>> look forward to working with you on that very important issue. the statistics are very alarming. 20% of all young women are either sexually assaulted or an attempt made at a sexual assault. usually who are in college, usually this happens in their freshman or the early part of their sophomore years. we are going to try to use those kinds of statistics and the work of this task force that the president has put together to try to deal with that issue and we will look forward to working with you and other members of congress in trying to come up with meaningful ways that we can deal with an issue that has too often been, if not ignored, not given the attention that it deserves. thinks thato one this issue merely involves rhetoric, there is a legal basis. statutesix and other protecting women against ongoing assaults and other kinds of harm

that they suffer on our campuses -- >> the justice department is using all the tools we can. we have an agreement with the university of montana where that problem was not being adequately addressed. we worked out -- we put in place a consent agreement. are talkingsities to the university of montana to see what they have put in place. it is often that this kind of thing will expand and cover more college campuses. guest: thank you for your testimony today. >> thank you. >> senator graham. >> good morning. people on both sides are asking you to do some very worthy things. this is a great area for you to be involved in. ella me sequestration affects your ability to do what you are tasked with today.

be ablemply would not to do the kinds of things that the american people expect of us. in the 4000 fewer people justice department than we did in january of 2011 as a result of sequestration or the expectation of sequestration that forced me to put into place a hiring freeze. we have fewer investigators, fewer prosecutors, our ability to do the job is very negatively impacted by sequestration. >> it is one thing to become more efficient. it becomes a lack of ability. all remember that. over the next decade, do you see threats to our homeland increasing, decreasing, or sting about the same regarding terrorist activity? i would say that in terms of the threat from core al qaeda, the threat is likely less

severe. i am more concerned about homegrown violent extremists and get radicalized in a bright of ways that you are familiar with. what they might try to do. offs.e one >> homegrown terrorism, which i believe is on the rise -- the likelihood of being attacked is theeone here future. the taliban and is the ones who trained the guys in new york. >> the affiliates are out there. >> there out to get us. i want people to understand that privacy is important, but understanding the threat is also important. do you agree with me that the allegation is that the irs targeted people who were political enemies of the and made it harder for

them to organize and express themselves questio? >> it is what generated my desire to have an investigation. >> this is not the first thing that happened in washington. things do happen. i guess how we handle it is important. third, cruise has written you a has written you a letter. senator korn and suggested that has not been talked to. is that possible? >> because the investigation is not completed. >> how could you investigate a matter if you don't talk to the people who are claiming to be the victim question mark it would be impossible to say that that is a thorough investigation. >> you certainly have to talk to the victims.

my only point was, the investigation is not over. point, how many of the tea party organizations that claim to have been abused by the irs -- how many people have been talked to? the victims themselves by anybody in the justice department. >> this is an ongoing matter. i don't want to get into the specifics -- >> if the answer were none, that would be stunning, wouldn't it at this late date? >> the investigation has been going on for some time -- >> do you know if any of the victims have been talk to questio? >> i don't want to share -- >> the idea of the special prosecutor seems to make sense here. the gentleman you were pointing

out that made a donation to the president. that bothers some people. i understand why it would. you think we would be better off to have somebody clearly disconnected from the politics of president obama? be seen asat can maybe having a political allegiance to close this matter? the country would be better served if we did that. guest: is done by career people who have constitutional rights to engage in play collectivity. the men and women of the justice department have put aside whatever their political leanings are in conducting investigations. >> you have political appointees. we have a country to run here. a group of people with great reason believe that their own

government made it difficult for them to organize and express themselves politically. that goes to the heart and soul of democracy. it would be better for us all if somebody with an independent viewpoint looked at that. >> i don't think there is any basis to believe that anybody who is involved in this investigation would conduct themselves in a way that is inappropriate or would be shaded by their political activity. investigating the abuse of power by the obama was a donor to is fr the president. >> the people have constitutional rights -- >> i totally agree. , to a perception problem me, it is a no-brainer. i'm glad that somebody outside the administration eventually

look at watergate. -- looked at watergate. let's go to benghazi. can we expect any prosecutions anytime soon against alleged perpetrators? >> we have been working very hard in connection with an investigation. the work we are doing is very challenging. we have identified people who we believe are responsible for -- i don't want to comment on anybody specifically. >> he is commonly identified in the press as one of the planners of the attack. the attack in libya. that is what the press reports are. i reasoned believe they are right. he has been interviewed by cnn, times of london, and reuters. if the't we grabbed him press can talk to them openly in a hotel in libya?

are determined to hold accountable the people who were responsible for that attack. we will take and use all measures of the american government in order to effectuate that desire. interview the survivors of the attack on the 15th, 16th, 17th of september for those fbisked interviews. i want to know what they said about a potential protest. they said that none of the survivors told the fbi agents in that there was a protest. would you allow us to have access to those interviews? >> i'm not aware of what happened in those interviews. you said those three days of interviews. you first get notified of what happened in may

ghazi? did you believe it to be a terrorist attack? >> i'm not sure when i first heard about the attack. i'm sure sometime shortly after. >> did the fbi ever brief you after these interviews? i was briefed by the fbi and a number of occasions with regard to both the attack and the investigation into the attack. >> the last interview was done on the 17th of september. can you look back in your notes and tell us when the first time you were informed by the bia about what they had found about the attack? is that possible? my time is up. when did the attorney general of the united states made aware of the fact that the fbi had interviewed the survivors of the attack? when did they tell you about the interviews and about what they found? guest: i would have to look at

the records on that. what we tried to do initially was to work with the libyan government to get the fbi into libya to look at the crime scene. that was our primary concern. our initial concern. from there, interviews were done of people who were in the facility at the time and you survived the attack. >> you can go back and look at it and let us know. i would appreciate it. thank you. i do want to note that senator franken and i jointly recommended the process way before pat jones had even been confirmed. senator franken. >> thank you. withld associate myself

the chairwoman's remarks. and he an outstanding nominee. -- is an outstanding nominee. mr. attorney general, thank you for your service. i want to talk to you about a matter that is pressing right now. a number of other states are experiencing a shortage of propane and the cost of propane is skyrocketing. this is a real crisis. i wrote the president about it over the weekend. an hour or so ago with the secretary of energy. one of the things that the administration can do is to work with the industry to make sure propane is getting to the regions of the country that really need. at areare 25 states ther

in crisis here. one of the challenges is there might be a concern over antitrust violations. however, i know this issue may radar. willon your you commit to working with me to make sure that any of those issues can be addressed and avoided in the midst of this crisis? >> we will certainly do that. we will try to do all that we can to make sure that the relief people need with regards to the provision of propane occurs. we will look at what we can do to be as flexible as we can. >> to allow these companies to -- i was pleased to see that you visited a veterans treatment center in roanoke last week ar. we have successful courts in minnesota and across the country. not nearly enough to meet the demand. can you tell the committee what

you learn from your visit to center and white is worthwhile for the government to invest in these programs ? >> we owe a debt to the people who have served. -- them putting their lives at risk. they come back with issues that were generated as a result of their service that puts them in conflict with the law. they break the law. individuallye held responsible, but we have to come up with ways in which we deal with those underlying issues thatgenerated or caused involvement with the law. what i saw in roanoke is something that i think we should try to expand. difficult thing. they said it was easier to plead guilty to 30 days in jail and be done with it as opposed to going

through a six-month program where you have to report every random are subject to drug tests and prove that you have a good living situation and employment. it is very rigorous. to rate is tiny compared what other people go through. we save money by not incarcerating people unnecessarily. we enhance public safety by decreasing the number of crimes. i thinkaw in roanoke, it was very heartening to see. it is something we need to export -- support and expand. >> i appreciate that response. it is a very important issue to me and a lot of members of both the house and the senate on a totally bipartisan basis. for the justice and mental health collaboration act. it would authorize federal funding for veteran treatment courts.

