>> 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.

>> since that would be a good place to start and he has been identified in the report, has he agreed to engage in these discussions? >> we met him i think twice, but at one point of time, the process got stopped and we never got to his successor. >> madam chairman, i hope later in his responses, he might be able to speak to -- elaborate on the comments that in 2003 there was much greater access provided than there is today. >> can i add one thing? there are lists of names that have been made public. and i don't think any of them have ever talked about anything to do with the military dimensions. one talked about work he did as a professor at a university but

didn't talk about the physics research center. >> thank you, mr. deutch. judge poe, it's just the way it is. >> i want to say amen to your comments about the deal being public, not only for members of congress, but for american people as well since it affects us. i'm perplexed why it's not. and i still don't know why it's not. iran is the mischief maker in the middle east. they have the military -- their military is involved in syria. they support terrorism throughout the world. they're sending rockets to hezbollah in lebanon so they can be fired into israel. they are responsible for the attacks on iranian dips dents in iraq -- dissidents in iraq over the last several years.

the supreme leader of iran wants to destroy israel, wants to destroy the united states. they are building intercontinental ballistic missiles and expanding their war capabilities. what are we thinking that they want to deal with us and cut back on their nuclear weapon development? what incentive? they may just not be telling us the truth that they will cut back. i don't think we should believe anything they say. contracts, deals are made when both sides agree and there are inspections or people acting in good faith. iranians aren't acting in good faith. i don't see any evidence over the last few years that they ever acted in good faith. sanctions have worked and we're now backing off the sanctions. they have to be forced not to be able to build nuclear weapons.

now i agree peace is the best answer, negotiations is the best answer down -- long-term, we have got to do that and don't want to be involved in some type of military action and we have to prevent that from happening.

long-term, mr. albright, the long-term situation and look down the road, months, years, doesn't look good for the free world as far as nuclear weapons. they are being built to go west. ambassador and i'll let all of you comment on this, long-term, how are we going to resolve the problem that iran is determined to have nuclear weapons? what's the answer to that question? >> i take the first crack at that. president obama said if we could have a nuclear deal with iran that it would resolve the sectarian tensions that are plaguing the region. i disagree with that strongly, particularly since the nature of this deal seems to not understand the nuclear weapon program. the u.n. security council passed several resolutions saying iran must suspend its enrichment and clarify the military aspects that olli and mr. albright were talking about. that hasn't happened. i think we are a long way away of getting to a point where we can use this nuclear file in a vacuum to deal with the problems in the region and the like and i remain greatly concerned that we seemingly forgot the u.n. security resolutions which require clarification of the military dimension and in the agreement it says that iran will have a mutually defined enrichment program in the final deal.

i thought that was unfortunate. that doesn't go a long way to answering your question. >> let me ask you this, is it correct that iran is developing icbm's? >> we have seen a variety of that that they are looking the aspect of obtaining a nuclear weapon. we have seen a lot of evidence to this and this is an important part of the agreement that hasn't been focused on on, which is clarifying these other military aspects of the program. we haven't heard from iran about this. they haven't clarified that. those reports are very disturbing. >> mr. jones, gives us the long range answer.

>> i'm the party pooper at these things. i believe the ship has sailed. it is too late to stop iran. >> you think iran is going to get nuclear weapons? >> that's correct. and that depresses everyone who hears me talk, i can't see how there is going to be any agreement or the sanctions with the russians, chinese indians undercutting them are going to do any good. as you correctly pointed out, i'm not in favor of getting into another war in the middle east. >> we have the saudis and israelis working together. the saudis are worried about the nuclear weapon capability of iran. israel is and they are working together announcing this deal. >> it shows the level of threat and concern in the region. >> mr. sherman is recognized.

>> thank you. if iran has nuclear weapons america shouldn't feel they are safe even if missile defense worked because you can smuggle a nuclear weapon inside a bail of marijuana. this agreement remaining secret, it must contain wonderful pro-- american provisions that hard liners in iran are not aware of. i know they looked to advice and information, but we have seen it. it doesn't. so it is peculiar that this agreement is not disclosed. nobody just wants one bomb. you are a nuclear power when you have several and confident enough to test one. in july, iran will have a certain stockpile of enriched uranium.

it will have about half its 20% enriched with that being an oxide form. it will have its low-enriched uranium that it has today and then it will have an additional supply of low-enriched uranium oxide. assuming they don't do anything with the yellow cake but looking at the enriched uranium they will have in july. how many bombs is that and is that uranium enough for weapons grade? >> i estimate around four weapons. >> and how long would it take them, knowing that they can spend the next six months doing experiments and engineering on their advanced centrifuges, but are not making any more

centrifuges as i understand the agreement but they've got what they've got. they are learning how to use it better, how long would it take them to use this stockpile to make four weapons? >> just what they've got, first weapon in about two months. four weapons, probably four, five months. >> four to five months. i'll go down the panel, everybody agree with mr. jones? you do agree. mr. heinonen. >> i would like to add. most important thing is reduce the amount of unknowns, if there are enough sint try fugse and are there additional stocks. >> based on what we do know and one of the advantages of this agreement is we are inspecting a few things that we hadn't inspected before but answering the question, do you agree with four weapons in four months?

