administration's concern that congress move ahead now with additional sanctions even triggered that might upset the negotiations and fracture the coalition, effective coalition that we have. i do believe that if the administration thinks that they i will be anxious to see the administration's response, and i look forward to those discussions, as well. i am glad to see that treasury has lessened its load a bit by changing our policy towards cuba and that we aren't spending so much time and resources and can free up resources and time and effort to make sure that these agreements and sanctions we

currently have and future sanctions, should they be ramped up, that we have the resources to actually do that. a lot of the questions i had have been answered already, so i would just say that i applaud the chairman for putting forward the proposal he has in terms of congress waiting in on an ultimate agreement. i hope that we are sensitive to these negotiations. i do believe, as many of us have discussed, if this jpoa were to continue in perpetuity, it would not be a bad thing. as long as that breakup time is significant enough and iran isn't progressing towards a nuclear weapon that is what our goal should be. i hope that we can stick with these negotiations. i hope that they are fruitful in the end, but i'm certainly willing to play as constructive

a role i can as a member of this committee to make sure that happens. >> thank you, senator. senator cowan's. >> thank you for holding this hearing and the constructive relationship you and our ranking member have had. i support the administration's strong, determined efforts to bring iran to the table and the congressionally-enacted sanctions have made a critical difference in changing the trajectory of iran's illicit nuclear weapons program. i have suspicions of iran's intentions and actions, their support for terror, and developments in yemen that suggests a they continue to engage in activities not just related to their nuclear weapons program but in many other ranges that should give us d about any agreement with them. nonetheless, i think we've made

significant progress in continuing negotiations. i will just reassert that no deal is better than a bad deal. a deal that we cannot ultimately enforce and that we cannot ultimately live with in terms of where it leaves us in the long-term or short-term is worse than no deal at all. one of my concerns is whether or not we will have the time to react, will be able to detect cheating, leakage, whether we will be able to sustain the sanctions coalition you have so successfully convened and put into place. just a comment to the nominee to be the deputy director of the cia -- my congratulations on your great leadership and work in sanctions enforcement. one positive of the omnibus was an increase in the research -- resources for sanctions

enforcement. whether it is the lightning of the load senator flake referenced or an increase in resources, it is my hope and my confidence that your successor will continue the same determined enforcement of sanctions that has been the hallmark of your time there. let's get into where this deal as imagined and described would leave us. one of my core concerns has expressed eloquently earlier by senator kaine is that we are no longer negotiating the dismantling of iran's nuclear infrastructure. we are negotiating for them to retain enough facilities that we are positive that their breakout time is no less than a year. what does that leave us in 2021 or shortly thereafter? i know the exact length of the agreement is not finalized and how do we avoid the regional proliferation that would come from an agreement that basically

locks in iran as a threshold nuclear power, and how do we ensure that the message that the world takes from this isn't that we have assented to their being a nuclear weapons capable power? >> first of all, we share your deep suspicions about iran and its actions. that is precisely why we are driving to get a deal that satisfies very stringent requirements. we fully agree with you that no deal is better than a bad deal. there have been other opportunities to take a bad deal. some of our partners would've been willing to settle for things we simply will not settle for. we agree with the premise you and other members of this committee have put forward. in terms of where iran is at the end of this, in our judgment, the one-year breakout time is critical but also very conservative. besides the material for a

weapon, they need a weapon itself. we will be vigilant about their efforts to return to weaponization. they need the ability to deliver a weapon. we will be vigilant about that. we are being conservative because quite frankly it is hard to imagine iran or any other country breaking out in that fashion when they get to one weapon's worth of material. it would be much more logical to accumulate enough for several weapons. if we have one year, we believe that would give us plenty of time to take whatever steps are necessary to reverse that action. it may be resuming economic pressure. it may a military pressure. they won't be a threshold state at the end of this. they can't become a nuclear weapons state. they will -- there will be a permanent ban on weapons activity. they will have to ensure

protocol that there is no undeclared program. there will be an extensive iaea safeguard to ensure that there is no diversion. for the duration, we will have enhanced monitoring and access. that will allow us to understand better than ever before every note, every cranny, every person every place every document involved, so even beyond the duration, that knowledge will give us much greater ability to detect whether they are trying in any fashion to breakout. at the end of whatever the duration is, we retain the capacity we have today to take action if they do something that threatens our security. we will be no worse off, and indeed we will be infinitely better off, even the knowledge we will accumulate over time about their program. the idea that iran would be treated at the end of this kind of agreement as a non-nuclear weapons state was one that was

