm on energy and commerce. we've got a great new chairman, great ranking member.

there will be bipartisan opportunities there. i think there is an opportunity with this relatively blank sheet of paper we have out there, whether it's the president, the congress, house, senate, democrat, republican, for no labels to step in with common sense broad appeal items that senator daines outlined, that we could do quite a bit of work on. i think it's exciting new time. >> congressman schrader talked about the critical threshold in the senate. there are some things that can be moved to reconciliation with only 50 votes. there's limits on what can be moved. you can't create new programs. most things require 60. senator manchion, that would mean you're looking at seven or eight democrats that need to come over for most big things to get done. you're on the leadership team with senator schumer. what are the conversations you're having about where you work together early next year? >> on the leadership team, i'm taking up one side trying to

bring it back to the middle. chuck asked me to do that and i was pleased to be able to do that. i look at all of this. this is a big change. this is a big change in our country right now. with every change comes opportunity. i'm looking at the opportunity to get something done. i really am. i'm so pleased with all my colleagues here. i think everybody here knows that i'll do whatever i can to help my country. no labels will play a tremendous part whether we'll be successful the next two or three years. you'll find that quickly which way we're going to go. the 60 rule, that was senator bird, my predecessor. i didn't vote for the nuclear option. i thought it would destroy the functions and purpose of the senate. i was one of the few democrats that wouldn't go along with that. i understand where my republican friends are right now.

fine, you've given us this we'll use it when we can. that makes sense. i understand that. with that being said, we have to be careful how we go down this road. if we do use the nuclear option and it's -- i'll give you a perfect example. if we have a supreme court nominee and the one thing we were able to talk harry out of is doing a nuclear option on the supreme court, but say some of my democrat friends hunker down and say no, no, and hell no. i can understand they are going to say wait a minute. we've got a pretty good person here. what are we going to do? those types of things i'm hoping we can avoid that before we get to it and get in this dysfunction we've been in. i can tell you speaking from the moderate centrist democrats, some of us work more conservative than others, from that wing of the party, we are looking at everything we can to work with president-elect trump to make it successful, to make it work. if we disagree, we're going to disagree in a respectful way, but also have input and i would

say that if we're thrown the aca from the beginning, affordable care act, i would hope my colleagues would say fine, we're going to repair this with this. it would be much easier. if you say we're going to do this and take a two or three-year period to work out the differences, there's going to be people on my side of the aisle that said you had six years right now and 60 votes to rebuild it and you've not begin us any alternative. let's work together constructively. i think it needs to be repaired. i'm the first to tell you that, but i think is there a pathway forward if we work together if we don't, we are taking hard votes and back into the stalemate. only thing i would recommend to the president-elect is this, i've said this many times, get your financial house in order. as a previous governor, when i went into governorship, i went immediately to wall street to find out what they thought of the state of west virginia. i asked standard and poors and

moodies. my challenges i had, i came back and took on financial reform. i had to get the finances of west virginia solid enough to do the things i wanted to do. i've said this, in public office, if people trust us with their money, they'll trust us with anything. they'll trust us to make the changes and good policy changes. if you can't trust a person taking care of your finances or their own finances, they might not give you the benefit of the doubt on good policy changes you want to make. i would recommend to our new president-elect, let's get this financial house back in order and make changes that i think will be great for this country. i'm looking for a lot of good things to happen. i really am. >> senators, this is a question for you. senator manchin was talking about affordable care act. what is your sense how that will happen? do you think it will be repealed and replaced a couple years later or both be done at once?

>> which senator to go to? >> either of you. let's start with you, senator daines. >> i think it's constructive for us to look at history as we step back and think about the going forward plan with the affordable care act. comments about the need for bipartisan solutions, you go back to that year 2009 and '10 when the democratic party came to town. after arlen specter switched over there were only 108 senators in the house. they were scattering the ashes at that point. who would have thought we would sit here today with the current make-up of washington based on how the world looked in '0 and '10? unfortunately when the affordable care act moved through congress, it was with zero bipartisan support. it was a very, very partisan piece of legislation. if we watched, i would argue the blowback on that the last few years, it ought to be very

telling to us today as we go forward, as we think about the replacement plan now for obamacare, and i think the repeal will likely happen through some kind of reconciliation vehicle that's probably a high probability, i would offer. but the replacement will have to be bipartisan or we will face perhaps at our own peril a different political landscape that will blow back because the american people said something very, very strong ly, president-elect trump to move forward as a country to get something done. first of all, we can't have a partisan replacement in the united states senate because it takes 60 votes. we need joe manchins and his colleagues to work with us to get to 60. if we do that, we'll have a replacement and maybe stand the test of time. >> senator blunt, any thoughts on that? >> i do think it will be easier to get 60 votes on replacements. i want to come back to the plural of that.

once there is an understanding that where we are now has got to change. everybody really knows that this system is not working. everybody has slightly different reasons why they think it didn't work, probably the biggest reason it didn't work was one side decided they wanted to take the entire structure on themselves, which would be a mistake for us to do, but i do think that we'll move forward, announce we're going to head in another direction, there's some discussion whether there would be a two-year window or a three, but we don't need to do all of that in one -- there won't be a 1,570 page republican bill that replaced the 2,700 page bill that we're moving away from. i see that coming a piece at a time. things that 60 republicans, 60 members of the senate and a majority of the house can support, and i envision taking those things off the table

starting almost immediately. there's a provision i sponsored in the house when i was still in the house. the 26 where you can stay on your parents' insurance till you were 26. i was the only person that filed that bill. i was glad to see it added. there seems to be a universal sense that's one of the things you want to maintain going forward. no reason to wait three years to say you're going to do that if you can get 60 senators and a majority house members say this is one of the pieces of building our health care system back that we want to sustain. but i do think we're going to see the elimination of the old system on a date certain on what will be close to a partisan vote. i hate that because it creates an ownership opportunity of a really difficult to manage system that i would think republicans would want to try to avoid that ownership. >> as somebody who was in the body recently and you're now looking at it from the outside, how do you see it evolving? >> yes. i think the points that are

being made are very practical, and i think there is a way forward for both parties to have an input on what you keep now and then what do you put on the table for discussion in a bipartisan way to go forward? and i would say the biggest problem of this bill was the prescriptiveness of it. it made you have to take a one-size-fits all program. if you didn't do that then you were going to go into the government system p beginning to have a government-only program. but if you would go in and have a bipartisan committee saying how you take out the requirements of a

one-size-fits-all solution and put more flexibility in it so it's not congress trying to write every single person's health care plan, then i think could you make real progress on bringing insurance companies back in, bringing corporate coverage back in, and then that leaves a much smaller group that you can serve better if you would go forward with less prescription and more flexibility. >> congressman welch, if this unfolds the way they're describing, how do democrats respond? >> a couple of things. number one, there is obviously political pressure on the republicans to, quote, repeal and follow through on their promise, but we all know that that is kind of meaningless. what happens the day after? what i really think is our job, those of us in congress in the first hundred days is to try to give some definition to what the scope of the problem is. in health care, there are three

elements. one is the insurance reforms. that was a tremendous provision you had, letting our kids stay on until age 26. we want to keep that. letting people get access to insurance if they have a pre-existing condition. trump is for that. letting you stay on insurance if you have a chronic condition where you hit the cap, you don't get thrown out on the street. that's one. that has implications how we pay for it. second is medicaid expansion. there's a lot of problems in medicaid. that has made access to health care significant and a lot of republican governors accepted that. some haven't. the third issue that is just killing us in red states and blue states is the cost of health care. some of the reasons are what senator hutchinson said. what i would hope is that all of us would say, look, we've got to deal with this cost of health care. in some case he's the a broken market. in some cases it's too much regulation. in some cases, it might be litigation. if we gave some definition to