>> i think it will take longer than four months. but the first weapon will be there in two, three months. >> in terms of the first one in two months, around that. but i think to get to four, five, i would multiply that number by four, five. you are talking about eight months. and there may be -- >> four to eight. i point out if we lose this game, it's not because of who was calling the plays in the final quarter. we didn't feel the team for the first three-quarters. from 1996 to 2010, although this committee did everything possible to pass new sanctions, they were stopped by three successive administrations. we are -- our effective sanctions began in 2010. we are committed to this will goal line stand just a few yards from the goal line and it's not clear which play we could possibly call. but we have three. voluntary sanctions, which is what we have now, that is to say

we have the sanctions and can get other countries to agree to. and secondary sanctions where you threaten to cut off world trade if they don't radically change their laws. we have the iran sanctions act calls for that but we don't do it. and if we took military action, would we be able to turn into rubble the centrifuges? do on i have an answer? mr. jones. >> i discuss that in my written testimony. unfortunately, the centrifuges are quite resistant to bmb bombarredment because you have 96 cascades that can run. a bombing raid and we saw this in world war ii, you knock out the utilities, the plant goes down, how quickly can it be back. >> the final possibility is we threaten to hit every oil field and industrial and strategic target in iran if they don't allow mr. wallace to go and just clean out everything. and i don't think i have to time to

ask for your comment, so you can respond in writing. >> thank you, mr. sherman. i thought those were great questions. thank you for being here. i'm having a hard time figuring out what the united states got out of this.

the iranians got a lot and got an implicit right to enrich uranium and we have allies that are begging us to be able to enrich uranium. we say no to alies but to enemies we give them the right to enrich uranium as a reward for doing it the wrong way. i guess -- i'm having a hard time figuring out anything that the united states gained besides being able, i guess, for the next year, to go in front of the american people and say we won something but that will only be proven wrong by history. this is like the equivalent of a police officer pulling someone over for d.u.i. and the person in the car saying, mr. officer, i will be happy to pull over, but you have to let me have the keys in the car and with the engine running or else i'm not going to get out and the officer saying, that sounds like a good deal for me. i think back to what happened in north korea and i remember the agreement that was hailed as the peace in our time of the korean nuclear agreement in north korea, that they were not going to have a nuclear weapon. in fact, i remember reading some of the editorial papers that said that this was a huge

victory against the war hawks and for the people that said diplomacy could never work and then a year later, north korea has nuclear weapons and that's something we are dealing with today and that is a regime that as threatening as they are are less threatening than if the iranians got nuclear weapons. the sanctions went down -- and i know iraq is a touchy subject and not talking about the war in 2003. this cat-and-mouse game that occurred and everything like that. i'm trying to find out what the enforcement mechanism on our end and the motivation to stop playing the cat-and-mouse game and then the deal is off. but i get no indication that is the case either. i want to ask about the north korean parallel here and something we ought to be concerned with but when we have used sanctions in the past, times they have been successful

and times they have not been successful, pulling the trigger on relieving sanctions too early leads to unsuccess. do you have an example of that or counterexample of that, maybe pulling the trigger has helped and discuss the north korean parallel. ambassador, start with you. >> i'll go to the sanctions question and leave it to my colleagues on previous examples. we did pull the trigger well too early on sanctions here. i'm not a sanction apologyist, i run a group that engages in economic pressure but they don't always work. actually this committee and this congress showed that they were working in the context of iran. iran's economy was veering towards the red zone and i think we blinked unfortunately four to six months too early. there are many more examples of sanctions not working historically than they have worked. i would argue that our sanctions on iran were maybe the most effective but we unraveled them too quickly. there are only four tools in the tool shed, sanctions, diplomacy, a military option and covert action.

a serious foreign policy would engage all of them. sanctions were just about to have the great fundamental impact. >> if you look at those old 1980 shows when the investigator should punch the bad guy one last time and you know it and the bad guy gets up. >> "road runner" episode is coming to mind. >> much of what you said sounds like you were reading off of my sheet here. >> maybe i was. >> thank you. but on north korea, i want to point out how these failures are damaging u.s. credibility worldwide. i was discussing iran with some canadian intelligence analysts a while ago, and i gave my pessimistic views on iran and one of the canadians said, but the u.s. administration said they aren't going to allow iran to get nuclear weapons and before i could say anything, one

of the other canadians said, that's what they said about north korea, too. and these are our friends. >> i also think the administration would probably have never said that fallujah would be taken over by al qaeda when they left but that's another issue. my time has expired. >> coming to my mind, my discussion in 2003 with my north korean counterpart when we were kicked out of north korea, i said what's next, a nuclear weapon. he said don't worry, we will not build a nuclear weapon. plutonium is our weapon. this is the situation with iran. >> we'll have you hold that thought -- because i have to be fair to everybody. i hate to cut you off. mr. higgins is recognized.

