going to tap, once again, the providers who are no longer being able to afford to see peashts and their hospitals, particularly those rural hospitals that will be going out of bids. so there won't be an excess aeaksess to care because there won't be a health care provider out there. this is the dynamics we have to take into account when looking at it. this is the equation that's so immense. what i've always said is start a little bit at a tile. make sure the playing field is level, making sure the par days pans are there. . makeic sure that we have tort reform. we have to have that and that was missing. that's what we have to get back to. and we have to work diligently to have sunset clauses that we re-evaluate the processes as our population gets older and our technology gets better and new

advances in medicine. we have to empower people to be part of their health-care solution and get them back in with their physicians and health care system and that's the most vibrant challenges for our seniors. we were here to change it in the right way and change it for you. thank you, and i yield back my time. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman. and i'm going to make a couple of closing comments. i'm going to allow some of our other physicians, perhaps give some of their closing comments if they would like, and one of the most important things we have learned here tonight, under obamacare $575 billion was cut out of medicare. medicare is going broke and becoming insolvent, according to the ack tower. in eight years, that's 2010.

the republicans passed that would fix it. and the democrats haven't acknowledged it. and i want to be sure we leave here tonight with an understanding of the seriousness of the challenges we have before us. and i would like to recognize dr. roe. mr. roe: i was looking here tonight, over 200 years of experience, what a diverse group with nursing, den tieses and ob-gyn and surgery and so on and one of the greatest frustrations i have and dr. gingrey has been here longer and the greatest health care debate is this, with nine physicians in the u.s. congress in the 111th congress, not a single one of us was consulted about this health care

bill. this was done on a completely partisan basis. i have to chuckle. i have never seen a republican or democratic heart attack in my life. i never operate odd a democrat or republican cancer in my life. these are people problems that affect all of us in this country and what we wanted to do as i stated, is to make the cost of care go down. this is not going to do thfment look, this is very simple. and we will have to use a different time, because it is so detailed. but just very briefly, this is how this works. 575 billion taken out, three million seniors a year going into medicare, reaching medicare age and this group of bureaucrats up here apointed -- i don't want them apointed by a democrat or republican. congress ought to be accountable and accountable to the american

people, not push it off to bureaucrats who are going to bush it off and say we can't do anything. because when you have $575 billion and three million more people added per year, that is 30-something million people in 10 years, you know what that leads to? a rationing of care. decreased access and if you have decreased access, decreased quality of your care and the cost is going up and that's going to happen with this plan. it's imperative, not just medicare, but overturn the affordable care act because it's not good medicine. if we had been included in the debate, this would not be a plan that you had to run through and get rid of the 10 9 form. ipab has 214 bipartisan co-sponsors. those folks realize it's a bad

idea. i could go on and on and on. one of the good parts of the affordable care act, it costs more money, by allowing a 26-year-old to stay on their parents' health care plan, that's a good idea. currently, if a young personu 22 years old gets health insurance, they will pay 1/6. now it has to be a three-to-one ratio and their health plan costs double. and i think the previous speaker, the current minority leader said let's pass it and then find out what's in it. i read it and we found out all of the things that were in there that were not good for our patients. it's going to be more costly for businesses out there and need to have an entire hour on that. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman. before i recognize another

member in the last minute or two that we have, i would like to say that we are going to be having a lot more of these sessions and so we have just started and just scratched the surface. and it seems we are running completely out of time. so i will wrap things up. we just barely scratched the surface, folks and this isn't all the workers we have on our side. there are others who could have been here but had some commitment tonight. so we will be talking on these subjects and i would like to talk more on ip arch b and many democrats see that was a very big mistake and one way you will get the door closed on your health care and getting the right sort of health care in the future. i want to thank mp for being with us tonight. look forward to doing it soon. god bless you all. and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, the speaker recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you mr. speaker frpblt it's an honor to reck be be recognize here. and i appreciate the presentation that came from some of the great team of doctors we have here on the republican side of congress. and i sit with these learned individuals and i learn a lot from them and i'm grateful that the american people looked at the numbers and dollars that have come out of the health care that because of this great burden of obamacare and you know, i was thinking of the

necessity for us to continue to remind americans, obamacare is the law of the land. it is the law of the land. and until such time at this congress repeals it or the supreme court should find it to be completely unconstitutional it will remain the law of the land. the american people need to be reminded, even though it is creeping in on us, it is an insidious creep of a malignant tomb our that is consuming american liberty and it has to go. if we look back at the special elections in ohio two or three weeks ago and on it were several were ballot initiatives, one rejected the collective bargaining initiative that had been initiative by the governor, it was a tough loss for the governor. i think he was right, but lost, because there was a liberal hafe

heavy turnout in the state of ohio two, three weeks ago. and by 61%, the governor-initiated ballot initiative that limited collective bargaining was shot down by union-heavy liberal- heavy turnout. but in the same ballot, the next item down, ballot initiative number two, was collective bargaining. number three was an amendment to amend the constitution of the state of ohio to protect the people of ohio from obamacare, to be able to reject the individual mandate and about three different points there, to amend the constitution to protect the people of ohio from the ohio mandate and 61% said no

to the governor ol collective bargaining. 66% of that voting universe voted to protect the people of ohio from obamacare and amended their state constitution. that is a serious step, but they did so in an effort to reject obamacare in the state of ohio. mr. speaker, that is a resounding rejection, two out of every three people who wept to the polls rejected obamacare and i will tell you that the american people are poise todd do so if they are reminded it exists out there. two stops along the way that can queep obamacare from becoming the perp actually permanent law of the land and that would be when the supreme court hears the case and yields a decision, i

would remind you, mr. speaker, that there is no clause in all 2,600 pages of obama ll care. and what that means is if a component of obamacare is found unconstitutional by the supreme court, all of obamacare is thrown not. no provision if a component is unconstitutional the others will stand on their own. that is not just an ignorant omission on the people that voted for obamacare. they knew it didn't have that severe built clause in it. every member of congress had the opportunity to know it didn't have that clause, so congress intentionally passed an obamacare piece of legislation that didn't provide that if part of it is found to be junch constitutional, the balance would be unconstitutional.

and if a part is found unconstitutional. it is all unconstitutional. then by a supreme court decision would be rendered null and void. and yes, mr. speaker, there are exceptions to those types of decisions by the supreme court. by generally speaking, the court honors and respects a willful decision of the legislative decision if that willful decision is that there is no clause that the supreme court should understand that it wasn't an accident or unintentional omission but willful omission, because the drafters and proponents of obamacare, which i'm not one, understood that if a part of it is found to be unconstitutional, the rest of it collapses. the rest that props up, cutting $575 billion out of medicare to fund other parts of med air and

ending medicare advantage, the individual mandate that's in there, all of this is drafted to find a way to argue that it could be paid for and they discovered that the class act in obamacare on sustain itself, that the numbers they advanced to try to pass it aren't sustainable and the administration has decided they aren't going to move forward, a class that i retirement home insurance funded out of obamacare. they found out it costs money. this congress has passed a couple of pieces of obamacare. one of them out of this house, at least, the 1099 piece of obamacare and has been taken apart. and some of it is starting to crumble. they will be well aware that no

severability clause, that somehow the supreme court would reconcrete. it was a willful decision, well thought out and the decision is no clause because obamacare, if any part is taken out by it being found unconstitutional and there are four areas, then all parts of obamacare must go. and i appreciate the doctors that came to the floor tonight to educate the american people on bad components of obamacare and i would like to encourage the american people to know that we are focused on repealing 100% of obamacare, ripping it all out by the roots and not leaving one parallel, not one sign of its d.n.a., because if we leave any component of obamacare, it will

grow back on us like the roots of a bad weed and/or the virus or the malignant tomb our as i said. i would ask the doctors, if you leave part of it, it will grow back. i don't want to leave one part of this obamacare and let liberty thrive. the people of ohio have rejected it by a two-to-one margin, 61%. and ohio is middle america. if you are going to win the presidency, you must win ohio. president obama knows that because he visits it often. what is that fundraiser one visits the swing states with the president of the united states flying in and out of air force one. propping up policy? and we all know better.

the criticism because george bush dropped in on some states now becomes the responsibility to remind the democrats, next time this happens, you will be hypocrites and you should restract your statements now and prepare yourselves now for the incumbent president that will be campaigning advancing policy in 2016. prep yourselves, gentlemen, scrub it out of your history now, recant the things you said about george bush and defend the president today and won't be hypocrites in 2013 as i predict. i would be happy to yield but you know i'm right and you accept that. . the job of this congress is to maintain people here in the house of representatives who are pledged to, committed to,

and will pass the repeal of obamacare again, and send it to the united states sthath, where, i'm asking for the american people to put senators over there that will also vote to repeal obamacare, pledge to do so and pledge to drive it and push it and use every fiber of their being to rip that malignant tie mor, obamacare, out of the federal register and code. it's not enough to trust the supreme court to make a constitutional decision and sit back on our hands and think that somehow the court is going to save us. i remember what happened when mccain-feingold pass. the word that came bab, this is rumor and conjecture, is that the president decided to sign the bill because it had momentum when it got there, because he expected the supreme court would find mccain-fine goal to be unconstitutional. well, over time, and thanks to

citizens united and their lawsuit, parts of mccain-fine gold were found to be untugal, not all of it, and the limits put on free speech within that were feed up to the degree they were litigated by citizens unitedism congratulate the people who had the conviction to take it to the supreme court and win the case there but no executive officer and no member of this legislature, and mr. speaker, i'd send this message also to all the legislators in the land, all the ones in the state house in all 50 states, whether you're in the state house, the state senate or in nebraska, the unicameral. never vote for a bill because you believe the court will find it to be unconstitutional and protect the tack payer froms from a bad policy or wrong policy. we take an oath toup hold the constitution of the united states an that oath is to preseven, protect, and defend

the constitution of the united states to the words and language that are in the constitution, not as it would be reinterpreted by someone else, a court to be, let's sea, appointed later by an executive to be elected later to amend by court decision the clear meaning of this constitution. i give an example of this, in fact, the discussion came up too in the judiciary committee, with congressman sensenbrenner of wisconsin's bill that goes back to protect the property rights within the statesened prohibits federal funds going into certain programs of states that violate the intent and literal language of the fifth amendment of the united states constitution. the kilo decision, mr. speaker, i recall that unfolding here in about 2004, 2005. when? i believe it was the city council of new london, connecticut, had decided that they would condemn property that was owned privately

through eminent domain and then hand that property over to another private interest to be developed for a shopping mall or strip mall because they believed they'd get a better tax base or better rate of return than they did if the people who owned the land. it directly and clearly viled, in my opinion, and i'll put my opinion up depeps any supreme court that disagrees with me, on this position in particular, the fifth amendment that protects our property rights and is an essential pill already of american antidepressant 58ism, but nor shall private property be take b for public use without just compensation. nor shall private property be taken from public use without appropriate thrt. the effect of the kilo decision which i believe was unjustly found is that to strike three

wors out of the fifth semiof the united states of the united states. the words, for public use. so now the effect after this roppingly he will decision is ha for the fifth amendment to read this way, nor shall private property be taken without just compensation. the for public use taken out of the fifth amendment. this constitution his to meep what it was understood to mean at the time of ratification. it these mean what it leerily means. we can't take an oath to anything else, we can't be bound to a litter slerptation of a constitution that someone else makes unless there's a clarity added to the understanding of the plain meaning and plain word and the original text of the constitution and the amendments as they were ratified. what did they mean when they were ratified? we had a supreme court in the state of iowa that concluded

that could find rights in the state constitution that were, i quote, up to this point unimagined, close quote. seriously, judges, wrapped in black robes, no longer any wigs, sitting there saying that they had found rights in the constitution that were up to this point unimagined and that somehow this contractual guarantee that gets passed down through the yen rations and the ages, contract with the citizenship can be breached because they found rights that were up to this point unimagined. heretofore unimagined rights. what kind of guarantee can there be? a court that can discover new rights of of their imagination and declare that no one else had the imagination to discover those right bus they had the vision to discover those rights? that says there's no guarantee what sofere.

that says this constitution becomes wnl on wf two things. it becomes an art fact of hist rewith no meaning whatsoever, or it's a -- or it's a shield that jus it ises can use to protect themselves from the criticism of the unwashed masses. these who think they can't read the constitution and understand it. the people i represent can read the constitution they do understand it and they can make an argument with the supreme court justices if they were not intimidated. if they would quo to the fifth amendment and aide the lang what, what does for public use mean? if a government can conties kate private property an hand it over to another private entity for public use. that means the violated the constitution abthe bill before us today, thanks to chairman

smith and former chairman sensen wrener, pecks that to some degree but it we pyre the constitution that is so sacred to all of us that we take an oath to it. i'll continue my oath and pledge to this constitution, mr. speaker, and continue to make this point that we have to have constitutional legislation come before this congress. when someone brings a bill call odd because macare to this floor, 2,600 pages that violate so many of the components of the constitutional guarantee, let alone sapping the vitality from this vigorous american culture that we are. the american people rise up. they rise up in -- rose up in tens of thousands and sur rounded this place. jammed the place. so heavily that people had trouble getting in an getting out. it was a glorious thing to see, mr. speaker. the american people love their liberty enough that they would come from all 50 states to jam this capitol to say to us, do

not do this. do not commit this affront to the constitution, to not usurp american liberty. these are god-given rights. who takes them away? congress that was led by then speaker pe see low -- pelosi an harry reid in the senate and barack obama. the ruling troika in obamacare but the merp people have rejected it soundly by sending now 89 freshman republicans to the house of representatives and every one of them pledged to repeal obamacare and all but two of them, because they haven't had a chance to do so yet, every single republican in the house an every single republican in the smath, voted to repeal obamacare. and it was borne. some of the democrats in the house voted to repeal obamacare. the message has been sent, it's been sent in the state of ohio, it's been sent by the polling, it goes oen and on and on.

repeal obamacare. now every presidential candidate is run on repeal obamacare. every up with of them will sign the repeal if they're elected president and sworn into office. i would like to see us p the review of obamacare, if we can't get it repealed before we elect a new president, which i believe we will, and whether or not the supreme court finds it constitutional an honors that there's no receive rabblet clause an throws all of obamacare out, it still needs to be repeeled an the neck congress being an honorable congress meeds to send the repeal to the next president to be signed. and even if the supreme court thoughs it out. and even if the current president is reflected.

there needs to be a repeal that goes to second term president obama's desk, perish the thought, if it unfolds in that passion but this congress needs to act and repeal obamacare thoroughly and i work, and i pray, that we're able to put the repeal of obama on the west core of the capitol, having passed not the white house but easage -- mess amming to the white house after the next president takes the oath of office an at the word so help me god, i'd like to see the next president sign the repeal before he or she shakes the hand of chief justice roberts who will be delivering the oath of office to the next president of the united states. we have constitutional responsibilities we have to

live up to. we give an oath, obama violates that constitution. we have some other things going on in this government that violate the spirit of the statute the american people have pushed through here and one of them is this, it's the advocacy, mr. speaker, of this. i've got a memo in my hand, it's dated 13 april, 2011, from the chief of the chaplains of the navy, chap rapes and religious program specialists. it says, go ahead, navy chaplains, conduct same-sex marriage services on our military bases anywhere where it's not otherwise illegal. that's the summary of it. it says that, let's see, facility usage is determined by local policies and the regional legal service office, the rlse should be consuled to ensure

compliance with existing laws and legislation. absent some existing statute, this is a change to previous matter that said same-sex marriages were not allowed on federal property. now they are in direct confrontation with the defense of marriage act. it was passed by the congress, signed into law, is the law of the land and we have a directive from the commander in chief of the crites military, barack obama, surely has to be the one that ordered the navy, you shall have -- send out a memo to direct the chaplains to conduct same-sex marriages on the bases unless there's another law that gets in the way. i think that this kind of activity is an affront to the legislative authority that exists by the constitution, within the legislature, this is not an executive decision.