it, there is a common benefit if we start trying to bring down the cost of health care. it is killing our companies that are trying to protect their workers, it's -- our state budget, we're like an insurance company. if you give us definition and say you've got proposals, wife got some and the objective is not to throw people off health care, objective is to get a more efficient health care system, i think we can make some progress. it's the same on infrastructure. trump is a builder. that's a good thing. we need it. it's got to be paid for. the worry i have is we'll come up with some infrastructure plan that will blow a hole in the deficit. you'll see democrats raising questions about that. how do we deal with infrastructure with a payment mechanism? can we agree that's a mutual challenge? >> let me say the perfect storm coming is basically we had a change in the whole, from a presidency and changes necessary congress, but next year 2017, all states get hit with the full

bill. the fed's been supplementing 10% for every state. little state of west virginia it's a couple of hundred million dollars. they don't have the budget. we're $300 million short right now. every state will be faced with picking up this 10%. it will be a perfect storm hitting. they want this done, this done and this done and cut this cost down. because their 2017 budgets will be working first of next year putting their budgets together for the end of 2017/2018. they're facing that. every state is facing it. >> joe is on to something as a former governor, the importance of the state's voice as we think about the go forward plan. kay used the term overly press creptive command and control. i've been on the phone with our newly elected commissioner of insurance practices. we've got to work with our states more effectively. i think mike pence can help bring that voice in his role as

a former governor. you're hearing it from governor manchin and governor huntsman, the importance of our state's voice. >> on my side of the aisle, they are very opposed to bloch grants for medicaid. as a former governor, i can spend the money better than you can tell me. i never prescribed to that. we can design something that helps my state more if i knew exactly way had to work with. i can't fit in every hole you have there. i have to fit in this hole to get this reimbursement. mary knows exactly what we are talking about. we are a 50 states and we're all different. that has some appeal.50 states different. that has some appeal. >> where are we going to find a lot of common ground is going to be in the economic unit. we'll disagree respectfully amongst ourselves with aspects of the health care bill and what we need to fix or don't need to

fix. but the area i think where we can all agree is the economy. creating new jobs, high-paying jobs for a lot of folks. the president campaigned heavily on that, particularly in rural america. he won big in rural america. there's great opportunities in agriculture and forestry, fishing. energy projects. a lot of working men and women want to work on. they're not just solar and wind. there are great opportunities for a lot of folks in this room to rally around and think all of us could rally around that would put people back to work in a real serious way. and frankly, empower and get people feeling better about themselves and where this country is going. that is a big focus of what no labels is about. respect the fact we come from different parts of this country, but we all want to see everyone in america succeed, no matter if you're from the city, from the farm, everyone has an opportunity.

i think that's something we should put a lot of focus on that first 100 days to make sure that's a big outcome, bipartisan outcome we can get going forward. >> there is this broad message the president-elect had about putting america first. let's not forget, senator sanders tapped into that on the left as well with this message of putting america first. we allowed that to guide us in our conversations. that is where the public is right now. they want us to focus in on putting the country first. so whether it's infrastructure, whether it's health care, we ought to be guided by that and focus inward for a while. >> congressman bera, thank you very much. that's ending on a high note that. concludes the panel. we could give a round of applause to our senators and members? thank you very much for joining us. let me all get you the details on where you are all going to next.

everybody is staying in here. that makes it easy. stay in your seats. we are live on capitol hill where the senate foreign relations committee is holding a hearing to consider terror threats in the middle east and around the world. committee will hear from analysts about potential influence of iran over certain terror groups. we expect the hearing to begin in just a moment. live coverage here on cspan3.

business meeting in the foreign relations committee will come to order. we don't have a quorum, but we'll get the front end of the way to move quickly through it. i want to thank everybody for being here. on the agenda today we have 10 pieces of legislation. one treaty, one nomination and multiple foreign service officer list. first we will consider six foreign service officer list of over 400 personnel referred to the committee. i support these appointments and promotions and thank all these officers for their service. we'll also consider the nomination of miss kamala locdier to be u.s. ambassador to malaysia. i want to thank my colleagues helping the committee taking

these steps on her nomination today. resolution of ratification that supports the essential of montenegro to north atlantic treaty organization. i want to thank our chairman ron johnson for having a great hearing on that. especially when we had other challenging things occurring at the time. allowing us to move ahead today. thank you very much. montenegro is implemented through tough reforms to address corruption and other rule of all standards. more work by the montenegro government will be necessary and we should continue to encourage their progress in achieving and upholding the standards set for nato allies this committee has reviewed the protocol and believes the essential of montenegro to full nato membership is in the interest of the united states. we'll also consider hcon res to unite korean families. i'd like to thank senator kirk,

chairman royce for being champions of korean divided families. i'm pleased to lend my support. next is scon res 30 over the concern of disappearance of david snayden. i'd like to thank senator lee for his leadership and pleased to support this resolution. i express the sympathy to his family. i'm confident the united states government will continue to investigate any information that may come to light regarding david's disappearance or any american citizen missing aboard. we'll consider s.con res 57 honoring the king of thailand. i'd like to thank senator hatch for introducing this timely, bipartisan solution. on the ascenda is s. res regarding the trafficking of illicit fentanyl in the united states from mexico and china.

united states is experiencing a prescription opioid and heroin overdose epidemic that is claiming thousands of lives each year. i want to thank senators markey and rubio for their work and leadership on this important issue. we'll consider s.res 537 expressing profound concern about the ongoing political and economic, social and humanitarian crisis in venezuela, urging the release of political prisoners and calling for respect of constitutional and democratic processes. i thank senators carden, rubio, menendez, kaine, boxer bringing this before the committee. the situation in venezuela is tragic. people are suffering. we hope they can find a peaceful electoral way out of this crisis. we'll consider s. 8 to provide the approval of agreement for cooperation between the government of the united states and the government of norway concerning peaceful uses of

nuclear energy. this will cause a civil nuclear cooperation with norway to come into effect in advance of the completion of the 90 day congressional review period which occurs after we have adjourned december 16th. absent this affirmative approval of agreement, the administration will complete a trilateral servicing agreement with norway and iaea which is not subject to congressional review or oversight. this committee reviewed the agreement, held briefings and a hearing and found the agroemt not to be objectionable. though we wish the administration, as i'm sure senator markey will echo, had not included advance consent for retransfer for storage and reprocessing of spent fuel. we'll consider hr 4939 u.s. caribbean strategic engagement of 2016. i want to thank representatives inge he'll and thank senator

cardin working with us. hr 4481 education for all act of 2016 is on the agenda. this act restores our committee's role providing authorities and direction for usaid program appropriated without such guidance from our committee for over a decade. this bill authorizes programs to help countries provide quality basic education, lack of which is a significant barrier to economic growth. we will also consider hr 2845, the american growth and opportunity enhancement act of 2015. it's been an important part of our engagement with africa. this bill asks the president to direct more resources towards helping african businesses trade with the united states. the millennium challenge corporation mcc amendment represents the m corp bill this 2 committee approved at our june 23rd mark-up.