>> let me go back to the elections that brought rouhani into office. there were six candidates running. rouhani ran against the policies that created international isolation. ran against the policies that created sanctions and he won the election. now iranian elections are not like united states elections. rouhani could not have won without the supreme leader willing it. in fact, in iran, if you don't get 50% of the vote, there is a runoff. rouhani got 50.6% of the vote. it tells us that either the supreme leader is trying to 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 the big question is we don't know if it's a deal we can live with. dolla a multi billion infractsture. weapons produce now

grade material before we can detect and contradict. iran will not get the containment once they get it. mayobjective of prevention lost. i believe you take away the leverage. he took this away prior to his election as residents.

the only leverage we have, remember the war. they were at war for eight years. it was basically a standoff. nobody one. toy said it was like jumping -- jerking poison from a chalice. then they did whatever and cannot do in eight years. if so they stop doing? rhea -- enriching uranium. we have been through this. i think the united states gets played by leaders in iraq. it pushes away when they are doing well. same in afghanistan and same inner rim. i think we need to be very careful as a nation before we begin to provide relief from sanctions.

the iranian economy is a mess. point lastpercentage year. they didn't even have the capacity to refine the oil that they have produced for so many other countries. europe stopped buying oil from iran. china says we will continue to buy it from you a fun as it is deeply discounted. if further hurts iran. there are and 90 million people in that country. thesere sick and tired of regimes. they see how the rest of the world is living. media areof social not only used for aspirational but used highly effectively for organizational purposes. karen was always good at suppression. it is not like new york city.

it is spread out. the regime was always good at keeping people down. i think we need to be very careful. i know i went out longer. alas for a brief comment. >> thank you. maybe we will have them,. >> thank you.uch of quotes.le they bear repeating. this is out of a written earlier in the deck eight. ae dilemma was if we offered complete picture, the picture itself could lead us to the un security council and not providing one would also be a andation of the resolution we could refer to it for not implementing the resolution. is the deal means the surrender of big power before the great nation.

it seems to me all the american people, people who do not care can see exactly what is happening. the only folks that genuinely support this somehow come out of academia with some help for a better solution not based in reality. it seems like you are in favor of the deal. it is the deal about nonproliferation. is that what we are trying to get to? is it your opinion that we get a little closer? to ensure iran does not get nuclear weapons. it is the comprehensive solution. >> we do not trust these folks. we do not trust these folks.

there is a study that intelligence agencies are not yet organize or fully equipped to detect nuclear weapons or the ramping up of arsenals. are you familiar? >> yes. have you ever been to iran? >> i studied it a lot. remember the intelligence community has done pretty well. it has exposed many secret sites. you inc. the elements can be adequately verified under the current context? i think this can be adequately verified. many things that are important are not included in that. in order to verify those there will have to be a good deal of step verification. any efforts to improve their ability is good.

say thatu already earlier this month they have arty been somewhat intractable and non-responsible? >> that is right. you asked me if it can be done. i think it can be. cooperating,ot they are not abiding. that is an early test. there is no my errand for error. there is lindsay of the room. >> you're not in israel now. >> obviously not. have we arty moved from prevention to containment?

>> i certainly hope not. it is looking that way. do we know how that is measured? absent countries that fully cooperate there is no such thing as verification that works. there deluding ourselves additional protocol is all great to ask for. verification equals on. >> we have been told we're going to prevent and prevent. have we moved to containment? deal 10 or 15this years ago and locked it and at the very early stage of the program, i would say we are sustaining. it now looks like we are containing. when did we get to

containment? may be in 2009. it was a gradual process. >> if we kept the sanctions if they would have continued, would we have been able to get back to prevention? >> if we have the sanctions we , now iking about now think it is too late. >> thank you very much. i want to thank the witnesses for being here today. i want to thank you for what you do all day. i have said before you

highlighted the action. it is fraught with danger. i thought this was a little taken. jointal test is not the plan of action but the final comprehensive agreement, it ending the nuclear ambitions and rolling back in dismantling the nuclear programs. consider it necessary that it not be allowed beyond the parameters. a duly six-month of the longest. we must block all cap leaves. 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 comprehensive 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. pivotal moment. this is where my question comes into you all. as we talk about passing a resolution in the house, extending what we passed 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 is -- if the 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 peacefully ends in a 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. it is doing it privately inside iran, i am sure, and it is doing it publicly. >> remember 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. we should not do business with 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. >> actually, i 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. it 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. >> thank you, madam chairwoman.

and thanks to the witnesses. ambassador, i appreciate that last comment. when i am hearing these things and people say that trying to 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. but why would you go easy on 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 some of these military sites, it 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 to olli 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 please, 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. what i wanted to say is that is 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. now it is like, well, you know, you can enrich -- i think the red line 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 -- one thing that is odd about the 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? >> let me just say, i have worked on many agreements. typically the nuclear is roped off. that has been the tradition. but it does not mean the terrorism issue can lie and 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 deals 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. what would you recommend 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 naive in this negotiation. i think this notion that this is a tiny easing 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, fareed zakaria, and rouhani. iran will absolutely retain its enrichment. this is the 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 not for -- they ask him later, is this for nuclear weapons, and he says, no, no, of course not. and 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, we eased up 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. easing up now will be just the 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 iran, around $1.2 billion a day and presumably going up. this green line shows where it would go down to, about 334,000

barrels a day, assuming it is trending out. if it is 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. >> anyone else like to comment 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. >> maybe i am 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.