along with a whole bunch of other things. you do have too many people incarcerated who have not committed violent crimes who are there because of mental health addiction, who would be better off not being in prison. we are paying way too much money to keep them incarcerated. they have more recidivism because of being put in prison instead of being put in treatment. this is about mental health courts and veterans courts. i would like to submit records as a report that i received from the wounded warrior project and amvets. i would like to submit articles from the star tribune administered a public radio that discussed this issue. object?ct -- do you >> they are in the records.

monday, the department announced that it would let companies disclose the number of certain surveillance orders they get and the number of customers affected by those orders. a step forward for transparency. i want to thank you for your work on this. i respectfully -- i don't think it's enough transparency. appeal to the surveillance program that has been declassified. the call records programs, it affects millions of americans. company disclosures are optional and voluntary. unless the government tells the american people how many of them have had their information collected under all these programs, the public will not know the full scope of

surveillance. i have a bipartisan bill with the senator from nevada that will force the government to give the american people a good idea of how many of them have had their information collected under all these programs and how much of it has been. -- has been looked at. has cosponsored it. the government has opposed this measure. it refuses to disclose this information on its own. -- ifk it is common sense the public knew this information, it would be able to make a better decision for to both the purpose, the efficacy of this program, i thinkhat extent --

the president said it last night. it will help with trust. and will the government give the american people a good idea of had theirf them have information collected and viewed or accessed under this program? >> one of the things we want to try to do -- you are right. we took one monday. it was the first step. there is a need for greater transparency. for people to understand the nature of the programs that are being run. we always have to understand that the value of these programs -- they are intelligence programs. they have to be kept secret. how we strike that balance is something that we will be working on in conjunction with other people. we will invite your involvement

in that process. so that we ultimately come up is effective that and keep the american people safe while at the same time giving the american people a degree of assurance that we are only doing that which is to make those programs effective. to the extent that we can share information as we did on monday about what actually is being collected in terms of numbers. i think that is something that we want to try to encourage. >> thank you. my time has expired. i would like to submit some questions for the record. >> thank you very much. senator cruz. >> thank you for being here. i would like to talk to you about abuse of power. and the integrity of the department of justice. , the inspectoro general with the department of

the irs concluded that had improperly targeted conservative citizen groups, tea party groups, pro-israel groups, pro-life groups. the day that was made public, president obama described what had occurred as "in toleralbe." he said americans have a right to be angry about it and i am angry about it. likewise, that same day, you said the irs is targeting conservative citizens groups being "outrageous and unacceptable." that was eight months ago. in the eight months that have d, the head of the office has gone before congress and has pleaded the fifth. she raised her hand and said if i testify i will incriminate myself.

for a senior government official to plead the fifth is a major occurrence. in the 280 days sense that inspector general report, nobody has been indicted. not a single person. that --80 days sense since that inspector general report, no indictments were planned. were unwilling to answer a question whether even a single victim of the targeting has been interviewed in the 280 days that have transpired. astonishingly, it has now been publicly reported that the lead lawyer heading the one,tigation was number appointed from the civil rights division, which is historically the most politically charged

department, and even more astonishingly, is a major democratic donor and donor to president obama between 2004-2012. she has personally given $6,000 to president obama and the democratic party. i must tell you, i find it astonishing that the department of justice appointed a major obama donor to had this investigation. the first question i want to ask is, did you know that the lawyer in charge of this investigation was a major obama donor? this is an investigation being done by the civil rights division. if i had to assign a lead in this, i would say the public integrity section is not the lead. it is involving the fbi, as well as the inspector general from

the treasury department. >> with all respect, you did not answer the question i asked. did you know that this lawyer was a major obama donor? >> i don't know anything about the political activities of anybody who is involved in this investigation. >> when you are asked about this commie made a reference to the fact that she has a first amendment right to be involved in politics. nobody is talking about restraining her first amendment right to be involved in politics. the department of justice ethics says that if a lawyer leaves -- believes and partiality you might be questioned, you must disqualify yourself or see the ethics officer. it goes on to say in a case where your impartiality might be questioned, you may obtain a formal opinion that the department's interest in your participation in this matter

outweighs the concerned that the integrity of the department's operation would be questioned. the fact that a major obama donor is playing this leadership role has resulted in the integrity of the department in question. that out ofosition 117,000 employees of the partner justice, the only lawyer available to had this investigation was a major obama donor? have 112,000 people. beyond that, the people who are assigned to this case are career .eople we make sure the people with the greatest amount of experience would handle this matter. your repeated reference to the lead lawyer is not borne out by the roles she is actually playing. i don't have any basis to

believe that the people who i -- they're looking at the fact. applying the law to those facts. i don't have any basis to believe that anything other than that is occurring. havelot of americans concern. 280 days have passed and the victims have not been interviewed. 280 days have passed and the anger and outrage that the president and you have expressed is utterly disappeared. in the state of the union address, the president did not so much as mention the words irs. sees very and outrage little manifestation in actual action. out --would also point >> i would hope that the president would not discuss an ongoing investigation. is not unusualt

for complex investigations. we want to make sure that what we do is comprehensive and at the end of the day we get it right. on a short basis, ask people to simply do them right. >> many of the victims have not been interviewed. has the investigation examined the meetings between the head of the irs and the white house local operatives to determine the degree of political influence that was exercised from the white house over this political targeting? i am not going to discuss an ongoing investigation and what steps have been taken in connection with an investigation. doings not something i'm only for this inquiry. this would be an answer you would get from me for any investigation that the department of justice was involved in. it is not appropriate for an attorney general or any justice department person to discuss an

ongoing criminal investigation. any investigation been done about whether individual daughters -- donors to governor romney have been audited and targeted by the irs at a greater rate than donors to president obama? as i travel the country, i've heard from dozens of financial supporters for governor romney who told me that they had never been audited in their life and within a week of it becoming public that they were raising money for mitt romney, they discovered they were being audited. those are anecdotal stories. it would be relatively simple to rates ofhe prosecution obama donors versus romney donors. it were the case that they were being audited at a much higher frequency, that basis tose substantial

investigate further. at the investigation inquired on that? >> i will give you the same response to the questions that you are asking that were similar. i will not discuss what we have done in an ongoing investigation. this is a matter that is resolutely being investigated. interviews are being done. analysis is being conducted. it would be inappropriate for me to talk about the matter in the way that you asked. >> my time has expired. let me say this in conclusion. i sent you last week at letter laying out this record. power.out the abuse of laying out the obvious conflict of interest. in my view, the integrity of the department of justice has been severely compromised. -- readessors of yours assessors of yours in both essors of yoursec

have made the right decision and the point of -- the a point of special prosecutors. of prosecutors. appointed robert fisk to investigate allegations against president clinton. i would call upon you to carry out the tradition of independence that attorneys general have honored that office with percent trees to protect the department of justice, given the political sensitivities. given the fact that individual citizens believe they are being persecuted by the federal government for partisan reasons, andould further justice further the integrity of the department of justice for you to

appoint a special prosecutor with a meaningful degree of independence to investigate and find out what happened. i would suggest that any special prosecutor should have integrity beyond reproach and to not be a major obama donor. >> let me just say this. did was what reno according to a statute that no longer exists. the regulations that now exist were put in place under my supervision when i was deputy attorney general in the clinton administration. i'm familiar with both regulation and when it ought to be applied. i don't think there is a basis for us to conclude on the information as it presently exists that there is any reason of the appointment independent counsel. i have faith in the people were handling this matter. it is free of any kind of