this is a decision of the lennell slayture, we passed the deft of act, i testified to defend the defense of marriage act and if the senate were able to pass a repeal of the defense of may remember act, it still has to come to the house where i'm confident it you would in the pass. i don't think it'll pass the senate eeth but in any base, we have a defind number of policies set by the congress, signed by the president of the united states, from the office of the chief of the navy chaplains dated 13 april, 2011, that says don't be biased by sexual orientation when you're conducting weddings. go ahead and marry same-sex people on these military bases anywhere where it doesn't orse violate a law. that tells me that goes worldwide, bases everywhere, i suppose it's probably not happening on a base in kuwait

they might frown on such a thing but yop. . it's hard for me to imagine a navy chaplain marrying a couple of marines, say, same-sex marines, and this is going on around bases and needs to come to an immediate halt. this house has sent a message and you have the senate on the other side, run by harry reid that now becomes a shield for the president of the united states, a person who carries the water for the president, protects him when he does president want to have the confrontation, they have gone the other way. they have stricken the language out of the code, if it's senate language, they have stricken the language that prohibits

bestiality and use it as a social experiment. military is to protect our liberty. they put their lives on the line and we give them something that dwipes the federal law -- that defies the federal law. now this is bad enough, mr. speaker and i'm going to introduce this into the record and i know that i have -- i guess i will say the privilege to do that, but i'll go on to another subject matter and i don't know if it's more agredgeous, but a memo dated september 14, 2011, department of the navy, walter reed naval hospital. i have visited wouppeded a number of times and this memo is from the commander, subject,

wounded ill and injured partners in care guidelines, policy number 10-015 and there are a number of other numbers that remps the web site and gives some directive about the purpose, official, wouvended, ill and injured partners how they should be conducted, et cetera and policy, according to patient and family-centered care, mr. speaker, children in good health, age of 18 are encouraged to participate and goes on. here's how the family should conduct themselves. intensive care units. there are exceptions, visits before or after the established hours, how that might work and visitation for certain kind of patients, et cetera, those visiting the w.i.i. will make their request five days in advance. a number of these provisions,

the family, leadership, members of the executive, this memo directs towards the executive, the legislative and the judiciary branches of government, members of, the executive, legislative to include professional staff members, active duty and service personnel and telling us, members of congress, the president and all of his people, the jish a, the judges, the judiciary branch and all of their staff, the legislative staff what we can and can't do when we visit the wounded at walter reed, including senior executive, celebrities, court personnel, members of the press, all these people, here's what you can and can't do. to get to my last point, partners in care guidelines, all

of us bound by this memo supposedly, all family visits must be scheduled five days. all partners under the age of 18 must be accompanied by an adult. can't take pictures unless the patient agrees to that. the distribution of baked goods is prohibitive. you can't bring cookies to the patient. that's tough. i wouldn't be standing here if that was the worst thing. that is item e. here's item f and i'll read it into the record, quote, no religious items, i.e., bibles, reading material and/or artifacts are allowed to be given away or used during a visit, closed quote. mr. speaker, these military men and women, who are recovering at

walter weed at bethesda have given their all for america and given their all for america and defended and taken an oath to the constitution and here theyr the people that come to visit can't bring a bible, can't use them in the services? a priest can't walk in with the host and offer communion to a patient who might be on their death bed because it's prohibited in this memo from the department of the navy, the commander of walter reed and signed by c.w. calla han chief of staff. i would like to introduce these documents into the record. i thank the gentleman and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa yields back. the gentleman have a motion.

mr. king: i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. , the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands

the center suffered a landslide defeat to president nixon. george mcgovern is featured this week on c-span's ""the contenders." live friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern.

at the senate hearing on iran, state and treasury department officials urged lawmakers to kirk t the mendeendez- amendment. the amendment passed in the u.s. senate by a vote of 100-0. this hearing of the foreign relations committee is just over two hours. >> i think everybody understands that the question of iran's relationship with its neighbors and the world is much on everybody's mines.

there could not be a more critical challenge in terms of proliferation and questions of terrorism in the region. i think everyone of us are deeply concerned about how we might be able to change this current equation in a way that is rational and beneficial to all parties. we have two very capable witnesses here this morning to help us examine this complicated situation. i hope they will help us shed light on how we can positively influence tehran's behavior and confront this question of nuclear weapon is asian. wendy sherman has appeared many times before the committee.

today marks her first appearance as undersecretary. i am welcome to -- welcome her here in that capacity. david cohen is from the treasury department. they are both very confident, dedicated, and experienced public servants. we are happy to have them here to answer our questions today. obviously with the kuds force allegedly plotting to kill the saudi ambassador in the united states right here in washington, d.c., and we i.a.e.a. issuing a report about iran's activities relative to nuclear processing, these haleh the strategic

challenge that we face. i not to say more i am. to listen carefully and look forward to the testimony of both of our witnesses. senator lugar. >> mr. chairman, i join you in welcoming our distinguished witnesses. we hope it will eliminate administrative strategy towards iran's nuclear program and other activities and the middle east. iran continues to be a direct threat to united states national security. the security of israel and other u.s. interest in the region. the october disruption of an alleged plot to assassinate the saudi ambassador in the united states implicated the iranian government. the regime appeared to be complicit on the attack of the british diplomatic embassy in tehran. how mosque continues to

undermine international efforts to promote peace in the middle east. it's little support and training for militants in iraq and afghanistan have threatened the united states and coalition forces. iran's leaders have issued cynical statements of support for this year's democratic movements across the middle east and north africa even as they suppress dissent at home. what -- i into. five years since the iranian government's -- the human rights situation in iran has not improved. the regime persist in its persecution of many political activists, lawyers, students, and filmmakers. iranian citizens lack basic freedoms that we hold dear, including freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and the freedom not -- the freedom to choose our government through transparent elections.

it is important to keep in mind that those who continue to pay a personal cost for expressing their opposition to the iranian regime our utmost in our thoughts. against this backdrop, iran continues advancing towards a nuclear program capability. the i.a.e.a. board of governors passed a unanimous resolution on november 18 calling on iran to comply fully with its obligations under the security county -- security resolutions and the i.a.e.a. resolutions. the move comes after the agency reported on november 8 that iran continues to violate its obligations to suspend all enrichment related and heavy water related projects and expressed serious concerns about the possible military

dimensions of iran's nuclear program. on november 21, the united states strengthen bilateral sanctions against iran targeting entities that contribute to iran's abilities to develop petroleum and chemical resources. designating energies and individuals involved with iran's nuclear activities and labeling iranian financial institutions as primary money- laundering concerns. these new sanctions build on a bilateral framework of existing measures in the comprehensive iran sanctions and accountability and investment act of 2010 and the iran sanctions act. additionally, the u.k. announced new restrictions that cut off all financial ties between british financial institutions and iranian banks. canada also imposed further sanctions, prohibiting financial

transactions with iran and expanding the list of prohibited goods for export. the european union announced new measures that will ban as european companies from doing business with an expanded list of firms and organizations. all of these steps are significant. by themselves, they are unlikely to be decisive in moving iran towards accepting a verifiable and to its nuclear weapons program. our task continues to be the achievement of an international consensus in favor of sanctions that would present the iranian regime with a stark choice between continuing their nuclear weapons program and preserving economic viability of their country. we know how difficult this might be to achieve. sanctions are prone to certain

conventions and can create unintended consequences. we also know that some nations will not be full participants in a robust sanctions regime against iran. others may be obstacles. but international will pour a decisive sanction strategy has strengthened as iran's intransigence has continued. we have seen indications of fisher's within iran's government as the contents with high unemployment, inflation, and dismal prospects for economic growth. popular upheaval against the repressive and syrian government not only weakens iranian influence in the region, it understand it -- underscores the domestic risk it assumes by occurring the consequences that come with nuclear noncompliance. the united states should be exploring all options to intensify the economic pressure on the iranian government while working to construct a more

comprehensive approach to sanctions that has been achieved thus far. this should be a top priority of the administration and the congress. as i frequently advocate, we need to devote substantial assets to communicating directly with the iranian people and supporting their unfettered access to the internet and social media outlets. the iranian regime blocks satellite broadcast, internet access in order to control and manipulate information coming into and out of iran. the united states satellite tv, radio, and internet operations all offer important lifelines to beleaguered human-rights activists and supporters of democratic reforms. access to communications technology can be a powerful stimulus for change as we have seen during the arab spring. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses regarding the administration's plan for

further isolating the regime in tehran, what is being done to enhance economic sanctions, and does the administration have a strategy for overcoming obstacles posed by china, russia, and other nations. >> thank you, senator lugar. secretary sherman, if you would lead off. we look forward to having a good dialogue with you. >> thank you, very much. thank you for inviting me and my colleague, u.s. treasury undersecretary david cohen, to discuss the administration's all of government approach to the multiple threats posed by iran, its nuclear ambitions, its support for international terrorism, its destabilizing activities in the region, and its human rights abuses at home. before we start, i must note we have yet another example this

week of iran recklessly -- reckless destabilizing this regard. the storming of the british embassy was a dangerous front to the international community and the government of iran's disregard to protect the above platte -- diplomats -- in this practice, we stand with our close colleagues in the united kingdom and are encouraged by many others who were showing their support. our overall policy regarding iran is clear. first and foremost we are determined to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. iran's illicit nuclear activity is one of the greatest concerns we face as both the chairman and ranking member have said. since this in administration took office, we have built and led a global coalition to have the toughest set of sanctions today. president ahmadinejad himself characterized our sanctions as the heaviest economic onslaught

in history. a multilateral policy of increasing pressure on iran has been effective. in january 2009, iran appeared united and regionally influential while the international community was divided on how to address their nuclear activity. after three years of increasing pressure, the regime is regionally isolated and the international community is united in its determination to prevent a nuclear-arms iran. just 10 days ago, this administration intensified the pressure. targeting the pressured -- the petrochemical industry, bringing the total to over 280 designations under executive or 12382 and identifying iran as a

money-laundering concern under the u.s. patriot act. these augment the broad portfolio already provided by congress. the list is long. we proposed the first sanctions ever under the iran sanctions act. earlier this year, the state department sanctioned 16 foreign companies in may, including entities in china, venezuela, and belarus. we have already sanctioned 11 senior iranian officials and the three entities, including the islamic revolutionary guard corps. all of these sanctions demand a whole of government approach and the state department works very closely with the department of treasury. we will elaborate after our opening on our work together. the key to this and all we have done over the last three years is we are not alone in our policy responses and sanctions

on iran. today, the european union has met to formalize additional sanctions on roughly 180 individuals and entities. as you know, the u.k. closed its embassy in iran and kicked iranian diplomats out of the u.k. on november 21, the u.k. and canada adopted similar sanctions to isolate iran's financial sector. three days earlier, the iaea board of governors passed a resolution urging iran to come clean about possible military dimensions of its nuclear program. the final vote was 32-2, overwhelming by any standard. on that same day, the united nations general assembly adopted saudi arabia's resolution

condemning the assassination plot against its ambassador to the united states. a clear majority supported that resolution. more than one-fourth of un member states supported that. sanctions on iran are no exception. we are already looking forward to what comes next. iran's greatest economic resource is clearly its oil exports. sales of crude oil line the regime's pockets, sustain its human rights abuses, and feed its nuclear ambitions like no other sector of the iranian economy. the obama administration supports putting pressure on demand -- on iran. that includes well-targeted sanctions against the central bank of iran abruptly time as part of a carefully phased and sustainable policy towards bringing around iranian compliance. the ander national community's concerns with iran's community -- nuclear program --

on november 21, for the ninth year in a row, the un general assembly rebuked iran for its series of human rights abuses by the largest margin ever. this highlights the regime of free systematic oppression of its citizen's freedom. we continue to collaborate with world leaders, religious leaders, and ngos. the door remains open and update decide to engage seriously with us to resolve the serious concerns we have with their nuclear program. we are clear that we distinguish between how we deal with the inexcusable behavior of the iranian regime and our broader interactions with the iranian people. that is why we are watching a virtual embassy tehran. this will provide iranians with accurate information about our policy. we also engaged iranians through

social media, including a facebook page and twitter account and through our broadcast tools, voice of america. we are taking measures to prevent iran from jamming satellite signals. these actions make clear our sincere desire to engage the iranian people and further expand the internal debate among the iranian leadership. this engagement with the iranian people alongside unbending pressure of the iranian leadership to comply with this obligation forms the core of u.s. policy towards iran. i look forward to discussing this in greater detail for your questions. thank you. >> secretary cohen. >> chairman kerry, cracking member lugar, and distinguished members of the committee, we are

here to discuss the treasury department's contracted -- contribution to the integrated strategy to address the threat posed by iran's nuclear activity and its extensive support of terrorism. as recent events have made clear, we are at a critical crossroads in our effort to bring consequential pressure to bear on iran. recent report, the failed plot to assassinate the saudi arabian ambassador to the united states, and the attack on the british embassy are only the recent reminders of the grave and multifaceted threat we face from iran. it is more than -- more important than ever that we work together with the international community to increase by natural pressure on iran, including through an effective, well- designed, and well-targeted strategy to further isolate the

central bank of iran, an institution that has long been cut off from the united states. before turning to specific actions against the cbi, i want to explain our recent action identifying iran as a primary money-laundering concern under the paycheck act. this action builds on the work we have been doing for several years to address the full spectrum of iranian illicit conduct, including nuclear and missile proliferation, human rights abuses, misuse of the international financial system, and support for terrorist groups worldwide. a critical element in these efforts has been sanctions on approximately two-dozen iranian banks for facilitating iranian illicit conduct. the depth and breadth of iranian institutions involvement in illicit activity expands beyond this group. on november 21, we took the

unprecedented step of identifying the entire iranian financial sector, including the iranian central bank, as posing a risk to global financial systems. this action under section 311, provides new information on the role of iran's central bank in facilitating illicit conduct by supporting iran's designated banks. by presenting an ambiguous public record of iran's illicit conduct across all of iran's financial systems, we are sending a clear message to the world's banked -- any financial institution that transacts with an iranian bank runs a great rest of facilitating iran's illicit activities. the u.s. is not acting alone. the u.k. and canada took similarly strong actions on november 21 to protect their financial sectors from iranian threat.

the result is that iran is now cut off entirely from three of the world's largest financial sectors. our approach are paying off. iran is now facing unprecedented levels of financial and commercial isolation. the number and quality of foreign banks willing to transact with iranian financial institutions have not dropped over the past year. iran has increasingly been unable to attract new investments, especially in its oilfields. iran's economy today is struggling, more than any time since the 1979 revolution. one powerful illustration of this is found in the chart appended to my testimony, which

shows the erosion that iran has been unable to halt. the west has imposed the most extensive sanctions ever. every day, a rand's banking and trade activities and agreements are -- iran's banking and trade activities and agreements are being monitored. we will sustain as much pressure as necessary to bring iran to meet its international obligations. to that end, we are keenly focused on applying additional pressure on the central bank of iran. we welcome nicolas sarkozy's call for multilateral action. we recognize that coordinated action could have a particularly powerful impact on iran's access to the international financial system and the ability to access the hard currency it earns from oil sales. we welcome the opportunity to

continue to work with congress on a workable and effective approach to targeting their central bank. we share the same goal. we must impact iran pose a bottom line. the key to achieving -- iran's bottom line. the key to achieving this goal is to work in concert to reduce exposure to iranian oil experts. now more than ever it is imperative that we act in a way that does not threaten the coalition of international partners. we must bring serious and lasting pressure to bear on iran, including through coordinated pressure on the cbi. that is not the only avenue

available to us to bring pressure to bear on iran. we have a number of tools to enhance the financial and economic pressure on iran. we're eagle -- we are eager to work with congress to develop new tools to apply new pressure. iran continues its path of defiance, we will find new and innovative ways to impose new and ever more costly sanctions on iran. we will continue to work with congress on this vitally important national security issue. thank you. >> let me begin by asking you, if i may -- i know you are both aware, obviously, of the kirk amendment to the defense authorization bill on the floor now. this would seek to impose sanctions against entities, including other central banks, that trade with the central bank of iran. i know what your position is, and they have a letter here from secretary brightener to

chairman leaven expressing opposition to the administration, but i think it would be helpful to members of the committee if you could discuss in some detail what the problems are with that amendment and how it does or does not supplement what you are trying to do and why you think there is a better approach. >> yes, why don't i begin addressing that question. at the outset, it is important to emphasize that we completely share the goal that animates the kirk-menendez amendment. we are completely committed to delivering real and sustained pressure on iran to bring them to understand the choices before them. the concern that we have with this amendment is that we think it risks two things that we want to avoid. one is that it risks fracturing

the international coalition that has been built up over the last several years to bring pressure to bear on iran. especially today, in the aftermath of what has occurred in tehran over the last several days and the aftermath of the iaea report, and in the growing sense of urgency internationally with respect to iran's growing nuclear program, that we have the opportunity to work cooperatively and collaborative lee with our international partners to bring additional pressure to bear on iran. the amendment, however, would focus the most powerful sanction that we have, the termination of access to the united states, on the largest financial institutions and central banks of some of our closest partners. it is our sense that we are more likely to achieve the

cooperation and the coordinated action to bring pressure to bear on the cbi and on iran more broadly if we approach this issue through an effort to coordinate action voluntarily against the cbu, -- cbi, rather than to the threat of coercion that is contained in the amendment. >> can you flesh out why that is so threatening to some of our friends? what does it end up doing to them? >> the way this amendment would operate is that it would say to a foreign financial institution, and in this instance we are talking about the largest financial institutions and our closest partners as well as central banks in our closest partners. it would say to them that if they continue to process oil transactions with the central bank of iran, their access to

the united states can be terminated. it is a very, very powerful threat. it is a threat to, he essentially, for the commercial banks to end their ability to transact with the dollar and their ability to function as major financial institutions. that threats being focused on our closest allies risks a dynamic with those governments and with these banks that i think is as likely to push them away and to impede the ability to bring together coordinated effort against iran as did generate that.

>> upon and might say they're not serious about putting pressure -- an opponent might say they are not serious about putting pressure on iran. >> we have seen quite the opposite. these countries have demonstrated a willingness to work with us closely to bring real and sustained pressure to bear on iran. i think we are seeing in the european union just today additional steps being taken to bring pressure to bear on iran. it is our judgment that the best way to proceed is to continue to work with our partners to develop the means, the mechanisms, to bring up pressure to bear, including pressure directly on the central bank of iran and on iran's ability to sell oil and to earn revenue from its oil sales. the way to accomplish that is in

part to pursue the suggestion of president sarkozy to bring in multilateral freeze on the cbi's assets, and as well to work with our partners who have already shown a willingness to continue reducing their imports of iranian oil, and to do that in an orderly and coordinated fashion. that, we think, is better calculated to achieve the ultimate objective here, which a to reduce iran's access to very important source of revenue for its economy, its oil revenue. >> what you are really saying is that this is a very blunt instrument that risks of adverse reaction as opposed to a calculated, character the -- carefully orchestrated effort that achieves the same goal.