>> thank you very much, and i am 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. >> november 4, 1979 -- does that ring a bell? that is the day iran took 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 something 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 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? i am getting a no from all 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 for 444 days, we have not taken their hostages. we have not used in act of violence.

so if we make them hold that 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? >> no. >> 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? >> i am skeptical. they have not given any indication of cooperation. >> mr. albright, you later 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 line 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 red line, 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. >> mr. schneider, a 12 month, we 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 going to have two bombs, four 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. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you so much for bringing this panel. really, this is very complicated. at least it is to me. some other folks see it more simple. i think we all agree that iran \i think we all agree that iran 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 you, think 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. >> logic does tell me that in a 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 extremely restrictive and the conditions last 20 years. we dealt with the iaea concerns. the 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 embark 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. it is easier to be the monday morning quarterback though. it is what it is right now. my last question is -- what do you recommend we do next given the situation? >> six months from the adoption of the interim agreement, this congress should 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.

ambassador 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 time, you know, the threat was always for nuclear war. and after the wall came down, we 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 your opinion, anyone, do you 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 leader, 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. arab, you know, persian, iranian 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? and any suggestions on what

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 general regime starts to collapse, we could be talking about south korea, japan. i think this problem is broader than the middle east. >> and the possibility for use of a nuclear attack from a mathematical standpoint, if you do the math, which is very, very scary, it would be some kind of event as opposed to when it was in the cold war and was limited to just a few powers. >> certainly, i am already frankly quite concerned about

pakistan. i mean, it looks like at various 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 important to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons. >> i agree with you. i just trust in verifying, and going down this road, it shows how naive 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 naivete. 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 get iran to resist, it might be wisdom rather than naivete. we do not know yet. mr. heinonen, were you involved at iaea and any of the negotiations with iran or discussions with iran or verification experiences with iran? >> yes, i was, indeed. a number of times, maybe 20, 30

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? >> they 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 because i have 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. 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 they are always 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 ease back on sanctions, if not the united states but others, and that would be a counterproductive development until we see their performance in the agreement and their willingness to finalize an 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. they had in economic boom to their economy. my concern is that we could certainly get their oil sales down to a few hundred thousand barrels, and we should try. >> but until very recently, all reports i saw 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? >> if the carveouts were kept in

place, reduction of oil sales would go down to about 334,000 barrels. right now we are on a trajectory 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. >> my time is up. thank you. >> an ex-senate staffer -- >> 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, back up, take a little, back up. as mr. wallace pointed out, now their economy is doing well, and 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 have here, 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 get a little more technical. anyone can answer this question. three basic steps are needed to produce a nuclear weapon. you have to have a weaponize to an survivable nuclear warhead and 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.? >> their missile capability is pretty robust. what is not known if they have a capability to put a warhead on the missile.

there are divisions as to whether they can do that. eventually a would be able to if -- they 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. >> no, i think progress 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. we can have a disagreement and i 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. the 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, what deterrents, if any, does israel have? >> israel is in a bad situation. it is a nation that one or two nuclear weapons -- for israel, it truly is an existential threat. i would argue that we have to work harder to keep iran from getting a nuclear weapon. >> it is not just a threat to israel. it is a threat to us. we have assets in that region that we cannot overlook. we think about israel, and i and 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 was 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. >> thank you, madam chair. i appreciate it. mr. jones, you said -- i feel 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 sanctions have been going on since pretty much 9079 -- 1979 at different levels. it started off more mild. we frozen bank accounts. 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? >> i feel like regardless but

not necessarily in the near term. we should think of pakistan that 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 too 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 -- hurt iran, but iran has not stopped. so that flips around the other way. it shows how interested and how 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 is now is to make sure that iran is tested on whether it will accept 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. there is a clock ticking. and this cannot be extended. >> the clock has been ticking since 1979 that we 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 buy time. >> but earlier on he said that -- earlier on you 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 on the enrichment row gram, it is like a chain. you try 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 on and dismantle 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.

>> mr. heinonen, i finally let you finish an answer. not bad, one out of 25. thank you so much, panelists, for 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] >> on the next "washington

journal," the debate over executive power will be the topic of discussion. talk about how president obama and past presidents have used those powers and how they factor into current policy debates. after that, a look at what young voters thought about the president's recent state of the union address and the issues they consider most important in 2014. we will also look for your calls and take your comments by e-mail, twitter, and facebook. the getting live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. -- beginning live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> watch our program on first lady hillary clinton today at 7:00 eastern on c-span. live on monday night, our series continues. >> i wrote about it extensively in my book. the whole time i was in the hospital, not injured, really. i had a cut on my leg and a

broken ankle, i was praying that the other person in the car would be ok. the other person in the car was one of my best friends which i did not know. i did not really recognize that at the site of the crash. i think because i prayed over and over for him to be ok, and he wasn't, well, i thought that god was not listening. my prayer was an answer. i went through a very long time of not believing and not believing in -- that prayers could be answered. it took me a long time, really, and a lot of growing up to come back to faith. >> first lady laura bush monday night at 9:00 eastern.