partisan or ideological tent -- tint. it is based on the facts and the law. the notion that somehow this has caused a loss of faith in this justice department i think is inconsistent with fact. thank you attorney general holder for your testimony today and your service. i want to first focus on the areas of shared concern interests. the department of justice westling has highlighted a broad range of response abilities -- responsibilities. when interest in strengthening the vital connections between our federal, state, and local law enforcement. you emphasized your gratitude for the appropriations this year which makes possible the strengthening to that relationship. in delaware, the justice initiative is one example of this partnership that is making

a real difference. sustained federal support is going to be critical to ensure that newly enacted state reforms actually translate into a reduced recidivism rate. can you comment on why it is important for the federal government to invest in state and local law enforcement, training, information sharing, funding assistance -- why does this make a difference? increase they to capacity. the law-enforcement is conducted by people who are at state and local law enforcement agencies. helping them do their jobs makes a great deal of sense. i also think that what we see is innovative practices being done by our state and local counterparts. anwant to try to support experiment and see which things work and then try to push those out to other parts of the country. if we want to have a truly safe

country with safe communities, law enforcement practices, the federal government has the unique mechanisms funding to funnel money to agencies that have particular crime problems that they're dealing with or have innovative solutions to crime problems that many communities around the nation are facing. >> thank you. i am a strong believer in the capacity of the federal government to apply specific programs and combine research, training, and funding assistance to leverage those either unique practices or important programs. i want to draw your attention to two of them. -- centersbuse act are an effective tool. the critical importance of strengthening our enforcement against sex trafficking -- the centers have played a role in

that. and the partnership act, which is made possible the deployment vests,ting-edge especially in rural the apartments where they could not afford them themselves. , funding was restored. i think we are continuing to work in partnership to ensure that they are actually carrying it forward. you support these programs. the budgets are difficult and an important tool to convey our values and our priorities. would you comment on how these specific row grahams can help state and local law enforcement, particularly in ways that are not possible if done alone at the state or local level? gues > child advocate centers -- advocacy centers, they are a -- ary tool, a cool tool

good tool for people in law enforcement to prosecute cases that involve children who are victims. beyond that, it also helps the healing process for young victims so they don't get re-victimized by the process they go through. once through with the process, they can heal. for too long, we did not understand the unique needs that children had. child advocate centers -- advocacy centers help in that regard. we don't have budget numbers yet for 2015. we don't have the micro numbers. i will be advocating on behalf of of these child advocacy centers. they are proven to work. , as we arehey assist

trying to decide what our priorities are, the protection of our most vulnerable citizens, our children, has to be a place where we put our money. with regard to the vests, we have talked about this before. you've heard the very legitimate concern that we have not made the provision of vests dependent on the size of the community. on three-manare police forces are just as at risk when they are making a stop on a highway in the middle of the night as is somebody who works from -- for the new york leased apartment. we want to get as many of these vests out there as we can. >> the recent report from the presidential commission confirms an issue that i have raised previously. there is a widespread lack of compliance with section five.

a report specifically says that dmv's which are supposed to play a central role in the system are a weak link. many disregard the law. do you see this report as a call to action for enforcement of section five by the department? what is your plan to make sure this important law is enforced? think that was a very thoughtful and potentially consequential piece of legislation. enforced and be for it not to be paid attention what i thinkgainst is really important. which is to somehow in an expand the way

franchise and make it easy for people to get to vote. to the extent that issues have been identified in that report, we will look at them and that will help shape our enforcement efforts. -- just to bring bring to the attention of the department, better practices. we can hopefully modify things that are inconsistent with the act. >> a last question about reform. the president has publicly developed options to section 215 that would better respect and defend civil liberties in this country. position departments that it can be used for collection of metadata beyond phone records, including location information, financial records, or other internet records?

how do you view the best way of moving forward to ensure that the public -- that the framework for making these decisions is right? you support more disclosures of legal rationales for various aspects of surveillance programs. >> we have to have some bring questions about the bulk collection component of section 215. and make a decision about whether or not we are getting from that program sufficient amounts of good information and usable information. very legitimate concerns that people have expressed about intentionally wide-ranging nature of the program. ith an open this when mind. there are programs that have to be guarded at all costs. with regards to 215, the

metadata part of 215, we have to esk ourselves som difficult questions. should we do them? it is legal, but that does not answer the question that the president has posed to us. number of colleagues and urging and hoping that the investigation into the irs actions is done in a balanced and professional way. i assume it is. what i've heard is that there were progressive groups as well that werety groups perhaps allegedly on the receiving end of reviews of their applications. it is my expectation that they will have more on the conduct of this investigation. >> let me assure you and the merkin people that the investigation of what we call the irs investigation will be done in a nonpartisan,

non-ideological way that we will make determinations only on the basis of the good investigative techniques that we always employee in the justice department. let me also express confidence in the men and women who are part of the team for investigating the case now. i see no basis to question their impartiality. to share as much information as we can about the conclusions that we have reached, either through prosecutions or declamations. however the case ends up. >> thank you. >> last but not least, senator flake. >> i want to say, i share the concern that my colleagues have expressed about some of the extraconstitutional actions taken with the president -- taken by the president with regards to the aca.

some answers have been given. some not. i don't think i will plow any new ground. i share the concerns about the investigation, the timeliness of it, i hope we can move forward quickly. i'm concerned about whether they are leaks or statements by the fbi that should not have been there'll be- that no criminal prosecution. i think that is concerning. when the fbi says something like that, i would hope that you would refute that. i don't think we saw that. talk about an area that is not been talked about. with regard to waste or inefficiency in the grant programs. j administered grants -- michael horowitz issued a report in december. he is saying that we need some

budget constraints. we need things put in place to make sure that we are not squandering a lot of taxpayer resources. -- it was reported that somebody has squandered as much as $100 million in taxpayer dollars over the last five years. example, question, for all of the more than $23 million in grant funds awarded by the department to big brothers and theresters of america. need to be controls in place to shed the light on where this money is going. mr. horwitz said that there is virtually no visibility that the grant funds are being used by the recipients. unless there is an audit or investigation on how they , theate resources government and taxpayers are virtually in the dark regarding

how grant funds are actually used. this is an ongoing problem. what is being done to remedy this? that --ve to understand i don't think the inspector general indicated that he is concerned that these funds have been missed used as much as they -- misused as much as they are being used in an appropriate way. it is a serious concern. over the last couple of years, things have gotten better than they were. i think that is what he said. with theave to do -- concern you raised, it is a legitimate one. we hav need a mechanism to make sure that the money is being used in an appropriate way.

given andrpose it was the effectiveness of the grants. doj said in 2012 that he would conduct an assessment of these programs to see where the money is being wasted. thatnspector general said that assessment has not been completed or provided to him or to congress. is that the case? >> we will have to get that assessment completed and shared with congress and shared with the inspector general. >> with regards to the investigation of the irs, it is .erhaps routine to go 260 days i understand that. it probably is routine. what i would suggest is that it is not routine to go for two years before you come back with an assessment that you said you would do with regard to these programs. is that routine to take 1.5 years or so?