i want to commend senators cardin, isaacson, coons and flake bringing this legislation to the committee. i want to thank senator barrasso for his constructive input how to improve mcc oversight. our amendment includes senator barrasso's recommendations. need to take a breath here, senator cardin. we'll consider hr 1150, the frank r. wolf international religious freedom act. i thank senator cardin for working with us to bring this legislation before the committee. this bill as amended reenforces the 1998 law to strengthen the role of ambassador at large for international religious freedoms and enhances the congressional skwoefr sight of the state department. this legislation enjoys broad interface support and we'll be seeking to have this bill pass in the senate by nam mousse consent so the amended

legislation may be taken up and approved by the house this week. lastl lastly -- this is not on the agenda. we have a resolution that i would like to present to senator boxer. >> oh, you're kidding? i'm surprised. thank you. >> this is going to be your last business meeting and we appreciate all you have done for this committee in the united states senate. serving the senate since 1993, senator boxer has been the longest serving woman in the history of this committee on foreign relations with 18 years of service. i want to thank her for her patriotism and commitment to this institution and our country. when i ran for the senate and was elected 10 years ago, senator boxer was well known in tennessee. and i just want to say it's been a privilege for me not to know

you as a well-known senator, but to know you well. it's been a blessing. we wish you well. [ applause ] >> mr. chairman if i might say a word or two then yield to senator boxer and say a few more things about today's agenda and our committee. one of the great pleasures of my life serving in the united states senate are the friends i made. i knew senator boxer when she was congresswoman boxer, and i knew of her incredible talent, but we became buddies here in

the united states senate. people of california have been blessed to have an incredible advocate on their behalf on so many issues, but our nation has been blessed, indeed the global community has been blessed. there are so many things we can talk about senator boxer on the environmental issue. on this committee what you've done for women and girls around the world is incredible. in afghanistan, you have made a huge difference in lives of so many young children. i just really want you to know how much we all appreciate what you have done. this is family and we're very proud of our sister. congratulations for a career, just an incredible career. >> thank you so much, my colleagues. i just want to say, this is such an honor to have this resolution. good lord. we don't agree on anything so this is special that you got this done. and no one said, "i signed in protest." that was good. each of you as i look at you, we

have worked so well together and sometimes we fought, sometimes, once in a while, not that often, but i can truly say every member of this committee, i've worked with on issues that we all care about. jim on the ethics committee being just dedicated to our work. it doesn't matter when you're in there what party you're in. a lot of my love for this committee comes from that same point. these two gentlemen, the chairman and the ranking member, working hand in glove constantly in an age where it's not expected and we're so thrilled to see it. whoever said politics stops at the what you're edge is right. this committee has to be, you know, nonpartisan because nothing less is at stake than the security of every man, woman and child that we fight for

every day. i'll close with this because senators are hard to talk fast. i will close with this. i have seen many chairman, bob and i've seen this bob and i've seen john kerry, richard luger, joe biden, i could go through the list. wonderful people all. friends all. and when i got the ability to move forward on the first-ever subcommittee that dealt with women's issues all over the globe, it was a wonderful moment because everyone said, you know, you're right, barbara, we need to do this. and i know i've spoken to jean. it isn't as if only a woman would carry these issues, but it is a reminder to everyone that we do see the world through a slightly different lens. that's just the beauty of diversity. jean is going to pick up a lot of the particular issues and a lot of the rest of you will as

well on other subjects. it has been a joy. i'm going to close with this. i'm so loathe to say this but it's so perfect i end with this i was disappointed we didn't pass a piece of legislation i wanted you to pass today. that's a joke. it's true. we didn't. but i know we're going to get it done after i leave. if i didn't say that, it wouldn't be barbara boxer. i can't let you get away with everything today. fond memories made me a better person. god bless each and every one of you in the days and the years ahead in keeping our country strong and safe. thank you. >> thank you. [ applause ] mr. chairman if i might, later this week, the senate foreign relations committee will

celebrate its 200th anniversary, when the first standing committees were approved by the united states senate on december the 10th. and this committee has had a very, very proud history. i know i speak for all the members on the democratic side, and i think i also speak for the republican side to congratulate our chairman bob corker on an incredible two-year leadership of this committee. this has been a very difficult time. your leadership has shown the strength that we wanted in our chairman, the fairness to include all members of our committee. in the work of this committee, i've been able to get the type of unity we needed to preserve the appropriate role for the senate foreign relations committee, and you've made it an honor to serve on the senate foreign relations committee. so i want to congratulate you on an incredible two years.

[ applause ] mr. chairman, i know we have a long agenda. i very much appreciate what is included on this agenda. i think what might be easier, i was going to go through all the items on the list that -- and they are important items and i want to comment on what we've done. perhaps the best way if we start the agenda and i comment as we get to the legislation. >> very good. thank you very much. first order of business for today's agenda will be six foreign service. >> support all of them and move their adoption. >> anyone else like to speak to the list? no further discussion on this list, i would entertain the motion to improve these lists. >> so moved. >> second? >> so moved and second. question on the motion to approve six foreign service list on block. all those in favor say aye. the ayes have. appointments and promotions agreed to. i would like to ask the city to

proceed to a voice vote on srgs of mrs. kamala lockdeer. >> strongly support the nomination and move her adoption. >> any member like to be recognized? no further discussion on the nomination, it's entertain a motion to approve her by voice vote. >> so moved. >> second. >> questions on the motion to approve the nomination. all those in favor say aye. the ayes have it. nomination agreed to. i'd like to consider treaty on the agenda. any comments on this treaty? >> montenegro. >> yes, mr. chairman. let me thank you very much for bringing this montenegro nato session treaty today. i want to acknowledge the distinguished ambassador present in our committee room and thank him for his availability to our committee. it was clear this small country has made significant contributions to the alliance efforts around the world and made the necessary internal

reforms to address governance rule of law and corruption. this progress appears all the more remarkable for the fact montenegro has been subject to a wave of anti-nato and anti-western propaganda emanating from russia. i congratulate the manner which the country has responded. i am very happy that we are making it clear russia does not have veto over get situations of nato alliance. i strongly urge my colleagues to support the session. >> any other member wish to speak? i'm going to go back and forth. >> not to repeat, certainly want to thank the chairman and ranking member for support of this resolution. montenegro made great strides to reform trying to drive out corruption. we had a great hearing on it. i urge my colleagues to support the resolution. >> thank you. >> senator shaheen. >> yes. i would echo what's been said. i would also ask that we encourage leadership to bring this to the floor before we go

into recess in this session of congress. i think the best message we could send to russia as they're looking at their future plans in europe is the that we want them to join the nato and to be part of the european block that protects all of europe. >> anyone else? thank you both for the leadership on this issue. the note for the discussion on this i would entertain a motion to approve this by the volt. moving second and i thank you so much. all of those in favor say aye. with that we have aye's and then we have the resolution and senator, do you have any comments? >> well, mr. chairman, i want to thank you for getting the help to get this before us today. i have worked with the senators

r rubio, kaine and other members, and it's heart wrenching narrative emerged from venezuela and then the lack of food and medicine and the rising level itself of corr ruchlgss have created a situation where they face hardship. i am glad that we're speaking on the bid of this issue and recognizing that they're in crisis and needs international understanding. >> any others? >> i want to echo that. thank you senator for your work in general. what's happened in venezuela is -- it's been ignored and cancelled and the supreme court is over taken. it's not a democracy any longer. not any a facade. the impact -- i encourage my colleagues to read a report. it's one of the richest countries in the world, and

