between prc and the postal service on a new rate structure in 2017, cpi stays in place. why do we like that? dr. coburn and i have asked the postal service to run any number of 10-yaer financial statements to tell us what net income is likely to be, operating income is likely to be, cash on hand, debt situation going forward. if everybody here -- look through your papers. everyone should have a two- pager. the first page has yellow at the bottom. top says "u.s. postal service 10-year outlook."

this is the exigent price increase. the exigent price increase becomes the baseline and cpi begins in 2015 and going for. not cpi plus one, but going forward. if there is some kind of agreement between the postal service and the prc on a new rate structure, fine. if not, we stay at cpi. in the bottom right-hand corner of this spreadsheet, the most important number to me, and i think to dr. coburn, is net cash balance at the end of 2023 of $7 billion. that sounds like a lot of money, but that is out of $750 billion

over a ten-year period. less than 1%. this assumes no recession for 10 years, we are concerned about that. what the postmaster has done, at our urging, to recognize that 10 years is a long time with no recession, and to tamp down revenues on the out years. they have reduced their forecast expectations. by $1 billion in 2021 and 2022. we will still probably have a recession, but we have urge the postal service to be conservative, the adjustments they have made does that. the most important thing for us to accomplish with what we do

here today is, we passed out a bill or the financial -- the postal service will be financially viable. the numbers here would suggest that is likely to be the case. unfortunately, we do not have the ability to take what senator baldwin has laid out in her most recent proposal and actually run, use those revenue assumptions. and be able to price out what kind of net cash or deposition the postal service would be in at the end of 2023. they were able to take an

earlier proposal from senator baldwin where we had the exigent rate case in place for 2014 only, and then cpi plus one beginning in 2015. based on that proposal, the net debt position for the postal service, this is the sheet that has green, turquoise on the bottom half. that proposal led them to a debt position somewhere between $3.4 billion and $4.5 billion. that is concerning to me and should be concerning to all of us. let me yield to dr. coburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

first, i comment to the senator of wisconsin, i appreciate your efforts on this. there was a lot of back-and- forth between our staffs. you are accurate that you did not get writing, there was a lot of discussions for two weeks on this issue. it is not that we did not respond and were not working in good faith, we were. this piece of information from the post office, the assumption and it was cpi plus one forever. which is why you see a difference. it is not a real difference because they ran the numbers. cpi plus one for continuing through 2023.

the third point i would like to make. if you look at any of these numbers anywhere and you look at the net debt, the positive cash flows only come in the out years. whether you take my numbers are your numbers, the fact is, at the lowest possible revenues for the post office, it is still a guess. most of the money comes after 2018 to help the post office. i think the post office, and my assessment in looking at the numbers of projected mail volume by class of mail, is way too optimistic. we are looking at these numbers thinking they will grow at least

6% a year. they are looking at numbers that standard mail will only climb 4% over the next 10 years. i think that both of those premises are highly unlikely. i think we are way too positive right now on the revenue. in terms of our projection. that is their projection, i will take it. i would also say, they did not have a recession in there. they had a conservative based on some of these revenue mixes. they do not really believe their positive projections on growth, which is how people plan on ten- year projected budgets. they have paid $15 billion so far in bills. they are at their max.

we have to come to a compromise that is fair as we can make it to those paying the price for postage. and fair to the postal employees. and fair to the american public. i have learned some things on service standards from you, senator tester. there are some real problems and i will get to the bottom of that. whether we pass this now or as we moved to conference, we will take care of some of those are the standards that are not delivered in rural areas. you have a legitimate complaint and we have to look at it. we have started, our whole goal from starting this thing was the same thing everyone wants, to make the postal service viable. we have moved a tremendous amount from a true competitive bill that would really make the postal service respond to competitive prices and efficiencies and give them the

freedom to do that, to a much more constricted position that will put the post office at much higher risk if any of our numbers are wrong. which means, even what senator carper and i have proposed in the second-degree amendment, i still think it is real shaky whether we will have accomplished what we intend to. the final thing, the numbers proposed in your amendment actually force a price decrease next year for the post office. we go down in terms of prices because we are taking away the exigent after one year, we are taking away the cpi in there. then we start at a much lower baseline. if you look at the numbers, it

is a $12 billion swing from what senator carper and i have proposed to a -- from 7.2 to minus 4.6 or 4.5. the business has a net cash flow of less than 1% based on very positive, opportunistic revenue numbers under that proposal. we are to the point that if we do not accept what we have proposed, we will not have solved the problem. we will not have solved the problem. my hope is that we can come to an agreement, knowing that this is all going to change as we go to the floor and to conference. but knowing that we have moved to a significant position to where we have really limited the

ability of the post office to increase rates. we have not solved the problem. mr. chairman, i fully support your second amendment. we have worked hard to get to this compromise and i hope it will be seen as a compromise that meets halfway the concerns of the senator from wisconsin. i would also say, i want to thank senator johnson for working up the numbers and actually making a positive contribution to protect both the mailers and solve the problem. i am not saying you are not trying to do that. we want as much volume as we can

get through the post office. there is a relationship between price increases and increased william -- there is a relationship between price increases and decreased volume. i do not think either of the senators from wisconsin know what that should be. in working with mailers and the postal service, they can come to an agreement that gives the best revenue and still saves the post office. >> mr. chairman. >> senator baldwin? >> a couple comments. i do not want to belabor, i think members are concluding where their votes are on this. on the issue of governance, i do have a question i would like to pose to the general counsel for the prc. >> please. >> think you -- >> mr. corcoran?

your role is? >> imd acting general counsel for the postal regulatory commission. >> i want to thank you, you responded to an inquiry from senator levin after our last markup. he was kind enough to share that with our entire committee. i appreciate that. i wanted to know whether the postal military commission has a position on the new carper- coburn second-degree amendment we have been discussing concerning governance? >> yes, we had a brief opportunity to consider it. the commission, we did not have time to prepare something in writing. >> how many folks are on the

commission today? >> three. >> are there any vacancies? >> two. the postal regulatory commission has a history and expertise in soliciting comments from the community and developing a system of remaking. the language provides a role for the regulator, but places the development within the control of the regulated entity. the process may be better managed as a joint process among the postal service, stakeholders, and the commission or the regulator balances competing interests in development of a new remaking system. -- of a new ratemaking system. >> i urge my fellow committee members to reject the second- degree amendment and that on the compromise alternative. we have had members talk about how far we have come since the original bill, i would not be

able to support the underlying bill if the second-degree amendment were to pass. because of original concerns that brought me to offer my amendment in the first place to strike section 301, the volatility i see forthcoming in rates that will affect so many in the wisconsin economy concerns me greatly. but transparent governing process, when we are dealing with the u.s. postal service that has such a sizable monopoly, is crucial, in my mind, and i place heavy weight on what i just heard from -- comments from the postal regulatory commission on how they would see their role being

depleted significantly moving forward. just a couple of additional comments. i have to say our reliance on the spreadsheets is very troubling to me when you find a $4 billion discrepancies, when you find assumptions -- $4 billion of padding here and there. they are guesses. after 2017, a lot of changes are happening, and we are guessing after 2017. it is just very frustrating for you to take a spreadsheet and point to 2014 -- i'm sorry, 2023 and be able to suggest that is the impact of some of the amendments we are talking about right now. they really are guesses. with that, mr. chairman, i yield

back. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the carper-coburn second- degree amendment to the modified baldwin amendment. to pass -- or adopt the baldwin amendment and carry on with the markup. >> senator johnson seeking recognition. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i certainly share and represent the same interests as senator baldwin. i obviously take a different perspective on this. i would like to respond to a couple of comments and reinforce a couple of points. this is not my solution. i think the best thing for the post office is to be set free. the best way to actually ensure it remains an entity long-term is to go through organization under the protection of the

bankruptcy code. that is the way it would happen in the private sector and provides the best chance of the postal service to survive long- term. what we're doing is resolving through a political process and we see how messy it is and really how much of that long- term survival is being put at risk. let me put my business hat on. it is always risky as a business to base your business model on a supplier who is basically bankrupt. as concerned as i am about the industries in wisconsin, they are relying on the business model that is not particularly stable -- and this is where i appreciate the work of the chair and the ranking member -- to try to make this entity survive so we provide some stability, so we take at least that risk out of the business model. if this bill fails, who knows

what will happen to the postal system? i don't know what size the mounting losses will be. that is something i want to reinforce, something dr. coburn said as well. in theory, sure, the american taxpayer not paying for the post office, but $15 billion worth of debt came out of the american taxpayer's hide and as losses mount in the future, where is that money going to come from? the unfunded liability is tacked onto the 15 billion dollars, if the post office ultimately fails, who will pick up the tab? the american taxpayer is surely on the hook. it is very strange in business by and large, unless you are in a commodity type of business where you have real volatility of your cost structure, to rescind price interest. it just does not happen.

yet that is what we are talking about here. let's say if we statutorily rescind the price increase, what will it do to the post office? what would be the rationale for rescinding that? has the cost decreased? i don't think so. i don't see a reason in a normal business model a price increase would be rescinded in any manner. i would agree, looking at projections is pretty dicey. but you have to look at it and you have to do something projecting forward. the way i would manage this business decision, i also look at history. one of the things i tried to do in the intervening weeks until last hearing is try to get some sense of what is the history of price increases, not only the post office but its competitors. ups. and fedex. i have -- and it is very difficult because we have announced price increases, but i have gotten a schedule here. i don't know if we should enter this in the record, but i think it is relevant. i want to take a little time to go through this. but if you add up from 2009, for six years, announced price

increases for ups and fedex, the ground service, it totals 30.4%. if you take a look at the price increases of the postal system on carrier routes -- 16.8%, 14.4%. i think in a business setting you have to benchmark what is your pricing structure versus your competitors. i just want to ask, as long as i have the assistant postmaster general here, is that relatively accurate? do you price increases lag that far behind both ups and fedex? >> i will defer to our chief financial officer. >> the quick answer, senator, is yes, they have. >> that is the problem. should also be brought into the equation what we should be doing pricewise. my standpoint, i think congress is going to be a pretty bad evaluator of what the prices ought to be. i cannot imagine trying to run a business where one of the riskiest decisions i have to

make is price increase or decrease and not having the flexibility to make that based on economic conditions and business conditions on a day-to- day basis. yet we are taking that power and flexibility away from the postal service. it's not going to end well. from my standpoint again, i would rather give you guys the greatest flexibility. i think you are reasonably intelligent, understanding you don't want to lose a big chunk of your business. you want to maintain that. i do not believe you will overprice that and price yourself totally out of business. last point, because it has been made repeatedly, that the post

office is a monopoly. if the post office was a true monopoly you would be making all kinds of money. your service would really stink and your prices would be incredibly high. the fact is, you are not a true monopoly, which is why you are suffering these kinds of losses so you need that kind of flexibility. i think we put at risk the postal service and in greater risk those businesses in wisconsin that rely on you. so i think providing the security and stability trumped certainly my idea of how these things should be resolved and support what dr. coburn and senator carper have done. >> thank you for what you just said here. thank you very much for what you offered to us two weeks ago. it was very important at that point in time and thank you for reiterating.

i just want to yield to senator pryor, and i think levin, and i think we will try to wrap it up on this amendment. i asked our staffs and asked what does the exigent rate mean in terms of the prices of mailing a catalog. the exigent rate case calls for an increase of $.38 to $.40 for catalogs, magazines, $.20 to 29 cents and nonprofit mail, $.10 to $.11. these are not huge increases. senator pryor? >> i will try to be quick. i know time is of the essence. i do want to ask mr. corcoran a question or two since we have him here. first, are you familiar with the language in the baldwin second- degree as well as the carper second-degree? >> to some extent, senator pryor. >> the question i want to ask you is pretty specific, and that is, what is the difference in the two proposals as those differences relate to the prc? how do these two proposed amendment treat the prc and how do they treat them differently? >> as i understand the baldwin

second amendment, if you will, that preserves the current governance, and under senator carper and coburn's second- degree, it has no pre- implementation review of postal service market dominant rates and it would, for the review in 2017, the postal service would come in with a proposal and the choice for the commission to have a hearing on it and get comments from affected stakeholders would be to approve it without modification or rejected. so it is, as i understand it, and either-or decision. >> different from the status quo today? >> yes, the status quo today would have the commission

undertake the review with input from affected stakeholders including the postal service. a proceeding in the commission and then would issue an order or decision whether the existing system would be revised or a new system would be implemented. >> i would like to respond to that because i think that is an important point that you brought up. we obviously don't have enough revenue at the postal service. and we have the postal rate commission susceptible to the lobbying of those who use the system which is totally accurate. but when you look at the numbers, one of the reasons the post office is in trouble, even with all the cost-cutting they have done is rate increases have not kept up with the costs associated of doing what they are asked to do. when you see their competitors at almost twice as much in terms of rate increases so they can maintain profitability and put capital back in their business, we have not allowed that through

the prc. i would also remind, the people at the prc are not required to have a significant business, management or other background, which limits their ability to see things from a postal management perspective. it doesn't means they are not doing a good job, not paying attention or not working. we handicap the post office. all you have to do is run the numbers at the postal service, even with the volume declines, had had the same increases fedex and ups had had, we would not be sitting here doing this today.

>> mr. chairman? >> before senator levin speaks, again, keep in mind, senator pryor, last august -- really no participation of prc. there was a lot of blowback. we modified that so within the manager's amendment we did provide a role for the prc. not to the extent they have under current law but provided a significant change. we provided a further significant change with the second-degree amendment that is before us that would say -- 2015 cpi goes in effect going forward and in 2017 if there is negotiation between the postal service and the prc on changing the rate structure, the postal service can propose whatever they want. if the prc does not agree we stay at cpi. that is pretty simple. i think it is fair, reasonable. it gets us to a positive $7 billion cash position, even assuming we tamp down the revenues 8, 9, 10 years out.

deputy postmaster general, could you comment? and i want to recognize senator levin. >> i just want to reiterate the point you made at the end of your statement and that is, we have every incentive to work with the prc and industry because if we didn't we would be at cpi. so, the incentives in the amendment really force us to work really closely with the prc, to try to come up with an agreement as to an acceptable rate structure. >> senator levin? >> chairman, first, i want to thank senator baldwin. i happen to think this is a fair approach and it involves the prc in a very significant way because the power to say no is the power to shape. and as far as i am concerned, you are not precluded having any pre--- what is your word, pre- implementation review that you want.