>> i would not say this routine. we want to make sure that we look at these things and do a complete job. months, that would seem to be on the excessive side. >> it was brought up earlier that the questions that were submitted for the last oversight hearing, that doj has not returned any answers to those questions by this oversight committee. is that routine to go nearly a year without answering specific questions that up and asked as part of the oversight hearing ? >> we try to answer all the questions before the next oversight hearing. i don't know how many of the questions have not been responded to. i will have to look into that. >> none of the questions have been answered.

nothing. the answers have been prepared they are under review by the office of management. wenearly one year later when come to the next oversight hearing, we still have not received answers to the questions from the last oversight hearing. i realize we have not gone through regular order for a while, but it is to the old to provide -- it is difficult to provide oversight when we don't know. job toeed to do a better get answers to you in a more timely fashion. >> i would like to have commitment that you will get back in a more timely fashion. with regards to one quick question on immigration -- i was part of the group that put together an immigration bill. i share the president's concern

and desire to get immigration reform done. let me tell you, in all honestly, one of -- in all honesty, one of the most difficult questions i get about this new legislation coming forward -- going forward, they say, why would we want to create more laws when we simply aren't enforcing the ones that we have for the it ministration takes upon itself to interpret the laws that we have and use too much discretion in terms of implementation those loss? have very little confidence that the new legislation put forward, when it becomes a law, will be implemented as it was intended. do you understand that sentiment out there at least? what can the administration do to help us? we are trying to get this done. i am on your side. those who want to get immigration reform done, i can tell you, it is very difficult releasesee things like

of individuals with multiple felonies into the community. questions and those answers never got back to us either. that stuff at home makes it very difficult to instill the confidence we need that these laws will be executed. if people truly understood , howe enforce the laws completely we enforce them, how we use the discretion that we possess, they will have a greater degree of humbert -- in how we conduct themselves. and not focus on anecdotal things. they will have a more systemic view of how we do what we do. i'm quite proud of the way in which we use these resources that we have to keep the american people safe.

>> i agree with that. i will tell you, if people understood, perhaps they would better understand, if they had answers to these questions. we are not getting answers to those questions. i am unable to go back to my constituents and say, here are the reasons why these people have mulled all felonies and were released back to the community because i'm not getting answers back from the department of homeland security or the doj. your point, but just to tell you, it is very difficult when we don't hear back from the department a year later in conducting oversight hearings. i will leave you with that and appreciate you being here. we will have further written questions to follow-up. >> the concern you raise this fair. .e will have to do better i'm not criticizing anybody in the justice department. as an executive branch, we are to do better in response to the

questions. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. thank you attorney general holder. people who watch this hearing can see a range of work the justice department does. everything from legal issues ,egarding surveillance, propane sex trafficking, irs investigations and drug policy. we thank you for answering such a broad range of questions at this oversight hearing today. we look forward to seeing you again soon. the record will stay open for two weeks. thank you. >> thank you. john mccain tweeted a picture

with the ukrainian opposition leader. lieberman, who is part of the u.s. delegation attending the munich security conference. chuck hagel is also at the conference, as well as john kerry, who said in a speech today that the u.s. and the european union stand with the people of ukraine in the fight for their future. that is according to the associated press. tomorrow on newsmakers, michigan senator debbie stevan our. -- debbie stabenow. she will speak about the farm bill that was passed in the house yesterday. and what congress should do at the debt ceiling approaches. here's some of that interview. >> we are going to be in a situation where we will not be able to pay our bills. shame on us as america. if that is the case. we have to make sure that those we have committed to our paid.

everybody is responsible. country.o do that as a it is pretty simple. the constitution requires us to do it. you negotiate on paying her bills. we can negotiate a lot of things. agriculture and food policy -- when it comes to paying the bills, it is our response ability to pay the bills. >> can you tolerate some upsets? -- offsets? can watch all of newsmakers tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. after newsmakers, president obama's date of the union address and the republican response by cathy mcmorris rodgers. starting at 10:35 eastern. c-span. we bring public affairs from washington directly to you go to you.

offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. all as a public service of private industry. your c-span. created by the public tv industry 35 years ago. watch us in hd. like us on facebook. and follow us on twitter. six world leaders a are scheduled to reach a long-term deal to curb iran's nuclear program. the hearing is two hours and 20 minutes. >> timing is everything in life. thank u so much. the joint subcommittee will come to order. after recognizing myself, ranking member, we will hear from our foreign affairs

committee chairman. we will hear from chairman sherman for five minutes each. limitations, will go directly to our witnesses' testimony. without objection, the prepared statements will be part of the record. members may have five days to submit questions for the record. the chair now recognizes herself for five minutes. on november 24, 2013, secretary they announced that a goshen settlement had been reached between iran on its nuclear program. it was short on the details. the picture that was painted was that iran would agree to modest limits on enrichment capabilities, increased monitoring, the cessation of

manufacturing centrifuges and it would not build heavywater reactors. in exchange, iran would receive an easing of sanctions and the suspension of certain sanctions on the import of precious metal auto andts from iran's petrochemical sectors. no doubt, president obama will count this deal as the ultimate achievement for diplomacy and say, while excluding us to wait a minute, i don't trust the iranian regime. if it is found to be acting on say shall he, which history has shown, it is not out of the realm of possibility. in announcement was made november. it was not until one week ago on january 20 that the technical details were agreed upon and finally implement. the most glaring deficiency with this interim deal is its lopsidedness.

iran got a sweetheart deal and the rest of the world is not any than from an iranian bomb before. our closest ally and friend in the region, the democratic jewish state of israel has been very concerned with what this deal means for its security from the get go. other countries involved feel slighted by our approach to this issue. let's set aside the dangerous precedent that the sets for the rest of the world. the bridges we have burned with allies to reach this agreement. this agreement does not even live up to the obligations set forth by the un security council resolutions on iran. it is far from our policy of disarmament from only 10 years ago. let's focus on what iran is allowed to do. iran is allowed to keep its nuclear weapons program infrastructure intact and will still be allowed to enrich. sure there are cap to the richmond and it will happen -- have to convert some of its

uranium to oxide, it'll have the proficiency that if it decides to break the agreement, it can continue to improve capability with only a minute -- a minor setback. it is a shame that we have the notionto a man that they have a right to enrich. rightbandoned the an to enrichment when it was in violation of its in richmond program treaty. it must therefore not be allowed to enrich. with what they did here, iran will never be pushed off its stance and a final comprehensive agreement. the interim deal focuses on the nuclear aspect and falls short on iran's weaponization at efforts. it now has more time to advance

those efforts. there is nothing that allows the to haveional agency access. it is the crust of the issue here. time. from announcement to implementation, two months time have passed. this gave the regime plenty of time to continue to make advancements while the i don't believe this was done by mistake oner that part. they're experts in delayed tactics and double talks. in the two months after secretary kerry's press conference, tehran anouned it -- announced it made advancements in its icbm technology, designed new range of centrifuges and was ready to manufacture them and it would continue construction at its heavy water reactor in iraq. i envision a scenario in which iran may comply with this agreement for six months, but

even if iran does violate the terms of the agreement that the joint commission established in the final document has murky authority at best to conduct oversight, enforce compliance or impose strict consequences. there's no mechanism to allow for adjudication in decision of this deal. the threat that iran can create a nuclear weapon is all too real and where p5 plus one fails in this interim agreement. with rouhani stating it will not dismantle any part of its program in any circumstance it leaves me fearing that the administration will accept -- has me fearing what the

administration will accept in a final, comprehensive agreement. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses' testimonies and the views of my colleagues. now i turn to my good friend, the ranking member, ted deutch of florida. >> thank you madam chairman, chairman poe, for holding this hearing. thank you to our panel of very distinguished experts for appearing here today. we welcome your expertise and your insight as we determine the efficacy of iran sanctions under the jpoa and the next steps in reaching a final agreement to achieve our ultimate goal of preventing a nuclear-armed iran. let me be clear from the outset. there's no doubt that resolving the iranian nuclear crisis through diplomacy has been the preferred track of the administration and the congress.