selling their hair for pennies to try to feed their families. it's a catastrophic situation that's coming to bare here rapidly and this having an impact on south florida and the region. anyone that's not kept up the date with it, to really look into the tragic humanitarian and political tragedy that's occurring in venezuela. >> anyone else? if no further cushion on this resolution, i would improve all three by block vote. is there a second? >> second. >> so moved in second and the question on the motion to approve all three amendments is blocked and all of those in faye voi, say aye. with that the eaye's have it. is there a second? so moved in second on the

question of the motion for 537 and all of those in favor say aye. >> aye. and next we will continue 537 and do you have any excepts that you want to make? >> well, thank you mr. chairman. i strongly support this resolution and i want to thank rubio for bringing this forward and calling the united states counter narcotics with mexico and china. mr. chairman, i am sure with all members of the committee have had meetings in and around the state and meetings with different groups on the drug problems in every community in america. we have seen the opioid abuses lead to heroine and lead to synthetic drugs of fentanyl. it's caused untold deaths. fentanyl is a drug that those that are using narcotics are not

aware of the strength and it causes them to go into crisis. i thank you very much for bringing this to our committees attention that we must do more within the jurisdiction of the committee to control fentanyl. >> anyone else? >> mr. chairman, if i may. >> senator rubio and i have introduced this resolution and this is the public health crisis in the united states and we join with senator hem on this resolution calling for it's passage. fentanyl just to give you a little bit of a idea of how bad it is right now. we're going to have 2,000 people die in opioid over dosages this year. 75 percent and now massachusetts

is two percent of america's population. so if you multiply that by 50 and it was hitting the choel country at the rate that it's hitting massachusetts, new hampshire, the rate that it's hitting florida and several other states but not the country, that would be 100,000 deaths of which 75,000 would come from fentanyl. so what we're trying to do with the resolution is to get ahead of this storm, this classified hurricane which is already on shore in certain states and it's ready to hit. what it does is it calls for our government to work much more closely with the chinese government that's the source principally of this chemical and artificial substance that's created and coming into the country and the mexican government where it's fabricated and then comes into the cities and states of the country, so

this is something that in my opinion is going to wind up dwafing any issue that we're going to work on. so deliberating on the bills is appropriate because far far many people are going to be terrorized than this than what is happening in aleppo today. i am happy to work with senator rubio on a by partisan on this. >> the car fentanyl is actually animal trans liezers, and this stuff is coming in the mail basically. it's being shipped in fed ex and ups. i don't mean to single out any countries, and i just did. it's being sent in from the countries, and it is by far, you

go and i encourage everyone to talk to the hospitals and first responders and they're seeing dozens of these and the agents to reverse it do though the work because of how strong it's gotten. it's manufactured and we saw in the loss of prince, and he died because he took it in fentanyl and pills labeled as percocet. that's what we're dealing with now, and it's a serious problem. >> now, the lacing that's occurring with fentanyl and the fact that it can come in a fed ex package this size is equal to truck loads of other types of materials is reaching havoc on the society. i appreciate you bringing attention to this. any other comments on this? there's no further discuss on this, i would approve both amendments on the block by voice vote. is there a second? so moved in second and to approve the aamenldmentes by the

block by voice vote. all of those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> with that the aye's have it. are there any other agreements? hearing none, there's a motion to amend it? is there a second? so moved in second on the motion approved and 535 as amended and all amenlded will say aye. the aye's have that with the resolution as amended, as agreed to. the next order of business that i would ask that we consider on the block by voice vote are the remaining resolutions before the committee and that's s con 57, 30, 40. senator, any comments? >> no, i support all of the resolutions. i support them. >> are there any members that would like to speak to any of these resolutions? no further discuss on the

resolution i would entertain a motion to approve these oen a block by voice vote. is there a second? so moved on second and then aapproved and to unblock and all of those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> with that the aye's have it. next is sa the norway 123 agreement. do you have any comments on this? >> thank you chairman for being forward this. i cosponsor this under your agreement. so i support the resolution. >> anyone else wish to speak to this? you i started to call on you before you raised your hand. >> thank you chairman mr. much. i do commend norway as one of our closest allies and the need to conduct nuclear research at the hall den research reactor. we're offering support to one,

two, three agreements that do not meet the gold standard. i agree as we get deeper into that, that should be the standard regardless of the close allies any of the count can is are with whom we're reaching the agreechlt it's going to provide norway with advance consent to transfer fuel to the united kingdom and that's the wrong signal and other countries considering pursuing this technology and i am particularly concerned about east asia and i am concerned that the negotiators did not push to remove the advance cone sent clause. it's the plins m that's in stake here and that are involved in this agreement. we should not water down our global opposition to the processing. it should be our gold standard,

and if we do not stand for that, we're going to come back in another 15 or 20 years as other countries in the middle east and east asia as for the same kind of treatment, and we will then have that catastrophic event that was created because we did not give the leadership. i believe that there's a profound danger that we're unleashing here as we do this exception, and i just wanted to state my opposition to this pathway on principle. >> so what it's worth we have met regarding nine gold standards, and i could not agree more. i think that we find ourself in a place where even though that this is an imperfect one two three agreement, it's better than what is in place in we allow an administrative agreement to take place and lapse. i share the concerns and wish that all of these were in the

gold standard fashion that you have expressed. you know that we have talked about this on many occasions and this is putting us in a better place than letting the time elapses and enter into an aagreement between the united states and norway. are there any other comments or questions? >> opposed. i will record you, and that's okay. with that the aye's have it and the substitute agreement and are there any other agreements? hearing none -- am i in the right place here? are there amendments? >> no. >> okay. the question -- delete what i just said. the motion to approve hr 4939

has amepded. all in favor, say aye. opposed. are we in the right place here? questions on the motion to approve s 8 all in favor say aye. oppose? with that the aye's have it and the legislation has agreed to. next we will move to hr 39 and the engagement act of 2016 and senator carbon, do you have any excepts that you would like to make? >> well, i appreciate this issue being brought up, and i congratulate any house for the work on this and it's a -- i

appreciate it. >> there's no further discussion i entertain a motion by the vote. is there a second? so moved in second and the questions on the motion approve the amendment and all of those in favor say aye a. it's agreed to and are there any other further agreed amendments? hearing none, is it approved? so moved in second and the questions to approve is amenlded and all in favor say aye. with that the aye's have it and now we consider hr 4481 and the education for all act of 2016. senator gardin? >> well, i thank you for bringing it forward. i support it and strongly urge my colleagues to support the legislation. >> anyone else? if there's no further

discussion, i will enter a motion by the voice vote. >> so moved. >> second? thank you. so moved in second. all in favor say aye. opposed with that and the aye's have that. are there further amendments? hearing none, is it moved. >> so moved. >> second. thank you so much. so moved in second and that the question approved is amended and all in favor will say aye. with that the aye's have that and now we consider hr 2845 and the enhancement act of 2015 and senator gardin? >> well, i appreciate that this is before us today. i want to thank the senators kohn for introducing the compact for the international impact last year. this -- the bill passed the committee earlier and this new authority for mtv c is included

in hr 2845 and so i would urge the colleagues to support the legislation. >> any other discussions? senator kahn? >> if i may thank the leadership for getting us over the line and then thank you mr. chairman for working so closely with the ranking member on a wide range of bills for today's market. thank you. >> thank you so much. if there's no further discussion, i enter a motion. >> so moved. >> is there a second? thank you. so moved in second and then all in favor say aye. with that the aye's have it. are there further amendments? hearing none, is there a motion to approve it? all in favor say aye. with that the aye's have it and

