bamboozle the united states in believing that iran is committed to reform or that the supreme leader is allowing rouhani an opportunity to negotiate a deal. but we do not know if it is a deal we can live with or that the international community can live with. there's three generations of nuclear proliferation in iran. the first one was basically a glorified national science project. iran 10 years ago had 164 centrifuges, which is basically uraniuminery that spins at supersonic speeds to reduce weapons grade fuel. 19,000iran has centrifuges. it has a multibillion-dollar atomic infrastructure.

it has given iran breakout capability, which means that iran can produce now weapons grade material before we can detect it and act against it which is in fundamental conflict with the objective of the united states. that is iran will not get nuclear weapons, not the containment of a nuclear weapon once they get it. preventionctive of may be lost. and in addition to 19,000 centrifuges, iran also constructed the first heavywater reactor for newtonian enrichment, another bomb -- four plutonium enrichment, another bomb fuel. there would not be this discussion and iran would not be at the table unless we imposed sanctions, because that is the only thing that responds to.

i think if we take sanctions off the table, you take away the leverage, and assuming that your honey is sincere about this. he ran the nuclear program for ingyears prior to be elected president. remember the iran-iraq war. they were at war for eight years. it was basically a standoff. nobody one. said it waskhamenei like drinking poison from a chalice. then the united states went in , in three weeks, what iran cannot do in three years. guess what you run stopped doing .- enriching uranium so we have been through this, and i think the united states played by-- gets leaders in iraq. they push us away when they are doing well. they poll as in when they are being challenged. and same in afghanistan and in

iran. i think we need to be very careful before we begin to sanctions.ief from because the iranian economy is a mess. it dropped six percentage points last year. they do not even have the capacity to refine the oil that they produce for so many other countries. europe stopped buying oil from iran. china continues to buy oil from iran -- says we will continue to buy it from you so long as it is deeply discounted. which further hurts iran. the vast majority of the people in that country are under the age of 30, and they are sick and tired of these repressive regimes. and because social media, , youtube, theyet see how the rest of the world is living. and the tools of social media are not only used for aspirational purposes and seeing how everybody else is living,

but highly effectively for organizational purposes tehran and is not like new york city. it is not like -- it is like los angeles. it is spread out. but the regime is good at keeping people down. we need to be very, very careful. i know i went a little bit longer here. i just ask -- brief comment. >> thank you, maybe we will have them comment with someone else. thank you so much, mr. higgins. next. >> thank you. thatemen, a couple things bear repeating over and over again. this is a key quote out of iran earlier in the decade. the dilemma was if we offered a complete picture, the picture itself could lead us to the un security council and not providing a complete picture would also be a violation of the resolution and we could have them refer to the security council for not implementing the resolution.

the next one from last week when , thedent rouhani said geneva deal means the surrender the greaters before nation of iran. in that context, it seems to me that all of the american people, liberals, conservatives, republicans, democrats, people who do not care, can see exactly what is happening here. the only folks that genuinely support this somehow come out of academia with some hope for a better solution that is not based in reality. my first questions i think would go to mr. albright. it seems like you're kind of in favor of the deal. i want to get your context. do you understand it is a deal about nonproliferation? is that what we are trying to get to? is it your opinion that it hits us a little closer to nonproliferation? >> the goal of the deal is to ensure that iran does not get

nuclear weapons. but it is a comprehensive solution that would get this, not the interim deal. >> but we do not trust these folks. they have no reason to have our trust. there is a three-year study published late -- published by the pentagon that intelligence agencies are not organized or equipped to detect the development of nuclear weapons or the ramping up of existing arsenals and foreign countries. are you familiar? >> yes. >> have you ever been to iran? >> i have not. >> it is a big country. >> i have studied it a lot. >> aren't to find big things in little things. >> in that study, you have to , it has, in iran exposed many secret sites. >> many, which is great. there is not a lot of margin for error. do you think the agreement can be adequately verified? >> the interim deal is limited steps. yeah, i think that can be adequately verify. i think many things that are

important to not included in that. in order to verify those, there will be have to be a great ill of stepped-up clarification. for the intelligence community, any efforts to improve their ability is good -- >> i testimony, didn't you already say that earlier this month iran has already been somewhat intractable and nonresponsive? >> that is right. you asked me if it can be done. i think it can be. context that everything in the world is possible -- >> no, not possible. if iran is not cooperative, they are not providing verification conditions. that is an early test -- >> working within the context of there is no -- in my mind, anyhow, no margin for error. >> i have lived in israel, so i think there is plenty of room to design and verification regime. >> but you are not in israel now. >> well, obviously not.

>> ambassador wallace, have we toeady moved from prevention containment? >> i surly hope not, but it is certainly looking that way. >> do we know how that is measured? >> with the expertise in this panel am a absent entries that foley in 100% cooperate, there is no such thing as a verification that works. so we are deluding ourselves in the context of iran that additional protocol plus -- i do not want to speak for my colleagues, are great to ask for, but as for 100% operational, verification equals bomb. >> back to my question regarding containment or prevention. we have been told we are going to prevent, prevent, prevent. have we moved to containment? 10, 15e made this deal years ago and locked in at an early stage of the nuclear

program, i would say we are not. now it sure looks like we are containing. >> mr. jones -- >> [inaudible] >> so when did we get to containment, in your opinion? 2008,o not know, maybe 2009. it was a gradual process. >> if we get the sanctions present, if we got containment not008 and 2009 and did admit it, if the sanctions would have continued, would we have been able to get act to prevention, and your opinion? >> if we had the sort of sanctions we're talking about now back then or 2006, i think so. now i think it is too late. >> thank you. thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you very much. mr. schneider. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to thank the witnesses for sharing their insights

today. i want to thank you for what you all do everyday. i do not think a day goes by where i am not reading something from all three. the joint plan of action is an agreement fraught with dangers. are are known and some unknown. i got the point was well taken, but the real test of these negotiations is not the joint plan of action to the final conference of agreement -- final comprehensive agreement and ending iran's nuclear ambitions and rolling back and rolling back in dismantling the nuclear program. i consider the joint plan of action, as necessary, that it not be allowed to extend beyond its parameters, ideally six months, longest 12 months. we must lock and close any and we must lockfor -- and close any and all pathways for iran to get a nuclear weapon. uranium enrichment, both in

centrifuges and laser. we must address the military aspects. what you said in the testimony, a comprehensive deal can only be released at the uncertainties are just. that is crucial. mr. albright, you're wrapped up your written testimony and i think it is worth restating. an adequate conference of solution will depend on the united states and its allies now making clear to iran what is required of it and that this is a pivotal moment. this is where my question comes into you all. as we talk about passing a resolution in the house, instant -- extending what we passed last 7 -- last summer. i am worried that in six months, 12 months, we are not quite there, then the question will be, the argument will be do not do more sanctions now because we're close. i am worried the 12 months from now, if we're almost there but not quite, the argument will be

that we must wait now. i am further worried that as we sit here today, if we can clearly and transparently indicate to the iranians, not just what is expected that the sanctions that will follow a failure of these negotiations will be orders of magnitude greater than what they faced when it brought them to the table back in november, that that makes it easier to stay on this path to peacefully ending their nuclear ambitions. i guess my question to the panel administration or if congress passes a resolution and the house that says this is what we intend to do if we cannot go down this path but we want to stay on the path that ds in ally en comprehensive solution, why is that not a good strategy? >> i think it is. it is important to lay out the criteria that the agreement could reach or should ascribe

to. minimum conditions need to be laid out. i think it would be very useful. i think it would certainly clarify things to iran. it would also make sure that the administration understands what the minimum conditions are. because, again, and the heat of the moment, there are tendencies to make compromises. i think congress is a very important role and i hope it can work out to lay out basic conditions the agreement should reach. i think the senate started that in the recent legislation introduced and that can be extended. i hope it is done, because iran is certainly doing it. doing it privately inside iran, i am sure, and it it is doing it publicly. >> remover what we're talking about here. we're saying we're not going to do business with you. we're going to close all

pocketbooks. we are not invading the. we're simply saying we're not liking your policy and we will close our pocket book. somehow that has turned into war mongering and is in debate. i do not know about you all, but if somebody does something i do not like, i do not want to do business with them. withould not do business iran. that is what we're debating. is that so controversial? we cannot allow partisanship to enter the debate and say we are war mongering because we do not want to open our pocket book. agree with both of them. but in a somewhat different way if i may say so. first, i think it is important to put the red lines there. there needs to be clear message. is important for the discussion. having said that -- >> having said that, i'm going to interrupt yet again.