>> ringing attention to what women do or how they have contributed a was turns to the question of the body. for one thing, many people object to ringing women's to study or history into a middle school, high school classroom because there is an assumption aboutomen's study is only sex, birth control, abortion. womenly it is also about in politics, women in law, women working on farms, queens, prime job is to and my break down the fear many people have. what goes on in a women's studies classroom? >> sunday. feminist movements and the antifeminist backlash. she will take your questions in depth. "in depth" on c-span two.

>> tom wheeler is the chair of the fcc. internetabout u.s. policy and a recent net neutrality decision in the d c circuit courts. about one half hour. >> welcome, everybody. welcome. my name is tim. i am the executive director of the -- welcome. our first guest is chairman will or -- chairman wheeler. i looked it over and created it and the least interesting person on the entire thing is me. but we do a few quick matters. years, thet 10

chairman has welcomed you to this. he cannot be here today because he is attending to a family matter. he sends his regrets. --you know, the internet foundation hosts this event. onstood you briefings internet policy in the capitol complex and still do to this day. at some point they decided that maybe there is enough interest in all see that we can get the on the confines of that building. people here would be really interesting in that -- those issues. to punctuate that, in the three months alone there have been mainstreamsteam -- movies released about policy. internet policy is certainly mainstream and certainly mainstream and media and movies today.

they also said that the conference not take positions that for everyone to come together and debate them collegially and passionately. that is what this is all about. you will see throughout the day folks and board members of mine, to introduce different speakers. they are volunteer board members and they keep me honest about not taking positions on legislation and regulation. that's why this is a great time to talk about policy issues. the me do a little bit of social media housekeeping. the #for today -- let me do a little bit of social media housekeeping. all may see some tweets in italian. differentpparently a

conference with the same #sotn 2014. i praise you that i appreciate you guys trudging through the cold and wind today. what are we doing here? i mean, come on. thank you to our sponsors, google and comcast and all of our sponsors. thank you so much. and it's pretty much all i am going to say except to introduce the person who will lead a withon -- the session chairman wheeler, stacy higginbotham. they have 5 million monthly unique visitors. stacy were from austin in that it kept to keep it weird and wired. austin in an attempt to keep it weird and wired. >> hi, everybody.

i am from texas so i will say y'all. it is not an affectation, it is who i am. this is chairman tom wheeler of the fcc. i just found out he is a buckeyes fan. can i hear it for ut? thank you guys. >> i think the odds are about even, now. we are ready. we can handle it. what's is one of ours mccoy -- >> is one of ours mccoy? that was the most important fact i learned about chairman wheeler in our pre-conversation conversation. i am really excited for this opportunity because i am a huge .eliever in broadband when he came in and publishes 40 page discussion about the network compact, man, i read

that thing the second cannot and was like oh, yes, this is going to be awesome. -- the second it came out and was like oh, yes, this is going to be awesome. let's quickly go over your concept of the network compact. dooeste ball, if you want to -- we could partner -- first of all, if you want to do -- we could partner up. i am a frustrated amateur historian. everythingook at through a historic lens. when it comes to networks, i ofnk we are in the midst the fourth great network revolution. the lessons learned and the stories that were those earlier

revolutions which were the printing press, railroad, telegraph, which became the electronic communications, and now the marriage of high speech computing -- high-speed computing and delivery systems -- that those kind of lessons are applicable to us today. if you look at them, there comes out of all previous network revolutions a series of recent concepts -- they sick concepts. -- basic concepts. important to look safety and, indeed, national security component of that. safety and, indeed, national security component to that. that is what i call the network compact. becomes, as we move into this fourth network

revolution, how will those kind of concepts continue? years, with the telephone network we have had a rules, a set of operating guidelines, a set of, this is what i know. this is how i, as a consumer, can expect to interface with the network. network,to an all-ip the technology has changed but the basic compact concepts have not. becomes how doge porteport to -- how do you those concepts over into the new reality act go what we are going to be -- reality?

ist we're going to be doing that we will be voting on an item that lays out a plan for running a series of trials on -ip on consumers. people have talked about these as technical trials. they are not technical trials. we do not need -- i know it is a shock to you. [laughter] we do not need trials to figure out how to build ip networks. >> they work. >> we know how to do that. what we do need to do is to understand what happens when that is the network. that is everything that we rely on and how do we make sure that those basic argues that are in the network compact transfer over. >> can you get a little bit specific about the basic values? when i think of -- my house, we built it last year.

it has no phone jacks in it with the exception of my elevator shaft, which i don't have an elevator in. [laughter] it had to have a phone jack shafte every elevator requires a phone jack. things that you guys are focused on as you look ahead to all-ip and what are you looking for in these trials? number one of a trial is you don't would you pre-judge it by saying, ok, here is what i am looking here -- you don't want to prejudge it by saying, ok, here is what i am looking for. what you want to have is you want to have a measurement capability that establishes a set of metrics that allows you to draw conclusions. that is how we are going to be structuring these. the trials will be run by

various carriers, clecs, whomever. what we will be saying to them is, god bless, go at it. use your best judgment and we want to know the following kinds thehings to help measurement of what is really going on out there. like, i can call 911 for my voice line and people will show up? >> that is kind of table stakes. here is the thing. if we want broadband to grow and be able to has to provide services like that. nobody is going to sign up for get 911. if they can't