i think we all recognize the significant achievement of the u.s. efforts to breng iran to the table. but there are many members on both sides of the aisle that feel it is absolutely appropriate for congress, the body that built the sanctions architecture that brought iran to the table, to remind the iranians that full sanctions relief will come only when a deal acceptable to the p5 plus one and our regional allies is reached. this relief can only come if congress acts, so i would also suggest that it's important to send iran a reminder as well as to remind companies lining up to visit tehran a message of what is at stake if iran violates the terms. a deal is in place and if we're going to move forward with a final deal, we have to focus on ensuring that while developing parameters. we're a ways into this plan and while the caps on iran's current program are substantial, we know they cannot be the terms of a long-term deal.

we must ultimately see serious, permanent rollbacks of the program, not just easily reversible freezes. we know that the joint plan of action sets the course for iran to maintain an enrichment program consistent with practical needs. iran continues to claim a right to enrich for nuclear power but we must understand that none of iran's current enrichment activities are useful for a civilian nuclear program. consider, iran already has a nuclear reactors in bashir running on imported russian fuel. in fact the russian deal requires russian fuel just as other nations' agreements are contingent on use of imported fuel from those nations. it would take iran years to turn its fuel into power for a power reactor.

we must remember that none of its current stockpile can be used in its nuclear reactor. to that end, most nations with nuclear power don't enrich they -- uranium and instead import from other countries. what does this all mean? the iranian stockpile is useless for their domestic energy program, however 19,000 centrifuges and seven tons of enriched uranium are highly useful when a nation is trying to build a nuclear weapon. we can agree that nuclear science is complicated but it seems that even someone with only a cursory knowledge of this can see the dangers posed by iran's nuclear activities. can we be sure that we're going to be able to see the manufacturing of all the various parts that make up -- can we be sure that iran is not continuing to manufacture more centrifuges at other locations? moreover can we verify that they have not developed another site.

the other two were constructed in secret until being exposed by the international community in 2002 and 2009. iran has long said it intends to have up to 10 enrichment facilities. iran may continue its reserge -- research and development allowing them to continue work on centrifuge development. mr. albright, in your testimony, it could lead to breakthroughs in materials and methods that would strengthen a secret breakout effort. how concerned should we be that continued r&d will allow them to install centrifuges within six months or a year or five years? these are the kind of difficult questions that have to be answered if the p5 plus one are to reach an acceptable deal. before any long-term deal is reached, iran must come clean about all aspects of its program, including finally addressing all outstanding iaea concerns with possible military

dimensions and this development of nuclear explosive devices, procurement of nuclear related materials by the irtc and military activities at the parching site. the institute for science and international security describes the parching site as a huge site dedicated to the research, development, and production of ammunition, rockets and high explosives. iran must know at the outset that they will not be able to sweep these allegations under the rug. i look forward to discussing with our witnesses a way to halt this greatest threat to national security. >> now we turn to full committee chairman mr. royce for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, chairman ros-lehtinen. i thank you, i thank mr. ted poe, chairman ted poe, and i e-- and also mr. deutch far very well reasoned argument that he just laid out and ileana, i

think you laid out a compelling case as well. i think all are a little stunned. i think we're stunned that not only does iran continue to enrich uranium but they are very, very vocal about the fact that they're going to continue to research and development on centrifuges. for them to be making this pronouncement in the middle of this interim agreement on how they're reaching this capability, to develop and spin these centrifuges at supersonic speeds, setting new records, implies a certain intent on undetectable nuclear breakout capability. i think this is what members worry about. we worry that as you try to work out an agreement here and we

talk about the plutonium reactor, heavy water reactor facility at iraq, the point that they're going to continue performing work at that site. i think the large quantities of existing stockpiles, when they make the comment, no, they're not going to draw down on those stockpiles, all of this sends a message in terms of what their intent is and quite simply, these elements of a nuclear program which we're talking about right now, will continue to operate as the talks go on so i think for the members of the house here on the foreign affairs committee, we're a little concerned that unless iran is pressed to fully reveal iran's extensive activities to develop and test a nuclear device, unless we get that out on the table, and as we hear

today there's a great deal of evidence that iran has devoted much effort to this over the years, unless we have the details on that, i think we're left wondering about iran's clear intentions here and i don't think we want them to cover up that extensive evidence either. part of it is because we watch iran's actions, over 400 executions last year, of political and of religious opposition in the country, stoning is still going on in iran as a penalty. capital offense for things such as adultery. as has been mentioned a number of times, a regime that's stoning women with one hand shouldn't be allowed with the other hand to get its grip on a nuclear weapon.

i mean, this is just logical that we be concerned about this. and if a comprehensive agreement is reached, the threat of a nuclear armed iran is not going to be over for a couple of other reasons. one of today's witnesses estimated that even if we were to force iran to dismabtle 80% of its 19,000 centre fuges and they say they won't dismantle one of them, even if we were to force it to close its entire enrichment facility, even if we were to dismantle or convert its planned heavy water reactor to a light water reactor, agree to a multidecade intrusive regime, the fact is iran would still be

six months away from nuclear breakout. so if we are in a situation right now where they won't give ground on any of these points i have just raised, i think we have something of a problem on our hands. so even if the administration were to achieve this agreement, which increasingly many say may be a 50-50 proposition, i think that was the administration's assumption, especially now that we have let up on sanctions pressure, iran will likely still possess the capability of very quickly producing a nuclear weapon. why do i say that? because when you let up on sanctions pressure you let up on the one thing you had that made it hard for them.

you know, iran is open for business. you see the headlines, you know the next day in "wall street journal," businesses rush to iran to cut business deals. you see their stock market go become up, their currency go back up in value, so we could end up, if we're not careful, ending up on a track to have a -- to have us face a permanent nuclear threat from iran because we rehabilitate their capabilities. that's why i thank the chairwoman, i thank mr. poe, mr. deutch for their observations on this and i thank the panel of witnesses because our four witnesses today are true experts in this field. we look forward to the testimony. >> well put. thank you so much, mr. chairman. we now turn to the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. sherman. >> the november agreement was supposed to last six months but not until two months after it was signed, eight months, it can be extended for another six months we're looking at 14 months. what happens during that 14 months?

that 20% stockpile, half gets oxidized, but it's still 20%. another half gets diluted and oxidized. more low enriched uranium is created and stockpiled, albeit in oxidized form. work on centrifuge technology continues, though certain of the centrifuges will not be used. this delays only for a short time. when iran would have a nuclear weapon because the 20% oxidized uranium can be converted back to gas quite quickly. iran uses that same technology to convert yellow cake into gaseous uranium. and at the end of this agreement, iran may be a little bit further than they were in november from their first bomb but will be closer to a cache of five to 10 bombs because they

will have all of the additional low enriched uranium that they can rate during the deal. the sanctions relief has been very substantial because it changed the business climate. it's not just the content of the relief. there are loopholes in our existing sanctions laws, companies have been reluctant to exploit those because they figure the next sanctions law was around the corner. now it's not. and so we see a rush to do business with iran. the disagreement here in washington is actually rather modest. there seems to be agreement that we're not adopting new statutory sanctions until july or at least not letting them become effective until july. the administration significantly has agreed to enforce existing sanctions and would do that even if the iranians threaten to walk out of the agreement. secretary kerry was in this room where witnesses are sitting now, he agreed that he would continue enforcing the existing law within a day they designated

roughly a dozen entities, the iranians walked out they came back. so we agree no new laws will become effective until july. so the question is under what will new sanctions become effective in july? who will decide that iran j just engaged in a delay program or that we've reached sufficient progress. i don't think congress should surrender this role because congress has been right and three administrations have been wrong. from 1996 to 2010, we -- congress didn't enact major sanctions legislation. why? because three administrations sought so effectively, usually in the senate, to prevent the adoption of that legislation. congress was right. the house were more right than