first advanced by the previous administration. indeed, our partners around the world, and this goes to what senator flake said a moment ago -- the purpose of the sanctions has been to get iran to the table in order to negotiate something that gives the international community confidence that any program iran has is going to be for peaceful purposes. should they violate those commitments, we would be able to do something about it so that as an effective matter, they cannot breakout. that is what we are striving to achieve. we hope that we can get there by march. >> i'm concerned that centrifuge r&d also be a part of negotiations. perhaps in the first phase, it wasn't as fully embraced as it should've been. my sense it now is. there are two ways they could expand their breakout time, one of the accumulation of fissile material.

i think the jpl way -- jpoa has dealt with it. the core concern going forward is that they would not be allowed in any way going forward to engage in the sorts of r&d to change their breakout time on the backside. any to shut down any sort of centrifuge r&d. >> if i could for just 10 seconds, thank you for your kind wishes on my new assignment. i want to assure you, members of this committee, and anybody else who may be watching, the team that will remain a treasury after i move along is completely committed to ensuring that the implementation of sanctions will be robust, probably even better without me being there. that team i worked with closely over the past several years is the team that will remain. i am certain that our sanctions will continue to be very well enforced.

>> you have done a great job with limited resources. i wish you the best of luck in your new opportunity. >> senator paul? >> when our founders brought together our government, they brought together co-week of branches. the hope was that they would pick ambition against ambition. the ambitions of congress to maintain power would be pitted against an executive that would want more power. this back and forth would check and balance power. i'm glad to see that there is some exhibition that on both sides of the aisle congress is trying to pitted their ambition against the executive. in saying this, i believe that we have all concluded, both congress and the executive that final passage has to be done by congress. we are arguing over waivers, suspension of waivers, and how long these will be.

if we get to the crux, maybe there could be an agreement. when we rewrite this legislation, any legislation moving forward, we need to be more careful with the waivers we give. as we move forward, i have been one who says, new sanctions in the middle of negotiations is a huge mistake and may well break up the sanctions coalition may drive a iran away from the table. i have been one who wants sanctions because i don't want war frankly. there are many on our site who say, we don't need 535 generals. the president should do what he needs to do. i think there is a certain analogy to diplomacy that we don't need 535 negotiators. i don't want to give up my right to approve of the negotiation. you want a suspension to go on to the end of the president's term. if i am the iranians, why would i want to go through all of this to have sanctions relieved for a year?

you have a greater ability to negotiate once you affirm the law that will have to pass the final negotiations. admit to it. come to an agreement with senator corker. admit to the law, and then we can have permanent sanctions relief trade with iran if they will submit. they will be more assured of what we are doing and of the agreement if they know it has to pass us. i have heard it whispered, those republicans will never approve anything. as you listen to us all the way around, i think there is a nuance of opinion. there are several of us on this site who do not say, no we will not vote to approve an agreement. you want to to know that we have the right to vote so that you talk to us, the chairman. i have been working with senator boxer on an agreement that would not be new sanctions. it would be, if they do not comply with the current agreement, sanctions would renew. i would like to marry that with

what senator corker is talking about, the admission -- this would be an admission and a signal -- you will have to get our agreement in the end. is there any kind of compromise? maybe. i think you need to talk to senator corker. could there be something that is a period of time? we could do years of negotiations to get 120 days of sanctions relief. they want permanent relief. we want something from them. we want them to live in a safe, nonnuclear world. we keep asking for more and more. centrifuges have to be a part of this. i don't know that you gain a lot in the administration by saying, we are not going to agree what senator corker is saying. in doing so, you bring us to an impasse. there is a chance at an override of a veto. i'm somebody who wants to work to find a middle ground, but i want you to include some of the

language senator corker is talking about admitting -- we don't want to be consulted. i want you to ask for permission, and i want you to present the agreement to us, and i want you to present an agreement we all like. it will get everybody, but i think the vast majority will vote for a reasonable thing. let's see if we connect chile read proposals -- if we can actually read proposals and see if there is some kind of common ground we can find. >> first of all, as a matter of basic principle, i personally absolutely welcome the opportunity to consult closely with the chairman, the ranking member, every member of this committee on the way forward on iran and any other issues before us in foreign policy and national security. we can absolutely continue this conversation.