i am rather disappointed with the time because we're going to be voting. thank you, sir. you, madam chairwoman. and thanks to the witnesses. ambassador, i appreciate that last comment. when i am hearing these things to people say that trying move forward to sanctions, that says we need to invade iran, that is not acceptable to me. the residence and not too long ago he thought the chance of a deal succeeding was about 50-50. i was alarmed by that. here is a guy who is supposed to believe what they are doing and he still thinks it is essentially a coin toss. it seems to me that understanding the nature of this regime, we may never be able to actually have an agreement that works just given who they are. on why would you go easy sanctions? seems to me the way would be to apply more pressure on them, show them that we are serious about this, and maybe they would be able to reevaluate whether it is actually in their interest.

it was mentioned earlier, but , it of these military sites does not seem to me that we would be able to really monitor what goes on there. >> you are right. absent cooperation, we would not be able to. i want to give some of my time because he was cut off a couple times. but i was talking about sanctions and how wonderful and a bipartisan way this committee and other members of congress have said that sanctions should be. now i respectfully implore you are to say what your red lines are on enrichment, the heavywater reactor, and the like. olli was about to refer to that, i think. i have had the privilege of testifying before you all many times. i have never asked anything like this. but lee's, each one of you should go on the record with the president, the future resident, as to what your red lines are. i beg you to do that.

olli -- >> thank you. is i wanted to say is that not just about the united states, it is about the community. more needs to be invested to the p5 plus one. without them -- [indiscernible] >> i think that is true in terms of what our red lines are. it seems to me that the united nations always said that iran was not going to be able to enrich. ,ow it is like, well, you know you can enrich -- i think the redline for congress should be no enrichment. i think that is the only way that we can have somewhat degree of certainty that this is something we can prevent from happening in terms of having a nuclear weapon. one thing that is on about this agreement and these negotiations is nobody is talking about -- about thethat is odd agreement and negotiations is

nobody is talking about terrorism and iran's role on international terrorism. there has been terrorism on the united states going back to the embassy takeover and beirut. they were attacking our service members in iraq with efp's. how can it be that we are kind of just acting like the terrorism aspect does not exist? it seems to me to be a very serious shortcoming to this agreement. does anyone want to weigh in on that? , i havee just say worked on many agreements. typically the nuclear is roped off. that has been the tradition. but it does not mean the can lie andsue settle. i think congress is going to have to face, in reviewing the sanctions, it will have to review the condition. my understanding is that is part of the law. i think the administration eventually is going to have to

answer how it is going to deal with that. traditionally, these nuclear are done in -- i do not want to say isolation, but done as cutouts in a sense. it would be up to oversight to decide whether that is enough. >> i just wonder whether that model is applicable to a regime like this like it would have been to maybe some of these other nuclear powers. of course we have had negotiations with countries like north korea that have ended up that firing on us. so i appreciate that, but i still have a lot of concerns. recommend you question like you say the cat is out of the bag, so what should we be doing in congress for somebody concerned about this regime possessing nuclear weapons, and you seem to think we will not be able to prevent that, so what should our response in congress be? >> i am not sure other than to look at the problem more broadly. looking down the road to prevent further irans.

we have had a string of failures. pakistan, north korea, iran. we're looking at now possibly saudi arabia. even turkey has shown interest -- >> thank you. >> thank you very much, madam chair. thank you for holding this hearing. i appreciate, and thank you to the witnesses. i am usually a rather optimistic person, but i am not optimistic at all and continue to think this interim deal was a mistake. in fact, i think it was a terrible mistake. i hope that i am wrong, but i continue to think it was a mistake. i think we are naïve in this negotiation. i think this notion that this is of the sanctions is wrongheaded. in fact, i think it is also. this easing of the sanctions will allow their economy to blossom and take off. i think it is a terrible mistake. it will be very hard afterwards to try to put the genie back in the bottle. another thing that i am very

careful of, i think six months will turn into a year. and they will ask for more time. and it will continue to slide and to be more and more problematic. i think all we have to do is really listen to the iranians themselves and what they are saying. the leaders of iran recently made it very clear they have no intention of coming into compliance with the international obligations in the nuclear arena. i do not think they have any intention. i would like to read a transcript very quickly here from the host of cnn, far reads a car yet, and rouhani. iran will absolutely retain its enrichment. response from rouhani -- it is our national pride. nuclear technology has become indigenous. recently we have managed to secure very considerable prowess with regards to centrifuges. we will not accept any limitation.

you assessed again, so there will be no destruction of centrifuges? rouhani -- no, not at all. i think they have made it very clear where they want to go with this. interestingly, they say it is later, -- they ask him is this for nuclear weapons, and he says, no, no, of course not. to know that when from a religious point of view, religious leaders degrade an imminent leader of the revolution and states that the fabrication and stockpiling of nuclear weapons is religiously forbidden, this should tell you we do not want to build a bomb. yet, everything they have done is to build a bomb. everything they have done. does anyone believe that what they have been doing so far has been for peaceful purposes? does anyone? nobody? yes? just one thing. that interview was very important. the one thing that you not get

explicated is rouhani also said that he wants 20,000 megawatts of nuclear power and for iran to provide the fuel for this. i did some quick math, and that is like one million or 2 million centrifuges, not 19,000. that gives you an idea of the iranian view of this. >> thank you, and i appreciate that. i do think that, unfortunately, on sanctions right when they were starting to work. we should have put the real question to them -- do you want an economy or do you want a nuclear weapons program? i think tying down the sanction with the right way to go, and i think it was finally working. be just thew will opposite and so much harder to get back on track. ambassador, what do you think? i know you do this everyday. >> sure, thank you. i prepared a quick chart for

this. this shows sort of the oil production that is happening now in a daily basis in iraq, around $1.2 billion a day and presumably going up. this green line shows where it would go down to, about 334,000 isrels a day, assuming it it trending out. truly only $6 billion of sanctions relief, ask this question -- $27 billion alone just on oil sales, i think this is a very powerful indication of what their sanctions relief is all about. to commentlse like on that? my point is it is not so much the $6 billion. i think it is more than that. the economy looks at confidence. is there confidence for the economy to take off? that is the problem here. suddenly the world has confidence that these sanctions will be lifted.

that is why there are economy is taking off. it will be very hard to impose sanctions. in optimist by nature, but the thing to me that seems imminent or urgent to do is to send a signal that the sanctions are going to be fully enforced and they are going to be strengthened. , and i amou very much going to be a disciplinarian. we're going to cut it down to four minutes so we can all get our questions in. i apologize. >> can you cut it down on the next person? >> yes, of course. go ahead. 1979 -- does that ring a bell? tookis the day iran hostages at our u.s. embassy. do you know how long they held them for? 444 days. november 4 will be the 35th anniversary of that hostage-taking.