it does not say you may not do it it just simply says you will do it. if you want to elicit from stakeholders and any other inputs you are not precluded. that would not be there but for senator baldwin. so, i am not going to vote for her amendment. i do want to say we are at a place i think is a fair place because of her effort and the same thing is true on the rate, by the way. i don't see any realistic way the exigent rate would be repealed in any event. i don't know if i've ever seen a government rate that has been reduced. the need is there, it is clear, it will continue to be there. i think we ought to use that in the baseline. i think it is a fair approach. >> as we prepare to vote on the coburn-carper substitute to the baldwin amendment, i'll ask you to keep in mind -- and this is for democrats and republicans but especially for our

democrats, i have been concerned and you have been concerned about the post office closings. we tried to be attentive to those concerns. and thanks to dr. coburn's willingness to compromise we've, i think, made good changes and we are prepared to make some others as soon as senator heitkamp gets recognize and we have her amendment. concerned about the closings of the processing centers without tying the hands of the post office is unduly and trying in a number of other ways to help the postal service to basically rein in their costs. it can't just be cut, cut, cut. the postal service has taken huge amounts of money out of their system in terms of headcount, in terms of restructuring the post office, in terms of reducing by almost half the number of mail processing centers. they cut the heck out of their costs.

there's got to be some revenues here, there's got to be some revenues. what i propose is a fair approach that provides uncertainty, predictability. a two cent increase in the price of catalogs, one cent increase in magazines, one cent increase in terms of nonprofit mail, those are not huge, unfair increases. part of the exigent rate case that we would make the new baseline. i don't think that is an unfair burden to place on the mailers. but that having been said, i think we are ready to go to the votes on the coburn-carper second-degree amendment, please. >> senator levin, senator pryor, senator landrieu -- >> senator landrieu is no by proxy. senator mccaskill is aye by

proxy. >> senator tester, senator begich, senator baldwin, senator heitkamp, senator coburn, senator mccain -- >> aye by proxy. >> senator johnson, senator portman, senator paul, senator enzi, senator ayotte -- >> aye by proxy. >> senator carper. >> aye. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are six and nays are four. but by proxy the yeas are four and the nays are one. on this vote, the yeas are 10

and the nays are 5, and the motion is agreed to. >> i want to thank my colleagues for their vote. this is not the finish line. there will be plenty of time for us to talk further. i want to commend senator baldwin for his tenacity. i would ask, if we could, i don't want to run out of time and run out of members. if we can go to senator heitkamp who has amendment and i think we have a couple of others. good point. now that we amended the baldwin amendment, the second-degree amendment, voting on baldwin as amended. all in favor say aye, opposed, nay. anyone requesting a roll call

vote? if not, the ayes appear to have it. and the amendment as modified is agreed to. thank you all. senator heitkamp, thank you for your patience. >> i call up heitkamp number three. i don't want to belabor a long discussion here on every detail of this fairly lengthy amendment, but i want to respond to senator coburn who suggests that some of this is related to parochial interests. obviously we have service centers in north dakota, we have rural post offices in north dakota but we have a growing population in north dakota and i can tell you stories about the post office. including my favorite one that i heard of my last trip back, the local lady who delivers mail for

years under contract, everybody knew her and she knew everyone, always check in on the elderly, she lost her contract on a cost- saving measure and they hired a company out of california who hired ex-cons who threw the mail in the ditch. that is the way i look at the post office these days, through the eyes of my constituents who, let me tell you, you might think that is an isolated story but i could go on for at least 20 hours telling you about the post office. but my interest in doing this and doing this amendment is trying to have some accountability for what is going on as they make decisions, whether it is service centers, whether it is going forward. i know it looks like a fair amount of increase in

bureaucracy, but from my standpoint, we cannot just sit idly by without some accountability to the post office and how the post office is being managed. i might suggest we would not be here if we had quality management at the post office. and so, i am not going to go through this in any detail unless somebody wants me to. i understand senator levin has been able to get accommodation on extension on a six-day delivery which, incidentally, if i can just comment, the one thing the post office does that nobody else does is six day delivery, i don't know why we would want to take away that one advantage that they have in the marketplace. i sat on a few boards and i look at what i am doing that nobody else is doing and how i can leverage that opportunities i feel really strongly about six day delivery as an opportunity for the post office.

just one point about the service centers -- that is a critical part of the delivery of the mail. you know how i know? because when the service center does not process our mail and it doesn't get delivered to the dickinson post office until 2:00 in the afternoon, i've got postal carriers who are delivering mail at 11:00 at night on icy streets. we cannot just say let's fix the post office without looking at some of the problems we have today. i want accountability. that is what this amendment does. >> thanks for your hard work on this. very hard work on this. you and your staff. he already worked with dr. coburn and his folks and with -- >> mr. chairman -- i'm sorry. >> let me yield -- go ahead, senator paul, and then i have a couple of points. >> i would like to offer a second-degree amendment to the

heitkamp amendment. it will address the carrying of guns in parking lots and in the post office and it will be amended and different from a previous amendment in that the date of the enactment of the amendment would take effect one day after the enactment of this act and i will like to present it to the chairman for a vote on the second-degree amendment. >> can i just ask the gentleman just to withhold your amendment for a few minutes? that has been an effort to try to craft amendment on this subject -- >> as long as we have unanimous consent might amendment will be voted on. i don't care whether it is compared with in the amendment. this is my last chance to know

that i will have a vote right now. i will relinquish it among his weekly on unanimous consent we will have a vote might amendment on my amendment. >> suspend for a moment.

>> ok. let's resume this conversation. we talked a little bit with dr. coburn and others, but again, i

will ask you, if you will, to withdraw the second-degree amendment to heitkamp so we can debated and voted up and down and i would ask unanimous consent that once we have done that, that we have the opportunity to consider two amendments -- one offered by senator paul, which could be the amendment withdrawn or the original and another amendment that deals with the parking lot issue. and we have a chance to debate both of those. i think you won a vote -- >> as long as the unanimous consent we are considering is two straight up-and-down vote on my in and in and another amendment but not a second- degree to cancel out and sidestep the issue. as long as the agreement is we will actually vote up and down on my language of mine and it will not be a substitute -- we are agreeing basically not to

second-degree my amendment. i would be happy to agreed not to second-degree other amendments. >> and that is what we agreed to. i need unanimous consent. is there objection? hearing none. would you just withdraw your -- >> yes, i will withdraw my second-degree amendment. >> senator heitkamp back to you. >> mr. chair, i would offer two amendments here. one is the estimate, i think some of the chair and the ranking member is -- and i've got to get the right language in front of me -- is that under the approach of 140 billion pieces for four straight quarters in a row, that the estimate -- >> page 21 of the amended, correct? >> i am not sure what page. >> under the documents given to us, that would under this estimate be reached in the fourth quarter of fy18. and i would say, in order to

give a little certainty here, that we say in no event, leaving that trigger in there, so the trigger would remain just the way it is in the language. but to have a little greater certainty and protection here for the confidence, that the language would be added "no earlier than the fourth quarter of fy17." in other words, there would be just "in any event no earlier than." the best estimate is it will not be reached until a year after that. and i am not trying to suggest it be put in long the estimate exactly. that would be the last quarter of fy18, but it seems to me it would produce some greater confidence in this process for

those of us who strongly support the six-day delivery than in any event it is no earlier than one year before that estimate which would be the fourth quarter of fy17, so i would offer that as a second-degree amendment and i think based on discussions i hope that would be accepted. >> dr. coburn? >> of that is acceptable to us because hopefully we will not get to 140 billion pieces of mail. that is our whole goal, to knock it down to that. so what this does is build in assurance this will not happen earlier. >> and so on my. >> mr. chairman, i have been asking for some kind of surety in this bill, amendment, for quite a few days and i think this is an excellent addition to the amendment.