no one is going to sign up for their help, i have fallen down button does not work. you go through these whole series of things. is to say,e to do for broadband to grow and realize its full potential there are a group of expectations that it has to meet. that is the network compact. it is not only an consumer facing. it is not only in consumer facing. interconnection is a component of the network compact. -- the term the internet -- is short for the original term, which was

internetworking. there is no such thing as the internet. the internet is the result of the interconnection of a series of diverse networks using a common protocol. if those networks don't interconnect there is no internet. again, and the trials it is not -- in the trials it is not just stacy andy ford facing of the consumers but it is also the back and -- stacey and the forward facing of the consumers but it is also the back and a d.nk -- back en at&t ran the long reince -- long lines, long-distance, and

independent telephone companies were told either you sell it to me or you don't get on. we're about to let that history happen again. that is not what the future of the internet is all about. >> you are jumping ahead a little bit on something i'm going to ask you about. actually, we will do it. otherwise it might confuse the issue. this is something i've been writing about because in silicon valley, and the people i write for, this is a huge issue. it is happened since 2007, 2008. in the last will months it has gotten particularly bad. that is the idea of interconnection. we can call it settlement free paid peering. there are options. at places where these internet -- the places interconnect, studies have shown that these are the places that problems occur.

for consumers who are at home watching netflix, they are looking at their screen and suddenly they cannot get anything in hd or it is pixelated and they are frustrating and they don't know -- they are frustrated and they don't know what is happening. i can go on the comcast forums and i can see pages of people being upset and icy technicians responding with, we are doing this but if you are trying to watch netflix it could be their servers. there is a problem with his intermediation. -- this intermediation. the providers, they said it is not a matter of the public. they are saying to us that if we don't pay either a cd and to come in or comcast directly -- cdn to come in or comcast rectally, -- directly --

all i have been there. i understand the situation that you are describing. i don't think this is tmi but my wife and i like to lay in bed and watch netflix. [laughter] >> it depends on what you're watching. [laughter] >> that is as much information you're going to get from me this morning. happening? you are chairman of the fcc. why is this happening? [laughter] today we call interconnection

peering. it is not different, it is just a new name. n engineering concept in the early days of the the engineers, as engineers are want to do -- wont to do, the something straightforward and simple and would operate and the economics were not even close to their thinking. traffic the exchange and we will all do essentially the same and it will be a happy ending. when it moved from an engineering concept to one economic concept -- to an economic concept, the engineers got added on the head -- patent theytted on the head and

said, thank you very much, and now how do we deal this as an economic point? to challenge we are going write now is that you want to make sure that there is -- we are going through right now is that you want to make sure that there is innovation, experimentation. you want to make sure that you are allowing a network to evolve and not have the kind of command and control structure that was possible in the old days. at the same point and time you want to make sure there are no abuses. we were talking before we came out here. a lot of people seem to think that the old -- the whole peering topic is the same as net neutrality. it is not.

it is a different issue. it is a cousin, right? may be a sibling. -- maybe a sibling. it is not the same issue. i think it is an issue that is something that the commission has to stay on top of, that the will be -- not will stories,es comments, ,hat people feel aren't abuses debate. our job is to make sure that whatever happens is not any -- anti-competitive, is not favoring one party -- i am the isp and i have an investment in this and therefore these guys come through faster or whatever.

that is the challenge that we have to reply to make sure that it is a competitive, vibrant, non-preferential market. thanob is more challenging it was in the day that you could thouow will do that -- will do that. we have moved to where we have instead of a central network, we have a distributed network. instead of the action being here at the switch where you could have controls, the action is now all out here. that changes the kind of approach that a regulator needs to take. the have to be responsive to all the stuff that is happening out here. you have to recognize what is going on impairing. you have to ask how can i encourage innovation and make sure it is not abuse?

that is what makes this job interesting. the exciting thing about this job for all five of us we get toers is that sit here in the middle of this fourth great network revolution and deal with issues just like this. it is something that makes you want to get up in the morning. >> keep getting up because my netflix -- i really want to watch it. not brought me very gracefully, gracefully, to the whichutrality issue recently, the federal court of appeals did strike down your -- or the fcc's open internet order. i know that in silicon valley

people are really freaked out. a venture capitalist wrote a wonderful blog post that the worst-case scenario, which is a company comes and wants to deliver a service over the internet. i am like, no. isp because they will stop you. i think that is everyone's big fear and that makes for great headlines. let's talk about what you think will happen. and you guys are looking at what you plan to do. the courts vacating most of that decision. >> i am not going there yet. [laughter] >> i figured as much. about -- ink general. court andnt to the thomas tell us the fcc does

not have jurisdiction over the internet -- and said, tell us the fcc does not have jurisdiction over the internet. the court said not so fast. the court took a look at the antidiscrimination and the theblocking structure, not concepts. the structure. they said no, the structure is too close to what you said this wasn't. the common carrier. we are not going to let you do it this way. said let us tell you what does work, what would work. that isaid publicly

interpret what the court did as an invitation to us and that i intend to accept that invitation. >> you have said publicly, you have talked about what you see happening and what wanting to do it on a case-by-case basis. i'm curious what you mean by that in terms of if and abuses sound, should i be filing complaints with an fcc when i am tracking my packets across the network? what does that mean for people who are concerned about what might happen and possible blocking or -- >> i think what that means is that this is not your case or someoness's case or else's case that we are talking about.