the senate and congress was more right than three different administrations. now we're being asked, oh, just don't do anything. trust the president. he'll do the right thing. the fact is that we're told by the administration we can adopt new sanctions in a nanosecond should we decide that that is important. what he means is, what the admgs -- administration means is we can adopt new sanctions in a nanosecond if the administration agrees with them. but this -- but if they don't, their capacity for dely and obfuscation, for defeat of sanctions has been proven. it was proven in 2009. act now and adopt sanctions that will go into july and schedule a vote in july where congress

could decide by joint resolution to suspend or prevpbt prevent the sanctions becoming effective and we would do so if adequate progress is made. we could have a compromise approach, write in conference on the sanctions, schedule a vote in both houses of congress without further delay or obfuscation without further delay as to what the content would be and pass new legislation if warranted in july and soon enough to prevent any pocket veto sense we go out in august. the final approach is what i call the narcolepsy approach, go to sleep and wait until they wake us up. then in july we'll notice six of the eight months have passed and then you can be sure that this administration like the prior administration will be for delay, dilution, and defeat and we'll be in session only a few weeks between the end of july and the end of the year system

of iran will get a full year of relief from sanctions in actually 14 months. i think the one thing for this hearing to establish is that we're not going to adopt the narcolepsy approach. that we're going to have sanctions that iran will know will go into effect if adequate progress as determined by congress is not reached. with that, our negotiators will be far more effective than in -- if congress is regarded as on vacation. i yield back. >> thank you so much, mr. sherman. now we go to the chairman of the tnt subcommittee, mr. judge poe of texas. >> thank you, madam chair. the world powers surrendered to the iranian nation's will. those are the words of the iranian president. it should be no surprise that the iranians see this as a win

for them, a loss for us and a loss for the rest of the world. iran boasted, we didn't agree to dismantle anything. he's right. iran not only keeps its infrastructure intact, it gets to keep enriching. or it keeps its yellow cake and eat it, too. the u.n. has voted five times that iran has cheated in its nuclear capability and should not be able to enrich at all. in one deal, iran wiped away all of those u.n. resolutions. when the united states negotiates a deal that makes the un look tough, we have a problem. none of the changes agreed to are permanent. hours after iran signed the agreement, their top negotiator bragged on iranian tv that they could quote return to the previous situation in one day. and reality estimates suggests the iranians could achieve capability in six months. this agreement doesn't stop iran's nuclear program.

rouhani is a snake oil salesman. the state department gave the mineral rights in exchange. this agreement bars iran from installing nuclear equipment at its heavy water reactor but allows them to continue to construct its nuclear reactor. the problem is that the reactor's size is too big for a peaceful reactor. experts say it resembles a nuclear weapon facility. well, no kidding. when asked if he thought it could be used for peaceful purposes, former state department nonproliferation official said yes, it could. a 12-inch hunting knife could spread jam on your toast in the morning. in this deal, iran gets $67 billion in cash payments. and get billions more as

companies sitting on the sidelines out of fear of the sanctions now say it's ok to do business with iran. this could inject $20 billion into iran's economy. the iranians know there is no enforcement mechanism because all sanctions will be lifted. despite what the white house says it will be nearly to restart punishing sanctions if iran cheats or lies. you can't turn on and off like a light switch. i talked to prime minister netanyahu right after this deal was signed. he is correct, this is a bad deal for israel and bad deal for the united states. the only leverage we had on iranian hard liners with tough sanctions that brought their economy to the knees. by easing sanctions, we have blunted our sharpest tool to get a peaceful solution. this is a flawed deal that gave away too much to iran and similarly to chamberlain's

announcement where the allies boasted peace and we got world war ii. we will see this deal extended for another six months as iran continues to enrich and marches closer to a nuclear weapon. iran must dismantle their nuclear program, not just freeze it. the iranian supreme leader hasn't changed his goal. he has said he wants to destroy israel and destroy the united states. i think we should believe him when he says he wants to get rid of us. so congress cannot wait. we should passer tougher sanctions and not let up on sanctions at this time. and that's just the way it is. >> thank you very much, judge poe. the bells have rung but i'm going to introduce our witnesses and i think we'll have time to listen to our first witness, ambassador wallace.

chief executive officer of united against nuclear iran, which he founded in 2008. his organization has been a leader in pressuring businesses to end their dealings with iran and promoted sanctions legislation to prevent a nuclear-armed iran. ambassador wallace was u.s. ambassador to the united nations on u.n. management and reform issues. next mr. greg jones, senior researcher at the nonproliferation policy education center. mr. jones has been a defense policy analyst for the past 40 years and brings expertise in the areas of nonproliferation and counterproliferation and regimes attempting to acquire nuclear technology. third, we welcome mr. olli heinonen. senior fellow at the harvard kennedy school of government.

prior to this position he served for 27 years at the international atomic energy agency, including deputy director general. he led the agency's efforts to identify and dismantle nuclear proliferation networks including overseeing efforts to contain iran's nuclear program. he has led nuclear program investigations around the world including to south africa, iraq, north korea and syria. welcome. last, but not least, we welcome mr. david albright founder and president of the nonprofit institute for science and international security. mr. albright has written numerous assessments on nuclear programs throughout the world. your statements in full will be made part of the record and feel free to summarize them. we will start with you, mr. ambassador.

>> thank you, chairman. members of the joint subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you once again. i'm honored to sit here on the panel with a group of very distinguished and committed colleagues. we hope that a comprehensive and verifiable agreement that rolls back iran's nuclear program is reached in six months but the prospects appear small and we must confront the difficulties with candor and bipartisan debate. the joint plan has provided disproportionate sanctions relief to iran by allowing them to continue an program. it will not dismantle a single centrifuge. iran retains the ability to produce weapons uranium for a bomb in as little as two months and has not indicated it will end development.

at the same time the sanctions architecture has been significantly rolled back and enforcement has fallen to a trickle. what is the acceptable scope and size of iran's enrichment program and will we permit them to operate the i.r. 40. if they sought a peaceful energy program there wouldn't be any need for enrichment or heavy water reactor. the international community has forgotten there are numerous sanctions calling for iran to suspend. the geneva joint plan declares in any final accord iran will be permitted to enrich is at best vague. today you will hear a range of opinions of what acceptable enrichment program would look like. we should all agree that extending iran's breakout time from its current 30 to 60 days to well beyond is the imperative. does any serious person believe that iran is prepared to

dismantle between 15,000 and 19,000 centrifuges and forego the installation of far more advanced centrifuges? unfortunately the white house has described the sanctions relief provided in the agreement as economically insignificant. we disagree. iran's economy is blossoming. it has increased in value by 25%. the stock exchange has increased by 100%. dozens of multinational corporations are returning to iran. iran's oil exports have increased by 60%. 1.2 million barrels from a low. oil exports will increase further and if oil sanctions continue, its sales would have dropped to 500,000 barrels per day.

importantly the administration has curtailed its enforcement efforts. in 2013, the united states treasury department designated 183 entities for iran sanctions violations. since president rouhani's election, united states has blacklisted 29 entities. the obama administration must hold to its pledge to enforce sanctions. the white house estimates that iran stands to receive $6 billion to $7 billion in sanctions relief. the true value of sanctions relief is well more than $20 billion. calculate the sales of oil. there would be far less pressure for iran to make material concessions on its nuclear program. the congress must actively take part in this process and make its positions known. this would entail capping a number of i.r. centrifuges to a

small fraction of the 20,000 that iran poses or more appropriately none at all. it must be kept a year away from breakout. rouhani supports sanctions on iran in six months' time. congress should pass and should sign into law the nuclear weapons free iran act which has the support of bipartisan majority. it is wrong that the white house is characterizing those who question the joint plan as dishonest war mongers. in the 1990's, we entered into a similar interim nuclear agreement with north korea. the agreed framework became the can that was kicked down the road. this time congress must make clear if there is no final agreement after the joint plan, initial six-month term congress will adopt robust sanctions and we must learn the lessons of history and not repeat its mistakes. thank you for the opportunity.