>> that is right. >> you might add also how perhaps even this amendment which, we all understand its motivation and we all agree with it, but it may have the unintended consequence of enriching iran and even providing money to the very program we want to stop. is that accurate? >> absolutely. that is where i was going to start. the irony of this amendment, and as you say, we all agree with the impulse, the sentiment, the objective, which is to really go at the jugular of iran's economy. indeed, analysis that we have done, although there are many analytics to this and no one knows for sure, but there is absolutely a risk that in fact the price of oil would go up, which would mean that iran would

in fact have more money to fuel its nuclear ambitions, not less. and our real objective here is to cut off the economic means that iran has for its nuclear program, and in fact, the sanctions that have been imposed, the toughest regime in the history of our country and in the world, quite frankly, has meant that not only do those sanctions act as a deterrent, but probably more importantly in the short run, they act as a way to slow iran pose the progress. it is harder for iran to -- iran's progress. it is harder for iran to finance its program. it is hard for them to get the materials they need. in 2007, the head of the iran and atomic energy organization boasted that iran would have

50,000 centrifuges installed within four years. we are now nearing the end of 2011, and the iaea is reporting that iran has installed 8000 centrifuges with perhaps 6000 operating. iran's ambition to really be much further in its nuclear program has been undermined by sanctions that have been imposed in a multilateral fashion in a targeted and careful way. as you mentioned, mr. chairman, i have had the honor of being in this position for two months. in those two months, i have met with every director, been to china, russia, of brussels, and a variety of other places. in every one of those meetings, the first priority is iran. the response has been amazing. every day people are willing to take another action. the multilateral approach that

the under secretary so well articulated is crucial to maintaining that multilateral framework, and we know that sanctions are the most powerful when they are multilateralized. >> thank you. i am going to place this letter from secretary gunnar to chairman levin, written today -- secretary kite turned -- secretary timothy geithner, to chairman 11, written today, into evidence. the secretary says, as currently conceived this and and and threatened severe sanctions against any commercial entity if they engage in certain transactions. rather than motivating these countries to join us in increasing pressure against iran, they're more likely to present our actions and resist following our lead, a consequence that would serve the

iran and more than harm them. further, there is substantial likelihood that this amendment could have the opposite effect of what is intended and increase the iranian regime's revenue, literally feeling their nuclear ambitions. it goes on to describe expanding iran's actions and focusing on cbi, working with our partners to achieve the amendment, but in a faction -- fashion that we believe will have a greater and more sustainable impact on iran. i think it is important for our members to take note of this when we think about what will occur, potentially, on the floor. senator lugar. >> thank you very much. it seems to me that thinking through the actions in regard to iran, we have not mentioned what

frequently is in the press, and that is the thought that israel might, in fact, decide to attack iran, and simply attempt to take out some of the elements of the nuclear program. we advise that this would be difficult to do, intelligence maybe not being complete, but nevertheless, there is clearly an argument in israeli politics that cannot be ignored. secondly, some would say that is the case, it would be preferable for the united states to do the attack because we're likely to be more efficient and more effective. so what we are really talking about here is, because of the nuclear threat and this particular kind of regime, of the potential for war. the potential for actual, physical attack, retaliation by the iranians, and the

destruction that is very sizable. this is not an academic argument. yet not posted as being that. you have opposed it -- you have not post it as being that. you have opposed it as being very serious. -- posed it as being very serious. there has been criticism of the voice of america's activities, not that we are not spending money, but that our bureaucratic mechanism is rendering them less effective than it should be. i am not a critic of the program. i would just say that clearly, with two-thirds of the population under 30 years of

age, maybe more than that, and the british getting a better audience than our program, according to some analysts, we need to beef it up. i would ask you to take a strong look at that because there still is an avenue towards two-thirds of the population with the older people getting older. secondly, with the sanctions, it would appear to me that although there are risks in alienating our allies and others, the central bank focused really is a deadly problem for iran if executed completely. secondly, we ought to think through the possibility of blocking oil exports. at this point, the chinese are thoroughly and cooperative with regard to even the banking sections -- sanctions, and would be outraged that their oil

imports from iran would be disrupted. they are not taking this very seriously, anyway. we're going to have to contend with either diplomacy with the chinese or potential warfare with the iranians. i would prefer that we visit with the saudis and give them an opportunity to export to the chinese in greater measure, and in essence delete the income. over 50% of the income is coming from oil exports. if you hit the central bank and stop the exports, you do make a very big difference in terms of the ability of their government to function. apart from the ability of the people to tolerate it. again and again, people are saying that the arab spring came in egypt largely because of people who were starving, who were not getting necessities from the government because the price of food is going up.

that is occurring in iran too. that can be excel rated very substantially. i asked for your comments on these editorial opinions. we all feel very strongly about this and are attempting to act as wisely as possible. >> thank you very much, senator. let me make a few comments on the military option you mentioned, communication capabilities come a ways to reach the irani in people, and a i.mment again on cb we agree with you. we think the broadcasting policy -- broadcasting possibilities, social media possibilities are quite critical to reaching iran in people. voice of america -- as many as 20 million run-in's per week and -- voice of america reaches as

ans as 20 million irani per week. on facebook, we have 37,000 fans. we obviously want to increase that decidedly. youtube, 270,000 views. in may, the secretary announced an extension of student the says -- visas. in october, the secretary gave interviews on the bbc persians service and on a satirical news show which is wildly popular. bbc persian is incredibly well- penetrating. we work very closely with bbc. this is, again, part of our

multilateral effort to work with others. they have been present, at least until now, and into iran, which we have not. according to the international statistics on education, 50 two hundred -- 5200 students from iran studied in the u.s. in 2010. we think it is important. it is why we are starting virtual embassy in iran, and will be launching that shortly. we use technologies worldwide to help people ensure that they have access to the internet and can get past satellite jannings. some of that i would be glad to have someone preview about further in a classified setting, but it is quite -- brief you about further in a classified

setting, but it is quite crucial. secondly, military action. the president has repeatedly said that all options remain on the table in this situation we are facing because we do not want to peak in a situation, anyone in the world, and there is very strong international coalition on this, to be in a world where iran acquires nuclear weapons. at the same time, we think that the dual track approach we are taking, which is pressure and engagement, although iran has yet to take that hand towards engagement, so we will intensify and increase the pressure decidedly on a regular basis. on cbi, i take your point that if one has to make a choice between war and the risks with

cbi, that is a tough and compelling calculation. we do not think we need to go there today. what we do need to do is have targeted efforts that can be multilateralized as the undersecretary mentioned. nicolas sarkozy has made suggestions we're talking with our colleagues about around the world. you're quite right that we need to be pushing parties around the world to get tougher, to take action. that is much of what i was doing in china, and china has agreed, and publicly so today, to finally except special bon voyage -- accept special envoy bob einhorn to assist them in

the sanctions. the need to take further action, and we would agree with you absolutely in that regard. let me turn, if i may -- >> i think we're going to have to just take that answer. thank you. senator menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have to be honest with you. i am extremely disappointed. you all did not like the original amendment offered. at the request of the administration, we engaged in a good-faith effort to try to create an amendment that would have the maximum effect on iran and a minimum effect

on any disruption in the oil markets in the united states. that original amendment had no waivers whatsoever. maybe we should have allowed that to stand. that is the vote we would be having. at your request, we engaged in an effort to come to a bipartisan agreement that i think is fair and balanced, and now you come here and vitiate that very agreement. that says to me that in the future when you come to me and asked me to engage in a good- faith effort, you should have said that you want no amendment, not that you do not want that amendment. everything you say in your testimony undermines the credibility of your opposition to this amendment. the clock is ticking. published reports say we have about a year. when are we going to start our sanctions regime robustly? six months before the clock has been achieved? before they get a nuclear

weapon? this amendment was crafted in such a way that gives the president two significant pieces of discretion, number one to determine that there is sufficient supply in the oil market that would not create a destruction. if he finds that is not the case, the actions would not go into effect. secondly, notwithstanding that he might find that yes there is enough oil in the market that would not create a disruption, that in fact he has a second option, and in national-security waiver. i find it pretty amazing that you all come here and say what you have said in response to the chairman. let me just say that i have looked at the treasury secretary's letter. nowhere does he talk about economic disruption to us. they're interesting. i think he would have made that case if there was in fact that destruction. he actually makes a case that

was pretty redeeming of our amendment. he said congress has been absolutely critical in providing some of the tools we use to accomplish the goal of tightening sanctions. but for congress, you would not have the sanctions, and i have never seen in this or any other administration come before the congress and say please, give me a sanctions regime. you have rebuffed it every step of the way, even though it is the sanctions law that we have given you that has allowed you to seek some limited progress. secondly, he says that the sales of crude oil lie in the regime's pockets, sustained its human rights abuses, and feed its nuclear ambitions like no other sector of the economy. well then, if that is the fuel that allows the iran march to nuclear weapons, then you need to cut off the fuel. that is exactly what we are focused on doing. i find it amazing when the

europeans are considering doing some of this, certainly france in particular has been advocating such a measure in international reports earlier this month, when it was revealed that iran was moving closer to building its own nuclear weapon. the european nations are discussing imposing their own embargo. so, we basically say to financial institutions, do you want to deal with a $300 billion economy, or do you want to deal with a $14 trillion economy? all i think that choice is pretty easy for them. i find it pretty outrageous that when the clock is ticking, and when you ask us to engage in a more recent effort, and we produce such an effort on a bipartisan basis, that in fact you come here and say what you say. which really undermines,

certainly, as it relates to this member, your relationship with me in the future. you are not going to tell me, please engage with us in an effort to find a more refined solution, and then when we do that, you do not care for it. it would have been more honest to say we do not want any amendment whatsoever. the fact is, several energy traders continued to make prohibited sales in iran. our response has been to sanction front companies rather than major figures behind the sales. you have been reluctant to sanction chinese companies for energy sanctions when there is ample evidence they are violating our laws and there is precedence. so, even though we have given you the tools, you have not shown us the robust effort when the clock is ticking to use that which we have given you. so that causes us -- that is why

80 members of the senate, at a time in which it is very difficult to find bipartisan agreement -- 80 members of the senate have joined in our iran /north korea serious sanctions act, because they understand that just as iran moves to circumvent the sanctions regime that we have already imposed, and to find ways to achieve loopholes, we understand that we must be a step ahead of them, and that we must close those loopholes at the end of the day to be able to ensure that our sanctions regime is effective. now, had you all embraced that effort, maybe we would not be where we are today if you had used the sanctions regime you already have to be more robust. instead of taking the shell group's come and go to the heart of it. if the european -- shell

group's, go to the heart of it. i think this amendment that we will hopefully vote upon today is reasoned. it is balanced. it gives the president discretion both to determine the oil markets and whether there are sufficient supplies. look, libya coming back on track, we see certainly iraq producing more, the saudis have appeared to produce more. i find it disconcerting to say the least. i do not really have any questions for you. i just felt that after having vitiated my amendment, i wanted to put the record straight. >> i do not think a vitiated it. i think they villified it. that is different. let me just ask you this question. is there a way, madam secretary, to address -- in a letter, i notice that it said in its

current form. you have a number of times said in its current form. therefore, both to afford you the opportunity to respond but also to try to deal with what is on the table here, is there in fact away -- is in no amendment situation or is it the amendment in its current form and is there a way to in fact address what your concern is? >> if i may, let me defer to undersecretary gone in the second. i think this is a way to -- undersecretary cullen in that -- to the undersecretary. i think it is important that we do it in a way that is multilateralize. our perspective from the state department is that it is true that europeans are talking about this, and we are working diplomatically around the world to encourage everyone to make the right decision to do what

the united states has already done. today, we have no interactions with cbi, and we hope that others would do that as well and make the right decision in a way that works economically for them, and ensures that iran does not get more revenue because the price of oil spikes. i appreciate that you have tried to address those issues in the amendment, but if i may, let me defer to my colleague at treasury. >> let me first address the concern about how we have been working with you and your staff with respect to the amendment. we very much appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this issue. we wholeheartedly share the objective of bringing real pressure to bear on the cbi. what we were doing working with you and your staff was trying

to devise an approach that is best calculated to bring that pressure to bear directly on the central bank while avoiding potential adverse consequence is to our international diplomatic efforts as well as to the economic situation in iran in particular. if there was a misunderstanding with respect to whether we were supportive of the amendment as it was modified, i apologize for that. we had tried to be clear that we wanted to work with you, work with your staff to modify the amendment in a way to improve it, but i think we tried to be clear throughout that our judgment is that the best course to pursue at this time is not to

apply a mechanism that puts at risk the largest financial institutions, the central banks of our closest allies. the course we should be pursuing to bring real and significant pressure on the cbi, and to do exactly what you, senator menendez, highlighted, which is to attack iran's ability to get access to the revenue from its oil sales, is to were collaborative lee and cooperatively with our partners -- work collaboratively and cooperatively with our partners to reduce their import of oil from iran. we know -- we now import no oil from iran. we have no relationship with the central bank of iran. we want to work with our

international partners in an effort to have them get to that same point, but in an orderly, cooperative, collaborative fashion. that is our sense of the best way to proceed. just to reiterate, we completely share the objective of addressing the ability of the central bank of iran to operate within the international financial system. the issue is, how do we go about this in a way that is best calculated to achieve the objectives we want to achieve while minimizing the potential for adverse collateral consequences? >> bottom line, you are saying it is not curable. you oppose the amendment. >> mr. chairman, our position is that the right course is to not adopt this amendment.

we recognize -- >> but then it is disingenuous to say in its current form, if i may. >> we also recognize that there is substantial support for this amendment in the senate, and if it is to be adopted, we do think that there are some important changes that should be incorporated to ensure that it achieves the objectives that we are all looking to achieve. so, our preferred course is for this amendment to not be included in the defense authorization act. if it is included, we do want to continue to work with senator menendez and the senate as a whole to bring in a few additional changes that we think are critically important to ensure that it operates in a way as designed. >> thank you for your indulgence. >> i am understand we have an

amendment on the floor. senator menendez referred to published reports of iran having the ability to have a weapon within a year. is that the timeline that you all believe is worth at least internalizing? >> senator, there is great debate. >> i do not want a long answer. >> there is great debate about the time frame. the time frame is at what point they have a break out capability, at what point they will have a weapon, and all of those time frames are seen differently analytically. >> is it worth thinking about the published reports as being generally where things are? >> published reports are one data point. others would disagree. is with iranctive

is for them not to have nuclear weapons and to lengthen the period of time for as long as possible that it will take them to get there. everything we do every day takes any time frame you have seen in a published report and makes it longer. anything we can do to degrade their program will make that time line longer. >> for what it is worth, i respect the work that you all are doing. i understand you do not want congress to end up with a blunt object that does not work for you. at the same time, and i think it has been pretty fascinating, actually, to see the effects you have had on some areas of their economy, but it does not look to me like the lines are going to cross. or at least at the right point. it does not look to me like the

sanctions, even though there have been some successes, are going to achieve their and prior to the time that iran actually has a nuclear weapon, and that is what has gotten much of congress concerned. so, i think we generally think the published reports are not way off. i do not think you are going to get there, personally. i do not think you're going to get there, and so i share senator menendez's concerns. we have worked with you also on other proposals. i have to say that treasury, generally speaking, has stiff- armed on the numbers of friends -- on a number of fronts, and the responsible approach would have been to lay out what you wanted to pass. i am not a co-sponsor, yeah, but i am pretty irate that senator menendez has worked with you all

this time. i know they have made changes. we have been meeting with staff. why have you not offered what ought to be put in place before today's vote? that seems highly irresponsible on your part. >> senator, we have continued to engage with senator menendez. >> i do not want to engagement. why doesn't timothy geithner lay out what it is he would like to see happen? >> i think timothy geithner's letter, with all respect, does lay out what we think should happen with this amendment, which is that -- >> it be defeated. >> that it not be adopted. that being said, there are additional amendments to the amendment that we have provided to senator menendez and his staff. we are eager to continue to work with senator menendez and the

senate as a whole, if this is going to proceed, to have to proceed in a fashion that is more workable. if i could just comment on one other of your remarks, on the timeline. we're trying to convey that we recognize but the urgency, whether it is a one-year time line or what ever it is, that there is a significant urgency on the pressure track, and that if you are thinking about the lines crossing, we agreed. the administration agrees that the pressure needs to accelerate. what we are intent on doing is bringing additional pressure to bear, consequential pressure to bear on iran in very short order. the question that i think we are

addressing is how best to achieve that, and our concern with the amendment is that we think that may not be the best way to proceed. it is not that we are coming before the committee and saying, everything is fine, and leave us alone, let us continue on. and what we are saying is that we recognize that we are at a point in time where the right course is to intensify the sanctions, and we want to do that in a way that is best calculated to work. we think the way to do that is to work cooperatively with our international partners in a fashion that has, i think, born substantial effort over the last several years, and we think can work going forward. >> let me ask you this, and i mean, would it make sense that, for menendez and kirk to give you 60 days to make that happen

and if that doesn't this goes into effect? >> i think we are interested in continuing to figure out how to work -- >> let's go to another -- and i appreciate the fact you are working with allies and friends. it does send a signal that we really are willing to work on sanctions on everything but that that matters, and that is petroleum exports. but i anderson and you want to work with our friends in a way that makes -- i understand that you went to work with our friends in a way that makes the most sense. but you know, you made a comment that every political candidate has made for eight years, that all options should be on the table.