what we are talking about is the internet is evolving so rapidly that we want to look at case generic concept rules. what we don't want to do is to say that somehow we are smarter than the net. because i can stipulate to that -- we aren't. >> a kind of depends on what part of the net you're on, actually. -- it kind of depends on what part of the net you are on, actually. >> i will stipulate to that. developthe cases that and look at them inside a that the court told us is -- what does this do for the expansion and growth and further

rents of the internet -- futher ence of the internet? at two that are consumer protection hat ourible -- add to t consumer protection responsibilities. case-by-case is a dynamic -- well,rather than everyone has got to go through the eye of this needle. that is how we hope to approach things. >> does that put you at risk or put all of this at risk under a different chairman? -- i can onlynow take a bath in the stream that is going by, right? but i do think that it is possible and one of the things

again that is really significant about this point and time -- i think it is possible to establish some concepts. decision made its based around a set of concepts that were developed at one of our -- one of my predecessors and have taken on a life of their own. i think it is entirely possible to say it -- have that same type foundationshing the that will prevail. >> you have made some comments in october, i think it was, about the creation of a double -- a double-sided market where the consumer pays for the broadband in something like netflix or anybody would also pay the isp for access to the end consumer. i was wondering if you wanted to

add some clarity behind that. a lot of people look at that and think that is exactly what net neutrality was designed to prevent. all, you have got to understand the difference between what the open internet order did for wireless versus wired. in a wireless environment, which is what i was talking about -- it clearly allows and encourages, in fact, this kind of -- >> you can only cram so many bits per hertz. >> what i was trying to say is that we believe that markets should be innovative. at the same point and time, we are not reticent to say, excuse me, that is anti-competitive. excuse me, that is self-dealing.

excuse me, this is a consumer abuse. and to make those kinds of judgments. we want to encourage the dynamism and we want to have the oversight that does two things -- enables a broad canvas that says here is the kind of concepts that we want to operate . the four corners on which everyone can paint inside those corners and also then gets really specific and says, no. that is anti-competitive. i am not smart enough to know what comes next. i think we are capable of saying , that is not right. there is no hesitation to do that. >> i am excited and thank you for for spending so much time on

basically netflix versus the internet. [laughter] talkd not get a chance to about education and broadband access and that tight of thing but i know you wrote a blog post on friday. >> what is so significant about broadband? what really gets me pumped up is that we spend too much time talking about broadband, broadband, broadband. it is not just broadband. broadband-enabled. if we can use high-speed internet access to provide a 21st-century education for our kids and we don't -- shame on us. in this agency -- and this agency has responsibility for overseeing the rate program. program.

about 10 days ago we were in a middle school in oakland, california. we were going from classroom to classroom and along the wall in all the classrooms was about a four inch conduit that had plugs, electric plugs, and ethernet ports about every four or five feet. said,ed at that and i that is the old internet in the classroom. that is when the computer was over there and you went to it. there was alsoom a wi-fi router on the wall and kids were sitting at their desks with their, in this case from , and theyhrome books were accessing all types of content.

and thernet has moved use of technology in schools has moved to the computer over there to the computer on your desk. with that has come incredible demand on bandwidth. the kids were telling us stories enterhow they would hit and if it was simultaneously, everything would choke. ok? telling us about taking computers and walking around the room until they could get a good signal. said -- back has in june -- that we need to connect 99% of the schools within five years to at least 100 meg per thousand students going to one gig.

the only thing that i would add that is five years or less. we have responsibility through the e-rate program to fund schools. here's the interesting thing that i have learned. our great team that we've got at the commission, john wilkins is our new managing director. he came from mckenzie. they have applied business-like toh flow management concepts -rate fundund -- the e that will enable us to double the amount of money that is going for broadband installation this year. and be able to address this saying,e immediately by

we are going to take the steps that 21st-century students get 21st-century high onn and that is the list of priorities that we have at the commission. totally with you in everything he said about the importance of the evolving internet and what is our role in this stuff. but if you really stop and think about it, the great challenge that we have is how do you use the internet to make sure that -- most important assets are assets, our kids, get the best possible education? the best thing about the sec as we sit in the middle of it and think about the approach. >> i can't wait to see it. i have a seven-year-old daughter and she has a tablet. thank you so much. [applause]

>> kentucky senator rand paul also spoke about u.s. internet policy at the all-day conference . his remarks are about half an hour. >> if we can return to our program. thank you very much. of the internet education foundation board along with roger, who you heard earlier. we are going to move to an interview with the senator here, senator paul in case you cannot recognize him. i want to thank you for being here. we appreciate your support not only in attendance, but interest in what we are doing. check out the website if you will. i'm going to introduce greg ferran steen was going to be

conducting the interview for 15-20 minutes or so. he is an author and educator. he writes in the area of social technology and politics, issues that all of us in this room are interested in. he designs curriculum that teaches communication skills and you can read at least some of what he writes, maybe everything, at techcrunch. thank you very much. [applause] excited to have senator paul here. i think we're looking at the future of the republican party. or a libertarianism libertarian-style conservatism is coming to power. we don't know how this interacts with innovation and so that is what we are going to explore. the first question i have is, last year in a document you cowrote with your father you said that the technology