they have been exploiting terrorism for almost 35 years. let me follow up on sunday that was said -- what was the u.s. getting for this? they have an exploiting terrorism forever, and what are we getting out of this? we're getting told, as mr. wallace said, that we are war mongers because we want to strengthen those sanctions, because we want to make them come to the table and negotiate, and they are about to do that. y'all work with me here. any of y'all think dirty five years is a long time -- think 35 years is a long time? simple yes or no question. >> that is the easiest question i have had in a long time. >> is 444 days a long time? >> if you are a hostage. >> it is a long time. do you agree with the comments at the first three quarters of this game, we have been missing in action and we're down to the goal lines? do you agree with that? from alling a no

corners. two over here. the guy in the green is contemplating that. he is admitting nothing. here's the point, if we continue to hold them under sections four 444 days, we have not taken their hostages. we have not used in act of violence. hold thatake them line, then we cannot he accused of being violent or oppressive. by their own words, they want to wipe america and israel off the face of the map. have we threatened to wipe iran off the face of the map, anybody? have we threatened to wipe israel? mr. albright, you lived in israel. do you have family living there now? like snow. >> ok. mr. wallace, you said 100% cooperation was needed and we would know that pretty quick if we are not going to get that. should we give them 444 days? ami am scared to cool -- i

skeptical. they have not given any indication of cooperation. , you lateright conditions from earlier in the negotiations. and the guy in the green, i cannot pronounce your name, you should -- you said we should have red lines. would you be in favor of military action if those red lines are passed? would it be a condition, mr. albright? >> for the red light as a solution, no, of course not. the red line that has been articulated by president obama is that they be prevented from getting a nuclear weapon. >> since they saw us bomb syria, mr. obama's redline, though no -- they know how serious we are. >> the u.s. will have to reestablish credibility if it wants to deal with tehran. >> we do not have a lot of credibility with the threat of red lines. >> it is different than iran.

we did not have a lot of vested interest. month, weneider, a 12 do not want them coming back and saying, look, we are almost there, no more sanctions. do any of y'all think that iran is going to be serious and that we have 12 months or are we bombs, foure two bombs in 12 months? would you want to live in israel right now? >> i would. >> ok, we're going to miss you. the guy in the green, would you live over there? anybody else? >> and we are done. you had a full five minutes. you, madam chair. thank you so much for bringing this panel. veryy, this is complicated. at least it is to me. some other folks see it more simple. irannk we all agree that

should not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon, although mr. jones says they already have one. ok, so you agree they should not have been allowed but that is too late. the three of you, the rest of they do not have a nuclear weapon. you are not sure. you think they do not. >> they do not but they have the capabilities within two or three months to have the ability. >> and i think everybody here pretty much agrees that the interim agreement should not be the long-term agreement. right? >> absolutely. in agic does tell me that give-and-take situation, iran would eventually want all the sanctions relieved. is that right? >> i think they already have that. >> ok. --i think that the sanctions their economy is booming right now and coming back very strongly. certainly we could lift other

sanctions, but we had to send a message that more sanctions are coming to stop that growth in the uranium economy. that is a key think that we can participate in. >> ok, but do they expect further relief? in other words, we would expect them to go further to my give up something further than what is in the interim agreement in order to get further relief. >> remember that the current agreement says that when we finally get done, there is not going to be any restrictions on iran at all. they're going to be treated like any other nonnuclear weapon party. that means they are scot-free at that point. >> well, not exactly. -- i would expect embargoes on military goods. we're talking if this works is the administration has outlined. we're talking ability is and they restrictive conditions last 20 years. we dealt with the iaea concerns.

the web is an ester weaponization infrastructure is under verification. they have shown cooperation. when the sanctions would come off, iran would have had to have met many, many conditions. so it is not at all like the interim deal. >> mr. jones, do you rule out or advocate any kind of military action? >> no, i think it would take a full-scale war with iran, and i do not see that the u.s. is in any condition to embarq at such a war at this point. which is why i think there is nothing we can do. if we can take military action in iran, it would not have nuclear weapons or would not have them for long. >> it is easy to do this. the mondayr to be morning quarterback though. it is what it is right now. my last question is -- what do you recommend we do next given monthsuation? >> six

from the adoption of the interim agreement, this congress shouldn't make clear that iran will face the most robust sanctions in history and oil sales will go down to almost zero. the auto industry will not be able to function. and the economy will cease to exist. that has to be done for iran to dial back its nuclear program. >> i do not believe the sanctions are going to be nearly that effective. the russians have already said they are going to negotiate a barter arrangement for iranian oil. i think the iranians have options. the indians have helped them, and so have the chinese. so i am not optimistic. >> it is important to show what a comprehensive solution should look like. if you want enrichment articulated -- >> thank you so very much. i appreciate it. >> thank you, madam chair. wallace, i really

appreciate what you said about sanctions. i actually believe in them, too. there are always variables associated with it. my background, i was in the military quite a while, 26 years. we always said the nato scenarios back in the cold war was, you know, the threat always for nuclear war. down, we the wall came never had those similar scenarios. now it has kind of changed completely with what is going on with north korea and obviously iran. in your opinion, how close, in do youinion, anyone, think that iran would -- i think we all agree that they are going to get the bomb and many of them . would they use it? or is it just a threat?

>> i think one of the greatest dangers of iran going nuclear are the sectarian tensions plaguing that region right now and the fact that we will have a nuclear arms race in the region. it will take the most volatile region in the world, and we will make it more volatile and nuclear-volatile. if it were me as a reader, if i were a leader of one of those countries, the ayatollah and others have said that they can conceivably use these types of weapons before. i think you have to take them at their word and take them seriously. >> before you answer anymore, the reaction of other countries, let's go with the scenario that they have the nuclear bomb. we are talking about saudi arabia and some of the other arab states. era, you know, persian, iranian -- the animal on this -- the animosity between them. do you foresee many other

countries that would be very eager to do exactly what iran did just because of what happened? whatny suggestions on countries would acquire the bomb in that region? >> i think it is very clear that other countries in the region are playing along the sectarian lines and seeking to go nuclear, and it may take time. saudi arabia, the emirates, turkey, egypt, a variety of countries in the region. >> so perhaps six? >> all of them. >> does the panel share that opinion? >> i am not sure i would have it quite so high. i would point out by the region, with north korea and as the starts togime collapse, we could be talking about south korea, japan. i think this problem is broader than the middle east. >> and the possibility for use attack from a

mathematical standpoint, if you very, very, which is scary, it would be some kind of event as opposed to when it was and was limited to just a few powers. >> certainly, i am already frankly quite concerned about pakistan. i mean, it looks like at various it's pakistan might just dissolve or break into some sort of his longest sectarian fight, and who knows who would wind up with it. >> it shows why it is so fromtant to prevent iran getting nuclear weapons. >> i agree with you. i just trust in verifying, and going down this road, it shows how naïve we are. the consequences are enormous. i hope this body here, which seems to be one of the few addressing this, will continue that action. thank you. >> thank you very much. although votes have started, we have two more members who are going to ask questions.

so we're fine with the time. i do not cut anyone off. mr. connolly is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman, and welcome to the panel. my colleague referred to naïveée . i am not sure what he was referring to. to support an interim agreement that is supported by a number of the players, players trying to resist, it might be wisdom rather than naïveté. we do not know yet. mr. heinonen, were you involved theaea and any of negotiations with iran or discussions with iran or verification experiences with iran? >> yes, i was, indeed. 30umber of times, maybe 20, times.