and yet, i guess i would ask the question, are we making plans with our friends toward military action, not doing it, but are we making those kind of plants that are known and send signals to iran that if these sanctions do not work, we really are prepared to use that option? is that taking place in the present? >> i would say briefly to do things. one, the president of the united states has said publicly on several occasions that all options are on the table. from iran pose a point of view, when the president of the united -- iran pose a point of view, when the president of the net -- view, when the president of the united states says that, they understand the seriousness. >> george bush said that. the george bush before him

properly said that. >> we have reason to believe that they understand that. in terms of planning, my experience, and i am sure yours as well, is that the department of defense prepares for virtually every hypothetical situation that there is in the world. >> thank you for refocusing on this issue. >> there may be some disagreement on the timeline as to when iran will have a nuclear capacity for a weapon, but there is no disagreement on the timeline on the vote on the menendez-kirk amendment. that is going to take place momentarily, certainly within the next 24 hours. i would urge you with a sense of urgency, not just as it relates to this amendment, but with this issue. we have all talked about iran. let me put it in context. iran is an extremely dangerous

country. they're supporting terrorism and we know what cost that has been to the american people. they're abusing their own people. they are supporting syria's efforts on the abuse of the people of syria, and the list goes on and on. we have the international referee in nuclear proliferation has judged that iran is proceeding with a nuclear weapon. they point out that what they are doing would be inconsistent with anythin but a nuclear weapon. we know that we are in an extremely dangerous situation, which brings us to timing. i just want to underscore, on both sides of the aisle, we appreciate the leadership of the obama administration in reaching out to the international

community and getting more support for sanctions than we have had in the past. that is extremely important. but it starts with u.s. leadership. we have seen over and over again that without the united states stepping forward, the international community is slow and in many cases will not act at all. so, dealing with the central bank of iran, your own reports showed that they are money- laundering. they are assisting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and they are assisting terrorism. we have cut off relations with the central bank of iran. it is a clear signal to the international community that we are very serious about trying of the financial capacity of iran. that is the only way we believe that sanctions will effectively change the course of iran on its nuclear ambitions for a nuclear weapon. that brings me again to the timing issue. if we do not move forward rapidly, than i am not sure it

can be effective. but i do not understand, and maybe you can help clarify for me, the menendez amendment gives you two months before any action takes place. you have another three months after that to cool off the issue, and then you have another five months with the waiver authority. it seems to me that it speaks volumes as to ratifying what you have already stated. we want the international community to work with us to cut off the central bank of iran. this amendment gives you the tools to work with the international community to be selective as to what national banks should be sanctioned. you can be selective. so i am not exactly sure the resistance to the path -- passage of the amendment. maybe you can help clarify this

for me. all of the horrible things you have said, i have heard before. oil supply, we have heard that before. it seems to me that this gives us the power to work with the international community to provide the type of unity necessary, showing that america is very serious about cutting off the financial capacity of the government of iran. where am i wrong on the five months you have? that gives you a lot of time for your diplomacy. i know diplomacy can take time. five months is a long time, particularly when we are looking at and iran where if action does not take place within the next couple of months, it may be too late. >> the concern is that in the course of that effort, whether the 60 days or the five months,

for various aspects of the provision, we are operating in an environment where we are going to our closest allies with a stick rather than with an effort to -- >> a stick requires the president to make certain findings before it can be used. >> it does, but from the perspective of the financial institutions and governments involved, there is be -- there cannot be any confidence from their standpoint that a waiver will be revoked -- with -- a waiver will be invoked. >> isn't our objective to get them not to deal with the central bank of iran? >> it absolutely is. we have a disagreement in the tactics to achieve that.

>> but if country a, our close allies wants to work with us and block the central bank of iran, and country be, our ally does not. is it not helpful for country a to know that there is a reward and punishment issue involved in the sanctions? we want all of our allies to cut up the financing of iran to the central bank in order to avoid a nuclear iran. >> it will be helpful. at the risk of repeating myself , the judgment of the administration, broadly, is that the best way to work with our allies on this is not by threatening our most severe sanctions against their largest financial institutions, but to

build on the international consensus that already exists and to take these steps. >> i understand your point. i think it represents a traditional difference of view between the executive and legislative branches and i think the legislative branch will speak today. >> first of all, let me say that the views expressed here by senator menendez and senator gore are very representative of the consensus of the legislative branch of government right now. i do not have any doubt, and i do not think any member of this congress has any doubt that the goals of the executive branch are exactly the same as the goals of the legislative branch. however, we have a real problem in what i would call an enthusiasm gap or a sense of

urgency gap between how the legislative branch to use this and have the executive branch use this. -- views this and had the executive -- how the executive branch of use this. what you're seeing today is a result of that gap between us. that needs to be resolved and we need to be -- we believe it needs to be resolved urgently. i believe and many of my fellow senators believe that after the iaea report, your sense of urgency should have risen to our sense of urgency, and we are not hearing that. we hear the words, and we hear the talk, but we have wanted action for some time and it just has not happened. the result of that is what you see in front of you. so, i would strongly suggest that rather than coming up here

with a strategy on how you are going to torpedo this amendment, you figure out how to make this amendment work. it is not going to pass by a close vote. it is going to pass by a very large vote. many of us in a house-senate hope that it will send the signal we want to see cent. this is not a trade issue we're arguing over. this is not a dispute on borders or something. when it comes to the issues in the world today, this issue ranks right up at the top. the united states cannot be wrong on this. the world cannot be wrong on this. we cannot make a mistake on this. unfortunately, i think most of us agree with what senator corker said when he said, you know, you are trying to do this through sanctions and i think he said, i do not think you are going to get there. i believe that is the consensus

view of the senate of here also. again, that is why you are seeing what you are seeing in the form of this amendment. i guess what i would tell you is that you probably need to go out of here and figure out how you are going to make this work and how you are going to raise the level of urgency that we have and that you have seen here today. thank you. >> thank you. i apologize for arriving late. i am on the armed services committee and we had a markup on the floor, but i was able to watch a good portion of your testimony while we were considering amendments in my office. i want to ask you a couple of questions. again, i apologize if i may have missed this already being discussed while i was doing these other things and getting over here. first of all, i am not a great fan of sanctions in general.

ifelieve that's circumstances require that they take place, that they should be clearly targeted. they should have somewhat of a -- cannot say a guarantee, but somewhat of a certitude that they would be effective and also that they would be widely supported in the international community. listening to your testimony, i could hear, i think, a very sincere concern about the possibility that we may end up doing more harm than good if certain types of sanctions are put into place here. i have not decided how i am going to vote on this amendment. i am still thinking it through, but i would like to ask you three questions in the time that i have here. the first is, and again i apologize if you have already stated this, but could you compare the sanctions that will be put in place under this amendment with the sanctions that the u.k. put in place

earlier? quite the sanctions that the u.k. put in place last -- >> the sanctions that the u.k. put in place last week essentially brought the u.k. into line where the united states has been for many years. we, years ago, cut off the iran ian financial sector from the united states. the u.k., over the past several years, has taken action against particular institutions. what we did monday was to cut off the entire international sector. they are now in line with where we are. the canadians as well are in line with where we are and where we have been for some time. >> with respect to your concern, and this concern also being expressed from the letter that the secretary of treasury wrote, that our closest allies could

curtail purchases in the future or cease to cooperate, do you see a predictable outcome among these countries we are discussing if this amendment were passed? >> senator, i think what we and what the secretary was driving at is that we see and we are working with our partners to have them reduced their reliance on imports from iran. the united states imports and no oil from iran. we are seeing that our partners recognized, in part because of the actions we have taken and the in the nation we have put out into the public domain, recognize the danger involved in an oil and irani an having the cbi use those

revenues to fuel dangerous activities. what we are doing is working with our partners to drawn down, if possible, entirely cease importation of iran's oil. >> you are saying that the potential of the amendment is to reduce that level of cooperation? >> i think there is a danger that it will result in less cooperation because of the reaction to the threat that is being visited on their financial institutions. >> >> if i might, senator, at a couple of things to bad -- to that. there are close allies that have a relationship with iran, not in the arenas that we have already imposed sanctions, but just

household goods. and our reading of our effort by senator mendez and senator kirk and semenya objectives to achieve the life blood of what we have achieved to cut iran off of their nuclear weapons program, but our action as a blunt instruments taking away their way of life. >> as the other policies have been put into place, china has very noticeably not cooperated. they're becoming iran pose the most active trading partner.

they are still trading in oil. what would be their reaction to this sort of process of new legislation, or even existing policy? what are they doing? >> putney speak to the broad relationship with china in regards to iran, and i defer to undersecretary cohen on specific action. we think what china is doing, we take that quite seriously a great deal of the meetings i held were on this point. as a result, they have finally agreed that the special envoy, bob einhorn, can go to china and help them to better enforce the sanctions in place. they have, in fact, slow down their actions. the have not, to the best of our knowledge, backfield -- back

filled. we have sanctioned five chinese individuals and five chinese firms are under sanctions. there are other chinese companies currently under investigation and i was quite candid with china about each of those cases and the action we would expect. >> i apologize for interrupting you. i have about seven seconds. do you see china's economic activity with respect to iran decreasing as this goes forward? >> the senator, i cannot pretend to predict how china will react to this. we think is quite possible that the chinese, is this amendment were adopted, would take the risk, essentially. we would cut off their financial

institutions from the united states, but i am not in a position to predict exactly how the chinese will react. the relationship between china and iran is a very complicated one, one we have been working on the. >> to the bottom line, they have not reduced their economic participation as we have put policies in place? i am one minute over. >> i will answer briefly. what the chinese have essentially remained at the same level of economic engagement with iran, give or take the last several years. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator webb. senator isaacson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. undersecretary sherman, there are concerns about oil prices with passage with this

amendment. i've heard just what a today about concerns about what it might do to other countries that have banking relationships with iran that are friends of ours. are we aware of what an iranian nuclear test might do to stability or to oil prices or what an incident in the straits of hormuz might do? are we calculating that? i know the concern i have and i only really speak for myself, but i think i am speaking for the people of georgia. it seems like the sands in the hourglass are running out. we do not know when, but there's no question that ahmadinejad and the iranians, if given the material, probably would use that material in a nefarious way against israel or someone in the middle east. that is a calculation that has to be paramount in terms of how we deal with iran. that is why i think it is so important that we send a legislative message to the congress and the united states

that time is running out on iran as well. i would like you to respond to that. >> senator, as you have said and others have said this morning, and as i want to reiterate, we absolutely share the urgency of the congress. we were not surprised by the report that said that up until 2003, there was a structured program in iran to develop nuclear weapons. and since then, clearly, there are ongoing activities and possible military dimensions because there are activities for which there is no plausible explanation except military use, and certainly, iran has not act -- offered a plausible explanation. we were not surprised because we're one of the 10 countries who supplied information to the inspector general for the report. it was quite understandably know what is happening in iran. we have successfully, through

this multilateral and phased and cooperative sanctions approached that has been helped with tools that progress has been given to us, as well as executive orders has, indeed, slow down iran's capabilities. it has slowed down their wanting to have been 50,000 centrifuges to having 6000 or 7000 centrifuges. we quite agree with you. and i think that is why when the report came out, and that was virtually a unanimous vote at the iaea board of governors. and it did not happen by governments -- by accident. it happened by a concerted effort we approached along with the u.k. and canada to add additional sanctions to our arsenal to try to deal with iran

nuclear program. we are completely where the congress is in terms of urgency, as the secretary said earlier. what we are talking about today is tactics of getting there. and in that, we have some disagreements. we should continue this debate. and as secretary cohen said, we are well aware of the support for this amendment today and we understand the impulse for that amendment because we share the objective. we just think there's a better way to go about it. >> thank you. the secretary cohen, as i understand it, there were some pretty astounding revelations about the central bank of iran in terms of them financing and other banks that are sanctioned by the united states, and the construction firm that is under sanction. what do those findings alone tell us about why we have not sanction the central bank yet? those are clear findings of treasury that are clear

violations are sanctions already. -- our sentience already. >> in the findings, it broadly described illicit activity and specifically included information about the central bank of iran and the deceptive practices that you identified. we are using the foundation of that finding with our partners as a way to further highlight the risk of doing business with iran, any of the financial institutions of iran, and with the central bank of iran in particular. it has allowed us to have in one place a comprehensive presentation of the risks involved in doing business with iran, including the central bank. the question of how we then take the next step is something that is left for us to continue to

work on, work on with the congress and with the administration. the findings in the 3112 not determine any particular action -- in the 311 do not determine any particular action, but describe a range of steps that we have spoken about with iran this gets back to the, the undersecretary sherman said. what we are looking to do is bring to bear on iran and on the central bank of iran, but more generally in iran overall, substantial additional pressure. and if the right step is to bring a sanction on to the central bank of iran, we are prepared to take that step. we think as we sit here today, the right thing to do is to proceed with a multilateral

effort to isolate the central bank of iran, to work with our partners to reduce their import of iranian oil, and to take action to freeze the assets of the central bank of iran. that would be, in essence, the steps that we would want to pursue with respect to the cbi with a real sense of urgency, with a notion that the clock is ticking, and we've got to ramp up our efforts here. that is where we are looking to proceed. >> i will respect the fact that both of you have a very difficult job and diplomacy under any circumstances is tough, particularly when you are dealing with it is honest broker like the iranians have been. but i think menendez-kirk does reflect the sentiment of the people of georgia and i would say that a sense of urgency is something all of us must consider in dealing with the central bank and the nation of

iran. thank you. >> thank you. senator isaacson. >> centre shaheen, i do not think it is an award, but i think you get special recognition to greatest price paid trying to get to a meeting of the foreign relations committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i hope you will acknowledge that in the future will have legislation pending before this committee. >> absolutely. we owe you. >> you should have seen the other guy. [laughter] let me begin first by thanking both of you for the efforts you all have been making to address iran's move toward achieving a nuclear weapon. i do want to share the sentiment that has already been expressed by my colleagues on this committee that i believe the menendez-kirk amendment is going to pass. i would hope that if there are suggestions that the administration has about things you would like to see different in that amendment,

that you would share those with us because i think, as you have heard, we're going to act on this within the next 24 hours. it would be hopeful to know what else you might like to see happen. both senatorthat cann, menendez and senator kirk raised concern that the sanctions have not been doing enough that have already been designated, and particularly with respect to some of the chinese companies. i wonder if you would respond to that -- he responded to that briefly undersecretary sherman, but can you tell us whether the administration has been doing enough with the sanctions that you already have, or what else could it be done? >> thank you, senator, and thank you for the suggestion of

bringing to senator kirk and senator nunn does any other suggestions we might have. we will take that back and might consider that. as i said, we understand the concerns about china. it was the focus of the trip i made last week. to impress upon china the reality and a prompt action that was required on their behalf regarding a number of situations. my request for a special envoy bob faw einhorn to finally be welcome to china and to, in fact, follow through on the sanctions regime and the obligations, which we have not talked about enough in here. under the security council resolutions there are five resolutions that have passed. four have legally binding requirements. this is not just the united

states request. this is the u.n. security council of obligation of states around the world. we have sanctioned 280 individuals and entities over the last few years. we, of course, think we should do more and better. in fact, when the qddr was written at the secretary clinton's request, one of the things that came out of that was to increase our enforcement capability, to increase the number of fte, to organize the state department in a better way, to enforce sanctions. the process is under way. we are trying to not have it constraint -- constrained by the budget constraints we all face. but yes, we think we should do more. we have excellus of that province -- progress and we expect to be accelerating even

further. this is an urgent problem. >> thank you. there is an interesting opinion piece in today's european edition of the "wall street journal," which i assume both of you might have seen that highlights the involvement of the revolutionary guards in not just the nuclear and missile program, but in so many other economic areas in the country. the article quotes you, mr. cohen, that the revolutionary guard has expanded its reach into so many critical sectors of the economy. can you talk about how difficult it is to draw lines between the reach of the guard and how that affects our ability to address through sanctions to bring pressure on iran? and also, if you would, talk

about how we are working with our european allies to address the irgc's moved into legitimate businesses. >> i'm happy to because i think the irgc has been one of our key targets for sanctions over the last several years. it is recognized in security council resolutions, recognized by the eu and certainly recognized in our sanctions as a target that is very deserving of sanctions. the irgc is involved in the most dangerous activities in iran. and as it continues to expand into the iranian economy to the detriment of the average iranian citizen, it frankly, provides us with additional ways to apply

pressure on the iranian regime. earlier this year, for instance, we applied sanctions on an entity called tidewater middle east company, which is a port operator at seven of the port in iran, including the largest container terminal at the bottom -- at the bottom abbas port. the rtc took control of that -- the irgc took control of that several years ago. any foreign financial institution that engages with tidewater risk having its access to the united states terminated. we are continuing to press our allies in europe to add the tidewater to the list of sanction the entities in europe as well because europe has taken a number of steps to sanction

irgc-related entities, including an entity that is a major construction firm in iran. cracks have we been successful at persuading them on tidewater? -- >> have we been successful at persuading them on tidewater? >> i am waiting to see if it is included on a list of sanction entities that the eu has released today. but if not today, then we will continue to press the europeans to at tidewater to the list of sanction the entities to the you list. -- to the e.u. list. the irgc has expanded into the iranian economy as more and more average citizens are moved out of the economy. the government and its most agent -- a dangerous entities

expand their economic region, as they do so, will continue to take action against those entities and work with our partners to do the same. >> thank you. >> senator koons. >> thank you for holding this hearing. i will simply renew comments. i know you have heard from literally every single member of the panel so far about how rapidly iran is making progress toward the acquisition of a nuclear weapon, about how bravely the people i represent are concerned about this, and about a real lack of clarity about the communication with senator mendon says about an amendment for which i make co- sponsored -- co-sponsored and for which i intend to vote today. it is rare -- i take very seriously the letter of the secretary and your input and respect your efforts, but august

9, the letter went to the president from 92 senators urging prompt engagement and action against the central bank of iran, urging more progress toward an executive sort of multilateral sanctions regime that we have been discussing at great length. what we are hearing is a steadily increasing level of great concern and alarm. since august, the iaea report has come out, allegations of an assassination plot against a saudi diplomat, the assault on the british embassy. there is no doubt in my mind that iran is the most dangerous nation in the world at this point. this situation, as it steadily moves in a bad direction is going to push us toward some tough decisions. the ranking minority member start by asking you about the planning for potential military action.

i wonder what we are doing to prepare the american people for the possibility of necessary action by either a close ally, israel, where the united states. the level of engagement your hearing from this panel simply reflects that, a concern that six months on -- that letter was in august. it is december. you are pushing back very hard and amendment by senator mendez that by its structure give marks for iran in diplomacy. by their actions, they have made abundantly what they are doing and their intentions. and a statement -- the statements of ahmadinejad are appalling and a clear source of legitimate concern by the people of israel and the united states and all of our allies. i hope you take this very seriously, and in the absence of any clear input from you about what is insufficient with the men mendez amendment, i intend to vote for it today.

there is not a lot of time for back channel communication. i am eager to hear from you anything more that would give me some confidence that the chinese, who are still the worst actors in this field, with whom we have so many other problems, and the luttrell property, currency manipulation, and ongoing -- we are in a fall on trade war with the chinese. we need to manage it as appropriately as we can and in the interest of the people of the united states. one of the things i had hoped to hear today is that we are making real progress with them and engaging them for a sanctions regime bearing down on the iranians. i'm encouraged that they are accepting einhorn, but i do not see that we have aggressively sanctioned chinese actors in this area. and given the hour glass that has been referred to the mine concerned we are not being aggressive enough in this field.