lastly we will consider hr 1150 and the frank r wolf international freedom act. >> first, let me say when you're voting on a bill that includes frank or wolf's name, i can't see anyone voting against it. it's a real champion throughout the lifetime and the career and the human rights issue. i do want to thank senator rubio for his work on this legislation and there were some concerns that were expressed and we were able to work through those concerns. i thank him for that and the department had concerns on reporting on none state actors and that's in the religious persecution and then the diplomatic efforts to hold government's accountable. i think that the legislation stricts the right bounlds, but it's an issue that the committee is going to issue to monitor and make sure that they're accountable for the actions within the country. i think that i want to acknowledge congressman smith

and what he has done and i want to urge the colleagues to support the legislation. >> thank you. would anyone else like to speak to this. i know that a number of people were involved. >> i want to thank rubio and gardin for approving the language that i had. >> very good. if there's no further discussion i would entertain a motion to approve it by the voice vote. is there a second? so moved in second and the question on the motion approved and the rubio substitute amendment and with that the aye's have it. so moved in second and then the questions on the motion to approve hr 1150 and all in favor say aye. opposed with that the yooi's have it and the legislation has agreed to and that completes the committee's business. >> mr. chair? >> yes, sir.

>> one item that i tried to click and another committee member has a milestone that's important on election day and senator gardin achieved 50 years beginning with the election as a youngster. he does not like me mentioning it, but that's a pretty impressive record. those that do it, understand how challenging it is. [ applause ] >> i am thankful that you're serving with us on a continual basis. that makes you part of the establishment. i think yeah. >> mr. chairman, i wanted to pick up on senator boxer's brief comment as she was giving her remarks earlier on the bill that did not get passed and that's

the woman peace and security act and something that senator boxer -- >> so i think that you're taking up the mantle quickly. >> now four years but i just. >> there was passed without the debate and we know that when woman are supported that they tend to give back to their families and communities and making sure that they have a place at the table when we're trying to resolve conflicts is important. i know they were concerns, but i want to put everybody on the committee on notice that this is not going away and it's not going to be here and i think this is legislation and that's important for us to pass and it sends an important message for woman and countries around the world that they need to be at

the table as we're deciding the fate. >> thank you. i look forward to calling senator boxer when she is doing whatever she is doing after the first of the year to share with her that we have addressed the issue. i have received a call from president carter and i talked to christi last night and there were issues that we would like to work out. we will begin that again. i know the president has had in place since 2011 an executive order of sorts to deal with this. we would like to see what the impact of that has been. we understand that it's going to be something. >> mr. chairman, make sure that you call me but will you be calling me as the secretary of the state? >> no. >> i should have said that. >> that will never happen now. [ laughter ] >> i would oppose that nomination.

>> thank you. thank you so much. that completes the committee's business. i ask the consent that the staff make technical changes without the objection and so ordered and with that, and without objection the committee is going to stand adjourned. thank you all and i wish you all a warm and meaningful holiday. i hope that most of you will stay for the hearing, but hopefully we will finish up this week. thank you. thank you. now the foreign relations committee is going to come to order.

okay. i want to thank the witnesses for being here today and sitting through all of that. both of you have outlined the policy options in the written testimony to help us address the threat of iranian proxies and part to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. that's a main threat to the united states and the allies today as your testimony. it is.

>> okay. thank you, sir. can you hear that? i would like to thank the witnesses for testifying today. you both outlined options in the written testimony to help us address the threat of the proxies. aport from the efforts to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. that's a direct threat to the united states and the allies today. currently lebanese has 100,000 missiles and rockets threatening israel and also it's a threat to american forces currently deployed there. in just the past october they fired the missiles at the u.s. navy ships. saudi arabia continues to fill the affect of iran proxies and partners as an attack across the border to the saudi cities and

launch missiles that can only be allowed and that's the conflict and research clearly outlines the destabilizing roll played by iran and three separate at sea and then the weapons and then bound for yemen and at the same time lebanese continues to play a decisive role in syria while iran is the demonstrative amazing capability to deploy from around the world to the fight. there's no doubt that the next administration is going to face a range of threats from the more traditional threats and the straight that it removes to the newfound spears of the influence like yes, ma'men. one reason that i imposed the deal is that i feared that it was going to be the middle east policy and that countering the efforts would not -- would take second fiddle if you will. the current administration has not pushed back in a meaningful

way against the islamic republics actions in the region. i hope that both of you consider new ways of the iranian weapons and terrorism and the dangerous ideas. i want to thank you both for being here and sitting with the business meetings and with that i want to turn to the member and my friend and ranking member ben gardin. >> well, thank you for calling the meeting on defeating the threat network options for countering the iranian proxies. as you know mr. chairman, i did not support the jpcoa as it was negotiated. iran sponsorship with terrorism, the continue missile testing, the work with russia to hold and shield ashad and then the records. these are issues that i had

longed believe need to be given equal weight and consideration as we do the poll sni the middle east. the iran sponsorship of terrorism and the violent proxies across the middle east is important for our security and that of the allies and partners as the iran nuclear program and uniformed civilians and directed and trained and equipped groups are a threat to u.s. forces and american citizen today. this is a problem that directly threatens the u.s. security. in my consultation with the leader in the region it's critical clear that the terrorism is on equal grounds with the nuclear threat in government's and the threat to the security. in iraq, where we are partnering to defeat, iran is threatening in the violence and cleansing and putting up the risk of the stability of iraq. in syria, i ran is sending them

to defend a dictator guilty of crimes and in yemen, they're working with the rebels to threaten saudi arabia. in lebanon, the laws held hostage the process of holding a government for two years and iran continues to transfer weapons that threaten israel's security. i will stop to list the examples but if you do not have to work hard to identify the fingerprints of the terror across the region, for the leaders and the rigc and the investment is just enough to keep the region off balance, and more than enough to insure a constant state of instability. it's a shared challenge and we're dealing with options with the iran proxies, and we must look at the shared solutions.

the united states cannot go at it alone and eliminate iran's proxies. there's no unilateral solution. the approach must take into account the coo operation and coordination and the regina means intelligence sharing and security cooperation with the partners. outside of the region that means the sanctions on iran and the use of terrorism have a meaningful impact to accomplish the approach and the proxies and dismantling the threat network and the partners must trust us or work with us. there must be a baseline to their security. i did not support it as it was negotiated. now that we're two years in the agreement, we can not just walk away without risking the

credibility of the commitments. the u.s. leadership role and enforcing the sanctions and the partners. i fear that walking away from the jpcoa every amplifies and i could rush for a nuclear finish line and there would be no more inspections and if the united states laps the -- i hope to work with the colleagues next year when the comp rehencive legislation that sets the foundation for the next chapter of the iran policy. the signal that we must send is that we're kmoitd to the jorks pcoa and that they will conduct the over sight while maintaining incredible dedurnt snap back. i was incredible to receive the extension and that was an important step that we took. on the none nuclear loor

interests we have to continue in the ballistic and terrorism or the human rights violations and insure considerations of new sanction of iran conducts and directs and they increase the operational or the financial support for the terrorists organizations that threaten the u.s. interest or allies. i have introduced a legislation that's going to move that along and i look forward to working with the chairman on how we can increase the responsibilities and congress and over site and iran's come plies with iran and the nuke particular agreement and to deal with the other activities. i think this discussion today is going to help us in that work. >> thank you very much for the comments. since you brought up the extension, i think that we all have a you huge debt of gratitude to senator menendez on that issue. i'm glad that they're extended, and thank you for that very

much. the first witness is mr. matthew mcginnis and served as senior analyst for the department of o defense. thank you for being here. the second witness is mrs. melissa daulton and she served at the department of defense, and thank you both. we appreciate if you would summarize in five minutes with that objection and the written testimony is entered into the record and if you would enter with the introduction, i thank you. >> thank you and the members and thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing on the iran support and hearing and proxies. i will focus my comments on how that fit sboos the priorities and how u.s. policy can counter it. while it constitutes my own

analys analysis, it draws on my own studies with mrs. dalton. i want to stress that at the end of 2016 we are at a point in iran's strategy in the middle east. the nuclear deal has given them new resources and has freed iran to focus on the conventional military capacity to compete with the rivals more direct limit iran is sensing finally some form of victory in the wars in syria and iraq. in the aftermath, the leadership is going to be left with an enormous influence led by the islamic regard. they will also now have at it's disposal a proxy army of the malicious units with over a hundred thousand personal and many workers developed in the battlefields in syria and iraq.