>> is it your impression based on that experience that iran is hell-bent on getting nuclear weapons and that an interim agreement such as the one successfully negotiated is just a stalling package until they reached their ultimate goal? pose the ability to such a level that may not be the spirit of the mpt. this will be the most difficult situation for the community to handle. >> were you surprised, based on your knowledge and experience in iran, that they agreed to this interim agreement? >> no, i was not surprised been following this small deal and have seen them agree on something and then back off and agree again. it is a pattern.

now we need to pray for this pattern. [indiscernible] ambassador wallace, you talked about the complete shutdown of their economy. one wonders whether that is possible. certainly, their economy has hurt based on -- i am old enough to remember sanctions going way back on all kinds of countries. sometimes sanctions work pretty well. sometimes they do not. and it is not clear to me that efficacious to foreign policy, but they are certainly a tool available. in this case, it looks like it has had a desired effect. i assume that your concern is that, with the best of intentions with an interim agreement, that we take our foot off the pedal a little bit and sanctions, if not the united states but others, and that would be a counterproductive development

until we see their performance in the agreement? >> i think that is right. my concern is not to put the foot off the gas, but i think we really dialed back the sanctions regime and we measured their currency, inflation, measured their stock market, and it is booming. i am concerned with the very little concessions we got and no real rollback was met. so they had in economic boom to their economy. we couldn is that certainly get their oil sales down to a few hundred thousand barrels, and we should try. >> but until very recently, all the reports us all were that they were having trouble moving their oil in international markets. >> the low point was about 761,000 barrels a day. it has already gone up to 1.2 million barrels a day and even

higher. >> is that because of some of the carveouts in the agreement? for example -- >> if the carveouts were kept in place, oil sales would go down to about 334,000 barrels. when our we are between 1.2 million plus over the course of this year. that was in anticipation of the agreement and the agreement itself. it has been a huge economic windfall for the iranians. like my time is up. thank you. staffer --nate >> it is not something i bring attention to. [laughter] >> inside joke. >> thank you, madam chair. i think the interesting comment in the last conversation was that iran would take a little bit, backed up, take a little, becca. as mr. wallace pointed out, now

andr economy is doing well, there's more incentive to back up and say we cannot get there right now we need more time. that is the concern most of us and it was said earlier. we, frankly, did not get anything from this. they got what they were looking for. i think the only reason we got what we got was that the sanctions were having an effect. i will like you more technical. anyone can answer this question. [indiscernible] they need the material for the nuclear device. produce effective means for delivering the weapon. what is known as the delivery method and what mechanism would be needed to target israel or the u.s.?

there missile capability is pretty robust. what is not known if they have a capability to put a warhead on the missile. eventually a would be able to if they went down that route. i do not think we got nothing for this deal. i mean, i do not want to get into a debate. i ensure you did last week with the administration. but we did get something. i think maybe that has to be -- >> messed over. >> know, congress was stopped. freezes or something. i think there were benefits to this deal. we can argue the value in terms of sanctions, and i think we're all worried about the sanctions slipping more than the administration intended. >> actually, i'm not worried about sanctions. i'm worried about a nuclear iran. and i have a disagreement will read the points. but one of the concerns here is

we're looking toward this, so let's look at the overall pattern of what is developed. you have an opinion that it worked. i have an opinion that it does not. my concern is they have the capability, and i am concerned from the actual projection and actual use of the nuclear material to provide a warhead that can be used against israel and used against the united states. my next question was, if targeted with a nuclear warhead, any, doeserrance, if israel have? >> israel is in a bad situation. it is a nation that one or two ,uclear weapons -- for israel it truly is an exit stencil threat. i would argue that we have to -- harder to keep iran from getting a nuclear weapon. not just a threat to israel. it is a threat to us. we have assets in that region that we cannot overlook. , and i andout israel

other members of the committee have worked hard on our partnership with israel and helping israel. but we cannot just neglect ourselves from this. i served in iraq. we still have military people there. this is something we cannot take apart. >> congressman, you are right. you served in iraq, and most of the casualties were as a result of iranian meddling. one big absence in this hearing .as iran's role in syria the vast majority of the casualties are occurring as a result of iranian largess, arms, and money. we have not touched on that. i do not think we mentioned syria one time in terms of iran's support of syria. >> and how much they got out of this, that is an issue that needs to be discussed. >> thank you, mr. collins. the now the florida contingent is really the best.

you, madam chair. i appreciate it. i feeles, you said -- iran will get nuclear weapons. that is something i have talked about before in these panels. in fact, we had ambassador bolton here, and he said we cannot allow that to happen. yet, our sections have been going on since pretty much 9079 at different levels. it started off more mild. we froze some think it counts. now we have got all the way where we have prevented oil from being sold out of that country. we put these sanctions in place since 1979, yet, from what i am hearing from the four of you, is within a year, if i understood this right, they will have five to six nuclear weapons despite our sanctions. my question is, the sanctions -- i know they're well-intended, but they do not seem to have worked. what else can we do? mr. albright, you brought up that we need to work together.

and i assume with our allies. to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. number one, mr. jones, i asked you, do you feel like they are going to these weapons regardless? but not like regardless necessarily in the near term. thatould think of pakistan developed these weapons in the late 1980's, but it was not until 1998 that they actually tested. most of these countries take a long view. i think washington tends to be to myopic on some of this material. also, just on the sanctions, i would like to point out, as ambassador wallace said, sanctions have certainly heard iran, but iran has not stopped. so that flips around the other way. howhows how interested and determined the iranians are to move forward and not give up. >> if you go back and watch over the last 25, 30 years, it has been a cat and mouse game where they are building them and then they are not. we always prove that they are

enriching. over the last 10 years, they have gone from a few centrifuges to over 19,000. how do we prevent this? i mean, what is your idea of preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon? but how do you do that? >> [inaudible] thank you, olli. with the primary or the priority ifnow is to make sure that iran is tested on whether it will accept a very serious limitations on its nuclear program and accept verification requirements that allow an adequate job to be done so that early detection is guaranteed and there is time for a response. that is what needs to be done now. and this cannot be extended. there is a clock ticking. >> the clock has been taking since 1979 uruguay have been

working to prevent that. but i heard you guys say there are four to five bombs that they could possibly have the capacity to build within a year. so we could watch them for another six months, another six years. my feeling is that they're going to get one. what i would like to focus on -- what we do looking forward, and how are we going to deal with it? >> one is we do not have to worry as much now about them getting four to five bombs in the next year because of this joint plan of action. that it did by time. >> but earlier on he said that in about a year they would have four to five bombs. >> if they went to do it. it was a theoretical question if they went to do it. i think the joint plan of action has bought us time. i do not think they will try to do it in the next six months or year if it is extended. that is an advantage of this deal. >> if we look back retrospectively, what can we do on sanctions and how can we handle this differently in the future going forward?

other than sanctions? i think that diplomacy is the big thing we need to do. i also think we need to prepare, like you said -- pakistan has developed bombs. india has them. north korea has them. i think we need a different policy in place for when they do get one and how we will handle that. >> the focus needs to be somewhere else. particularly for the so-called military dimension. if we put all the effort -- [indiscernible] and you try chain to improve the strength by improving one ring, but the rest are still loose. so they will never be strong. we have to find what was going dismantled the multiuse capabilities. >> i agree with that. the ultimate test -- are they

going to come clean about nuclear weapons. if they did not work on nuclear weapons, will they provide the information to convince people that that is the case? >> thank you. >> madam chair -- >> thank you. >> thank you. , i finally let you finish an answer. not bad, one out of 25. for use so much, panelists, excellent testimony. thank you to all the members for wonderful questions, and thank you for the audience and press for covering this. with that, our subcommittee is adjourned. zero seconds to get to the floor, no problem. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

sense the state of the union speech, president obama has been holding several speeches across the country on different issues from that state of the union. he is in nashville, tennessee this afternoon at a high school, talking about education issues. the associated press said in that speech he is expected to address the fatal on campus shooting earlier this week of a student there by a 17-year-old classmate. we will have live coverage of the president's speech here on c-span at 5:20 eastern. on capitol hill, the senate a short while ago past a bill that would raise -- that would lower the flood insurance rate. that passed by a vote of 67-32 in the senate and likely to take up the farm bill early next week and pass that as well. meanwhile, republicans are holding their retreat on the

eastern shore of maryland, a two-day retreat that began today and continues through tomorrow. someone who grew in the office. cuban badly burned by the bay of pigs experience. he had listened to the experts. staff.int chiefs of andhe went to see de gaulle france. he did that trip in may or june of 1961. and de gaulle said to him, you should surround yourself with the smartest possible people, listen to them, hear what they have to say. but at the end of the day, you have to make up your own mind. and kennedy remembered what harry truman had said, the buck stops here. and i think after that they of pigs, he was absolutely determined to make up his own mind, here with these experts