>> senator levin, do you want to accept the victory? >> we are good. >> i would like to thank senator heitkamp for her tenacity -- the specific but does not give the kind of confidence that candidate would so i would like to thank her for her great effort. >> senator heitkamp, i want to come to north dakota and have a chance to go around your state and actually see what kind of services been provided there and see for myself. i am one of my people who learns by being involved. and i look forward to being able to do that. i might be willing to go in april. april would be just fine. >> mr. chairman, you are assuming april will be different than this month. >> we will shoot for late april. any discussion on the levin proposal here? all right. all in favor, say aye. opposed nay.

the ayes have it, agree to. senator tester? >> i have an amendment if it is my turn. >> i think we have to -- >> one were suggested change on the heitkamp. and, by the way, we will love to have your chairman come to the upper peninsula after north dakota. there is still snow in the upper peninsula until at least june. >> i will go to the upper peninsula right after we been to one week from today, pitchers and catchers report, lakeland, florida. >> happily nobody else knows what we are talking about. he is a tigers fan, the bottom line.

mr. chairman, i would suggest, the heitkamp language is that after the gao comes up with their report, that there be 30 days, if i read this correct, before the postal service could then act. just a little bit of possibility here that congress could respond to that decision. this is not at all practical. i would suggest 60 days. frankly i would prefer 90. i think senator heitkamp would have, too. but as a practical matter i would suggest 60 days to give us some possibility of congressional action. otherwise there's almost no point of putting the 30 days in here. >> mr. chairman, i totally agree. i would go for 90 but whatever we can resolve here. >> i'm willing to accept 60. dr. coburn, can you live with that? thank you very much. let's make this unanimous consent. is there objection to this? now we have to go back to the amendment. heitkamp as amended.

>> can i thank our chairman and dr. coburn? really, very appreciated. >> thanks for your very constructive comments. now we move to final passage to heitkamp as amended. all in favor, saying aye. opposed, say nay. the ayes do have it, amended as incorporated. senator tester, do you have an amendment? >> amendment number four. it goes to the issue ranking member coburn talked about as far as delivery in rural areas. just over a year ago the postal service used to use third- parties to assist delivery in rural areas. these services are organized under alternative means of transportation, amot contracts. in june 2012 the postal service

unilaterally implemented a pilot program in the northern plains, north dakota, idaho, montana, south dakota, that reduces that contract use and in turn reduces mail delivery standards in these northern plains states below standards in other parts of the country. there are all sorts of stories out there. senator heitkamp gave hers -- i give you one quick one, and i can give you a bunch. one of them impacted my wife and i. another story equally important, a rancher, a fair shot away from helena, about 400 miles would be my guess, had a state lease and sent the lease overnight delivery, did not get there for 9 days. the reason is they had to truck it, not air service, and we have been here before so i would encourage adoption of this amendment. >> let me just say that -- and we will let somebody like dr. coburn comment on this he mentioned that this was something he could support.

i can't support it at this time, either. i would ask you to consider -- i would ask you to consider withdrawing this amendment at this time. give us a chance to work with you and we will be happy to try and do that. >> i appreciate that, but quite frankly, it is a pretty simple issue. pretty clear cut, either you is or you ain't. if it goes down, it goes down, i can live with it. if it passes, i hope it does, i can live with it even better. >> with that in mind, any other comment on this amendment? >> let me get my ranking member back. >> if he is opposed, we really don't need to hear from him. [laughter] >> if you go to north dakota, the senator can introduce you to those ex-cons who are delivering

our mail. >> dr. coburn, i offered senator tester the opportunity, i asked him if he would consider withdrawing the amendment and get a chance to work with them. i think he makes some good points. he said he would rather just go ahead and vote up or down and he can live with either outcome. even if it goes down -- i think it will -- >> we want positive vibes on this. it is pretty straightforward. about using third-party providers to deliver mail in a big state like montana where the service is pretty important. i think it is important in all areas where the pilot project

has happened, but it is what it is. the story that i told, dr. coburn, is a rancher sent overnight delivery and they got there eight days later and it is not acceptable and frankly people will look for alternative means. it only has to happen once a when i happen again because they would not use the post office. as i said, i prefer it to pass. >> are there any other states where the same service was canceled? >> the states i listed -- the pilot program in the northern plains, montana, nebraska, north dakota and south dakota. >> it covers all of the states that -- >> that's right. >> a quick call of role. >> senator levin -- >> aye. quick senator pryor? >> aye by proxy.

>> senator landrieu? >>aye by proxy. >> senator mccaskill? >>aye by proxy. >> senator tester, senator begich, senator baldwin -- >> aye by proxy. >> senator heitkamp, senator coburn, senator mccain -- >> no by proxy. >> senator johnson, senator portman -- >> senator portman passes. >> senator paul, senator -- senator ayotte, senator carper >> i vote no. >> on the vote of those

present, yeas are 4 nays 4, proxy --on this vote, the motion is agreed to. >> ok. >> did we win that? >> it sure sounds like it. >> i want to thank the chair. [laughter] >> i don't know what the order is. i've got another amendment if you need one. i'm going to ask you to hold that -- >> i'm going to is futile that,

if you will, and we are in position to consider two amendments. senator paul's amendment, side- by-side, if you will, on the same subject. senator paul, would you like to go first? >> this amendment i think has been debated very well and i will not go long but it is supported by the nra, gun owners of america as well as the national association of gun rights. i think what we don't want people to be called up in overtly trying to obey the law and all of a sudden going to jail for something they never intended to do wrong and perfectly legal by their state law. many states have concealed carry and a lot of people have concealed carry and do carry a weapon with them for self- defense as well as other

reasons. whereas sidewalk, one foot on the sidewalk, one foot in the door. there are a lot of in between. i see nothing unique to the post office that makes me believe there would be more violent somehow committed at a post office than anywhere else. the only violence we can point to unfortunately came from some mental illness with. workers at one point of time. it actually has been a while since that, but there really has not been a rash of violence by individual citizens and they hope people will support my amendment. >> we are going to get an up or down vote on your amendment. i think it might be helpful for us to hear -- i think senator begich will offer an amendment after we have a chance to vote on your amendment. can you give us a flavor? >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i recognize senator paul's a broader issues and i think what we have been trying to do is get to this issue. i know in my state, a very rural state, we have folks pulling up to the post office, probably a gun of a car and storing a gun.

we have open concealed weapons in other words, you don't need a permit, you can carry a gun on you and we have people who end up in parking lots going to the post office to pick up their mail, because, for example, in some of our communities there is no home delivery, there is the post office. that is where you go in many of our rural community so you parking go in. you may not realize that even though you stored your gun in a parking lot, which is where the post office has lost its court case at least at one level, and i think they should not appeal it. they are doing it but i do not think they should appeal this issue. but this solves the problem once and for all. that is what my amendment does. and i will patiently wait as the

process unfolds. >> let's return to senator paul's amendment. we will vote and i will recognize senator begich. anybody want to ask questions of senator paul and his amendment? >> senator levin, senator pryor, senator landrieu -- >> no by proxy. >> senator mccaskill? >> no by proxy. >> senator tester, senator begich, senator baldwin -- >> senator baldwin is no by proxy. >> senator heitkamp, senator coburn, senator mccain -- >> aye by proxy. >> senator johnson, senator portman -- >> pass. >> senator paul, senator enzi, senator ayotte, senator carper. mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are

mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are three and nays are six and by proxy, the yeas are three and the nays are three, on this vote the yeas are six and the nays are nine and the motion is not agreed to. >> let's move to the begich amendment. >> mr. chairman, i don't know the amendment number but i would just say the begich amendment, i would just say number four. this is highly focused on issues that i know i hear a lot about, and that is making sure that people are not breaking the law by just parking in the lot as they go in to get their mail and we have the problem all throughout alaska. again, -- the court case,

resolves that problem and i encourage a yes vote. >> i have a quick question of senator begich. >> does this amendment say that this is permissible where it is consistent with state law? >> state and local law. >> thank you. >> any further discussion? >> on the begich amendment we will call it number four this time. will the clerk call the role? can you confirm? >> begich four. senator levin, senator pryor, senator landrieu -- >> senator landrieu is aye by proxy. >> senator tester, senator begich, senator baldwin,

senator heitkamp, senator coburn, senator mccain, senator johnson, senator portman -- >> pass. >> senator paul, senator enzi - >> aye by proxy. >> senator ayotte, senator carper. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are 11 and the nays are zero, on the vote by proxy, the yeas are four, the nays are zero and on this vote the nays are 15 and the yeas are zero and the motion is agreed to. >> thank you very much. really, thank you all. other amendments?