this is going to post challenges to us and the region. these can mitigate or obtain or roll back, but they will not defeat or eliminate the threat posed by these back groups and well established ones. how should we better taylor the approach to the proxies especially if defeating them is the ultimate goal. there are two keys. first is the military strategy. that's unconventional warfare and these often become essential parts of the frontline strategies once established. this exists later and first the deterrence and the ability to instill fear and destruction

where economic destruction to per way to the enemies like israel and the u.s. this is what they refer to as threat and response to threat doctrines. proxies get the ability to help iran manage escalation and in retaliation. since iran cannot strike it, it tries to threaten through the terrorism and the second layers is the passive and that's more latent and involves the states as the ability to build in iraq and syria and lebanon. these are groups such as the poplar forces in iraq and then the national defense forces in syria that we have seen in receipt years. these are built to sa lit if i the influence in the states and to sway any further military such as ours or others or russia's from po potentially trying to pull these states of of iran's influence. these are something that could

threaten, you know, the u.s.'s military and the presence in the country. the second key is being able to detingish from the groups that are only partners and the process of becoming proxies such as yemen's and the destruction of this should be a central component of the policy. the main thing is athat whether an organization adhere toss the ideology or guardianship that reps as the leader and authority figure. groups that do not acknowledge that authority such as the follower of the military groups, still enjoy significant support from iran and cooperate with them. they can not depend on the organizations to form the front line of the deterrence and then to execute iran's leaderships

directives. so looking to the u.s. policy recommendations, as long as they continue to aoppose the united states, and seize washington as a threat to the existence, it's going to seek through the proxies and whatever feasible mean that is it has. four principles in such an approach include, first exposing the psychological foundation of the proxies to an extreme. greater efforts by the u.s. to name and shame iranian groups and the activities could erode the deterrent strength. second is to push back and that's the support of the u.s. proxies. third is divide and undermine the local support proxies. iran's heavy approach is the resentment that we can not advantage of and then the formation helped shape where we

can. this is important in places like yemen where the proxies are not there yet and adhere to the ideology. we can prevent them from becoming part to have operations. we should support the whole government approaches such as the supported in the countering threat in the 2016 and those legislations sort of that recognizes that need and the bottom line is that the u.s. cannot alter the logic for the proxies to counter and detour the conventional advantage and power add advantage take of the u.s. and the allies without the changes in the threat perception or the changes within the and t changes in the threat perception or the changes within the leadership. with that, i conclude my statement. thank you. >> chairman corker, it's an

honor to testify before you today with my excellent colleagues matthew mcinnis. this draws from a forty coming csi report. i will focus my remarks on three topics today. iran is a revisionist power that seeks to fulfill a number of goals to change the status quo. these are insuring the survival of the public, detouring adversaries and the power and influence and securing a place within the international community. iran is aware of the conventional military verses it's adversaries. it leverages a range and this approach also has other activities like missile development, engaging in

provocative marriages and exploring operations. it insures that any escalations of the united states and the partners fall short of the ware fair. through this approach iran can pursue the goals while avoiding the consequences and enjoy a plausible denieblt by using proxies, and divert them from taking actions that could have a backlash from the proxy groups and infiltrate state institut n institutions in countries with weak governments. more over, the wars have provided fertile ground for the proxies and the supported groups. this approach also disadvantages iran and that's the destabilizing activities and iran's image remain in many ways the same and impairing the economic development and iran is hindered by the principle agent problem and the proxies that do

not act in accordance and the u.s. approach to the iran has detoured significantly forward in the capabilities of the element and yet the united states has largely been unable to detour iran's extension of the regional power and threshold testing across a range of military and par military activities. indeed, in the last five years the threat network has grown. regional partners doubt u.s. n sinceri sincerity. we have an opportunity to chart a pathway forward that protects the u.s. interest and strengthens deterrence and the united states may chose to elevate in the approach to iran given the unique challenges that iran prevents. this will have the limits. absent ied logical change in the

government the united states will not be able to change the reason for supporting the proxy groups. and if the u.s. action is not calibrated, that's the reare respond to the connect i can attacks and cyber attacks and working with the allies, the united states can take a number of steps to limit the reach of the proxy activities and steam further growth in the region. these measures include direct and indirect operations to disrupt and support for proxies and the red lines. conduct cyber disruption of the actives and avoid deflating and expose iranian back groups and

activities outside of the borders to discourage the interference and exploit national list sentiment in the region that bristles the iranian region and the p operations, sustain financial pressure on proxies and minimize the space that they can exploit by building the capabilities of the partners and supporting the gov nance in countries to iran penetration. even a u.s. strait ji that seeks to amplify, cannot be punitive or it will prove and have the limits this changing iran's behavior. the united states could link possible incentives to changes that iran makes so that they're synchronized as one move. i hope today's hearing can inform the process, and thank

you and i look forward to the question. >> thank you. i'm going to ask a question and then keep my remaining time for interjections but when the agreement was being negotiated i know that some of o us where in the switzerland of this deal where many of the meetings took place, one of the things that they would say is that the revolution is over. revolution is over. iran is a different place. obviously the description that you have just laid out, counter that. the reason that you have the proxies is to further the revolution, but i wonder if the two of you distinguish witnesses could briefly yes or no do you believe that revolution is over or not? >> certainly for the current leadership is not. what i usually argue is that for the -- for this leadership that the revolution is the political

infrastructure that allows them to retain power and they can change if they want to and they have not figured out what the change would look like in order for them to maintain the power. i think that everyone that follows the region in this town and around the world ask that question are they going to have the china in the 1970s moment the iranians worry about that and debate that internally. i think their scared that's going to happen to them and they're all going to go through an early 1947 purge and everyone dies when that moment happens. for right now, the revolution still matters. it's what keeps them in power.

>> ms. dalton. >> i would add that they have been tensions in the iranian policy and the poll that's still strong today and also a dose of pragmatism in terms of economic development and desire to have incredible standings in the community. you see them over time and trying to balance the element tofs policy, and there's a push and poll that occurs in the leadership and trying to strike that balance and so i think the sweat spot that the united states and international partners have to find is a way to restrain on the ideology and the hardness that the potential of the pragmatism. >> thank you. senator menendez.