had to say, way what they were telling him, but at the end of the day, he was going to make the judgment and he was the response will party. and you see that, that was abundantly clear when you listen to and read the transcripts of those tapes during the cuban missile crisis. he was his own man. he was the one making his own mind. he held the joint chiefs at arms length. they wanted to bomb, invade, and he did not want to do it. >> an inside look at the kennedy administration, sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> c-span launched its first c-span schoolbus in 1993, visiting hundreds of schools and committees nationwide and raising awareness on how c-span covers politics and government and their public affairs programming. 20 years later, the c-span bus continues on the road, on the

campaign trail, and visiting book festivals, history infants, education conferences, and schools. look for us on the road and online on our website c-span.org . you can also follow us on twitter, all brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. this winter, university students will get a chance to visit the c-span bus and join us morning's live on "washington journal" as we hit the road for the big 12 conference tour. >> we're live at the hyatt regency they in cambridge, maryland on the eastern shore. we had hoped to bring you a briefing from some of the house --ublican leaders, including but we understand that news briefing has been postponed as the meetings continue. two days of meetings in maryland. we will bring it to you live once it is rescheduled. house republicans are meeting for two days in cambridge, developing strategies and plans

for 2014. earlier today, a group of house republican members under the age of 40 l.a. press conference -- under 40 held a press conference. this is just under 15 minutes. >> this is the young members panel. [laughter] >> good afternoon. thank you for coming onto our wonderful retreat. looks like you might be having more fun than we had. [inaudible]

this is a group of us under the age of 40 at the republican conference. from illinois.ck when i was elected five years ago, there were four of us in the entire chamber under the age of 40. in january of this year, we swore in close to 30 members under the age of 40, about an equal number on both sides of the aisle and a better representation of america's electorate and population. you also know that this past election broke records aired first time in recent history where the under 30 age population outperformed the senior citizen demographic in .urnout in voters clearly, young people are engaged in the political process and engaged in who their elected leaders are. they are taking the time to cast a ballot. we think it is important for those of us in office that represent that demographic to shine a light on policies currently that are hurting this

generation of americans, particularly the lack of vision and solutions for some of the long-term entitlement rogue rams that -- programs that are robbing the next generation of americans the opportunity to participate in social security and medicare, those on the trajectory towards bankruptcy. , short of a few tweaks, no total fixes to either of these programs. we hope an employer -- we hope and implore that he will offer up solutions that hopefully we can negotiate with him on to fix these programs. second, health care i get the republican response in december, highlighting the fact that young people in record numbers are not signing up for the affordable care act simply because it is a huge cost shift from older sicker people to younger healthy people. this is outside of the normal confines of how insurance typically works where you subsidize people within your own

demographic. women, men, young, old. on the average, a senior citizen him on the average, an older american would pay six times yet under the president health care law, it says young people tend pay no less than one third the most expensive premium. thereby nearly doubling in many cases what many people should pay for young insurance. -- for health insurance. about offering alternatives solutions but also important to shine a light on the fact that these policies are not working for young all. in fact, they are hurting and making it worse for young people. to highlight some of these issues, i will turn it over to one of my wonderful colleagues,

my first good friend from illinois adam kinzinger. out.ank you all for coming stay warm. it is called everywhere. i am from illinois and saying that. was a beautiful day in september and i was driving to work and had just graduated from college. i was listening to probably howard stern and i heard that a plane hit the world trade center. i remember thinking how does a plane fly into a huge building. plane hitrd a second the world trade center, one hit the pentagon and a field in pennsylvania. generation is the generation that has really had to step up in a huge way to defend our country overseas. we have had wars in iraq, wars in afghanistan and action all over the world against terrorism.

what has been frightening to me with this administration, i am very optimistic that the future of the country. what has been frightening is i see an administration that seems to be in retreat from the world. all we have seen as a way from the middle east and the more bold china. we have seen terrorism growing all over from north africa to the caucuses. it is something that our generation should be very concerned with. i read the highlights of the fact that the pentagon worries and five years the chinese will have a more powerful, more technologically advanced military than what we have today. was saddened the president did not talk about american strength and leadership, because i think as we go forward, i want to know our generation and all generations alive today and yet to come 10 rely on what i have had my entire life him and that america is secure, peaceful, and that america never has to worry

about being defeated on the battlefield anywhere else. so i hope the administration steps up and talks about the new grand strategy for the united states and reverses for our generation, reverses the trend of the american retreat from the world. that said, i want to turned over to martha roby. roby, and thanks -- i appreciate you all being here. next to the i have pictures of my beautiful children a plaque that says blessed are the young, for they will inherit the national debt. the younger generation often get accused of being disengaged and not involved in the process, but more and more what we see is they get it, they are paying attention.

the increase of the national debt is going to fall on them. -- reason i have spent and i husband and i ran for congress is they looked at our kids and children all over the country and we felt we had a responsibility to make sure we are pushing policy that reverses yes, we have a responsibility of the united states of america to pay our obligations but also a responsibility to young people to ensure that mountain of debt is not on their shoulders. what are the solutions to that? you all know that it is our position that you reduce the regulatory environment. you look at big tics are tax reform. if we cut every single dime of discretionary money we are left

operating in a deficit because of the mandatory spending programs. if we do not get serious about real reforms, my children and yours will be the ones that because of the theinuation of spending, environment of we will just give you more because the more you give, the more that will be spent. children and the younger generation we all are committed to ensuring that our party is putting forth real solutions on behalf of the children. >> jason smith. >> thank you. i am jason smith representing the eighth district of missouri, the newest member of the panel. one of the biggest concerns of mine is the extremely high unemployment rate for

individuals between 25 and 34 years old. the employment rate for that age range is nearly 26%. -- the unemployment rate is nearly 26%. that is for numerous reasons in my opinion. policies of the obama administration. roles74 thousand pages of and regulation. just the first three days of january 131 regulations were filed. a lot of regulations affecting jobs all over the country in my district alone i saw 300 jobs that ended in december the cousin and epa regulation from the obama administration. now we mind our lead in the eighth district, but we send our lead to china to be smelted hoping they will send it back to us to make the ammunition. that is a national security issue and also a jobs issue.

we have so many young americans graduating from college with , overely high debt load $29,000 is the average debt that each young college graduate is facing when they come out. i am still paying college loans from law school. probably not too many from congress still paying. but we need to make sure we create an opportunity where young people see that when they do graduate from college that they have opportunities for jobs. the way to do that is reduce regulation, reduce the tax structure. we have one of the highest tax structures in the industrialized world. we need to promote the industrialized resources whether it is timber, soul -- oil. you will see unemployment rates like texas all over the 50 states if we do that. >> i think mr. barr would like to speak, first.

>> questions and then the rest of you can speak. >> are you saying you are getting bored? >> we are not offended. question. >> [inaudible] could you let us know what you would like to do with the gut feeling and whether or not that is still an appropriate place to try to address what you are worried about? i would like to remind you it was the president who was then a senator who said the lack of a plan to deal with the long-term debt was a failure of leadership. shine the spotlight back on the white house to say american knows house republicans

are serious about dealing with our debt. american knows house republicans have solutions to bend the cost curve and balance the budget. what america does not know is where the president stands. what america has not seen is a presidentpproach the talked about in his campaign but has yet to lay out. what i would respectfully say is it is time for the president and showhe leadership the american people and house republicans his path to deal with the debt, and then we can negotiate and truly find a solution to a problem we both faced as a reality. >> do any of you favor passing a clean then -- clean debt limit and what do you want to attach to it? i am patrick mchenry from

north carolina, and yes, i am under 40. the question has been posed to the house, what is your plan on the debt limit? i would pose it to the other body in congress called the senate. we would like to see their plan, and i would like to see if harry reid can assemble the democrat majority to assemble a plan and we would be happy to receive it in the house and start negotiations. ons has always been placed the house to lead. the president is required to lead. his party controls one half of congress, and we would like to see their plan put forward. >> anyone have suggestions for