this is a question of judgment, i think. our best judgment right now is this. senator, you pointed to something important. what the iranians want is permanent relief. precisely by holding back that permanent relief until, over a significant time, they've demonstrated -- >> the idea of suspension is not a bad idea. however, then you need to work with us. i like the idea. we vote on a one-year suspension. let's find out if they are complying. let's vote again on another year. don't just think you are going to be able to do it by yourselves. if you acknowledge have to bring it to us, sell us, democracy is messy -- you got to come and sell us on something. we are your boss. we are your co-equals in this.

i fully believe that you can bring -- if you have all p5 plus one on board with a negotiated settlement, i think you can sell it to us. i think it's not an impossible sell. >> thank you, senator. i will say consultations up until this point have been a phone call in the morning that something is happening and generally speaking, while we are receiving that phone call, reading "in your times," or someone else reports so i do want to associate myself with his comments. senator udall? >> thank you, senator corker. let me join with others in thanking you and senator menendez in terms of trying to work through things. you have shown it when your positions were reversed, your willingness to get bipartisan agreements.

i very much appreciate having the witnesses here today. a lot of what i'm going to say -- i'm going to repeat many of the things that have been said but i also support the negotiations. i think it is very important that congress doesn't torpedo them and disrupt them. the message you are getting from us is we want a hard-nosed negotiation. we want to be involved in the process. part of it is going through this hearing. one of the things you are saying that is absolutely key is if we were alone doing sanctions without all of these other countries, we would be in a much different situation. it is holding the coalition together that is tremendously important. i think we need to remember that. when we move forward with

whatever negotiations continue we want to keep the pressure on. i want to to comment on that. i have a couple of questions here. one is, how quickly could we put additional sanctions in place if we had a failure? that is one. another is an observation -- we hear a lot about the spring later in iran. we hear a lot about the president. then we hear a lot about the hardline. what role do the various players there -- who is really going to determine iran signing on to this deal? as you follow this, you begin to wonder who is in charge there. if you have an agreement, who

could undermine it in the future? i'm going to go ahead and let you take a shot at a couple of those who may be follow-up in a minute. >> why don't i take the question about how quickly we can impose sanctions? i think the answer to that is very quickly. it has been done in the past with some legislation and active. there have been sanctions that have gone into effect in a matter of weeks. in some of the executive actions we've taken, those sections are almost immediately effective. the answer is, we would be able to, working with congress as well is working on our own impose additional sanctions as quickly as we want to. >> do you think, secretary cohen, other countries we are working with, if things developed in a negative way

that they would be willing to join us on that? >> it is a crucial question. the willingness of other countries continue to work with us on imposing sanctions contrary to the economic interests of these countries, is dependent on their continuing belief that we are seeking a negotiated resolution. in the future, if the talks break down, the ability to hold together the coalition to intensify the sanctions is going to depend in large part on who our partners perceive is to blame for the breakdown. so long as we do everything in our power to try to achieve an agreement that meets our needs and the needs of our partners and it is iran that is to blame for not reaching an agreement you will have a much better chance of holding together the

two national coalition and being able to intensify the pressure on iran. >> in regard to your question about who is in charge, we have perfect knowledge of this. hope we have -- what we have assessed, there are clearly different power centers in iran. have a tendency to look at iran as if it is the one country in the world that doesn't have politics. in fact, it does. the supreme leader is the first among equals for some time, but there are other critical constituencies that factor in. of the most powerful things that happened in iran was actually the election of president rouhani. in our judgment, that was a reaction to the desire of the iranian people to improve the economy, to get out from the isolation they are under, and to move iran in a different correction. within the confines of the system, that was what president

rouhani was trying to be responsive to. i think the supreme leader has to measure that in factoring in how much leeway he is going to give to the negotiators in the nuclear context. to date, as the iaea continues to confirm, iran has made good on the commitments it has made under the interim agreement. going forward, if the power center changed as we've made very clear iran, if it violated the agreement in any fashion, would be subject to an intense reaction from us, and as the under secretary said, if we are able to preserve the unity of the international coalition you pointed out the beginning of your remarks, that would give us a much greater ability to respond effectively to any decision by iran to violate the commitments that it makes. >> thank you very much. >> senator rubio?