>> with my colleague give me 30 seconds before i have to leave to respond to something? >> certainly. >> two things, number one, as the secretary mentioned, there are many nations that have complicated relationships with iran. but our section specifically only focuses on sale of and purchase of petroleum products. it is not going after all those other complicated relationships. and number two, and i appreciate your support of the amendment, the chinese have already taken the risk under the existing sanctions regime and the chinese have not moved. the answer to that seems pretty clear. i thank the chairman for give me the time. >> undersecretary? >> thank you. i thank both of new centers. -- you senators. on china, i would reiterate what i said earlier, which is i

agree. we want more action out of china. they have taken some action to slow down their activity, not to backfill from others that have pulled out of the iranian oil sector in particular. we have centered one individual and five other entities in china. we have others that we are looking at. that was this -- that was the subject of my discussion with them lilast week. i will say this, they have stuck with the international coalition. they did co-sponsored the resolution and the iaea. they did vote in the u.n. general assembly for the resolution condemning the actions from -- against the saudi ambassador. it is important to have them inside the tent as opposed to outside the tent, but there is no doubt in any of our minds that they need to take far more action than they have and we are

quite aggressively engaged with them. this was the subject of some of the president's discussions in honolulu and in bali just two weeks ago. secretary clinton with councilor ai.al vice-president biden with a leader who was said to be the next leader of china. we share the focus and attention and the obligation china has under the u.n. security council resolutions to, in fact, follow through. we share that and i take your message that we need to pursue it even more urgently than we already are. again, on the kirk-mendez, we appreciate that this will pass. we obviously would appreciate more discretion than even exist in the current draft of the amendment. we think tactically that it may

both increase the price of oil, which will give iran a windfall. that is not the objective of the legislation, but may have that effect. secondly, we are concerned -- and it may even create that would fall during this five month time frame of extensions that exist in the legislation because of the anticipation of the markets. no one knows exactly what will happen, but there is most definitely a risk that iran could get a windfall from this, let alone complicate our relations with very close friends and allies. >> thank you. seeing that i have run out of time i will submit some additional questions for the record. buyers the undersecretary to use his great skills -- i urge the under secretary use his great skills to urge the market. i think it is important to send a clear message about our

determination to prevent iran from making any further progress in acquiring a potential weapon. >> we are grateful for your testimony in your public service. i think what you are hearing in this discussion today is a real concern about a sense of urgency, or what some would assert, a lack thereof. like a lot of us, we get the chance to travel in places like the middle east. when i was there last in the summer of 2010, and senator shaheen was on the trip as well, and we had about seven countries in nine days. at that time, it was months before the arab spring. at a time when there was a real consensus about the threat posed by the iran in regime, whether

you were in israel or saudi arabia, egypt or some other place. there was real consensus, but also real worry. that was the summer of 2010. if anything, it has become not only more apparent, but more urgent. i think it is finally more apparent to people across our own country because of the assassination plot, because of what the iaea reported recently. i do not want to walk through all of it, but the language is pretty compelling. when the iaea says they have credible information that iran has carried out activities and "and relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device" and of course, they outline it further. the sense of urgency here -- i think there's a greater sense of urgency that a lot of people

feel in our country, and perception is very important in these situations, as you know. but that does not seem to be an administration policy or set of actions that is commensurate with that sense of urgency. i am a co-sponsor of what' the senators are trying to do and i have long labored in this vineyard. but when we leave -- read letters like the one from secretary geithner, "continue to work with." it-late -- to have our allies resist following our lead -- we all want to have collaboration. we all want to have a steady effort here, but this is moving way beyond where we were in 2010. and the problem -- let's assume for a second that there was no nuclear threat. if we could magically removed

the threat, just the impact of the central bank has on being a banker for a lot of the bad guys in that region -- hamas, hezbollah. so many bad guys they provide resources for. that is another reason for this sense of urgency. i think that is what you are hearing. my question is very simple. if not this, what should we do right now in the next month or two? and if not this now, how long will the strategy that you want to put in place or continue, how long will that take? cracks on the sense of urgency, -- >> on the sense of urgency, i can assure you that on my own behalf and on behalf of the entire administration, there is not an issue that focuses the

attention of the administration more than the threat of iran as it is laid out in the iaea report. we feel that sense of urgency every day. i have just returned yesterday morning from a short trip to israel and the uae, which is the most recent of my journeys, both to consult with our allies who are working on this issue and to learn about their perspective on the threat, and to bring that back and to feed that into our process. we are working on this issue every day and have taken steps to bring to bear more financial, commercial, and diplomatic isolation on iran today than it

has ever seen before. this is fair to say that we have applied a substantial degree of pressure on iran, and up the same time we recognize there is more to do. the steps that we are prepared to take in the short term, assuming the menendez-kirk amendment is not adopted, which may not be a valid assumption -- we are committed to taking action against the cbi, to freeze its assets, to work with our allies to have them take a similar action, and to work with our allies to encourage them to take the steps that they have already indicated a willingness to consider, which is to ramp down their involvement with the

cbi and their purchases of iranian oil. that will constrict iran's access to the hard currency and revenue it needs to fuel the acts -- activities that you address, senator. that is the course that we want to proceed on, while at the same time continuing to apply the sanctions that we have across our range of areas. the new executive order from just 10 days ago on the chemical sector and the production of oil in iran is a very significant new step. it goes after anyone providing goods or services to either of those industries. the petrochemical industry is the second most important source of export revenue to iran. the petroleum industry is the first. if those sanctions directly target iran's ability to develop both of those sectors.

we have been pursuing and are intent on continuing to pursue a range of significant and powerful sanctions on iran. the issue -- i think we have been discussing it this morning. the issue is how best to achieve that, while minimizing the potential of an adverse consequence of this backfiring. and as under secretary sherman alluded to, and as secretary gardner knows, we have real concern that the amendment as it is currently drafted, even with the phased in and even with the potential for waivers, has the potential to actually increase revenues to iran. that is something we want to assiduously avoid. >> i am out of time.

secretary sherman, anything you want to add? >> the only thing i would add that we have not discussed this morning is that the international environment is changing on a daily basis. probably one of the most significant things that will happen in the near future is a change in syria. iran really has only two allies left, syria and hezbollah purifie. and when, indeed, bashar al- assad steps aside, which he will undoubtedly do -- it is not if, but when -- iran will lose one of its properties in the world. it will further focus the attention of the international community on what has to occur here and create some political circumstances that are different that will help us to further isolate iran and to make it pay a price for it illicit activities. >> thank you.

senator casey, thank you. let me say that i think we, in the congress, have a difference of opinion about a particular step. but i want to assure my friend and colleague that on the issue of urgency, i can attest that i cannot think of any issue that is concentrating the minds of the administration right now more than this, or at -- or more than any other time. yesterday, i was at the white house at a meeting about this particular topic. i know the secretary of state and the state department are as focused on this as they can be. i do not think anyone has any illusions about the time frame or the urgency. there may be some differences about timing on a particular step or methodology, but i would not view this amendment or the discussion this morning as some house of a great departure. i think is important for everybody, particularly outside of here, to understand that. there is a universal

understanding amongst our allies also. this is the topic of conversation right now. i think everyone needs to be aware of that. senator yudof. >> thank you, chairman. thank you for holding this hearing at this very appropriate time. i appreciate you being here and your service to the country. under secretary cohen, i do not know if you can answer this, but publicly i wanted to have these try to explore a little bit with you -- it has been reported that f.a.q con's design -- about aq kahn's plans are being replicated. do you know of that and what tools we have to deal with black-market nuclear materials? the whole discussion has been about our allies and working

with our allies. but we have some other very dangerous situations to deal with here. and secretary sherman, if you want to start, please go ahead. i do want to be mindful of the setting -- >> i do want to be mindful of the setting in our response. let me just say this. we are focused carefully on who is supplying material to iran, and in particular, to iran's nuclear program. we have a range of sanctions already in place against entities in iran as well as outside iran that have been supportive of their nuclear proliferation activities. and we continue to track very closely the individuals and entities involved in supplying iran the material for its

program. i do not want to get into any greater specificity on that in this setting. we would be happy to brief you in a different setting with additional information. we spend an enormous amount of time trying to understand who is that is supplying iran, and then taking action to try to isolate them from the international for economic and commercial and financial system so they are not able to do so. >> i would only add -- and i would be glad to go into further detail in a classified setting tentacleshn's throughout the world have been much discussed and a sword and much tracked. the state department and the administration pays close attention to the trading routes

of nuclear material. one of the great experts in this regard is the ranking member of this committee, who probably understands the trade of materials, the technology as well as any of us do. i would note as well as we do this not only for iran, but north korea and other would-be nuclear powers. and secretary clinton in her meetings in burma in her efforts to not only encourage the democratic trend that are taking place, but also is being very clear with the leadership in burma that ties to north korea and potential shipments need to stop. the tracking of these routes that might increase nuclear proliferation is something that is quite well attended to. >> thank you for that answer. we may have an opportunity to explore this in other settings,

but the amendment that is being discussed here today is targeting the sale of iranian oil. i have a couple of questions. i will throw them all out and have you try to answer them. in light of the widely reported pullout of major energy firms from iran's energy sector, what is your assessment of the iranian oil and gas industry at this point? if that sector is declining, how will world energy prices be affected going forward? who is purchasing iranian oil? who are the big purchasers? what are the percentages there? are those numbers going out or down? for example, with the chinese, how major of a purchaser our day? -- are they? and from what you have described, is that going down? and is there any indication that iran cannot sell its oil on the world market?

>> thank you. the date on all of this fluctuates. in this setting i can discuss open source reports. iran is still doing relatively well because the price of oil is quite high. that has been the nature of a lot of our discussions and concerns about the menendez-kirk amendment, which is that it may increase the price of oil, which would be the benefit of iran. in terms of deliveries of refined petroleum to iran, which is quite crucial to their economy, whether they are lower today than they have been in the past, although month-to-month numbers fluctuate, it is our view that they are significantly lower than the force asada --

then before sasada was passed. and in fact, the refined petroleum coming in, as many on this committee may know, but the public may not know -- although iran may have a lot of oil, but it does not have the capacity to refine that oil. it has to send it out and have it refined and come back in. the price for that refined oil has increased 10% to 25% since sasada. the sanctions that we have are biting. yes, iran is employing a deceptive practices to circumvent the sanctions, but we are working very hard to stay ahead of those tactics. >> and just to respond to your question about who is purchasing iranian oil today, there are purchasers in the you,

greece, italy, benevolence. eu, china is a yo big purchaser as its south korea, india, turkey, sri lanka -- i think it get all of its oil from iran those are the major purchasers of iranian oil today. >> do you have percentages? is china the biggest purchaser backs to the purchase 50%? >> china purchases about 20% of iranian output. these are on classified figures. i can give you a chart that sets out exactly each of these countries' imports from iran and what percentage it makes up of their imports. >> and the things that you are

describing, or any of those going down at this point? which countries would be impacted or taking action or doing something that is putting a crunch on the iranian situation? >> we are looking to do is to work with our closest allies, particularly in the eu, in asia, in india potentially, to try to have them reduced their importation of iranian oil. i think we have not seen to date that occur, but i think we see the potential for a coordinated effort to bring that about. >> thank you very much. sartre, mr. chairman, for going over a little bit. -- sorry, mr. chairman, for going over a little bit. >> i appreciate your participation, and everybody's.

undersecretary, you can see from the broad presence here today and the number of questions the intensity of the concern, and the focus here. i know you knew that before you came. we're very appreciative for your presence here today. i think this hearing has helped to underscore for the public, certainly, and for all interested parties the deep concerns that exist right now. and hopefully in the next weeks and early months, everybody will be able to come together in a sensible way to avoid the potentially very dangerous alternatives and options that are facing everybody in this. almost certainly, we will have another hearing on broad policy aspects regarding this, i would

say in early february. depending again, on the return schedule and what happens in the next few days here. we will start to leave the plans for that. -- leia the plans for that. it.know you are focused on tha thanks for contributing to this. we are very appreciative for your presence today and we look forward to continuing a good dialogue with you. we stand adjourned. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the senate approved the menendez-kirk amendment tonight in a 100-0 vote. the white house has warned that the financial sanctions in the

amendment could cause oil prices to rise. the programs bill also passed tonight 93-7. >> coming up next on c-span, president obama gives a speech to mark world aids day. presidential candidates herman cain is interviewed by a newspaper. and later, we will replay the senate foreign relations committee hearing on financial sanctions against the central bank of iran. >> onta marra "washington journal" we will talk to bloomberg news reporter steven slone about proposals to extend the payroll tax cut beyond the end of this year. then a look at america's

immigrant population. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> he did not have a lot of romantic ideas about spying. he saw it for what it was. dirty business. >> in "the man nobody knew" documentary film producer carolco be examines the life of a cia spymaster, his father, william colby. >> my father changed after he was thrown out of the agency. if you watched him closely and setting him, he is a soldier. he took on the toughest, dirtiest assignment given to him by the presidents from eisenhower onward. but when it came time for the president of ford in this case, to ask him to lie and mislead congress, he could not do it.

>> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> in a speech marking world trade -- world aids day, president obama called for more treatment and funding for the disease. he also spoke -- president bush also spoke by satellite at this event at george washington university. this is 40 minutes. [applause] >> i'm especially pleased and honored to a knowledge president obama, bush, clinton, senator rubio, congressman lee, as well

as bono, the founder of one and bread. and our distinguished panelists. the board of your -- the board of trustees chairman ramsey and the dean of the school of public health and health services and two of our faculty members who are in the fight against hiv and aids. and finally, students representing the one chapter here at george washington. gw is proud of its role to fight globally against aids. we have the privilege of hosting the nih funded center for aids research and the exceptional portion of institutions across the region. we also work closely with the d.c. department of health and the cdc on the front lines of the fight against aids providing testing and treatment for the district's most highly affected

populations. thanks to the work of many in this room and in our viewing audience, this nation and the world have made tremendous progress toward eradicating hiv and aids. this scourged will come to an end. we had george washington remain committed to playing our part in this struggle and there's much work to be done. thank you for joining us in this morning's important discussion. [applause] ♪

♪ ♪ [applause] >> sutley xeng gentlemen, please welcome dr. sanjay gopte.