>> thank you. for a couple of decades now iran has south to extend the brand of governing through terror and i know that it was a hold on iran's nuclear program that we would be able to expand the resources to combat the more conventional threats from iran. i was looking forward the to doing that. in the past two years since the agreement, we have seen iran test us in a variety of ways. even in violation of the agreement is the ability to produce that heavy horder and that's a set of circumstances that gives them access to other developments of the program. yes, once we bought it and now they transfer it and then in the

second case and the reality is that and beyond that and in the conventional way the engagement and that's the counsel resolutions and their engagement on terrorism has not stopped. the engagement in iraq and syria and yemen are tremendously challenging and then the partners in the region and so it just seems to me that i hope that in the next congress the congress that's going to deal with the none nuclear issues are willing to be engaged in that and in a way that i think can be incredibly important to the national security. i they the extension of the iran sanctions show that is despite all of the iran might walk away

from the agreement and then if they were extended that's the contact. i see them appealing to trump not to walk away. that's interesting that that was standing all of the blustering that the reality is that sanctions have in fact not had them move away. that bridges me to what do we do as it relate toss the actions. i would like to get a sense and you mentioned the counter iran and then the senator and i introduce in this congress and what elements of that particularly do you see helpfulful to the goal and what can we do with our international partners to affectively enforce the un sanks ctions? >> well, thank you and in

particular, i always supported taking a very comprehensive look at what iran is doing. i mean from the conventional efforts and the you support for terrorism and then the nuclear program itself and then the entire field and i think in particular in the 2016 updates to the bill, and i personally advocated for a comprehensive strategy and for the u.s. government to pursue that and the defense state and treasury and then the dni or producing a well according strategy and when nifs the government, it was very difficult frankly to have, you know, where we really did not have that sense of all of the different elements of the u.s. national power and then even if you could not necessarily have a fully coordinating effort, at least all of the sides were taking to each other and

recognizing what we're doing on the terrorism and counter and then and that's the dramatic efforts and we were not necessarily talking and i think that in particular i thought would be a huge help. when it comes and then that's the nuclear program and one thing if i can be a little provocative here, what it took to affect the nuclear program and our efforts on the sanctions and the pressure that we also brought there on the diplomatic front and on the military front to bring iran to the table and let's be honest there was also incentives involved. we could see it and, you know, all of that when you look at to bring along and to negotiate,

that was on smgs that was fundamentally a program that was not to iran. it was important to iran and extremely important to them, but they did not have a nuclear weapon yet and so therefore the nuclear weapon was not part of the deterrence strategy yet. therefore it was something that could be traded away at the table and it was something that could be negotiated. the reason that i focus and try to convince in the testimony of the importance of the issues where as something like proxies have become that to iran and lebanese is to iran and to detourize ral for example and the ballistic missiles is something that they have and in order for us to pressure iran to restrain themselves on the conventional missile program or

on something like lebanese is going to require an aeffort with us and the allies frankly and a much greater effort than it ever took for us to get to the table and to the j o -- not to be such a pessimist about it but it's something to remind that it's an enormous challenge for us that does not mean that we don't have to do it. it's just that it is -- it's so important to remember that when you're faced with something like the missiles, it's essential to understand how important it is to iran and if you have to do it, we have to bring a force of air there or incentives and that's another question. >> yeah, i will joous say because the time has expired. i appreciate the naming and shaming but i have to be honest

with you. i don't get the sense there they're going to stop and that's the desire that they need and the naming and sharing is going to stop the flow. when we talk about incentives and i read in the testimony that you suggested the pos blth of including iran and the international organizations and i just am anot sure that a country that violating just about every international norm should be invited to an international organization because that does not meesely change attitudes if you look at russia and they violated international norms and they're in syria and supporting a dick ray or the shop that bombs to some people. i'm not sure that the invoir dire nation is to the organization is the greatest in the world. >> thank you:we were all happy

with this to see the citizen that were held by iran and returned to the circumstances on which that happened. that was less than a deal. one of them were not robin. it was an attorney that's been missing for a long time now. since that time we have seen in february that iran arrested and whose son was arrested on october of 2015. 5irgd u. >> if so what are the circumstances in earlier in the year? >>. >> i think they see the tension

of the ugs citizen and it's own citizen as a source of live ladies and gentlemen. at the same time there's a dose in the regem that there's a possibility the to broker the new negotiations and secure the release of our citizen and insuring that those happening in a way that we're not rewarding the bad people but seeking the release in accordance with the law, and rules of the road.

>> yeah, i agree as the leverage points and it is frankly part of the state craft since the early 1980s and certainly we have actually seen that increase since the nuclear deal in my opinion and that's dual nationals in particular have been a target i wrote and anticipated and worried that the opening up because they're afraid of president obama's strategy with the deal and is that including with the international community is going to start a slow change inside of the regem and then the leader is concerned that that may actually happen, and so therefore it's clamping down everyone harder on the human rights as using and threatening the international

iran business men and are they going to insure that the deal does not create positive change inside of the society? >> well, let me ask one more thing. we all saw the sale of the aircraft to iran. i find that troubling and it's important to remember that iran air was provided for the material support and services to the i rgc and the administrative defense. in 2011 they noted that the revolutionary guard officers take card and that's the revolutionary cord and related cargo and in addition to that, we have seen the other related airlines and they're the same. we have no indications that the

airlines have changed the activities and they're not going to use the planes in the same way. i will understand that some argue that it's a violation of the contract. well, i don't know where they intend to enforce that. what court are they going to take that too? i spoke and we should expect to see them use in the same way that they have seen them in the past and by others to assist and another entities. >> i would expect given iran's history with such aircraft that there's going to be some that's use in that manner and some that are used with the commercial purposes. iran has a use of dual use of all of the capabilities and technologies that it acquires. i would be surprised if it does not. that would be my answer.

>> i think that this is very alus tof the need going forward and the chart to such that we can ke quens the moves that we would like to make in shoring up our deterrence, while at the same time incentivizing behavior changes such that they are king kro nized. in constructing a frame wroik that way, you can evaluate the risks that you are highlighting if we already consider certain innocecentive incentives. can certain commercial transactions lead to iran using those products for dual purposes contrary to u.s. interests. in the greater context of our strategy, that does not make sense. so i would encourage the next administration, the next congress to evaluate programming

that we already have under way, yi , initiatives of a strategy that seeks to strengthen our deterrence, and protect our allies and partners. >> well, thank you both for your testimony. one of the areas that concerned me in regards to the oversight by congress of the nuclear agreement was expressed in legislation that i referred to earlier, that was co-sponsored by many of my colleagues, and that is for congress to understand where the sanction relief resources are being used by the iranians. if they're used to enhance their economic fairness to its citizens, i think all of us would say that's well -- we should well support that type of effort.

but if it's used to enhance their support for terrorism, or to use it to advance ballistic missile program, then obviously that's a different story. so can you share with us how you believe the sanction relief resources have been used by the iranians, and whether you've seen any uptick or not, and their other activities? >> well, i think still most analysts would agree that the majority of the sanctions relief in a broader sense, especially the incoming, say, for example oil sales, and fdi, and the foreign direct investment, that's gone in, in a broad sense probably the majority of that is still going into what is a more non-terrorism, non-proxy activities. but what we're seeing, you know,

for example is the irgc is trying to ensure close to 10% of all the incoming foreign direct investment will be dedicated to their activities. that's something they're trying to get ensured as a regular percentage. we've seen some of the direct transfers -- >> what type of investments would these be? >> for example, any type of incoming deals that iran is striking with foreign companies, to do investment. from any type of industry, auto, air, energy sector, that basically the irgc is looking for its cut. that it's going to get a certain cut of that. >> does that come from the iranians or wrote that come from the investor? >> that would come from the -- whatever the deal is signed, the 10% of it would go into the irgc funding, somewhere within the budget dear system. the ir dprks c has all kinds of gray budget capacity to funnel money within the system.