ok. i understand we have nine members right here. we can go to final passage. we have a handful of amendments that i think we are agreement on. heitkamp number one, mccain number six, paul number one and tester number one. i'm not aware of any objections to any of these amendments being considered on block. i would ask for a voice vote of all four in block. all in favor say aye. the ayes have it. with that in mind -- >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment. >> senator pryor. >> pryor number 1 -- i do have pryor 2. i'm going to withdraw that. i understand that the chairman and ranking member oppose it, and i would like to continue to work on that with you. number one address a problem where approximately 7500 mid-level management employees

within the postal service do not possess the right to appeal adverse personnel actions to the u.s. merit systems protection board. we have had discussions with the postal service on this. i know mr. stroman is here right now. i think at one point they expressed concerns and had some objection, but my understanding is they now think it will just be minimal cost of any at all and they are not opposed to the amendment. >> we have no objections. >> we talked about this a little bit a week ago when we had this. i think without their objection it becomes fairly noncontroversial. >> any other comment? with no more discussion, all of favor say aye. the ayes do have it. any other amendment?

oh, no -- >> last one for me. >> tester. tester number 3, second provision. this is a little different. this is proactive as far as federal workers comp. the one last week took everybody in. this takes effect for folks hired upon passage of bill basically. so i think it makes it's still not perfect. but it makes it a little less bad. it would make the cuts prospective so they would only apply to federal workers after the date of enactment. would not applied to the ones before. there would be less of a savings. but remember, still about 60% of the claims are within the post office anyway.

>> senator tester, thanks for your amendment. i cannot support it at this time. i appreciate you offering but i cannot supported at this time. dr. coburn? >> i cannot support it as well. this is a second bite of the apple. and i understand that. i understand your position. what i would tell you is we are probably going to resolve this when we have to meet with george miller and the house in terms of conference if we ever get this through the floor. but i would say this. you said it the opposite way. 40% of all fica is postal. >> i said it the right way, 60% -- >> but the point is, this is a significant problem in our real goal ought to be putting these people back to work, because they are going to earn a whole lot more working than the other

way. i am adamantly opposed to this at this point and trying to keep what we've got in here because we know we will get less as we go forward and we really need reform. >> ranking member coburn and if we -- coburn, if we get it fixed i will buy you a pop. >> they better be grape. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> senator levin, senator pryor, senator landrieu -- >> senator landrieu votes aye by proxy. >> senator mccaskill, senator tester, senator begich, senator baldwin, senator heitkamp, senator coburn, senator mccain -- >> no by proxy. >> senator johnson, senator portman, senator paul, senator

enzi, senator ayotte, senator carper. >> no. >> mr. chairman, on the voted those present, the yeas are five and the nays are five. on the yeas are 2 and the nays are three on this vote the yeas are seven and the nays are 8 and the motion is not agreed to. >> and the other amendments? >> one last thing i just want to say. i will vote for final passage to move it out of the committee and onto the floor and the reason is because of your hard work and the work of senator coburn. total respect for you guys. you guys have spent so much time on this, worked so hard. i still have problems with the bill and we still need to work on it. hopefully we will get it to the floor and have an amendment process there. but i just want to say, thank

you both for your hard work and all your time on this. >> thank you for working on this. senator mccaskill? >> ditto. >> senator begich. >> you, the chair, and the ranking member, thank you for allowing me on the fly to do a few things. and i do have some other issues that we will deal you -- deal with hopefully as the process go forward. i still have concerns on large issues but i want to thank you two for your work and how long it is taking you to bring it together. thank you very much. i will work on my other issues as we move forward. i have some, just like other members. >> any other comments? senator ayotte. >> i do want to thank the chairman and ranking member and their his work -- more work that needs to be done but both of you recognizing that the status quo is unacceptable for everyone. for the post office -- whether you work for the post office,

the taxpayers, everyone. i want to thank you for really working together on this. >> let me say, first of all, thank you to each of you for those comments. i want to say to dr. coburn how much i appreciate the way you approached this. you and i basically made a blood oath that we were going to fix this problem. obviously we can't do it by ourselves but i think we take a big step forward today. for everyone a part of getting us to this point, i hope we have a good bipartisan vote on final passage. tom, to your staff, to our staff and everybody else who has been a part of this, thank you, and to the staffs of each of our members, democrat and republican, thank you for the great work. the postal service, p.r.c., the key stakeholders that happened to be representing the employees, the mailing community, we are grateful for the input and the good conversation. i would like to say that the two keys to a long marriage is communication and compromise and

to a vibrant democracy, the communication and compromise and i would add a third, collaboration. we had a fairmont of communication, good deal of compromise and collaboration. the clerk will call the roll. >> senator levin, senator pryor, senator landrieu -- senator landrieu -- >> aye by proxy. >> senator mccaskill, senator tester -- >> just hold. ok. all right, let's go back to senator landrieu on final passage. no by proxy. >> senator mccaskill, senator

tester, senator begich, senator baldwin -- >> no by proxy. >> senator heitkamp, senator coburn, senator mccain -- >> aye by proxy. >> senator johnson, senator portman, -- >> no by proxy. >> senator paul -- >> no by proxy. >> senator enzi, senator ayotte, senator carper. >> aye. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are nine and the nays are one and vote by proxy and for the record only, the yeas are 2 and the nays are four and on this vote the yeas are nine and the nays are one and the motion is agreed to. >> i think it is a wrap.

thank you, everybody. >> hold it, hold it, hold it. >> i have to read this back. i asked unanimous consent -- by mutual agreement permitted to make technical changes to the measure we reported out today and i want to thank our colleagues in the ranking member for working with us to put the postal service on the path of a more sound future. without objection. all right, that's it. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> jonas tomorrow for

rebroadcast of this week's hearing on consumer data protection. watch the testimony

tomorrow at 10 a.m. eastern or washington journal here on c-span. on sunday, the house oversight committee hosted a committee on irs concert groups -- conservative groups appeared here is a look at some of our other weekend programming. >> we focus so far on the challenge around protecting credit card and debit cards. the real potential exposure we have is that people can actually or into our bank accounts online transactions we all do more and more online banking and other services. that offers an area where there are very few protections at this point an almost unlimited liability for consumers. today's world, personal information is collected from consumers wherever they go from the workplace to shopping for groceries from our smartphones to browsing the web at home,

virtually every action we take involves the collection of information. many of these data uses have clear benefits but the recent spate of data breaches are strong reminder that they also create risks for consumers. >> it is through barak the investigations -- proactive investigations where we are sometimes ahead. it is through partnerships we have in the financial industry sector that is able to bring us data where we are able to go through and parse that data and find out where information is leaking into the criminal underground. way journalists can get a hold of that information. >> this weekend, data breaches and cyber theft. lawmakers look at legislative options to secure personal data. tv, executive power during times of crisis from washington to bush. sunday evening at 7 a.m. -- 7