>> secretary bullington, much of the debate has been about the role of congress and our need to trust and the ability of the administration to craft a good deal and the fact that we would be consulted. i want to take you back to the last time you were before this committee, and i asked you a question about whether there would be any changes in cuba policy. your answer -- "anything in the future that might be done in cuba would be done in full consultation with of this committee.' you told me that the last time you were here before this committee. who did the administration consulted with on this committee before it announced the changes? >> senator, i regret that i did not live up to the standard that i sent during that hearing and in the remarks you just quoted. i think i could've done a better job in engaging with you and

consulting with you in advance. i regret that. >> did you consult with the chairman? >> a number of members were reached out to, consulted. what happened was this -- >> who were the members consulted? >> if i could come back to you on that, i would need to discuss. i would need to get an accounting of that, and make sure that any members consulted would -- >> i can assure you that i was not consulted. >> you were the chairman at the time. were you not consulted? >> no. there is a difference between notification and consultation. to be notified when it's going to happen is not consultation. >> we are being told that we are going to be in the loop on everything happening with iran. have an example very recently where we were not in the loop. >> senator, as you know, this

was a delicate situation in which we were trying to get our delegates back. we were trying to get our asset back. in the endgame of that, there was a lot going on to make sure that happened in a safe and secure way. i come back to what i said at the outset. >> i am not correlate with the allen gross release. i'm correlate with the -- quarreling with the policy change. the use of the word consultation as defined by the administration in the last instance i just cited is problematic. i don't want to make this about cuba. i also asked whether there would be changes in policy outside of the democratic order. i asked you whether those changes -- when you say move forward, move forward on democratic reforms, not simply economic reforms, you said, that simply economic reforms. we don't see any democratic reforms.

we saw a release of 53 visitors. one of them was released a full year before december 17. five have been rearrested. since the deal was done, 200 new arrests have occurred in cuba. here is why that is relevant. we are being asked to sit tight. we are going to be fully consulted. it sounds like the only people fully consulted are the people who agree with the administration. if you don't agree, you will be notified. my second point goes to the question that senator udall asked about why the iranians would undergo some much pain in pursuit of this. the answer to who is in charge is ultimately who they call the supreme leader, the ayatollah. >> he is the first among equals, but he has other constituencies he has to factor in. >> can they agree to a change without his approval, given the support he has in the

legislative branch? >> highly unlikely. >> the ayatollah is not simply a head of state as we normally see it. he is a radical cleric who views himself -- he doesn't just a view iran as a nationstate but iran as a cause as henry kissinger has described it. the cause is to have the entire world living under the flag of islam. it goes further and states that the ayatollah notches the leader of iran, but the leader of all muslims in the world -- isn't that accurate? iran is where he lives, but he views his mandate as extending to the whole world. these are unambiguous statements on their part. he doesn't just view himself as a cleric. he views himself as a temporary filling for the 13th imam, who under shia, is an imam who will

emerge one day and govern the entire world under the flag of islam. the stated purpose for iran is to serve as a base. that is what motivates him. we are a scribing to his regime nationstate characteristics of a normal country that has a cost-benefit analysis about what is in the natural interest of iran. i don't dispute that there might be some leaders who hold those views, but the ayatollah doesn't view it that way. he views his obligation as to bring about the arrival of the 13th mom -- imam. under his clerical interpretation and that of many in the shia, the 13th imam cannot emerge until there is a cataclysmic showdown. when a country led by a person who wants there to be a cataclysmic showdown between the muslim and non-muslim world has designs on a nuclear weapon, now we have cause for concern.