[laughter] -- [applause] >> thank you very much. i'm delighted to be here. i care very deeply about the things you care about in this room. and i am not nervous at all, given who this panel is. i am usually in a studio where it is very dark. seeing a live people is a little jarring. [laughter] delighted to be here, no less. you'll hear a lot of stories and will be asked to think about what this means for you and your country and our world at large. 30 years and 30 million from roles. it is the reality of our past, part of our history that we cannot change. but today on the 23rd anniversary of world aids day, we acknowledge that past and we look toward immelt -- a more hopeful future. a beginning of the end of aids, like the way that sounds. i like the idea that while some problems in d.c. seem too

difficult, too big, this devastating disease we can tackle. and we can put hiv and aids on the run. the beginning of the end of aids allows us to stand at the most perfect union of audacity and achieve ability. think about what as audacious and what is achievable and at that intersection, that is where we want to be. over the last 10 years there has been enormous progress. this is perhaps the warsaw time to sit back and say, job well done -- the worst time to sit back and say, a job well done. this is a time to look forward and double down, so that in all of our lifetimes aides mail order exist on our planet. this morning, the campaign's known as one and red held a panel designed to answer a very specific question, how do we get there? we will invite doctors,

patients, ceos, members of congress, rock stars and even presidents because we all believe that if we come together in the next few years and build on the progress that we have already made, we can finally see the beginning of the end of the aids pandemic. as a medical reporter, i would love to announce that have line sunday. it is something i dreamed of, the end of a spirit -- the end of aids. it is my hope that we will one day be able to do that. we encourage you to be engaged and listen. joining us live from the hiv aids ward in tanzania is the president of the united republic of tanzania. he has been a very strong supporter for hiv and aids testing and prevention programs and he launched a nationwide program in 2007. he has led by example, having himself tested, and nearly 4

million tanzanian is followed suit after he did so. please, help me warmly welcome him. [applause] >> thank you, sanjay. we are honored here with president george walker bush and his wife, laura bush with us and a number of visitors from the united states, and of course, the tanzanian president bush four years ago during a visit to tanzania to visit the hospital, we were able to see how the president's plan was making progress, saving lives of

tanzanian, men, women, and children infected with hiv and aids. today, we are at the hospital to let knowledge of the good fight. we take it -- we thank you so much. i am pleased that using modern technology we have joined with washington, with many dignitaries there, administration officials, members of congress, as well as members of the aids community and the media to share in this fight against hiv and aids. it was in 1983 when hiv/aids was first turned -- was first known to exist in tanzania. three people were diagnosed with the disease on the western

shores of lake victoria bordering uganda. since then, the disease has spread like a bush fire in the wind to every corner of our country. today, it is estimated 1.3 million people are living with hiv/aids, and last year alone, 86,000 of the orphans from hiv-aids related deaths from their parents. also, being hiv positive was a cause for being isolated, shunned by society and even by family members.

a person infected, their spouses as well as their children. because of fear associated with the disease. thanks to advancements in medicine, things are different. same vein, pregnant women with hiv can have babies that are free of the disease.

tanzania has been registering steady progress in the fight against hiv/aids. tanzanian have been tested for hiv and since july 2007. as more and more people now come forward to announce their status. those affected can now get requisite care and treatment.

people with hiv have been enrolled. so far, we have 7.5% of the target we have set for ourselves for delivering care and treatment. currently, 4301 help the facilities -- health facilities provide help. this is 97% of all facilities in the country. a chevy affected pregnant mothers -- hiv-infected pregnant mothers have received care and treatment. 948,000 children with infected mothers had received medicine to

prevent them from transmission of hiv. we are steadily on the march to doing better. whenever we talk about the successes we have made in the fight against hiv/aids, we cannot fail to recognize the support we have received and continue to receive from the people and the government of the united states of america. allow me to mention in particular the campaign initiated by president bush and for continued -- and continued by his successor president obama in intervention and hiv/aids diagnoses for children.

in 2007, when we lost a nationwide campaign, the fund provided us with 1 million test cases. the aids foundation has been assisting our clinics and hospitals with counting machines. we also have john hopkins university and other kind persons from the united states who, for brevity of time, i have not mentioned. please accept my apologies, but we appreciate your support. we need continued support good

as you have seen from the still statistics, we have made some achievements and some of the gaps are huge, but have to be closed. we need to continue to work together to save lives. i would like to assure you that tens and is committed and is ready to play its part to the best of our ability to attend the target we have set for ourselves and those set by the united nations. i am pleased that we have made progress in tanzania in all of these objectives while we are still constrained. meeting these challenges is the responsibility for every one of us, foundations, government, ngo, persons of good will, as well as the corporate sector. i applaud your continued in antment, mr. president, and

be cause against hiv/aids. i have no doubt in my mind that you will pursue them to their logical conclusions. i promise you my personal and my government's cooperation in these efforts. with people like you, mr. president, and friends like the u.s. government and the people of united states, i believe together we shall fight and win the war on hiv/aids and achieve our target for an h i v-free generation. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much for outlining what you have seen on the ground and the challenges that still lie ahead.

also, joining us is a man who has done some much infighting hiv/aids, committing $15 billion or five years to combat this globally. welcome the 34 -- the 43rd president of the united states, president george w. bush. [applause] >> thank you. it is great to be here. there's no question that the tanzania has made a great effort in its fight against aids. mr. president, you have been an extraordinarily strong leader along with your dear wife selmon. -- selma. all the family here in tanzania,

we want to give a loud shout out to our friend of shawanbono. [laughter] bono, we thank you for hosting this conference. we will be doing the red ribbon campaign in zambia tomorrow. we're working to extend the reach with the cervical cancer initiative. women with hiv are more likely to get to vocal cancer and is not acceptable -- like the to get cervical cancer and it is not acceptable. the front line of the battle against hiv/aids, tanzania -- today, barbara and i it and laura and jetta are pleased to

see the great success of pe petfar. we were able to call the little baby that likely five years would have died or had contracted aids. there's nothing more joyful than to hold in your arms a 2-year- old child who has benefited from the grassroots efforts here in tanzania and the enormous generosity of the american people. we went to where the entrepreneur used her business to teacher customers about hiv/aids and where to get help and how to prevent it. we are at the ocean road cancer institute, which normally deals with aids, but also deals with cervical cancer associated with aids. world aids day is a fabulous time to say thanks to the thousands of people who are motivated to continue to care

about this battle that can be won. this is also a day to recommit ourselves. i was asked earlier when it was like to come to tanzania on world aids day. it is a day to see success, but it is also to renewed commitment to making sure that we all use our god-given talents. i understand that we are in tight budget times. all nations are going through budgetary struggles. when you go through budgetary struggles, the best thing to do is to set priorities and to focus on that which is effective. there is nothing more affected than petfar. the reason i say that is -- i am not guessing. i not only talk with leaders like this, but the number of people who live today as a result of petfar is staggering.

and there is no greater priority -- and this is something that are american citizens must understand and our government must understand -- there is no greater priority to live up the admonition to whom much is given much as required. i believe we are required to support effective programs that save lives. god bless you. [applause] >> thank you, mr. president. the united states has made great strides in the fight against hiv/aids. president obama has refocused attention on a domestic problem as well. recently, as you all know in this room, the administration not implemented a national hiv-

aids strategy for reducing new infections and improving care and helping people living with the illness. who better to talk about all this than the 44th president of united states. please stand and warmly welcome president barack obama. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you very much, everybody. thank you. thank you, everyone. please have a seat. thank you. it is an honor to be with you today and to follow president kikwete and president bush.

thank you for bringing us together. because of your work across africa, there are children who are no longer starving, mothers who are no longer dying of treatable diseases, fathers who are providing once again for their families. because of all of you, so many people are now blessed with hope. we have members of congress who have done so much for this cause who are here today and we want to thank them. let me also thank president bush for joining us from tanzanian and for his -- from tanzania and for his bold leadership. this is one of his greatest legacy is. that program, more ambitious than leading advocates thought was possible at the time, has saved thousands and thousands and thousands of lives and spurred international action and

lay the foundation for a comprehensive global plan that will save the lives of millions. we're glad that we have the opportunity to carry that work forward. today is a remarkable day. today, we come together as a global community across continents, across states and cultures, to renew our commitment to ending the aids pandemic once and for all. if you go back and you look at the themes of past world aids days, you read them one after another, you will see the story of how the human race has confronted one of the most devastating pandemic in our history. -- pandectpandemics in our hist. it was about ringing the alarm and calling for global action,

proving that this deadly disease was not isolated to one area or one group of people. and that is part of what makes this day so remarkable. back in the early years, few could imagine this day, that we would be looking ahead to the beginning of the end, marking a world aids day that has gone from that early beginning when people were still uncertain to now a theme of getting to zero. few could have imagined that we would be talking about the real possibility of an aids-free generation. but that is what we are talking about. that is why we're here. and we arrived here because of all of you and your unwavering belief that we can and we will beat this disease. because we invested in anti- viral treatment, people who would have died from aids, some of whom are here today, are

living full and vibrant lives. because we developed new tools, more and more mothers are giving birth to children free of this disease. and because of a first -- a persistent focus on awareness, the global rate of new infections is declining. make no mistake. we will win this fight. but the fight is not over. not by a long shot. the rate of new infections may be going down elsewhere, but it is not going down here in america. the infection rate here has been holding steady for over a decade. there are communities in this country being devastated still by this disease. when new infections among young black and gay men increased by nearly 50% in three years, we need to do more to show them that their lives matter.

when latinos are dying sooner than other groups and when black women feel forgotten, even though they account for most of the new cases among women, then we have to do more. this fight is not over. not for the 1.2 million americans were living with hiv right now, not for the americans who are infected every day, this fight is not over for them and it is not over for their families. as a consequence, it cannot be over for anybody in this room. it certainly is not over for your president. since ito office, we have had -- since i took office, we have had a robust conversation on hiv/aids. we have met researchers, faith healers, medical providers, and private sector partners. we have spoken to over 4000 people. out of all those conversations, we drafted a new plan to combat

this disease. last year, we released that plan. our first-ever national hiv/aids strategy. we went back to basics -- prevention, treatment, focusing our efforts where the need is greatest. and we laid out a vision where every american, regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socioeconomic status can get access to life extending care. i want to be clear about something else. since taking office, we have increased overall funding to /aids to record levels with bipartisan support. we have the ryan white care act. as i signed that bill, we ended

the ban on people with hiv entering america. [applause] because of that step, next year, for the first time in two decades, we will host the international aids conference. [applause] so we have done a lot of the past three years. but we can do so much more. today, i am announcing some new commitments. we are committing an additional $15 million for the ryan white program that supports care provided by hiv miracle clinics across the country. we want to -- hiv medical clinics across the country. we want to keep those doors open. we're providing $35 million for aids-drawn assistance programs. i am calling on state governments and pharmaceutical companies and private foundations to do their help to help americans get access to --

to do their part to help americans get access to affordable care. looking back in the history of hiv/aids, you will see that no other country has done more than this country and that is a testament to our leadership in this country, but we cannot be complacent. this is an area where we can look back and take pride that both republicans and democrats in congress have consistently come together to fund this fight. not just here, but around the world. that is a testament to the values we share as americans. it is a commitment that extends across party lines as demonstrated by the fact that president bush, president clinton, and i are joining you all today. since i took office, we increased support for the global fund to fight aids, tuberculosis, and malaria. we have launched a global health initiative that has improved access to health care, helping bring down the cost of vaccines.

for the next five years, it will help to save the lives of 4 million more children. all along, we kept focusing on expanding our impact. today, i am proud to announce that, as of september, the united states now supports and tried -- supports anti-retro viral treatment to 4 million people worldwide. [applause] in just the past year, we provided 600,000 h.i.v.-positive access to drugs so that babies can be worn disease-free. and nearly 13 million people have received care and treatment, including more than 4 million children. so we have some stuff to be proud of. but we have to do more. we are achieving these results,

not by acting alone, but by partnering with developing countries like tanzania and with leaders like president kikwete. we need to refine our strategy's so that we are saving as many lives as possible. we need to listen when the scientific community focuses on prevention. that is why, as a matter policy, we are investing in what works, from medical procedures to promoting healthy behavior. that is why we're setting a goal to providing anti-virus drug to more than 1.5 million pregnant h.i.v.-positive women so they have the chance to give birth to hiv-three babies. we know that treatment is also prevention. today, we're sitting in new target of helping 6 million people get treatment by the end

of 2013. [cheers and applause] so that is two million more people. on this girl -- on this world aids day, here is my message to everyone out there. the global community, we ask you to join us, countries that have committed to the global fund need to give the money that they promised. [applause]

countries that have not made a pledge, they need to do so. that includes -- [applause] that includes countries that in the past might have been recipients but are now in a position to be donors. china and other countries are now in a position to transition in a way that they can help other people. the congress, keep working together. keep the commitments to have made in tact. when some in washington divides us, the fight against this disease has united us across parties, across presidents, and has shown us what we can do when republicans and democrats overcome their humanity over politics. and to all americans, we have to keep fighting. fight for every person who needs our help today, but also fight

for every person who did not live to see this moment. for the rock hudsons and the arthur ashe ands, all of those persons who will close up to the fact of hiv/aids. we have to fight for ryan white and his mother ginnie. fight for magic johnson and mary fisher and every man, woman, and child who, when told they would die from this disease said, no, we are not. we will live. keep fighting for all of them because we can. we can beat this disease. we can win this fight. we just have to keep at it, steady, persistent, today, tomorrow, every day until we get to zero. as long as i have the honor of being your president, that is what this administration will

keep doing. that is my pledge. that is my commitment to all of you. but just make a promise to all of each other. we -- let's make a promise to all of each other. we have come so far. thank you very much. [applause] ♪ ♪ don't you ever be sad ♪ lean on me when times are bad ♪ when the day comes and you are in doubt , i'm coming ♪ hold on, i'm coming way, your lover ♪ if you get home, i will be

your cover ♪ no need to worry because i'm here ♪ no need to suffer because i'm here ♪ so hold on, i'm coming ♪ hold on, i'm coming ♪ hold on, i'm coming ♪ hold on, i'm coming forach out to me satisfaction ♪ call my name >> gentlemen, the panel will begin in approximately five minutes. thank you. ♪ ♪

be sad you ever ♪ lean on me when the times are bad ♪ when the day comes and you are in doubt ♪ ♪ just hold on, i'm coming ♪ hold on, i'm coming ♪ just called long, i'm coming ♪ hold on, i'm coming ♪ don't you worry ♪ here i come ♪ ♪ ain't nobodyace

crying ♪ ain't nobody worried facest no smiling ♪ lying to the races held map me >> within 90 days, every american soldier and every american prisoner will be out of their cells and back in america back where they belong. >> the george mcgovern pledge came nearly a decade after being one of the first senators to speak out publicly against the vietnam war. the senator from south dakota suffered a landslide defeat that year to president nixon. but his groundbreaking campaign changed american politics and

the democratic party. he is featured this week on c- span's "the contenders." live friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> he did not have a lot of romantic ideas about spying. he sought for what it was, a dirty business. >> in "the man nobody knew" carl colby examines the life of his father william colby. >> my father changed my opinion when he was thrown out of the agency. if you watch the film closely and steady him, he is a soldier. he took on the toughest, dirtiest assignments given to him by the president from eisenhower on board. but when it came time for the president to ask him to lie in the congress, he could not do it. >> carl colby on his father

william colby, sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific. >> the new hampshire union leader has invited each of the presidential candidates to sit down for interviews with the newspaper's editors and publishers. today, they spoke with herman cain can he was questioned about allegations of a 13-year extramarital affair as well as the economy and foreign policy. this is one hour. >> you got pretty close to an hour. thank you for coming in. >> thank you. >> c-span has been kind enough to take most of these with the candidates. they do not ask the questions. we do. that we we get to a wider audience. i mentioned to mr. gordon earlier that i would hit you up about the federal reserve, which you served on the regional board. >> regional board. >> i have a couple of questions

about it. one is what do you think people ought to understand about the federal reserve? no. 2, were you surprised at all by the secret loans that they were making to the banks during the bailouts? and number three, what do you think about them helping the europeans? >> a couple? that is three questions. [laughter] first, the thing that i encourage people to understand about the federal reserve is that, right now, they have a dual mandate and they should. they are supposed to contain and manage inflation in order to help keep the dollar down -- the dollar sound. second, they have a mandate that was passed by congress back in the 1970's to try to control unemployment. you cannot hit two targets with

one narrow. the only hero they have is money supply. so i believe -- the only aero they have is money supply. -- the only arrow they have is money supply. in the 1990's, we were faced with the national debt. we were not faced with the international financial crisis. unemployment was not a big deal in the early 1990's when i was on the federal reserve board, the regional board in kansas city. unemployment was right around 5%. we never had to try to hit two targets with one bullet or 1 aerarrow. so it was a moot point. in today's environment, it is not a moot point. so the question is how to fix

the said. >> is that the written mandate or does it come down to the understanding of the fed's role? >> that is the definition of the federal reserve all the way back to the 1930's. >> what was your role in accomplishing this mandate? >> my role was to provide anecdotal business input to what was going on in that region economically. i was in the restaurant business then. we had some bankers on there. we had some people who work in agriculture. a typical board meeting, the professional paid staff of the federal reserve would say, based upon all of that economic analysis, here's what the economy looks like. here's where we see it trending. here is the health of the banks in that particular federal reserve district and on and on. then we would provide anecdotal

feedback as to what was happening in our businesses, what was happening in our sector. i could talk about the restaurant sector. when we saw restaurants fail and when the industry was falling off, that was some input on what was happening to the economy. and then the president of the particular district along with the chief economist, they would recommend whether they thought the interest rate should be raised or lowered, the federal funds rate. the board would have to vote yea or nay. but usually after the analysis and the discussion, they would make a recommendation that the board was comfortable with. my role was to provide recommendations, be a part of the decision and provide a recommendation for that district. then that recommendation goes to washington where the federal

governors would consider what our district recommending and what all of the other districts said. then they had to deliberate on the national economy. >> ron paul has been making a big deal about the secrecy aspect from the federal reserve. >> yes. >> i do not know if you felt any of that when your on the board. given what has come out about the secret loans to banks, what is your position? >> when i was on the board, openness was the order of the day, not secretiveness. >> how was that openness manifested? were they open meetings? were the public is invited? >> the public was not invited to come to the meeting. but everything that went on in the meeting was published in various documents and in various forms. there was the basic book and a couple of other books. any time you wanted to go to the

federal reserve to find out how it operated, the doors were open. they had a public relations department. they were open in that regard. this latest revelation about the secrecy of the federal reserve, i was somewhat surprised. not only was i surprised that they made secret loans, i was surprised at the magnitude of those loans. that came as a shock to me. the only thing i can say that i was shocked is because we did not have those secretive policies. representative ron paul said to and the fed. i would say to fix the fed -- ron paul said to end the fed. i would say to fix the fed. it is not set up to politicize the federal reserve. if you look at other countries around the world where the legislative body can influence

monetary decisions, they have some of the most messed up economies. we are not exactly in great shape, but they are the worst when you allow over- politicization of monetary policies. >> you think -- do you think it is needed to keep a check in inflation? >> yes, i do. it needs to go back to the singular focus and commerce should take more of an oversight role. the commission the federal reserve. some people want to say that a group of big banks got together and a couple of big rich families got together and established the federal reserve totally outside the government. no, the united states congress basically established that. another question that comes up is who owns the fed?