p.m. years to see150 how confederate soldier spent the winter of 1854. join civil war and actors. earlier today, two former u.s. double that gave their assessment on the continuing talks with iran. former bush administration negotiator nick burns backed president obama's approach and added that the next set of talks will be more difficult. former obama administration negotiator robert einhorn also spoke at the event. iran and six world powers will continue their talks february 18 in vienna. this is just under one hour. >> let me start from the

beginning. thanks to andy for that very kind introduction. i want to support with the partnership for secure america want to do and that is to build a better sense of bipartisanship here in washington. as andy noted, we have worked for republican and democratic administrations. i started as an intern in the jimmy carter administration and went through the george w. bush administration. i believe that while politics is important, when it comes to the national security of united states, the americans have to unite and there is no reason why two political parties cannot be in support of each other and of our country on the most important issues and the iran nuclear issue is the number one priority of american foreign-policy in 2014 because we are in a very critical -- the administration is in a very critical junction. i strongly support what president obama and secretary of state john kerry are trying to do. when i served in the george w. bush administration, we tried to negotiate with iran. we offered negotiations -- the p5 plus one group.

germany being the one. britain, france, the united states, russia, and china. we offered in 2006 publicly for iran to negotiate and they turned us down. we formed this group of the security council members in germany because we thought was important to have a global conversation with the iranians and when they turned us down we turned toward sanctions and the bush administration helped to pass three chapter seven sanctions resolutions and the obama administration led by people like bob einhorn really took the baton. i have always seen this policy be highly bipartisan. i don't discern many differences at all between president obama and president bush on this issue. it is a key issue for our country. i do support what the president is trying to do. until the negotiations over the last six months that have been

so ably handled by wendy sherman for secretary kerry, we have not had a consistent, sustained, strategic dialogue with iran since the jimmy carter administration. if there is a probability that the united states at some point could theoretically have to consider the use of force against iran it does make sense to exhaust diplomacy first and to enter into the type of negotiations the president has committed himself to. i support the idea of negotiations. it is consistent in my view with what the bush administration was trying to do. i believe the president was right to negotiate the interim deal. bob can speak with greater authority with that because he was part of the team that led the obama administration's efforts in the first four years. but that deal freezes in place the major elements of iran's nuclear program so it provides

the time for diplomacy to act and operate. this problem will not be overcome simply or quickly. you need the time that the president has given us to negotiate. i do think the next round of talks for the final agreement which begin next week in geneva will be infinitely more difficult because now the pressure is going to be on iran. the spotlight will be on their government because they will have to agree to a significant rollback of their current nuclear program. the idea that they would have 19,000 centrifuges spinning is something the united states cannot tolerate. we will have to see dismantlement of that program. i would think the negotiators from our side and the european side want to see some significant transformation of

the iraq water reactor. either a dismantlement of that facility or some kind of transition for that facility so that we can be assured it does not open up another route through plutonium to a nuclear weapon. i heard that -- i know that the foreign minister said he did not commit to dismantlement. i have to hope that was for domestic purposes within iran. they have a very complicated political scene. i hope he understands and the iranian government understands that dismantlement has to be part of this. the iranian government which is seated before the international community and is being judged because they have misrepresented or lied about their program in the past and because they have gone far beyond what the international community wants them to do, they are going to have to prove to us, not just

through inspections, but to dismantlement that they are ready to become a peaceful country with civil nuclear power and not a country intent on developing nuclear weapons. that is the test for them. i think the pressure shifted to them in this negotiation. i strongly support the president in what he is trying to do. he has brought us very skillfully to present day of negotiations. we wanted to speak very quickly to get to your questions. i know that congress has been considering the merits of additional sanctions on iran. my own view on that is that the president has to decide and execute the american foreign-policy. the constitution gives him great authority on foreign policy. i don't think it is a reasonable proposition to think we could have 535 people negotiating with iran. the president has to represent the united states.

further sanctions at this time would not be helpful and if that is what the negotiator thanks, i would think we have few the wishes of the negotiator and support him on a bipartisan basis. there may come a time should negotiations break where further sanctions by the congress would be helpful but we would want to thean integration between branches on this very important issue. this is the number one issue facing our country. i hope the reports that congress will likely stand down on the current sanctions. andpe those are accurate that congress will give the president the time and space he needs to be our chief diplomat which is what he is. finally, i do think it is important that we have leverage on our side.

diplomacy often cannot succeed unless it is helped by leverage. countries european and the other countries that used to trade with iran will now not rush to open up businesses. we have seen lots of delegations from european countries and others trying to set the scene for reopening of commercial ties if sanctions are lifted. the major sanctions are still in place. it is the wrong message to the iranians to make them think that they are 90% of the way there. they are not. i think secretary kerry was absolutely right the other day when he criticized this and said that we have to got -- we have to maintain unity internationally. there is not going to be businesses with them unless they earn it and they have not yet. if you are trying to assess probability and the president

has artie done that, he called it a 50-50 probability. i would think the competition fast, located politics of iran will be a major part of the story. i don't doubt the sincerity of president rouhani. iny appear to be interested a new relationship with united states and europe. if they do negotiate and bring it back, i think it is an open question how the revolutionary guard, the national security council, and the supreme leader will react. countryis to defend our and negotiate the best policy -- best deal. it will be up to the reigning government to make sure that they are fully on board. that is an open question. from theet to hear

more reaction elements of the government i certainly support the president in which the administration success and i'm very happy to be here. >> andy, thank you. i think the partnership for inviting me. it is a special pleasure to be here with nick burns who is one born -- best foreign service officers and diplomats over these decades. geneva joint the plan of action was agreed in november, it has been a dynamic at work between tehran and washington. capital attack their own administration for

having gotten the short end of the stick in negotiations. the administrations understandably defend themselves. they stress the benefits to the country of the interim deal and that insure the critics the final negotiations they will be very tough. in turn become ammunition for critics on the deal.side to attack the . critics points out that the interim deal does not dismantle iran's nuclear infrastructure. it does not do that. the obama administration naturally feels compelled to say that in the final deal will be

major dismantlement and major reduction of nuclear infrastructure. we iranian critics say that, told you, the americans are only interested in cutting art richmond program -- our enr ichment program. rouhani says we are not going to reduce any centrifuges. example, the iranian critics say that the sanctions relief in the interim agreement are peanuts, are insignificant. rouhani administration feels compelled to say that, this interim deal was the first big crack in sanctions and that sanctions inevitably are going to unravel.

that and say,ead look at what is happening at our sanctions regime. it is falling apart. in the administration then has to say it is not flying apart. the main sanctions remained in place. we are going to enforce the existing sanctions. we are going to impose additional sanctions measures under the exactions -- existing sanctions regime, as they did yesterday. iranian critics say, you see, the american administration is not serious about negotiations, undermining the talks, only after regime change. they are only operating in bad faith. i wasn't i remain a supporter of the two-step approach to the negotiation, hitting an interim heel and buying time and face

for negotiations on a comprehensive deal. i think there are good reasons for that. it gives us six months to test the willingness to implement the deal conscientiously, and it halts further progress in iran's a situation into where iran is making major youect -- progress while are negotiate. that would be politically and strategically unacceptable. what one of the downsides of this too-step approach is you open your self up to early criticism and you make it more difficult to get to the end again. but i agree with nick that this first-step deal, the first line of action, is a very good deal. of course, the test of the diplomatic track will really be what happens in the comprehensive agreement, and that is at least six months down

the road. the joint plan of action does halt further progress in the inn's nuclear program, and some small respect it reverses progress, the requirement that iran neutralized its stocks of nearly 20% enriched uranium. it is important to remember that in the absence of this interim agreement iran could make major progress over the next six months in its program, it could shorten quite substantially the so-called breakout timeline, the time it takes to go from a decision to build nuclear weapons to having sufficient produce aterial to single nuclear weapon. that timeline would be shortened very substantially if iran would continue its program. but it is unable to do that. it is true the interim deal does not dismantle a single centrifuge.