what you would put on it? you know the president wanted clean. the think we know how negotiation is going. we will see. i think we all know how negotiations go. none of us are brand-new. obviously there will be a back- and-forth on how to get here but , i have beenmade so surprised the president has advocated leadership and always asks congress to be the leader for the american people. our job is to debate issues. executive branch is supposed to lead. we have not heard the president talk about any of those things. no, will you accept a clean debt ceiling? >> you are asking hypotheticals. her as they oak occur. at the end of the day speaking for me personally, the united

states should never default on the debt. that said, i think it is irresponsible to say we will not tie something to get a serious problem under control. that is my answer to that. >> i want to ask a question on immigration. walden was in here earlier and said the federal issue and about theem concerned bulk of the primary will be over by the time the house gets to the subject of immigration. are you willing to vote on immigration before the election? are you concerned about any political fallout for yourself? >> if you are putting that directly at me, i will say i'm willing to take up the issue at any time. it,erms of the politics for

for me personally, i am not worried about it. there are a lot of issues at play. i think it is a conversation the american people will probably have over the next year. >> do you think the house republicans need to provide a process for citizens who are here illegally? >> that is something we having a discussion on this week. we will see what the final result is. i think there are a lot of people who understand we have to address this in some way. as for me personally, it is a debate i look over to having an think it is important. my name is andy barr, a freshman member from kentucky. i want to visit the president's state of the union address briefly. he did mention kentucky and how obamacare is working in kentucky. the project of obamacare is the

project of the entire presidency. it will determine whether the government can micromanage 1/6 of the american economy. in kentucky he experience is the federal government failed miserably at the experience. people are losing their jobs, losing hours at work. 280,000 kentuckians have lost their job-based health insurance. obamacare is not working in kentucky, anywhere in the country and very disappointing it is not because american people need and deserve health care reform. you will hear from house republicans this year alternatives -- solutions and alternatives to obamacare. patient-centered solutions. we look forward to being advocates for young americans,

young american families who deserve health care that actually works. like thank you. -- >> thank you. >> from the democratic side, word that one may turn -- 20- term henry waxman will retire at the end of this term. his partner on the house oversight midi darrell issa saying while i always did not agree on matters of policy and oversight cap, his ten-year helming the committee set important precedents and the new innovative tools such as the use for subpoenas for closed-door depositions. retiring at the end of the 113th

congress. president obama and national speaking at a high school about -- about the education issues he brought up in the state of the union. sunday, a chance to see the state of the union address once again. coming up next from earlier energy naturalte resources committee talked about the state of crude oil exports in the u.s.. >> the senate committee on energy and natural resources will come to order. we will have a very busy morning today, but i want to start with particularly exciting news. hit herlandrieu having first grandchild in a few hours. she has been up most of the night. we will give her a round of

applause. she is with us and we are glad that she is. murkowski and i wanted to have this hearing because america's energy renaissance has conversation on whether exporting crude oil is in the national interest. i think it is fair to say this conversation will not be resolved anytime over the next few weeks. certainly there is a lot of interest in that congress on the subject. that is why we thought it was important to hold the hearing to begin a real conversation on a very important issue. personally i believe deeply in expanded trade. jobs state, one out of six depends on international trade and trade jobs often pay better than the non-trade jobs because they reflect a higher level of

productivity, which is often required to get american goods and services and to internet -- get them to international markets. i often say one of my principal goals is to help make things in america, grow things in america, add value in america and then ship them somewhere. i have promoted that philosophy as chairman of the finance committee on international trade. that is why today's debate is especially important. energy is not the same thing as blueberries. accordingly it is treated differently under federal law. the energy policy and conservation act allows for the exportation of crude oil only when doing so is in the natural interest. there it's not that requirement for blueberries or other nostril

-- natural commodities. right now there are several armed conflicts around the world. south sudan, the a, mozambique and elsewhere that are certainly being inflamed by the fight to control oil. i will post oregon blueberry up against just about anything, but the last time i looked, nobody is fighting a war over blueberries. hard to believe only a few years after the campaign for america's energy independence, having being dominated by drill baby drill our country now finds itself in a serious discussion over where it should expert oil. energy independence has been a well-worn staple of virtually every politician's speech for decades. now the country is in the enviable position of having choices about the energy future. in other words, the question becomes how can this energy boom create the greatest benefit for

america? can energy help grow the economy ? the answer is of course. reduce country dependence on fuel from countries that do not always have our best interest in mind? again, of course. those are the easy questions. the harder questions, how can you come up with a policy where america can have it all? can our country get the domestic benefits and still retain a cost advantage for domestic consumers of businesses and families. that is certainly my goal. in an effort to keep today's hearing under seven or eight hours, we will have to have a focus. i want it understood for this a particulare interest on focusing on the consumer.

it is never very hard to have -- to find a voice for the various regencies, industries and various ideological points of view in america. consumers often do not have one. i just want it understood that on my watch the consumer will not get short shift. looks like a number of influential voices want to start importing oil. i want to hammer home the point this morning that for me the litmus test is how middle-class families will be affected by changing the country's policy on middle exports. it is not enough to say the algorithm determines they are good for growth domestic artist or some other abstract process. simply charging forward and

hoping for the best is not the way you get the best policy decision. responsibility of the committee, and we have always worked on these issues in a bipartisan way is to make sure consumers will not get hammered by the cost of gas going up because of some that everything will turn out hunky-dory in the end. i will end by saying i think there are important issues with respect to timing. there may be a time when crude oil exports are of -- are important. conversation has begun on exporting crude oil, i am not conversationilar on ending imports. our country is still importing including from, the places that do not have our best interest in mind. every member of the committee understands the debate about energy as a global commodity.

about how iteard is a global price and i am sure we will hear that again today. the global price does not automatically mean a stable price. if oil stopped flowing from saudi arabia next week come american consumers and businesses would feel it in a hurry. the question is, does real energy security mean the ability to be energy independent, even if we never actually do it? i think most think the .overnment would not import oil all of that said, we will listen to the argument pro and con. i personally need to hear more. look for were to working with senator mcconnell skeet. all of so the country can maximize what we all would say it's a historic sets of circumstances that we want to think through carefully about how to tap the potential of.

>> thank you. appreciate your considered remarks and the opportunity to bring up the issue before the committee. as you and i have both noted over the past year, we have not shown any reticence in taking up the difficult issues that face the nation when it comes to energy production, the issue of export, whether it is natural gas or now oil. this is what people expect us to ,o, take up the hard issue having considerable debate and dialogue and then where and when appropriate to act on that. my hope is that today's discussion is the beginning of many very considerate and thoughtful discussions on what is certainly a very timing -- time a bull issue when it comes

to the dramatically increased oil production. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss this today. i would note it has generated a fair amount of discussion. we have not seen a full hearing room in a while. we have good representation on the committee so i am pleased to see that. you will recall you and i were speaking together at the center for international studies on unconventional natural gas reduction. time butst about this during the q and a after our presentation, one of the banndees asked us about the on crude oil exports from the united states. you proceeded to answer the question in a very thoughtful manner and when it came time for my response, i said isn't it

amazing that you are able to ask that question and not be laughed out of the room? a year prior to that it was not have even been possible to have that discussion. where we have come in just a year recognizing that as a nation when it comes to the energy production on several different fronts, the landscape has strange -- changed dramatically. what we are seeing coming out of north dakota has changed the dynamic from an energy perspective. helped clearly with jobs and opportunities but not just north dakota. it is what we see in texas and north dakota. unfortunately we are not seeing alaskaka -- seeing it in and i regret that we will not

see the opportunity for x -- exploration. shell has announced they will not be moving forward in 2014 because of the recent decision by the ninth circuit and lack of certainty from the regulatory perspective from the administration. very troubling to me. let's make it back to where i think we want to take a conversation this morning. a couple of weeks ago i addressed the brookings institution and presented a white paper on the energy trade. i called for exports. i will tell you, i have been ratified by the thoughtful responses. it has not been the nature of the sky is falling but much more considerate and thoughtful, and i think that is where we need to be with the discussions.