the nimble bank's own the fed. not all banks in the country. banks owned it. in order to join the fed as a member bank can be chartered as a member bank of the federal reserve, there are requirements that the banks have to satisfy. they are the ones who own it because the federal reserve has to keep its books like any other company. in order to be able to take advantage of what they call the federal funds rate, between banks and between the fed and to be a chartered bank, you have to satisfy sultan rules and criteria to be allowed to join the thousands and thousands of banks who are members. that is how we maintain the seamless flow of money across this country. >> the banks that own the fed,

who are involved in the decisions of the fed, on a large scale, they are behind the decision yesterday by the fed to throw in with other central banks across europe to offer the european banks at a very low interest-rate u.s. dollars. we also read that americans are -- american banks are sitting on piles of money they do not want to loan out here in america because of the uncertain business condition. >> right. >> so how is the businessman supposed to react when the fed is propping up europe with low- interest dollars? >> i do not like it. here is what is not happening. the united states should not be the sole one to try to prevent that crisis in europe.

just like in libya -- >> you cannot bring up libya. >> yes, i can. [laughter] you cannot bring up libya, but i can. i have been be done about bringing up libya. as an analogy relative to libya, the president says we will be from behind. we expended more in military resources, over $1 billion more than any european country. they had the most to gain and the most to lose in terms of their ore. most of it goes to europe. they should have taken a leadership role. they should spend more money to support the folks we were trying to support, as an example. we ended up expanding, but they had the most to win or lose.

the refugee problem that would occur, they would have to do with it. they should have wanted to impact the outcome. who has the most to win or lose? europe. if i were president, i would insist that the european countries step up to the plate before the united states would put more of its resources. yes, that would be an impact on the united states because we sell a lot of this to european countries and vice versa. but i do not think we should be the primary save your of that country -- primary savior of that country because many of them have been more negligent than we have relevant to spending. we are in trouble.

we are walking on eggshells. we need to figure out what we will do about hours. that is one of the reasons why i decided to run for the presidency. in my opinion, we do not have the right leadership on this. we have a runaway national debt. $15 trillion and still rising is absurd. we are at 100%. some of those other countries are at 120%, 125%, 150%. some are even at two hundred%. we need to stop this train. i am of the insistence, as president, that our treasury department, which is the one that would have the authority to print some money to help them out, that they stepped up. they need to take a bigger part in solving their problems rather

than it just being perceived that the united stepstates wille to step up for the recession that will happen over there. >> a lot of european leaders are saying they want the imf to back up loans to spain and italy. would you be willing to loan more money to the imf to prevent those countries from defaulting? >> i honestly do not know what that would be if we got something for it. i think that is what the american people would say. we cannot continue to give away money and try to bail them out. we need to get something for it. >> most people would say that what we have gone for it immediately is the big spike in the stock market yesterday, there for our 401 k's have gone

up a phenomenal amount. >> that is a temporary small benefit in my opinion. temporary small benefit. the stock market fluctuates if a presidential candidate coughs the wrong way. [laughter] >> you got all three. i will let these guys ask most of the questions. i want to circle back something that i read in "the wall street journal" profile of you last week. when you finally decided to become involved in politics, when some guy who happened to be black you that you when you went into a meeting with jack kemp, he said that a black republican must be an uncle tom. >> yes. >> some liberals, not all of them, but some cannot understand

how a black guy can be a republican. how does that make you feel? >> i can tell you how that made me feel that day. first, it made me feel angry. then it made me feel in salted that i cannot think for myself. that is the feeling that i had. john mackey, the former football player with the baltimore colts, was also in that entourage that day. he is a friend of camp also. i remember when he called. he said, cain, i need you to go with me to harlem. >> i said what? i need you to go with me to in harlem. why?

i have to go there with black friends i cannot go by myself. [laughter] they did not even want jack kemp to come to harlem and have a meeting in the middle of harlem. it is called the intimidation factor. that is the same factor that causes them to try to intimidate a conservative who happens to be a conservative or republican -- it is the intimidation factor. do not bear be a republican. do not dare vote -- do not dare be a republican. do not dare vote republican. it is an intimidation factor. that stuck with me for days. i had moved to nebraska back in 1986.

it bothered me so much that he was suggesting that i could not think for myself, that i was leaving town on the following week after i had gotten back home for the weekend and i knew i was going past my voter registration office. i stopped at my voter registration office on the way to the airport. when i went to nebraska, i registered independent. i did not know anything about politics in the state. that prevented me from voting in the primary election, but i was more than independent and not so much tied to a party. but i kept thinking about this guy who kept yelling at me that i must be an uncle tom. that is when i registered as a republican. i refused to be intimidated into being a member of a party or to think in a certain way when we live in the united states of

america. >> good answer. "the lan a journal constitution" reports a day that, between october 22 and november 18, there were 70 text messages that came to your phone from ginger white. according to the paper, cain, sent 17 messages to her. what was the nature of these text messages that she sent you? and what were you telling her in your 17 responses? were you telling her to leave you alone? >> hurt text messages to me was asking for financial assistance because she was out of work, had trouble paying the bills, and i

had known her as a friend. she was not the only friend that i had helped in these tough economic times. so her messages to me were relating to needing money for her rent or whatever the case may be. i do not remember the specifics. but she did not have a job. she had told me she was not able to get financial help from family and friends and, quite frankly, i was the only person who was a friend at the time that was in a position to help her. i am a soft-hearted person when it comes to something like that. i have helped members of my church. i have helped members of my family. and i know a lot of other people who have done the same thing. she was asking me to help her. sometimes, it was, quite frankly, desperation.

47 of them were her asking me. i would respond how much and what are you doing about getting a job? that sort of thing. that is why there was a preponderance amount from her and not for me. if i decided to help her, i had to letter that -- let her know that i would helper. >> de joop helter? >> yes, i did. >> to what degree did you help -- did you help her? >> yes, i did. >> to what degree did you help her? how much money did you give her? >> in consultation with my attorney, i cannot reveal that. >> did your wife know about it? >> no, my wife did not know about it. that was the revelation and the surprise. my wife and i have talked about

it. i have explained it to her. my wife understands that i am a soft-hearted and giving person. like a lot of men, not most, if she had been just another man i had held, it would not have raised so much suspicion. my wife is comfortable with the explanation i had given her. >> wendy to tell her? was it after the fact? >> -- when did you tell her? fact?it after the >> yes. >> why do not tell her before? >> retrospect does not necessarily change what we're dealing with. >> you two were friends anyway. >> she did not know we were friends until she came out with

this source. >> were there any threats in these text messages? >> no threats. i had absolutely no threats. no, there was not any indication that there was black male or anything like that. i told you she was a friend. and of story. end of story. >> it is every man's nightmare that something like this would happen. given the reports of her, her financial situation, her history, how did you cross paths? >> we met years ago. i would really like to talk about the economy, energy, and those kinds of things.

we met years ago at a conference. she was one of the organizers and i was the keynote speaker. we struck up a friendship then because she was asking me about her job, her career, and i openly talk with people about decisions they are trying to make. it came about because i was a keynote speaker at a conference in louisville, ky. that is already out there. it was many, many years ago. i did not have an entourage when i was giving a keynote speeches. so she had my contact information. that is how we stayed in touch. >> she was satisfied with your kind responses in her request for money. why did she come out of the blue and made statements and allegations that anyone would

have to know would be extremely damaging? do you know why she did? did anyone tell you? did she tell you? why do you think she did it? >> i do not know. i do not know why. but i have a very strong speculation. someone offered her a lot of money. i was helping her with month-to- month bills and expenses. this is speculation only. someone offered her a lot of money. and one of my objectives is to clear my name and my reputation. should you have walked before you ran? you are a successful radio by in atlanta. i do not think a lot of people know on the campaign trail.

but should you have sought public office at a lower level before going into this maelstrom? i do know if it is surprise, chevron, or shock -- chagrin or shock, but you have -- >> been beat up. [laughter] >> would it have been smarter for you to seek lower office to get the experience, get your footing, did the right staff, etc., before you went for the whole enchilada? >> know, for two reasons. number one, -- no, for two reasons. number one, i have spent my time climbing the corporate ladder. i am 65 years old.

i did not spend my time climbing the political ladder. >> but look at newt gingrich. >> how much time do i think i have left? secondly, my id objective was to try to have as big an impact in helping to solve america's problems as much as i could. the radio show was having an impact in the greater atlanta area because it was very successful. >> how long were you on? >> i was on for five years. two years and i would substitute for neil boards. then i had a weekend show. then three years prior to running for office, i had a review show three nights a week called the herman cain read your

show. it forced me to talk about the economic issues every night with my callers. that forced me to no way more about the problems this country faces than i really never wanted to know. that is one of the things that caused me to become more and more frustrated, with the the the lack of leadership or the lack of solid decisions as it relates to things like the economy. i know that people who run for office said we need to simplify the tax code. i would say why not throw it out and put in a new structure? that is when i came up with the nine-nine-nine plan. -- 9-9-9 plan. even though it is a long shot that i could impact driving solutions relative to national debate and being in a position

so it was those two factors that caused me to say, hey, why not? >> before all this stuff hits the fan. not just the sexual allegations, but other stuff -- you were going up in the polls and you have the bully pulpit to do that sort of thing. i do not know where all of this leaves you going forward. your 9-9-9 plan, you must know by now. >> they do not have income tax. the 9-9->> we paid the federal e tax. we do not pay state income tax. >> that is correct. >> it will replace five taxes.

>> the rate for the federal tax will be reduced to the extent that it is going to be even with new hampshire people having to x?y the national sales tax > >> you do not all like sales tax. this is not on top of. this is replacing. it is replacing it. >> i filled my tax argument. >> as an independent, you cannot wait in the primaries. what about new hampshire? >> no. >> you want to pitch it not only to the public by like-minded independents. democrats cannot change. they have to change in advance to becoming an independent.

it drives the parties crazy. independents are the largest registration and america. when they say the republican ballot, they become a republican. they can say changing back to an independent. they can do that in this state. you might want to pitch that. >> bthe part i'm trying to drive home, if you look at your federal income tax and your payroll tax combined, 99 replaces that. for most people that will go down. it is a sales tax but not a state sales tax. >> the guy making $70,000 a year. he is paying half of the payroll tax. the company is paying half. he is paying the federal income tax. what would that be roughly he is paying? >> and $70,000 family of four --

i will do $50,000. they came at about $1,000 a head less in taxes if you walk through the calculations. >> that is $1,000. with your 999? >> yes. >> your total taxes will go down by about 1000-$1,100. >> have you have any evidence or questions that caused you to want to tweak this? >> no. here is why. it is a complete plan. it is that the medication -- it is not a modification. >> one part is you would do away with home exemptions. >> correct. >> i read criticism of that being that while it might be a good school over a longer term,

you intend to do it all at once in one year. did they lose it all. >> when you throw out the tax code, that is step one. he not only fell out that exemption, you throw out all of the loopholes for everybody. all of the loopholes. 999 treat everybody the same. to want to put in the home exemption @ in 999 does not make sense. >> but how you ratchet it back. >> i am a bold thinker. i propose bold solutions. the we have some bold crises that we face. i know that is risky. that is my nature. what is the problem? i take on the challenge.

>> i want to ask you a question about your business. you have said about some of the debates, is it coke or pepsi? that was down by driven. you relied on your business acumen where you may not know the answer but he would have the best path and rely on the military for the answer. do you think you have been well served by your campaign staff? based on some of the problems you have gotten into? >> i think i have. >> you must have had some "come to jesus" meetings. >> i have. let's look at one example. some of the political consultants would say we did not handle this very well. we did not handle the last one. we did not handle the first one of the second one. we did not handle it. you know?

but i believe that we did. for the following reasons. you have to look at the individuals. the very first one that broke, we were tipped off by -- who published that for story? politico. that is right. they said they're going to do a story. >> that is correct. there has but other things besides the sexual-harassment things. >> we have to make a separate decision. there is no one size fits all. and this particular case, they told us there would write a story. we did not know what would be in it. as a businessman, you do not respond to something if you do not know what is going to be in it. i made the decision to wait until it is.

we knew they were going to write something. >> they would not give us any documentation. they did not say anything about who it was. they do said it would be involving sexual harassment charges. it does not make sense. when it came out, rather than take two or three days so i could get prepped, i was ready to go out and say what i knew about it from day one. i got criticized because of nuances in language. but i would do it all over again. that is my style. to wait to three days and allow a new cycle to come to all the conclusions that they want to

come to even though i may not have a difference between a settlement and an agreement, in the morning i said about, what settlement?" since this happened 14 or 15 years ago, i did not wake of the morning thinking about exactly what happened clearly in my mind 14 or 15 years ago. i just knew that the charges were found baseless. the fact that the word settlement was used, i said it was no settlement, by the end of the day i was saying that it was an agreement. some people said you changed your story. i did not. i remembered specifically as the day went on that it is an agreement between that particular employee and the rest from. >> it is unfortunate that it is dominating the conversation.

the thing that you want to get into the race for, to have a bold plan, was to get started. >> as soon as i saw, i told my staff i do not know where. i do not remember her name. i do not remember her voice. she did it on a monday. we were in san francisco or i had to give a speech. they would do a press conference the next day. i'm not afraid to go in front of the press. we were criticized for maybe not handing but perfectly. i do not know what that means.

it depends on who is criticizing its. >> that is ok. to clarify, i was thankful to be one of the few reporters on the call the other day. you talked about an assessment. there is the impression that one of the options you are looking at was to get out of the race. mr. gordon made it a diminished possibility talking. he said that we are full speed ahead. people are reading too much into a. it is how we allocate resources. getting out of this race for better or for worse, one of the

options that you are assessing right now. >> it is an option. we were not slowing down. we were keeping all commitments. we are reassessing several factors. this adjustment that we were not going to put the brakes on until we made a decision. family, supporters, fund- raising, and our strategy. >> there is a meeting downtown. >> reporters are surely support of. >> if your wife asked you to get out, would to get out? >> yes. my wife would not ask me to get out. she would not ask me to get out. i will make a decision based

upon how all of this stuff has affected her. >> there is a period of time where we should work. i guess you have a conference. >> we have a grand opening of our georgia headquarters on saturday. >> to not try to pin me down. i do have my own timetable. i do have my own timetable. >> what other factors will force you out of that raise ta-- race?

>> family is number one. it was good to answer be kept rephrasing the question. the second one would be if financial backers started to not want to contribute because, and i have heard this from some people, and they see this cloud not going away. i have not been convicted of anything in the court of public opinion. the media drives the court of public opinion. just then the last three weeks i have been, you know, accused of three different situations. every time a new story comes on television, it mentions sexual- harassment charges. that is inaccurate.

they were found baseless. they are false accusations. they were false. they were not proven. every time they are called, that just keeps saying sexual- harassment rather than false accusation. >> there are different points in their lives. >> my only concern is my situation. >> quite frankly, one of the things i have learned in this whole thing is that running for president has become a very dirty game. it is a dirty game.

ok? this -- there are 33 audiences at work. -- 3 audiences at work. you have the media that are bad. not all people in the media are bad. some are good. this summer truly professional. i mean that. there are some that are truly not professional. some bat like to play politics predict some that like to pay politics. that is traditional media, mainstream media, a cable, print, internet. that breaks down into a whole lot of categories. there is a whole lot of fringe media on that like the internet. illiberal sites that have not liked me from the beginning because i was conservative have not let up.

you have the media. secondly, we have the political class. the establishment as part of that. this is part of the political class. the third audience is we the people. i have gotten totally different responses and reactions from those three audiences as you would imagine. the media class only was to talk about that. the establishment says this is a distraction. it is. you cannot get the nomination because of the cloud. that is the way they think. the people are the ones that are saying we love your solutions,

your optimism, you know, i do not drop out. it is not an option. that always has to be an option. it is a business. one part of the assessment is what will drive us going forward? >> nothing is perfect any more. here is a state where you can get directly to the people. you spend some time here. in terms of getting out, you are there. i reject that notion. are you going to try to reject these other two classes and go to we the people? >> that has been our approach all along. that is why we are resonating.

>> anybody from that political class call you to commiserate and say hang in there? >> i did talk with one other person that will remain nameless. we were talking about some other substantive issues. >> the campaign manager suggested the perry campaign was behind it. you said they are attacking my character and my name in order to bring me down. >> i know you were not then.

people predict i believe it is a network of people who would not like to see me challenge president obama as the republican nominee. >> do you think democrats are running id? >> i think they are democrats and some by the republicans. when i say "they" it is not just one side of the aisle.