it permits some continuation of research and irrelevant activities. that is absolutely the case. but these are objectives, these are items for the comprehensive deal. on the sanctions relief, i think there is a wide appreciation that the specific measures of sanctions relief are in fact quite modest. i think the concern is that there will be a kind of psychological shift, a shift in next rotations, and this will new the floodgates to activity with iran and unraveling of the sanctions regime. is fed by ancern number of developments. the rouhani government has been quite skillful actually in pursuing a public diplomacy campaign. you sought at the dominoes economic forums. -- davos economic forums.

iran is inviting businessmen become charon and cut new -- to cut the deals.d you see the french delegation now, a turkish delegation led by prime minister . goods, af russian oil barter deal, which is not materialize. the administration has strongly opposed it with the russians and at that highest levels. the talk of that kind of activity raises concerns about whether the sanctions are really irreverent in. smoke sore is a lot of far, we have not seen evidence of fire. businessmen, governments are very cautious about engaging at this point. they know the major sanctions on banking, in the energy area are still in place.

they know that the administration is going to be imposing sanctions during this period, new sanctions under existing authorities, if attempts at evasion are detected. s that thisense i regime come of the sanctions regime will remain in place for the six month period. there will be some benefits for iran. there will be benefits for iran, otherwise, other iran would not have joined this interim deal. the existing sanctions will provide plenty of incentives for iran to negotiate a final deal. a concern has been there has been so much sanctions erosion during the six months that there will be no room left for iran to negotiate. i do not think that is the case.

i think rouhani and his advisers understand if their economy is to get on track, it will require a lifting of sanctions, not just easing of a few measures. and so there will be plenty of incentive to negotiate. on a final deal begins every 18, coming up -- begin february 18, very soon, but there are big differences between the sides. i just mentioned a few of them. the biggest is about the size of uraniumchment -- the enrichment program that iran will be able to retain. the u.s. goal is to lengthen this breakout timeline, the might of town -- the amount of time it would take to have enough highly enriched uranium for a single on, and to link -- lengthen that timeline, i'm sure the u.s. and its partners in the negotiation to press for a significant reduction in the

number of centrifuges, constraints on the types of ,entrifuges that can be used type constraints on the amount of enriched uranium that at various levels that iran will be able to keep on its territory, and so forth. iran has given every indication that it is going to resist deep cuts in its nuclear infrastructure. it will want to retain as much of what it already has installed, and perhaps even expand what it has already deployed. it will claim that it has got a nuclear energy program, and it needs to expand its enrichment capacity in order to his work that program. perhaps a way forward is to focus on the practical needs of that iranian civil nuclear

program. in fact, the joint plan of action indicates that the final agreement will provide for a mutually defined enrichment program based on article needs. but what are iran's practical needs? limited.in fact quite iran has a small research reactor that has already produced enough fuel to feel that reactor for a long time. it has a power reactor supplied and russia is supplying the fuel for that reactor. it wants to build some small research reactor to produce medical isotopes. that is fine, we support that, but those small reactors do not --e much enriched rhenium uranium as fuel. iran's press. needs are very limited, and that on be a basis for agreement

the enrichment question. nicholas also talked about the heavywater reactor. i have no doubt that this to produce designed plutonium for a nuclear weapons program. it is precisely the kind of reactor, the size rector, the number of countries use to embark on a nuclear weapons program. i am sure that is the initial intention of the iranians. they say it is now used to prevent -- produce medical isotopes. but it is not the best reactor for the production of medical isotopes. much better for that purpose and a much poorer purdue search of reactorm would be a moderated by heavywater -- i am sorry, light water research reactor. the head of the atomic energy

organization of iran a few days ago in some hints that they would be prepared to accept some design modifications of that thetor in order to reduce plutonium production threat. it is not clear what he means by that. one way to modify it is for it to be fueled by lightly enriched uranium rather than natural uranium, which would be somewhat better than fueling it whether -- with natural uranium, that would be fine, but it would not be nearly as useful a step as converting it to a light water research reactor. and i think that is the solution that would solve this difficult issue. ofre is also the question this underground enrichment facility. this was a secret facility. it was out and by western intelligence agencies in 2009.

my guess it was part of a nuclear weapons program, a isvert program, but now it wa at an underground facility, less formidable to attack. it has no logical role to play in a future iranian civil nuclear program. it could be dismantled altogether, but if that is too difficult, too much of a loss of face, then perhaps it can be apurposed, converted into research and development facility with all of its centrifuge cascades removed. monitoring and verification will be difficult. i think it is positive that the iranians have agreed to ratify the additional protocol under a comprehensive deal.

that is a good step, but the additional protocol is not enough. even iran's track record, which is a very poor record, track record of compliance with its safeguards locations, it is important that they agreed to go well beyond the additional protocol in a number of areas. the joint land of action is a good step in that direction. with access to centrifuge production facilities, uranium mines and mills -- these are things that can give us some confidence that they are not pursuing covert nuclear programs, but in a comprehensive agreement they have to go even further. a very hard issue will be one d, thes called the pm possible military dimension of iran's clear program. director2011, the iea general came up with a report itemizing areas in which the

iaea iran in the past engaged in research activities related to nuclear weapons development. and iranears, the iaea tried to get to the bottom of this, but stonewalling by iran made it possible to clear up the iaea's concerns. so now the issue remains, and ofhout a full understanding these past activities, it is just not going to be possible to resolve this issue in any fundamental way. it is made harder by the fact that president rouhani keeps ran notnot only does i pursuing nuclear weapons, but it never pursued it clear weapons. supreme leaderhe talks about a fox walk, a religious edict, saying nuclear

weapons would be against islam. it would be very difficult to confess that iran was engaged in weapons-related activities given all this. the negotiators are going to have to be very resource will in this.g a way to resolve i think the key will be to frame thatssue in such a way iran does not have to admit past provide sufficient information to set up so i dashed to satisfy us that some activities engaged in the past two not have implications for the covert program in the future. that is going to be hard, but it will be essential. finally, i will mention duration. if you look at the joint plan of action, it only says at the end comprehensivethe agreement will be of long-term duration. the parties cannot reach

agreement on a precise number of years. it becomes very important because another element of the joint plan of action is that once this comprehensive agreement expires, then it iran will be treated in the same way as any non- nuclear weapon state artie to the npt, and that means some of the special restrictions on an enrichment program, on a reactor, monitoring arrangements, some of the special restrictions will no longer apply. so the length of that comprehensive agreement becomes very important. my own view is that the duration should be 20 years or greater. i think the iranians have in mind single digits, low single digits, and besides -- and the sides are very far apart. what is the outlook? president obama had mentioned his view that it could be about 0 probably the best

probability. in a state of the unit he said there was a possibility there would not be a deal. i think 50-50 would be optimistic. the differences are very wide. with think it is possible sufficient creativity on some of reach agreement. i do not see agreement being reached in the first six months. the joint plan of action talks about the possibility of extending the interim deal by mutual consent. at the same time, it indicates that a final agreement has to be completed within one year. i think those are the parameters, between six months and 12 months. i think any longer than 12 months, i think this is going to be strong and a stick pressure, both in terror on in washington -- and washington, at this is -- hran and inro

washington, that this will take longer. >> thanks very much. there is a lot to chew on, and these jot down your questions and get them up here so that i can impose them for our two speakers. was one question that was asked me and written down before we actually started, and i will pose that question at the outset. it was touched upon by bob in your final comments, and this pertains to verification. the question is, the questioner says she wonders whether you could comment on a large role that is foreseen for the international atomic agency under the interim agreement. questionxample, the is, and i think the location is, will the agency be granted the necessary access that they need to answer some of the outstanding issues, the outstanding questions that have been lingering there for a number of years?