revolution has come all in five years without government permission. on the other hand, the birth of the internet was a government-funded laboratory and public universities laid a 5 -- played a vital role. my question is, does the government in some ways be essential to innovation? >> there is a role for government. the real explosion of the internet was a lack of control. it was a place where people went where they want told what to do. if you look at the different successes of companies versus traditional industry or manufacturing, government was already involved with other industries with rules and revelations that you could not innovate. i think that is what we need to protect against with the internet. it is a free and open place and we don't want government to get

too involved with that because i think will stifle innovation. think funding for science innovation goes up, down, or stays the same? >> i have always said that things people say are good angst that government can do, whether it or not it is our and d or humanitarian purposes, that in or context of -- r and d humanitarian purpose, but in the context of spending money, -- my biggest problem is that we bring in 2.8 trillion dollars and we spent $3.8 trillion. if you come to me and say that we want some government r&d, i will be like, well, tommy what you're going to cut. in the old days we just cap adding onto kept things. that is what happens now. there is no prioritization in governmental spending. a.b. r&d is more important than -- maybe r&d is a more important

onn -- we spent millions tweety the squirrel last year. maybe r&d for studying diabetes or a scientific pursuit, i would say, well, i think i would rather spend the $3 million on r&d if it doesn't look like there is a market for that. there is a marketplace that does support many things as far scientific advancement. some comes from universities but quite a bit comes from people wanting to make money trying to sell what they discover. >> let's move on to the nsa. i think you're almost in total alignment on the tech industry, calling for an end on the collection of data. , i believe that you said snowden and intelligence director james clapper should share a prison cell. as a leader, what you think

snowden's punishment should be and how can encourage more whistleblowing activity? i am looking for specifics. >> i was trying to be provocative and sometimes i do that. as far as sharing a cell, i was trying to make the point that you have some people who i think have gone crazy over the top. if they saw edward stored in a they would lynch him or shoot him. i think those people need to realize when they are saying things like that, which i think are absurd, but they need to realize that if they are so big on the law has to be what the law is, james clapper lied, committed perjury, and it is five years in prison. if they want to throw the book of snowden they have to equally look at james clapper. the since the sp in as -- espionage act of 1917 we have gone overboard.

if you want to look at the aftermath and during world war i to the labor activists, socialist, people who disagreed with the war, the draft -- we put people in jail for 10 and 20 years. we had something called the sedition act of 1917 and a minister was put in jail for 15 years. we have to be careful in times of war and in times of threat to our country that we do not go crazy on penalties. the current penalties on the book, particularly if you said bewden committed -- it could the death penalty. i think that his motives were good and saying that this is something that is unconstitutional and the government should not be doing it. in a federal judge has agreed with him. on the other side of the coin i don't think that we can completely have no secrets. if you're a sergeant in the military or a captain, i don't think you can just download all

the government secrets and put them out on the internet. there do have to be some rules and there are some problems with disclosing secrets. people could die. do i think the other side is overstating whetstone has done -- snip -- what snowden has done? i say this to be funny but it is also true. the real secret he announced to the world is not that we are spying on terrorists, is that we are spying on americans. are beingans' records collected. you think there is a terrorist in the world that did not already feel like their phone was being lifted -- listen to? echoes --d to it listen to? the other problem for snowden from a historical point is that history will record that he has taken up residence in a country that is not real good at with sort of bill of rights issues and privacy. --t is going to take him

taint him somewhat in history. it is not my job to make a judgment on him other than the issue is important and without him we never would have known this. in that sense, he has served the country in having a real great debate over our privacy and what the government can look at. >> you've also called him a civil disobedient. what you think should happen to him if he comes back to the united states? >> the people that are egg fans of the national surveillance states and don't care much about the bill of rights, they pushed back and say martin luther king and faced his medicine. that is true but he was in jail for 33 days. he did not face life imprisonment or the death penalty. many have a post me on this have you, oh you can't because are crazy. you cannot be a civil disobedient if you're not willing to face the time. to me, that would mean you have

to be willing to be a martyr. the death calling for penalty for him. i think that is inappropriate. what exactly his penalty is, i have not figured out or decided that i want to publicly say if you should get this or should not get this. i have come out and said that i believe that i don't think he believes -- deserves the death penalty or life imprisonment. at the sign time we have to have laws. if you sign a contract, they are important. it is just like insider trading. we have gone overboard on the insider trading things, but if you work for a big company on wall street and you cited agreement -- if you steal their secrets and give them to people, you have given a crime and broken the contract and should be punished for that. big lever in contracts at believer -- i am a big believer in contracts. question when you got to fund raise, the household names from google and facebook are still in

camp obama and maybe camp .illary in 2016 vomit if you had a more libertarian leaning republican and some unlike hillary clinton, i think you can transform for people think they have allegiance for. pew has been the biggest proponent of going to war in the middle east and getting involved in syria? hillary clinton. has she been anyone who said anything about privacy? she has been a big proponent of the surveillance tape. there is a chance if you had side,e on the republican they might all the sudden say -- on that site, they might say maybe democrats do not represent me. i think people come