>> the ticket and a extremely -- you took it and an extremely conservative sector. where do you see it in dealing with the mid east? >> they do not like israel. the bar is what was keeping things calm. i think it makes for a very dangerous situation. i think it depends on what they are doing going for with egypt.

we have several billion dollars in aid to egypt, primarily because mubarak was maintaining calm between egypt and israel. he is out. we do not know who the new leader is going to be. if i were president, i would make it real clear that if they do not want to honor the relationship with israel that they have had, we're not going to honor their relationship for the aid we have provided. the cannot have both ways. it comes down to economic influence. >> halogen now deal with this blockade? -- how would you now deal with this blockade? >> we would make sure we know the facts.

they're doing an investigation to determine it. that is where i start. for example, we are not sure based on public record that we have read that the nato military is not provoked. this is a whole analysis of where we go. it is done for tenants -- i do think it is unfortunate. it will create different pressures as to how they survived. they will figure out a way. it opened some additional pressures on our men and women.

>> he had no evidence to suggest a tax on the british embassy was orchestrated. what do you believe was behind it? how president came have responded? >> that is a hypothetical. it gets back to what we know. we know they're not our friend. we know that. the british are our friends. until we know all of the facts associated with this, it gets back to know the facts before you say what you would do. >> you are already freezing the business. that means they know enough information that that is an

action they would take. >> you mean you would support the action? >> both. >> after we did our analysis, it have donean means theirs, that is great. i want to make sure that we were not just following suit but that we did our own analysis. >> if mr. kane had a last thought the week of pass on to our readers and c-span audience about why you are the man. >> america has become a nation of privacy. by have recognized this crisis. we have a national security pricecrisis.

a lot of things are not clear. my approach and philosophy is an extension of the reagan philosophy. peace through strength and clarity. we lack a lot of clarity in our relationships. peace is our mission. it always is. it always has been. the strength comes from military straight, economic strength, and moral strength. we talked about our relationships. the united states comes down to economic. we are not going to have dollars to spend on our military to try and help keep peace in parts of the world by offering incentives.

everything is too fragile. i have the lowest number of ships in our fleet today since 1915. the world is not safer. we have the economic crisis. 40 million people are out of work. -- 14 million people are out of work. no projected growth for this year. people are out of work. they cannot find jobs. businesses are in a state of divide. they're not in the state of growth. these three things alone and the

fact that i recognize the seriousness is why i am the man. you guys are very civilized. >> thank you. that was just a timing issue. glad they got a chance to do this.

what was a relative to the g.d.p.? i do not remember the exact time frame. national debt and has gone up more depending on how far back you go. no problem.

thank you. it is overwhelming. i'm in the jobs. you got it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> up next, a senate hearing on financial sanctions against the central bank of iran. and the presidential election campaign fund. isn beeherman cain interviewed. mmorow's "washington

journal," elisabeth grieco. "washington journal" begins live the 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> they did not have a lot of romantic ideas. he saw it for what it was. >> carl colbty examines the life of a cia spy master. >> my father changed after he was thrown out of the agency. if you watch the film closely and steady him, he is a soldier. he took on the dirtiest assignment given him to the president. when it came time for the

president to ask him to lie and mislead congress, he cannot do it. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern. >> here at the candidates are saying from the campaign trail. >> there is a third package is innovation and growth. it is the best. >> families like yours, young people like the ones here today, including the one to were just chanting at me, your the reason i ran for office in the first place. >> he said every household with a $25,000 a year. i've not met one i one who told saved $2,500 aid they year.

>> read the latest comments. >> at the senate hearing, they are urged lawmakers to reject the amendment which would place sanctions on foreign financial institutions that work with the central bank. the amendment later passed by a vote of 100-0. the hearing is just over two hours. >> i'm going to make brief remarks. we want to hear from the witnesses. >> i think everybody understands that the question of iran's relationship with its neighbors

and the world is much on everybody's mines. there could not be a more critical challenge in terms of proliferation and questions of terrorism in the region. i think everyone of us are deeply concerned about how we might be able to change this current equation in a way that is rational and beneficial to all parties. we have two very capable witnesses here this morning to help us examine this complicated situation. i hope they will help us shed light on how we can positively influence tehran's behavior and confront this question of nuclear weapon is asian. wendy sherman has appeared many

times before the committee. today marks her first appearance as undersecretary. i am welcome to -- welcome her here in that capacity. david cohen is from the treasury department. they are both very confident, dedicated, and experienced public servants. we are happy to have them here to answer our questions today. obviously with the kuds force allegedly plotting to kill the saudi ambassador in the united states right here in washington, d.c., and we i.a.e.a. issuing a report about iran's activities relative to nuclear processing, these haleh the strategic challenge that we face.

i am not going to say more i am. to listen carefully and look forward to the testimony of both of our witnesses. senator lugar. >> mr. chairman, i join you in welcoming our distinguished witnesses. we hope it will eliminate administrative strategy towards iran's nuclear program and other activities and the middle east. iran continues to be a direct threat to united states national security. the security of israel and other u.s. interest in the region. the october disruption of an alleged plot to assassinate the saudi ambassador in the united states implicated the iranian government. the regime appeared to be complicit on the attack of the british diplomatic embassy in tehran.

how mosque continues to undermine international efforts to promote peace in the middle east. trainingle support and for militants in iraq and afghanistan have threatened the united states and coalition forces. iran's leaders have issued cynical statements of support for this year's democratic movements across the middle east and north africa even as they suppress dissent at home. what -- i into. five years since the iranian government's -- the human rights situation in iran has not improved. the regime persist in its persecution of many political activists, lawyers, students, and filmmakers.

iranian citizens lack basic freedoms that we hold dear, including freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and the freedom not -- the freedom to choose our government through transparent elections. it is important to keep in mind that those who continue to pay a personal cost for expressing their opposition to the iranian regime our utmost in our thoughts. against this backdrop, iran continues advancing towards a nuclear program capability. the i.a.e.a. board of governors passed a unanimous resolution on november 18 calling on iran to comply fully with its obligations under the security county -- security resolutions and the i.a.e.a. resolutions. the move comes after the agency reported on november 8 that iran continues to violate its obligations to suspend all enrichment related and heavy water related projects and

expressed serious concerns about the possible military dimensions of iran's nuclear program. on november 21, the united states strengthen bilateral sanctions against iran targeting entities that contribute to iran's abilities to develop petroleum and chemical resources. designating energies and individuals involved with iran's nuclear activities and labeling iranian financial institutions as primary money-laundering concerns. these new sanctions build on a bilateral framework of existing measures in the comprehensive iran sanctions and accountability and investment act of 2010 and the iran sanctions act.

additionally, the u.k. announced new restrictions that cut off all financial ties between british financial institutions and iranian banks. canada also imposed further sanctions, prohibiting financial transactions with iran and expanding the list of prohibited goods for export. the european union announced new measures that will ban as european companies from doing business with an expanded list of firms and organizations. all of these steps are significant. by themselves, they are unlikely to be decisive in moving iran towards accepting a verifiable and to its nuclear weapons program. our task continues to be the achievement of an international consensus in favor of sanctions that would present the iranian regime with a stark choice between continuing their nuclear weapons program and preserving economic viability of their country. we know how difficult this

might be to achieve. sanctions are prone to certain conventions and can create unintended consequences. we also know that some nations will not be full participants in a robust sanctions regime against iran. others may be obstacles. but international will pour a decisive sanction strategy has strengthened as iran's intransigence has continued. we have seen indications of fisher's within iran's government as the contents with high unemployment, inflation, and dismal prospects for economic growth. popular upheaval against the repressive and syrian government not only weakens iranian influence in the region, it understand it -- underscores the domestic risk it assumes by occurring the consequences that come with nuclear noncompliance. the united states should be

exploring all options to intensify the economic pressure on the iranian government while working to construct a more comprehensive approach to sanctions that has been achieved thus far. this should be a top priority of the administration and the congress. as i frequently advocate, we need to devote substantial assets to communicating directly with the iranian people and supporting their unfettered access to the internet and social media outlets. the iranian regime blocks satellite broadcast, internet access in order to control and manipulate information coming into and out of iran. the united states satellite tv, radio, and internet operations all offer important lifelines to beleaguered human-rights activists and supporters of democratic reforms.

access to communications technology can be a powerful stimulus for change as we have seen during the arab spring. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses regarding the administration's plan for further isolating the regime in tehran, what is being done to enhance economic sanctions, and does the administration have a strategy for overcoming obstacles posed by china, russia, and other nations. >> thank you, senator lugar. secretary sherman, if you would lead off. we look forward to having a good dialogue with you. >> thank you, very much. thank you for inviting me and my colleague, u.s. treasury undersecretary david cohen, to discuss the administration's all of government approach to the multiple threats posed by iran, its nuclear ambitions, its support for international terrorism, its destabilizing activities in the region, and its human rights abuses at home.

before we start, i must note we have yet another example this week of iran recklessly -- reckless destabilizing this regard. the storming of the british embassy was a dangerous front to the international community and the government of iran's disregard to protect the above platte -- diplomats -- in this practice, we stand with our close colleagues in the united kingdom and are encouraged by many others who were showing their support. our overall policy regarding iran is clear. first and foremost we are determined to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. iran's illicit nuclear activity is one of the greatest concerns we face as both the chairman and ranking member have said. since this in administration took office, we have built and led a global coalition to have the toughest set of sanctions today.

president ahmadinejad himself characterized our sanctions as the heaviest economic onslaught in history. a multilateral policy of increasing pressure on iran has been effective. in january 2009, iran appeared united and regionally influential while the international community was divided on how to address their nuclear activity. after three years of increasing pressure, the regime is regionally isolated and the international community is united in its determination to prevent a nuclear-arms iran. just 10 days ago, this administration intensified the pressure. targeting the pressured -- the petrochemical industry, bringing the total to over 280 designations under executive or 12382 and identifying iran as a money-laundering concern under the u.s. patriot act.

these augment the broad portfolio already provided by congress. the list is long. we proposed the first sanctions ever under the iran sanctions act. earlier this year, the state department sanctioned 16 foreign companies in may, including entities in china, venezuela, and belarus. we have already sanctioned 11 senior iranian officials and the three entities, including the islamic revolutionary guard corps. all of these sanctions demand a whole of government approach and the state department works very closely with the department of treasury.

we will elaborate after our opening on our work together. the key to this and all we have done over the last three years is we are not alone in our policy responses and sanctions on iran. today, the european union has met to formalize additional sanctions on roughly 180 individuals and entities. as you know, the u.k. closed its embassy in iran and kicked iranian diplomats out of the u.k. on november 21, the u.k. and canada adopted similar sanctions to isolate iran's financial sector. three days earlier, the iaea board of governors passed a resolution urging iran to come clean about possible military dimensions of its nuclear program. the final vote was 32-2,

overwhelming by any standard. on that same day, the united nations general assembly adopted saudi arabia's resolution condemning the assassination plot against its ambassador to the united states. a clear majority supported that resolution. more than one-fourth of un member states supported that. sanctions on iran are no exception. we are already looking forward to what comes next. iran's greatest economic resource is clearly its oil exports. sales of crude oil line the regime's pockets, sustain its human rights abuses, and feed its nuclear ambitions like no other sector of the iranian economy. the obama administration supports putting pressure on demand -- on iran. that includes well-targeted

sanctions against the central bank of iran abruptly time as part of a carefully phased and sustainable policy towards bringing around iranian compliance. the ander national community's concerns with iran's community -- nuclear program -- on november 21, for the ninth year in a row, the un general assembly rebuked iran for its series of human rights abuses by the largest margin ever. this highlights the regime of free systematic oppression of its citizen's freedom. we continue to collaborate with world leaders, religious leaders, and ngos. the door remains open and update decide to engage seriously with us to resolve the serious concerns we have with their nuclear program. we are clear that we distinguish between how we deal with the inexcusable behavior of the iranian regime and our broader interactions with the

iranian people. that is why we are watching a virtual embassy tehran. this will provide iranians with accurate information about our policy. we also engaged iranians through social media, including a facebook page and twitter account and through our broadcast tools, voice of america. we are taking measures to prevent iran from jamming satellite signals. these actions make clear our sincere desire to engage the iranian people and further expand the internal debate among the iranian leadership. this engagement with the iranian people alongside unbending pressure of the iranian leadership to comply with this obligation forms the core of u.s. policy towards iran. i look forward to discussing this in greater detail for your questions. thank you. >> secretary cohen. >> chairman kerry, cracking member lugar, and distinguished members of the committee, we are here to discuss the treasury

department's contracted -- contribution to the integrated strategy to address the threat posed by iran's nuclear activity and its extensive support of terrorism. as recent events have made clear, we are at a critical crossroads in our effort to bring consequential pressure to bear on iran. report,e.a.'s recent the failed plot to assassinate the saudi arabian ambassador to the united states, and the attack on the british embassy are only the recent reminders of the grave and multifaceted threat we face from iran. it is more than -- more important than ever that we work together with the international community to increase by natural pressure on iran, including through an effective, well-designed, and well-targeted strategy to further isolate the

central bank of iran, an institution that has long been cut off from the united states. before turning to specific actions against the cbi, i want to explain our recent action identifying iran as a primary money-laundering concern under the paycheck act. this action builds on the work we have been doing for several years to address the full spectrum of iranian illicit conduct, including nuclear and missile proliferation, human rights abuses, misuse of the international financial system, and support for terrorist groups worldwide. a critical element in these efforts has been sanctions on approximately two-dozen iranian banks for facilitating iranian illicit conduct. the depth and breadth of iranian institutions involvement

in illicit activity expands beyond this group. on november 21, we took the unprecedented step of identifying the entire iranian financial sector, including the iranian central bank, as posing a risk to global financial systems. this action under section 311, provides new information on the role of iran's central bank in facilitating illicit conduct by supporting iran's designated banks. by presenting an ambiguous public record of iran's illicit conduct across all of iran's financial systems, we are sending a clear message to the world's banked -- any financial institution that transacts with an iranian bank runs a great rest of facilitating iran's illicit activities.

the u.s. is not acting alone. the u.k. and canada took similarly strong actions on november 21 to protect their financial sectors from iranian threat. the result is that iran is now cut off entirely from three of the world's largest financial sectors. our approach are paying off. iran is now facing unprecedented levels of financial and commercial isolation. the number and quality of foreign banks willing to transact with iranian financial institutions have not dropped over the past year. they have been able to attract foreign investments leading to a projected loss of $14 billion a year through 2016. the economy today is struggling with than any time since the revolution. this is found in the chart appended to my testimony, which shows the erosion that iran has

been unable to halt. the west has imposed the most extensive sanctions ever. andy day, a rand's banking trade activities and agreements are -- iran's banking and trade activities and agreements are being monitored. we will sustain as much pressure as necessary to bring iran to meet its international obligations. to that end, we are keenly focused on applying additional pressure on the central bank of iran. we welcome nicolas sarkozy's call for multilateral action. we recognize that coordinated action could have a particularly powerful impact on iran's access to the international financial system and the ability to access the hard currency it earns from oil sales.

we welcome the opportunity to continue to work with congress on a workable and effective approach to targeting their central bank. we share the same goal. we must impact iran pose a bottom line. the key to achieving -- iran's bottom line. the key to achieving this goal is to work in concert to reduce exposure to iranian oil experts. now more than ever it is imperative that we act in a way that does not threaten the coalition of international partners. we must bring serious and lasting pressure to bear on iran, including through coordinated pressure on the cbi. that is not the only avenue available to us to bring pressure to bear on iran.

we have a number of tools to enhance the financial and economic pressure on iran. we're eagle -- we are eager to work with congress to develop new tools to apply new pressure. iran continues its path of defiance, we will find new and innovative ways to impose new and ever more costly sanctions on iran. we will continue to work with congress on this vitally important national security issue. thank you. >> let me begin by asking you, if i may -- i know you are both aware, obviously, of the kirk amendment to the defense authorization bill on the floor now. this would seek to impose sanctions against entities, including other central banks, that trade with the central bank of iran.

i know what your position is, and they have a letter here from secretary brightener to chairman leaven expressing opposition to the administration, but i think it would be helpful to members of the committee if you could discuss in some detail what the problems are with that amendment and how it does or does not supplement what you are trying to do and why you think there is a better approach. begin, why don't i addressing that question. at the outset, it is important to emphasize that we completely share the goal that animates the kirk-menendez amendment. we are completely committed to delivering real and sustained pressure on iran to bring them to understand the choices before them. the concern that we have with this amendment is that we think it risks two things that we want to avoid.

one is that it risks fracturing the international coalition that has been built up over the last several years to bring pressure to bear on iran. especially today, in the aftermath of what has occurred in tehran over the last several days and the aftermath of the iaea report, and in the growing sense of urgency internationally with respect to iran's growing nuclear program, that we have the opportunity to work cooperatively and collaborative lee with our international partners to bring additional pressure to bear on iran. the amendment, however, would focus the most powerful sanction that we have, the termination of access to the united states, on the largest financial institutions and central banks of some of our closest partners. it is our sense that we are more likely to achieve the cooperation and the coordinated action to bring pressure to bear on the cbi and on iran more broadly if we approach this issue through an effort to

coordinate action voluntarily against the cbu, -- cbi, rather than to the threat of coercion that is contained in the amendment. >> can you flesh out why that is so threatening to some of our friends? what does it end up doing to them? >> the way this amendment would operate is that it would say to a foreign financial institution, and in this instance we are talking about the largest financial institutions and our closest partners as well as central banks in our closest partners. it would say to them that if they continue to process oil transactions with the central bank of iran, their access to