you mentioned particularly access to the military facilities where there is activity possible pmd taking place. if you could talk about the iaea? joint plan of action, the iaea plays a major role. there will be a joint commission involving iran and the p5 plus one countries that will look at both theation of nuclear side and the sanction side. so it will play a role. but the parties recognize that the iaea is the organization with the expertise to do the job dared so i would look to the iaea as the principal actor on verification. on those issues, those are going to be hard. in iran agreedea to a kind of program of action, six steps, that are useful, but

they do not get the military to mention aspects of the past. so this will be very hard. but i think everyone has to understand that it has to concerns or there will not be a final day. >> i would add what bob said and i agree what he said. when president reagan was negotiating limitations with the soviet union in 1987, he said famously trust, but verify. the verification in this case with iran comes from the iaea. a lot of people have modified what president reagan has said raniane i nucleation. do not trust, but verify. you need verification, and we trust the iaea if it is fully powered to be the eyes and the years the world to assure ourselves that the iranians are not cheating.

but given the past record of the iranian government that bob and i have both spoken to, they have not been credible or honest. they have hidden these being ones, fordow example, and president obama exposed it in his press conference in september 2000 nine. we cannot trust the government of iran. we must verify. another final point -- others on the iranian side had really put a spotlight on verification and said we will go the extra mile on verification. that is not going to be enough. verifiedhat is being is the critical issue. and we do not want to have a fully empowered and constructed centrifuge program to be verified. we want that program to be rolled back. we do not want the heavy water reactor to be verified. bebob said, it has got to transformed into a light water reactor or dismantled

completely. so the core of the negotiations will not be verification. the core of the negotiations will be is the iranian government willing to dismantle parts of its program? then you verify. is the proper order of thinking about verification's usefulness. >> ok, we will go to some of the questions now. here is a very straightforward one. i think bob, maybe you mentioned this. what were the additional sanctions put in place yesterday? understanding -- i have not been to the -- to the announcement, but my understanding these were entities and a bunch of countries around the world, six, 7, 8, that were involved in the evasion of the existing sanctions. so they were not new sanctions under the jpa. under the jpa, the u.s.

promises not to impose new sanctions. these would involve the execution of existing sanctions, but there are sanctions against ebay leaders of the sanctions regime. and these various entities in six or seven countries, including entries allied to the asted states, were seen as deserving of this treatment. the iranians predictably reacted the u.s.his, but administration has informed them several times that the current commitment is not to impose new sanctions, new legislation, new executive orders, and so forth, and that it will continue to implement existing sanctions. that was what was done. the iranians should have expected it. they are protesting in

part to deal with their own domestic audience. >> an interesting question. do you think that analogies can be drawn or lessons learned from north korea? that can be applied to iran or vice versa? bob and i have both been involved, in my case, in the clinton administration, with a bitter experience with the koreans. i was not involved in the negotiations directly, but we have all the good intentions in the world, and in the clinton framework, 1994, chris hill did back in 2007 with that negotiation. i do think there are differences here that make it difficult to equate the north korean situation with iran. north korea is a singly or state run by a mafia family

dictatorship. there's no other way to describe it, really. and they are opaque and cut off from the rest of the world. they are cut off from the global financial system. and they seem to be willing to live isolated from the rest of the world for the glorification of the ruling family. the iranians are very different. iran is more of a civilization, very proud. it is a key country in the middle east. iran wants to be integrated with the economies of turkey and the golf and europe -- and the gul gulf and europe and america. one of the aims of the government is to reenter the international system come and therefore i think -- and despite the fact that i disagree with almost every aspect of government behavior in tehran, it appears to be a highly

rational regime. that is what it is important that after negotiating with china and russia and germany and france and britain and supporting south korea, iran will have to answer to the entire world if it up 5/8 an agreement with the countries, and i think the chances if the agreement to me negotiated six -- to be negotiated successfully are far higher with iran than with that completely mendacious regime in pyongyang. >> i would just add something to that. people often ask me is it easier to sanction north korea or iran? the reality is it is easier to sanction iran, for some very simple reasons. north korea has one big benefactor, china, that is not prepared to let it go under. it is prepared to provide whatever food, fuel, other support necessary to keep that regime afloat. iran does not have that. but iran has a crucial economic

dependency, oil, the export of korea does noth have. north korea only makes one thing -- trouble. [laughter] the iranians really are dependent on the export of crude oil, and it has been the ability to get countries around the world to cut back their purchases of iranian crude oil has led to a huge dropping oil revenues, close to 60%. that is what has made this nation's regime effective. and so that is what it is easier to put russia on iran, ironically, then it is to north korea. >> there have been a number of questions that have been cemented on your cards concerning the regional -- that have been submitted under cars concerning the regional vocations. let me read one of them. clearly israel's feels very threatened white these negotiations.

what is the real risk to israel from these negotiations? can you shed light on the concerns? let me also add the saudi to have, if you want that question as well. there seems to be a some of the navy of concerns by both the israelis and the saudis about the negotiations going on. let me stop at that point. i think as most americans come i am very sympathetic to the situation that israel finds itself as a result of the arab revolutions of the last two years. borders have's been stabilized, more dangerous today than they were three years writing in cairo was having. particularly the trends in the sign a with jihad he troops attacking the egyptian government. the weakening of jordan, the weakening -- the civil war syria intoom

lebanon. if you are a israeli strategists, you have got to be concerned. you have this prospect that the iranian government that has never sufficiently answered the blatant, hostile rhetoric of the almond the new job regime -- armer regime, they face country that appears to be a mortal enemy. i certainly believe that prime minister netanyahu can and should put his faith in president obama. israel has a great friendship with us, and we have been a very reliable partner to the forelisw, defender of israel 40 years since andy kissinger transform the politics of the middle east after the war of 1972, and i hope that israeli leadership would give obama the time and space to negotiate.

it appears they will. the israelis will be in a tough position should these negotiations fail. you buildyou know, as up leverage against the iranians, it is important the iranians know that israel will defend itself. israel cannot live and should nuclear with an iranian capacity, but neither should the united states. i hope the usa will take the lead here and israel will support the united states and diplomacy cubbe be given enough time. these negotiations might not succeed in the next six take longer. if iran is in possession of a nuclear weapon, i would hope israel would support continued negotiations and i hope the saudi's would, too. citizen, so i can say this. i have been very disturbed by the public attacks by saudi officials on the united states,

and on president obama and secretary kerry. i've been disturbed as i have been by many americans by members of the israeli cabinet to size in a very public, very open way secretary kerry over the last two weeks. these two countries have a great friend in the united states from and these are tense times. i would hope the saudis and is really governments will give the obama administration their support, because we need to be unified in facing iran. bob and i are both talking about this embarrassing spectacle of european politicians meeting trade allegations to tehran over the last four weeks. we need the iranians to hear united message. if you have more questions-- >> yes i have more questions. here's a question directed to you, nic. -- nick. would it