>> thank you very much. and the subcommittee will recess while we vote and come right back to hear the rest of our panelists. >> the subcommittee will come to order. -- is in recess. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the subcommittee will come to order. thank you being here. we will have another set of votes at 4:00 so we hope we can almost wrap it up. mr. jones, you are welcome to make your statement and your

prepared remarks will be made a part of the record. thank you, sir. >> in early november, secretary of state kerry said of the ongoing negotiations with iran, quote, we need to get the right deal, no deal is better than a bad deal, unquote. unfortunately, the november 24 joint plan of action is a bad deal. this fact has been obscured by both mischaracterization of the deal's benefits and denial of the deal's great flaw. president obama has said that the deal has quote cut off iran's likely path to a bomb, unquote. this is not true. before the current nuclear deal, iran could produce h.u. for a nuclear weapon in just six weeks. over the next six months the joint plan of action will increase this to eight weeks. iran will remain close to a nuclear weapon. the joint plan of action allows iran to continue to produce 3.5%

enriched uranium which is the key starting material for any effort to produce h.u. for weapons. iran's stockpile of this material will continue to grow during the course of this nuclear deal though several white house statements have incorrectly claimed otherwise. as the stockpile of enriched uranium grows, the number of nuclear weapons that iran could produce from it will grow as well. iran's stockpile of 3.5% enriched uranium is not supposed to grow. iran is supposed to convert the excess into an oxide form but iran can convert this material back once it begins to produce nuclear weapons. this fact is well known to technical experts but their input was either not sought or heeded.

the joint plan of action has some benefits and those who have argued that limited benefits is better than no deal. it permits iran to retain centrifuge enrichment. centrifuge technology puts any country within arms reach of h.u. the joint plan of action has already stated that when the follow-on so-called comprehensive solution has expired, iran, quote, will be treated in the same manner as that of any nonnuclear state party, unquote. that means in say, five, 10 years, iran's nuclear program will be under no special restrictions and if the members have allowed iran to keep its program, not only could it build as many centrifuges as it wants, it could import them as part of normal nuclear trade and could have a larger program and be closer to acquiring nuclear weapons.

what is worse, the joint plan of action will be setting a precedent for all other countries. if iran is to be treated in the same manner as that of any nonnuclear state party, if iran has violated it's safeguards by conducting clandestine centrifuge enrichment and defied multiple resolutions demanding that it halt, is allowed to retain this capability, on what basis can any country that has abided by the safeguard obligations be denied centrifuge enrichment. the joint plan of action is setting the stage for many countries to acquire centrigue enrichment for them whenever they desire them. unfortunately, there are no good options to head off a nuclear- armed iran. any negotiated settlement would require reductions, reductions that iran has said it will not agree to. further sanctions are unlikely to be affected because countries

like russia and china will probably undercut them. military strikes could lead to a major war with iran. the u.s. needs to try to strengthen the nonproliferation system which appears to be unraveling. the key to this effort will be to stop countries using nuclear activities to require the -- acquire the plutonium needed for nuclear weapons. the u.s. needs them to clarify what facilities it can effectively safeguard and which it cannot. a negotiated agreement with iran that legitimizes its enrichment program would be a step in the wrong direction. thank you. >> thank you, mr. jones. mr. heinonen. >> thank you very much for

inviting me to address this hearing. i will concentrate on my remarks on the aspects of this deal, which was concluded on the 20 of november. highlight some of the implications and make some minor proposals for the way forward. the agreement is a small but important step forward which after a long delay could start on 20 of january. under this deal, iran continues to produce low-energy uranium. maintain centrifuge production capability including the work force and continues with centrifuge r&d. iran will produce centrifuges

but is not interested in other components. no centrifuges will be built during this period. some of the uranium and 20% of enriched uranium is converted to oxides. in terms of capacity when iran is able to produce -- in other words, iran maintains its industrial capabilities. construction of nonnuclear is permitted and it proceeds elsewhere. the production continues.

the verification details worked generally3 agreement have provided a much wider access. the 2003 undertaking included access to the nuclear r&d. an example was the visit to tehran and component managed facilities and key material such as high strength weapons. -- aluminum or steel. one of the challenges that they

are facing is the material centrifuge manufactured by iran. iran commits itself not to construct new locations and will not construct any thing capable for reprocessing. with the access provided, the i.a.e.a. is in their -- limited in their capabilities in the statements made to iran. the preamble of this, additional steps and final step which includes addressing the u.n. security council resolutions -- that includes outstanding issues and of the iranian nuclear program. in other words, iran needs according to those resolutions to explain -- resolve the

questions regarding certain high explosive studies and has to explain why it acquired that the document which has to do the manufacturing of nuclear warhead and verify the r&d activities with institutes and companies and has to explain the production of the components of companies related to the military establishment. without us addressing these questions, will not be able to come to any conclusion that all nuclear material in iran is in peaceful use which has instilled confidence. i have given proposals of how to proceed in this way gradually to

build up confidence about the peaceful nature of the program. then at the end, i would like to say this agreement serves interim states and should not be an end by itself. without an end in sight. third, run the risk of proliferation consequences in the region when the states see iran not only maintaining its current breakout capabilities but slowly advancing them in particular areas which remain not available to the i.a.e.a. inspectors. thank you. >> thank you. mr. albright. >> thank you for inviting me here today. it's a great pleasure to be here and appreciate all your work that you are doing to try to sort through the proper

oversight role of congress which i believe is extremely important in this situation. i think we have discussed the interim deal of the joint plan of action quite a bit and its strengths and weaknesses have been identified. the real test of a joint plan of action is negotiating the long- term arrangements and that's the process that many are not giving a high probability of success. but nonetheless, this long-term comprehensive solution is going to have to create meaningful limits combined with adequate verification sufficient to ensure any attempt by iran to build nuclear weapons would be detected in a timely manner and provide adequate time for international response. now the interim deal is an important confidence-building measure and certainly has its weaknesses, many of which have been talked about and yesterday published an article on some

problems and loopholes involving centrifuge r&d rather than criticizing the interim deal i would argue it has to be fixed in any comprehensive solution, that iran's ability to make advanced centrifuges has to be severely curtailed and the process that they are involved in with centrifuge r&d has to be transparent and particularly to deal with some of the problems that olli has confronted. also i want to agree with what olli said, the interim deal should not continue past its lifetime. it is by no means sufficient. and if you can't get a comprehensive deal, the interim deal is not a substitute in any manner. also want to say that a real test of iran's intentions i would say in the short to medium term how it's going to treat these issues involving the allegations of iran apast work

-- iran's past work on nuclear weapons and other military programs. iran has delayed the meeting. it was supposed to happen in january until february 8. is it going to delay it again? is it going to allow it to go to facilities and meet with people so they can get to the bottom of it. now on the comprehensive solution, my testimony and studies that i have outlined, what we see is a model and certain things have been talked about. certainly we want to see much greater breakout times to meet our national security interests. we think the breakout times should be measured in six to 12 months to allow detection time and response time and that's going to require iran to move 14 centrifuges. -- remove over 14,000 centrifuges. also some of my colleagues have mentioned the problem with oxides. the stocks need to be reduced,

particularly the 20% stocks. putting them into oxide may work in the interim. the iraq reactor that the route has to be blocked. also, we haven't talked a lot about it but there needs to be much greater verification that's put in play. often iran says we'll accept additional protocol. we would argue it has to be the additional protocol plus and another set of verification conditions in this deal that are going to provide much greater transparency of the program. the other thing that is also important is to remember how long these conditions would last. the administration is talking about 20 years. iran's talking about three to five. i think it's very important that 20 years be the minimum and that the administration be held to that minimum.