that's still being argued within the -- there's a lot of back-and-forth happening in the iranian budget who's going to get what from the largesse coming out of the -- >> in fact, have they gotten their cut on these projects? >> i don't know if they've finalized that. that's what they've been arguing for in the recent budget fights. we also know that some of the actual, like transfers of money that have been coming in to -- since the deal was implemented, have actually kind of doubled the military's budget for like a one-year term. because of the transfers that have come in from the one-time deals. whether that's going to continue into subsequent years is undetermined. basically the irgc is getting like a one-year bump this year, that's quite significant. whether that's going to continue into the out years is uncertain. so we are seeing a very significant influx. a lot of that, of course, is

going into sustaining -- what you would consider oco funding that would go into sustaining operations in syria and iraq. how that will flow into -- for example, are they going to rebuild a air force, or build new proxies, you know, in the arabian peninsula or africa in south asia, those are questions -- >> i think we would all acknowledge that prior to the agreement -- nuclear agreement, iran's economy was in pretty bad shape. >> yes. >> serious recession. >> sanctions were having a major impact. we can also acknowledge iran has been actively engaged in its proxy activities, and whether they could have done that with or without these resources we don't know, but they're actively engaged in proxy campaigns. how can we learn the lesson how we impose sanctions for their nuclear activities and figure out a way we can make sanctions

regimes on ballistic missiles and human rights violations to be more consequential to behave change in iran? >> thank you, senator. great question. i think that we can certainly extract lessons learned from how iran is leveraging the funding from the sanctions relief, and apply it to future cases of sanctions. perhaps building in off-ramps. or learning from the snapback effects that were used in the nuclear negotiations, and resulting sanctions, to better understand first how money flows and operates in the iranian system, and then basically create trigger mechanisms, indicators that we can look for such that if sanctions relief, or sanctions are put in place for future missile development,

future proxy activities, that action can be taken to revoke any sort of relief if iran goes down a certain pathway. so i think building that into the system up front as we design a holistic approach would be wise. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to follow up on the money. we had a hearing last week where we talked about that. but i want to talk about the connection between irgc and the money trail. we had a question earlier, revolution, is it dead, by deaf nigsz, the irgc, it's in their name. their existence depends on this being an exportable revolution. just like the pla years ago, used to have a significant portion of iran's economy. irgc has up to 30% of iran's economy. they have an ongoing source of

revenue to export in support of terrorism around the world. we know from the treasury department's own report of weapons of mass destruction support, support for terrorism, hezbollah, bashar al assad, militia, the shiite militia just in iraq since 2005 killed more than 500 u.s. soldiers. the list goes on and on. boko haram. across the entire region. we know the irgc plays an important role. the question is, how can we in a post-deal environment use our economic sanctioning ability and our financial ability to get at the flow of money through the irgc to these terrorists? the reason i'm asking that is that the money flow, mr. mcinnis, we know they have assets in other countries. the $3 billion in cash and gold,

yes, they will get a bump this year. they will get spendable money into their nefarious activities. so my question to both of you is, how would you advise the next administration with the irgc in the money flows, and the releasing of sanctions, and the opening up of business over there, what's our role? how can we play a hindrance? how can we hinder their ability to further support terrorism around the world? >> i think what you get to, and you're absolutely right, this one-time bump is a one-time event that they'll certainly continue on. thinking about the last question, i think what we're looking for is how do you create an iran that is certainly going to go through a degree of economic expansion over the next few years, at least according to most are estimates. you know, but how do you create

a recession in the irgc's economy. how do you separate that out. >> i'm sorry to interrupt, but even before they even have an economic renaissance, just releasing their assets with other countries means there's a flow of cash immediately, independent of whether their economy grows, is that correct? >> yes. >> okay. >> and the issue, i think, one of the things -- and your right to bring up the pla. prior to doing the middle east for a number of years, i worked on china's security issues and the whole issue with the pla business model concerns. in that process of getting the pla out of business, iran may at some point in time go through the same process. they're running into some of the same problems that china did. i think that the iranians, there's a recognition that over time, you know, it is going to become a problem for the irgc to play the -- if it's going to actually have this type of, you know, dynamic economy for the rest of the world, the irgc is

eventually going to have to take probably a lesser role. but i think that the key for that is whether -- the problem with the nuclear deal that many of us talk about, there are many problems with it, but one of the biggest problems is that it's front-loaded to iran's favor. in that they get most of the benefits up front. we get the benefits if they don't actually build a bomb throughout the entire period. but part of the reason, what you can change in that equation is if the front-loading doesn't actually happen at all in the front where the business climate is not completely favorable at the beginning. that's where you change this dynamic that happened in the last 12 months or so, where we go out there and we're encouraging the international community to invest in iran, and we relax the issues of using dollars for business transactions for foreign companies. we do all these things to make it easier to invest in iran. we make it so it's not so

problematic with a u.s. company with a foreign subsidiary does business with guys in that company has irgc guys in the back room or somewhere on their corporate board. we've relaxed a lot of those rules recently. all those rules, with the incoming administration, or rules coming from this body, some of that stuff can be reversed. you can change the front-loading. you can make it more conditional, that business climate, and that money flow, particularly place the burden back on iranian business that the irgc's role, that the business related to the irgc, that they become a business, you know, burden, that is something you can change that equation, i believe. and focus on that. and create -- and make those businesses recessionary. that is something that i think could be looked at and focused on. >> mr. chairman, i'm out of time. but could i ask your forbearance

in asking ms. dalton? >> absolutely. >> thank you very much. i think in addition to what mr. mcinnis laid out, harnessing the coalition that was used to broker the jcpoa on approach to iran going forward is going to be of paramount importance. there are limits to what the united states can do vis-a-vis the irgc. but leveraging the coalition of p 5-plus one, perhaps some asian allies and partners would be a broader and more holistic approach to addressing this problem set. and i think that another dimension of this could be thinking of creative ways to offset the irgc over the long term. and put something a little provocative on the table that was in my written testimony,

would be welcome further discussion on it. but something my colleagues and i have been discussing is over the long term, at the end of the jcpoa period in 2020, the sanctions on an international ban on conventional arms sales to tehran will be lifted. there are future scenarios in which -- >> that's five years, right? >> yes. in 2020. >> right. >> is there a future scenario in which iran is able to divert funds to its conventional arms capability, and away from the irgc. as matt has pointed out, ir dprks c is front and center of the regime. in terms of iran's pragmatic interests in the region, its power projection, its desire to have a political and strategic role in the region, that often

can come from a conventional capability. so, you know, it's an issue in which the united states perhaps doesn't want to be forward leaning on. but is it possible for -- for the united states to tacitly allow for, over time, the development of iran's conventional capability to offset iranian investments in the irgc which have historically run up against, and threatened the interests of the united states and its allies and partners. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for being here this afternoon. you both talked about iran's operations in syria. but i don't think i heard you talk about how they view the islamic state. and i wonder if each of you could characterize how you believe iran views the islamic

state. >> iran, overall iran views the islamic state as certainly a very significant dire and theoretically at least existential threat. i think they certainly do not view it right now as an imminent threat. given its current state of military weakness. but they certainly view it as an extension of efforts from saudi arabia. they blame both us and saudi arabia for creating isis. and for, you know, and they see isis as behind terrorist cells and activities inside their own country. they have a growing fear of isis