that is why they expand their military capability, and that is why they want a nuclear weapon. they have shown that they reject everything that is not islamic. they reject legitimacy of the u.n. they reject legitimacy of the u.s. they accept the benefits of these international orders. for example, their seat at the u.n. while still being able to reject her obligations. what have they done? into the has three, the position of the world was, no enrichment. and it became, you can enrich up to 20%. then it became, you can enrich up to 20% as long as you said it overseas. now it is, you can enrich up to 20% in iran as long as it is for medical purposes. it is pretty impressive how they've been able to use this process. maybe over the next five years we will build a bomb for them. the other two components of the

nuclear program move forward unabated. you can buy weapons designs of right now. you can download it online potentially if it is a crude weapon. the missile program continues unabated. they continue to test long-range missile capabilities, not to mention adding to their already considerable conventional weapons capability. this is why we are concerned and have a right to be concerned. this is not a traditional nationstate. this is a cleric-led regime, a clerical government with the clear intent of ultimately one day unifying the entire world under their radical version of islam led by someone who believes that will only happen after he tackles and showdown with the west. -- after a cataclysmic showdown with the west. we have real reasons to believe that they will be willing to sis -- except a short-term suspension because their long-term view is, at the end of the day, they will be at a

showdown point. that is why we are skeptical about this deal. we are not dealing with belgium. we are dealing with a radical cleric with a radical view of his role in the world. he wants nuclear weapons to be able to do it. i'll take anyone here would dispute that even if they agree to a short suspension, -- i don't kick anyone here would dispute that even if they agree to a suspension, you can always invent a pretext for why you now need a weapon because of the hostilities of the west, because it is time for the 13th imam to emerge, whatever. they will have the weapons design and the delivery system and the weapons. that is why we are so skeptical. >> just to respond briefly, we share your concerns and skepticism precisely because of iran's along track record that

you alluded to. it's why any agreement we reach will have to have imposed stringent requirements on transparency and monitoring to give us confidence they will not break up. with regard to consultations going forward, on this issue, it is my sense over the past months and past years, the administration has been here in closed sessions, open hearings, one-on-one conversations smaller group conversations to lay out extensively where we are, where we are trying to go. i commit to, mr. chairman senator rubio, others, that going forward we will not only continue that would expand that and be up here anytime that you want, any place to talk about where we are. some of that we have to do in closed session or in a private room because the negotiations are ongoing, but we want to make

sure that you see the full details of what we are trying to achieve. with regard to the suspicions about iran and the supreme leader, we share them. we could spend all day going through the outrageous things that he has said in the past about us, israel but sometimes reality has a way of intruding. no matter what it is that he may believe or what he may want, no matter his exceptional role in the system, and i think you are right about that, he has to deal with the realities iran is facing. he has seen a country that has been subjected to extraordinary pressure economically, that has been isolated, and he has seen politically that a lot of the iranian people do not like that. president rouhani's election was a response to that. you seen him give the negotiators more leeway than

frankly we would have expected. he has kept of the talks going. at the end of the day, we will have to judge whether what we have achieved in any kind of solution meets our security interests. we will not take a bad deal precisely because we share your concerns and share your suspicions. this is not happening in a vacuum. we also have to ask ourselves continuously, as compared to what? if we are not able to reach an agreement, it may become increasingly difficult to sustain the sanctions regime. it depends on what secretary cohen said, who is perceived as being responsible for the failure to get an agreement. we have held our partners there. a large part of it is because they believe we are trying to drive to an agreement. that is the purpose, to get them to the table.

we start from the same spot you do. we are very suspicious. we also see the reality of the supreme leader's thinking. >> again, this committee is not proposing anything that breaks us apart from the international partners that we have. i know you keep referring to that. that's a red herring that keeps being thrown out. we are asking for consultation and a vote on the deal that we have been so involved in making happening -- making happen. >> put me in the column with the skeptics in this committee such as the chairman and ranking member. i have been sitting through this from the beginning. i thought these guys were going to scam you from the beginning and i'm convinced that they have done that. i think they've got test setup for what could be a cash they've

got us set up for what could be a disaster. first of all, what you've got to do is look at the background articulated by senator rubio. in addition to that, look at the efforts we have had in the past. look in the chapter about president rouhani's book about how he was using the peace process to actually continue their ambitions to get a nuclear weapon. use that as your background. then think about the u.n. resolution that said, iran you can't do this. iran said, we are going to do it no matter what. we aren't going to negotiate unless you guys agree that we can have some kind of a program. now they've crossed that bridge. if you are going to do this, you are going to continue with your nuclear ambitions going in the direction senator rubio has suggested. why wouldn't you sit down with