i want to prompt further discussion and the debate over the issue. analytical and trade winds are blowing fiercely. the architecture of u.s. energy therts must be renovated. highest profile example is the outdated prohibition on crude oil exports. creates inefficiencies and other distortions. and expectation that this hearing continues the conversation that began at brookings raising all of the issues considering all side and most important, reaching conclusions so that we can move forward rather than let the global energy markets developing around the world asked us five. having said that, i do not fix that that we will either see the

administration moving forward with a decision next week or legislation coming forward from me or other members of the energy committee here. -- hopingm hope they his week in advance the discussion so that it is clearly understood on the consumer perspective so that it is understood why exports would make sense. the timing issue is critically timing is key.se the impact on american consumers is critical. opening up believe world markets to u.s. crude oil will low work to price, which will in turn lower the global price for petroleum products. the americanual, consumer will benefit from the interaction, as those benefited as a result. international trade dimension, given the ongoing trade talks with europe and asia

is just beginning to be understood. from today's vantage point, i believe national security will be enhanced by our strength and posture on energy trade. we cannot let short-term thinking distracts us from the long haul. gasoline prices will fluctuate. we know that and see it every year. there will be variations across the united states due to a constellation of variables, including infrastructure challenges, differing tax structures across states, different inefficiencies and other aspects of the nation's refining and distribution system. regional variations in prices are still ultimately variations on global prices. lifting the ban is about production, jobs. -- international energy energy association has warned that may result in de- celebrating or shut in production, which would be to

the detriment of the nation's livelihood. so many things to chew on. to carry forward. we have a panel in front of us that i think is clearly knowledgeable and poised to speak to the issues if i think we will gain from the input this morning. i thank them for being here and allowing us to have the opportunity on this important discussion. >> thank you for the thoughtful statement. without the committee being hit facts, i those political aske am told this is the first hearing in 25 years, so given that and the fact that we have more than 10%, a number of senators indicated they would like to make a short statement. interruptot want to

, but when shember was talking about where we have come in the past few years and i think theon senator hoven. while as governor he did all kinds of things to make sure the balkan was developed there, he did not discover the oil there. i just want to point that out, but if you would please discover it wouldin minnesota, be most welcome. >> you need to talk to our guest harold hamm, and he may do that yet. lets me just go back and forth. is there a colleague on the other side you would like to

ike a quick comment here come know a lot of you are under a time crunch. is there a colleague who wanted a minute or two? >> senator hoven. >> i would like to welcome harold hamm who has been a pioneer in the balkan. senator franken not too far off when he talks about discovering oil. he did not discover it but certainly a pioneer in discovering the methods, including hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling and developing the methods in a way that made its recoverable in billions of barrels and leading an energy renaissance in the country, so by way of introduction i am pleased to welcome harold hamm this morning. >> thank you. i very much enjoyed my visit to north dakota as well and that opportunity.

>> i think for the purposes we have an excellent panel this morning. i want to thank you and senator mikulski for such a thoughtful opening statement. i will submit my statement for the record, but i want to say we are witnessing an energy revolution in the country today. reducing more energy at home here than we had in decades. to translate that into numbers, predicts the u.s. will average 8.5 million barrels of oil per day in production, one million more than the average in 2013, and most importantly, very near the record of 9.6 million barrels per day last achieved in 1970. that is why we are having the hearing today, and i think the testimony that mr. hamm and others will provide is this number could be increased substantially based on new technologies, new opportunities that will benefit not just the exploration of production

companies in which many hail from louisiana but also the land , the oil supply and gas suppliers and the general many factors that make products completely unrelated to oil and gas and employee a great deal of americans that are experiencing additional supply potentially, stable prices and reasonable prices. i will put the rest of my statement in the record. most importantly, i think we need to get on the record what the refineries are conditioned to process today and the kind of food being produced and the mismatch there. we have to be very aware and sensitive of the investments that have been made by the refineries. particularly the users that use

the tremendous amount of cool -- fuel and have important aspects for us to consider. thank you. >> going to the other side, anyone on the other side who wanted to make a brief comment? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you and senator mcconnell ski for holding this historic hearing today. that we help but think would not have had this discussion and the changes you have been able to develop to make us more secure. i can only think about the discussions that we are having about exports where we were going to import a couple of years ago. that part of this will play into this. i think you have put it so succinctly that basically a

sweet spot. i can only think 150 years ago, but what the coal -- what the making thery did steel that made the ships and the industrial revolution. so many people have forgotten about. and what they are still depending on from the state and where we would happen if we would have some that product out of the market. there is a balance to be had, and i think we are able to find that. i would like to introduce that into the statement for more details. i think all of you for what you have done and contributed. for holding this meeting. i read a book called "breakout."

it is about pioneers of the future and truly is one and goes into the epic battle that will decide america's faith and a lot of it has to do with energy resources, availability, production and the new technology that has made it possible. i want to thank you for your leadership in bringing this group together. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will try to be brief as possible. that i want to make sure are addressed. those are the issues of safety and price. i am not saying you cannot have al transported safely but report is being released today. dakotathink of the north and export opportunities and where that will go on rail and how we address them and to me

that is a very important issue. i certainly believe it is a global market and global price. i definitely think we can do more to police the markets to make sure the manipulation of oil futures does not affect the day-to-day price of oil which is not a part of today's discussion but a little bit more about the banking industry and how many more people have their banking in the oil futures pot which they are really not taking delivery for an end user. is the price issue for those in the specific -- pacific northwest, we have sad -- had some of the highest gas prices in the nation constantly. so we will pay attention to that. so when we gave a back of the envelope recommendation, it says that consumers can pay as much

as much as five-$.10 more per gallon if it is listed. the chairman and ranking member will get back to me up some point in time but this is the issue. we know oil market will be tight in the future. them soe best police they are functioning and how we theect consumers so i think chairman for the indulgence today. historic occasion and letting us have historic inputs before the witnesses so thank you for that. >> thank you for that. i appreciate you holding a hearing. it is historically are talking about this. we have not really had a discussion because we have not had a reason to, and now we do because of hydraulic fracking and the shale.

i would think more controversial a year ago that it is now because we have found ourselves in a situation where it looks like we can afford to export and still help manufacturers and places like ohio achieved what is happening i'm a which is unbelievable. it is a revolution in the sense that we are finding more natural low.nd vices are manufacturers are coming back and adding jobs because they are seeing there will be a long-term and stable price. on the issue of oil, the one thing i would love to hear today is whether the price of the pump is determined through the global i appreciatese what the senator said and made some good points. we also hear in effect what happens of the pump in ohio and

around the country that is affected. we see that. whereis an issue overseas there is no disruption of supply and we see the prices go up. -- morelike to see that about that and how it differs from natural gas in terms of the market and what it can ultimately mean for consumers. mansion since senator talked about the sweet spot, i would like to hear more about what could be done in terms of the swap if mexico that has been suggested by some folks where we would export light, sweet crude in exchange for heavy crudes and whether that makes sense. wholesalet be a lifting of the export ban at this point but maybe an opportunity to enhance competitiveness in this country and make sure we have the right balance of energy resources in the context of the revolution that has put the united states in a position to be more competitive across the board.

those are the things i would love to hear today in the conversation. really appreciate the witnesses being here. with a great panel. we are going on a long time here, so i will try to be brief. a lot of bottled up ideas. i want to remind my colleagues that one of the reasons we are having this issue, one reason the market has changed so much is because of the technology that has been developed. hydraulic fracturing. much of the basic resources came out of our laboratories. my point is after several years of declining budgets and sequestration, i think it is incredibly important for us to realize that things we consider mature and industries that have been around a long time can be radically changed by our

investment in basic research and we need you to make sure we did not lose sight of that. >> very good. >> i will feel left out if i do not say something so i will say something. thank you, mr. chairman, always so kind and gracious. having the opportunity to go to midland, texas recently to see the results and impact of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling is quite remarkable, especially when you look back over the history of 2004-2000 five and 2006 and we were in a plateau and the end was coming very soon. the reality of it is george mitchell perhaps invested a lot of resources and took amazing risk to get us in a country where we could have a larger conversation at some point in the near future about the impact.