i think if that's done and in a sense iran would be on probation for 20 years. that could provide the confidence that iran has turned a corner. one thing that the additional or this joint plan of action doesn't deal with is how do they come out of probation, that it is right now implied that the conditions would end from one day to the next and whatever the length is, probably some work needs to be done to make sure that the conditions are removed only if iran has satisfied certain criteria. i think i have talked enough about the verification, but i do want to re-emphasize that iran has been very tough on this. it has resisted all kinds of verification. it's resisting it today. and i think that another test is going to be whether iran is fully cooperative and the effort to get to the bottom of its

outstanding issues which are going to require much more intrusive verification and that would be played out over the next several months if the comprehensive solution is going to be negotiated by the end of the six-month period. allow me to just -- let me end there. i realize i'm over time. >> thank you very much to the excellent panelists. we begin with our set of questions. why is this deal in secret? why is it members of congress have to go to a supersecret location, get smart kind of place to look at the deal? and our subcommittee staff director and i and it's an easy easyd that and it's a very to read document and one doesn't have to be an expert as one of our panelists is to understand what is there. i encourage all of the members to go there and read the

document. you can't take notes, you can't take it out. why is this -- if this is such a great deal, so good for peace and diplomacy in our time, why is it held in secret? and do you worry about the details in this plan? do you worry about what may be or may not be in it? i just ask that as a general question, because having read it , if the administration is proud of it, i think they should highlight it. i'll ask the panelists, what is the greatest worry you have about this deal? and ambassador wallace, last week there were reports that iran could use the money from sanctions relief to fund terrorism against us. what kind of oversight or mechanisms are in place to ensure that the proper and adequate use of sanctions relief

funds and can we follow the money once it is released. the nature of the deal, why doesn't the public have it, why can't we have it in an open setting, your greatest worry and can we follow the money, whoever wants to get at that? >> my biggest worry about the deal is that we have significantly rolled back the sanctions architecture which both sides of the aisle have constructed and created the sanctions. mr. sherman said it quite well in his intervention, you have to have ever increasing sanctions for them to be effective. the moment you start dialing them back, they start falling away. we have undercut the sanctions effort. at the same time we haven't rolled back their nuclear program in any material way.

no one on this panel and true experts on this panel can show that a single centrifuge has been dismantled. if you believe in no enrichment or limited enrichment. it can have zero to 4,000 ir-1 -- that's the range of opinion at this table. what are the chances that iran is going to dismantle 15,000 to 19,000 of its centrifuges? i say none. i worry that the interim agreement becomes the permanent agreement. thank you. >> can i just say with regard to the terms being somewhat secret, this does bother me and not necessarily for the reason you think. it appears to me that the administration has negotiated an

agreement that doesn't fully understand and i don't understand how that can happen because obviously there are technical experts in the national labs who know as much as i, if not more, but it's clear there are various places and one is the 3.5% enrismed -- enriched uranium stockpile won't grow, which is incorrect. another is is disconnecting the tandem cascades would prevent iran from producing 20% where we know they produced it with single cascades, which is what they would be left with. i'm left with the impression that the administration doesn't understand what they have negotiated and that i find most worrisome. >> about the document and secret agreement, it's not very unusual. i think similar understandings were at the time of the agreement with north korea. so we have seen those before. but i think -- when i look at the technical explanations, i

didn't see any reason technically to keep those in secret but there are some other ones that i just don't know because i have not seen the document and how big it is. but it would clarify a lot of areas if it is made public. and second thing, -- i mention my worries in my opening statement and this becomes a final agreement or agreement which has a long life expectancy because we don't get an insight to the content of the iranian nuclear program with this deal. it is better than what it was a year or two ago but it's not the final solution. and i want to remind from the verification point of view, every day that they don't have access to this so-called

military facility, it would be more difficult for it verify what actually took place. >> mr. albright, we'll have to wait for your statement in another set of questions from my colleagues. and i would like to encourage our members to please go and read the document and i encourage you to do so. before i recognize ranking member deutch, i hear his older brother is in the front row. >> that is correct. >> thank you so much, mr. deutch. >> thank you, madam chairman, ranking member member sherman says he has more hair than his younger brother. i wanted to follow up with mr. albright, if i understand correctly the quote that i

referred to in my opening statement about a huge site dedicated to the rockets and explosives owned by the military industry and has hundreds of building and test sites came from your organization? >> we looked at that quite a bit. >> if you could just speak what is i think the crux of all this entire debate. this is not about just the centrifuges that are spinning, this whole debate is about how to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and that statement seems to be right at the heart of this and yet we don't yet have the details -- you just alluded to this as well, what do we have to see there?

how likely is it -- is it possible for the iranians to have completely swept clean the facility and when we talk about iran coming clean on the possible military dimensions, what is it they have to provide and are there examples of other regimes in similar circumstances who have faced this country and what do we expect from them? >> there is a site there that is alleged to have been engaged in high explosive work. they have evidence of it and has to go 18 months and been denied and iran has significantly modified the site to the point where it may not be possible for them to take sampling and find something. the key thing is iran has to allow the visit and allow the follow-up. not just a visit.

they will come and do things that iran will have to allow them to do and give them access to the people involved based on the information at least and answer the basic question, do this work. >> when were the previous inspections? >> they have never been to this building or this complex. they have been there, but it was a long time ago and the information available was much less complete than it is now. so i think the focus now is on this particular -- this site of high explosives. there are other sites, too. sites involved where they allegedly made re-entry vehicles prior to 2004. they have asked to go there and has not been allowed. in cases where it's worked with libya, south africa, the country cooperates. and in that cooperation, you can see that it can work out and can do its job. iran has not shown that level of cooperation. one of the first things to look for if iran is going to settle

this, is it cooperating. so they are able to get the information it needs and ask follow-up questions to get to the very bottom of this. >> but we're not operating in the dark here. we have a list -- we know who -- the i.a.e.a. knows the people that need to be spoken to, correct? >> they know some, but won't know the complete list. it's not possible. in the case of south africa, there were people that you wouldn't have expected and provided important information. >> you don't get those other names until you start with the ones we have. tell us about the discussions that have taken place thus far? have we identified those individuals we wish to speak with and what's the response?

>> those discussions are reflected in the reports in 2008, march 4, and then again or june 4, 2008. when we come to this so-called or possible military facility, we have the opportunity to discuss with the first director of that but unfortunately he was not able to answer all the questions. and we wanted to see his successor which never materialized. they have a good understanding of those and also the people who have equipment used in those experiments. so there is quite a good starting point. and then you look at the facts and go from there and see whom else might need to be seen.

>> is there a -- have we prepared this list and presented it to the iranians? in all of the talks thus far and is there acknowledgement that yes, those are appropriate questions and we'll make sure these individuals will respond? >> well, when you go to an investigative process, you don't get the whole list, you start with the keys and go from there. i don't think they have prepared a very long list at this stage, only the starting point and then go from there. but that kind of list exists. >> were those names included in the last report? >> only one name has been in the reports because that's another reason they don't want to disclose for a number of reasons, the names. >> but that name has been disclosed? >> one name has been disclosed.