one thing we'd recognize this as we become more aggressive, i think it fits the middle east competitors -- puts the middle east competitors have very serious situation to look at their own budgets and revenues. i think it does more for the national security than we really articulated in the past several years. >> thank you. you, mr.s? >> thank chairman. i wanted to talk a little bit in which the context i will look of the testimony and think about the input. i mentioned it at the hearing quite recently. in wisconsin family and business owners have had one issue on their minds, and that is the cost and availability of propane. it is an especially cold winter in wisconsin this year, and for many people who have years --

four years relied upon a study propane supply, this year they are unable to find fuel to fill their tanks and regional books -- suppliers have been depleted. prices have risen from two dollars $.20 per gallon to over six dollars per gallon. it has risen in just three weeks. this is really devastating and very frightening for thousands of families across wisconsin and i am hopeful the committee will take a close look at how we can solve the problem and figure out how we can prevent it from ever happening again. in addition to tight domestic supplies, this season we have a fairly dramatic increase in propane exports. in fact, in the past three the export industry has

nearly tripled exports. this should inform the larger discussion about another fuel that is considerable to the economy. consumer supply protections are a serious part of any debate about the future of crude oil exports. one other issue. i do not know if i will get a chance to stay long enough to ask questions so i will suggest one area of interest. shortages hasor been as a result of infrastructure changes. served thehat have nation for decades have been repurposed for new oil fields. these infrastructure pressures will only increase. part of the contexts in

which i will be viewing this phase -- today's discussion. again, i very much appreciate the conversation today. >> i think we're ready to go to witnesses and guests. any other comments from the other side? all right, let's go forward then. chief executive officer. senior vice president of fuel optimization or delta. the transportation study berries. university of california davis, mr. barry white. center for american progress. we welcome all of you. we will make your prepared statements are part of the record. i think you can see there is great interest among the senators and will have plenty of questions. welcome.

>> is it on now? right, good morning. hamm.e is harold chief executive officer of continental resource officers. we do not have refineries. it is an honor to address you today on this critical subject of crude oil exports. theyer blue buries or oil, have hampered the market. the same with the critical honest we are talking about, crude oil. we need to let -- make this restriction sooner rather than later. ceo of a company that developed the first field ever drilled with horizontal drilling and the largest holder and most active driller, is in a unique position to be one of the first

to be american energy independence for years ago. today i see firsthand what is necessary to continue the oil and gas renaissance and achieve energy independence. in 2011 they put a stake in the ground and predicted energy independence by 2020. america's energy independent oil and natch -- and natural gas drillers have made this a reality. as a result, we can today's marked the recent four year anniversary of the oil embargo. along with it, ending a shortsighted regulation the pastor and the same time. this is the price of energy and

brought about unintended consequences. one law banned the use of natural gas as a fuel and mandated u.s. power plants. we understand what has happened. legislators have are peeled and post-embargo the regulations. the energy policy and conservation act of 1975 and the of 1979, westchester and shall he been crude oil exports. creation of the export restriction no longer reflects the economic reality of the global energy market place we had today. are entering a new area of energy abundance in america and the world. we have only been able to extract hydrocarbons from

quality rock, primarily through vertical wells. america now counts natural gas supply in centuries. experts agree we will be energy independent in terms of crude oil within this decade. this phenomenon was brought about by a group of american independent producers and missed the general consensus of the industry. it was in complete contrast to popular belief that the united states was running out of oil and gas at the turn of the 21st century. today we must crack another misconception that we are not exporting petroleum. nothing could be further from the truth. refining companies are without any limitations. why shouldn't independent producers be allowed to do the same? arguede years some have

free access to world markets would drive up the cost of gasoline. the opposite is actually true. unlike the exports of crude oil, exports of gasoline and other refined products are not restrict it. petroleum products have been sold at a higher price than global markets. the benefits of exports to the american consumer will be competition for the refining of gasoline. indeed crude oil no different than any other commodity demanded by consumers. byy are only brought about weaker demand or improved efficiency in the market. and governments attempt to lower's -- legislate lower prices, no matter how well- disruptions and

unintended consequences inevitably result. this fall short of attentional and the consumer ends up paying higher prices. over the past 18 months consumer prices for gasoline and diesel have been reduced almost 20% due to the energy renaissance brought about by horizontal drilling. release yesterday by icf international states the american consumer cost released commodities can be reduced another $6.6 billion per year if the export ban is removed. we find ourselves at a crossroads. do we reflect the reality of today? lifting export restrictions will strengthen the domestic oil industry, a critical component of the economy whose impact reaches far beyond the american consumer. the energy sector has added jobs for millions of americans and

has also served as a job multiplier for nation's growing anti-fracturing industries. energy independence means energy security. in conclusion, the world has drastically changed since the opec oil embargo, and the reactionary environment of federal relate -- regulations in the 1970s. even then come up that was symbolic as we had no oil export. this inhibits the export crude oil produced in the u.s.. >> thank you very much. mr. burnett. the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. i asked that my full for marks be included in the record. i am a senior vice president for fuel optimization for delta

airlines. in this position i managed delta's jet fuel supply as well as serve as chairman of the board of munro energy, the company that owns and operates a refinery in pennsylvania. behind the u.s. military, d is the largest user of get -- jet fuel in the world in the largest expense. because of this, we are uniquely situated, as an end-user of cruiser -- crude oil and refiner and the current debate over whether to lift it. the banve strongly that on u.s. crude oil exports is good policy and that lifting export limits would come at the expense of the american consumer who would pay more for gasoline come up more for heating oil and more for the price of an airline ticket. today the going price for a barrel of u.s. crude is $11 less than a barrel sold in europe. this price differential can be easily explained. u.s. crude market is a competitive one with a price

determined by supply and demand. once the u.s. domestic market incorporated the supply of crude from places like north dakota, the price of a domestic barrel of oil came down. in contrast, the global market is influenced by a cartel were opec countries control production in order to set prices. if we let the export ban, we would in essence be allowing the transporter crude out of a competitive market in this country and into a less competitive global one controlled isu oil producing state. be easy to would predict. u.s. crude would flow out of the country and onto the world market. opec would reduce supply to remain high global prices. the united states use of homegrown oil would diminish and prices here at home what rise to match the higher global price for a barrel of crude. as one commentator put it, allowing for the export of

homegrown u.s. crude would do nothing more than imports higher opec prices into the u.s. market. it is clear who gains from this oil and production companies, many of which are foreign owned. with the increased supply of u.s. crude hoping to push prices down, these companies want to sell u.s. crude on the global market at higher prices largely determined by opec. it is equally a parent who was loose, the american consumers who would see prices rise for gasoline, petroleum products and most consumer goods that rely on fuel to get to market. this can be explained by looking at history. before the oil shale boom there was too much capacity in the northeast and along the gulf coast and many were closing. purchase from conoco phillips. after that facility had been closed nearly one year.

revolution brave and to u.s. refineries and created jobs for thousands of refinery workers. in thinking about the merits of the export ban, we should also consider a goal, which was to help achieve energy independence and by independents, i mean the ability to meet the energy needs from sources within north america. notwithstanding the upswing in domestic reduction, this country still imports around 33% of its daily crude oil needs from outside north america. that is why exporting u.s. crude makes little sense. if we allow for the export of u.s. crude, we will have to import more oil from overseas and subject ourselves once again to an increasing degree of price but maturity and higher global prices. sum, the export ban works. it may have taken longer than via tessa paid it and the light -- 1970s, but we're now seeing the benefit.

lower prices for crude in this country compared to global markets and an increase in homegrown energy. the band made -- ban may be unnecessary at some point i will close with a sports metaphor. it would be like ending the game after the first quarter. thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. [inaudible] members of the committee for this opportunity to talk about this important subject. i have been writing about the influence of opec on our country since i was a junior in high school, believe it or not. i won a term paper contest in the state of massachusetts. i am so glad to be able