your enemy, negotiate this kind of deal, and now you know exactly what the enemy is going to know? you are going to know what the inspection regime is. you know how they are going to go about this. you are going to be able to put together a system where you can continue your ambitions while the people who are supposed to be curtailing you are going about what they are going about and you know all the ways they are going to do it. i think you guys are going to be bamboozled. i hope you come in here sunday and say doofus, you have no idea what you are talking about. i don't think this is going to happen. these guys are bad people. every time i'm on the intelligence committee, i sit here, and whether it is syria or iraq or hezbollah wherever it pops up, whose fingerprints are on this? it is the iranians. it is getting late.

i appreciate what you guys are doing. bless you. i hope you can pull it off, but i've got to tell you. i thought from the beginning you are going to get scammed, and every day that goes by, and as i listen to how these negotiations are going, i think you're getting scammed. i hope i'm dead wrong. >> i would just say very quickly a couple of things. i think with regard to what president rouhani did his past life as a negotiator -- first of all, we were inspired by that in looking at what we insisted on in the interim agreement. it is precisely because we didn't want iran to repeat what it has done in the past, which is endless time talking at the table while it has gone on with its program. i would say also i think he is a politician. i suspect some of what he wrote in his book was to appeal as a politician to other iranians.

again, we start from your premise that this is not about trusting. this is about absolutely verifying all of the commitments that they make. with regard to the inspections and access and monitoring peace, -- piece this is fundamental to any resolution we would reach. i believe that we will have the ability if we reach the kind of agreement we want to reach to significantly enhance our ability and the ability of the international community throughout the entire production line to know what they are doing, when they are doing it. he would develop a base of knowledge about the people, the places, the techniques that would stand us in good stead even beyond the duration of the agreement. right now, based on what we have achieved to date, prime minister netanyahu can before the united nations a couple years ago and held up at the drawing of the bomb, and there was that line

getting close. that was the 20% enrichment. he was right. that was critically important. it was being produced at a very facility. that has stopped under the jpoa. the other pathways to a bomb -- looking at within my two at the irak facility -- we had deep concerns about it. once that facility is turned on and fueled, it is problematic not impossible, but problematic to deal with. we stopped at that in its tracks. no fuel. no progress. natanz building up a bunch of lower centrifuges and building up a massive stockpile that could be quickly converted to a higher grade -- there too, no next generation centrifuges wrist -- installed.

stockpiles cap. -- capped. >> i appreciate that. i hope it works. any inspection regime, any regime you put together for doing this, they are going to know all about it. they are going to know the details of it. just remember that their objective is not your objective. our objective is to stop them. their objective is to get to that point and into in doing so, not get attacked in the meantime. there are technologies that can get around it. i hope you are right. on a very parochial matter, as we are speaking right now, the president is on his way to idaho. while he is there, pursuant to a request from us, he's going to meet with a woman by the name of this is abba dini. her husband is in prison and iran. there are three americans there. for the life of me -- 20 sherman

has had to sit there and listen to me say this -- why you guys cut loose all of that money when they are so cash hungry without putting your hand on it and saying we are going to take it off when those kaiser free, i cannot believe they wouldn't cut of those guys lose. the administration says it is the compassionate arm of the government. so be it. use some compassion. let's get this guy home. he has no business being in jail in iran sibley because -- simply because he is a christian. my time is up. >> senator, can i say you are absolutely right? the three prisoners must be released regardless of anything else we are doing with iran. it's an entirely distinct issue. they are wrongly imprisoned. we need to find robert levinson

and bring him home. we also think tying that to any agreement, success or failure is not the best way to get them out. i think you know this -- the only issue that we raise with them on the margins of the nuclear talks every single time other than the nuclear talks are those who are unjustly imprisoned in iran. we are working every day to get them home. >> get it done. >> senator menendez? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your courtesy. secretary, let's be honest. as it relates to consultation there were long consultations with members who were in agreement with the president's proposed policy changes but none who might be in disagreement. that is on cuba. that gives rise to the concern that there will be no

consultations but notification only to those of us who may concern about the nature of any agreement or continuous sanctions. it was the subject of your conversation with me when you were a nominee, questions i asked you before the committee. i'm disappointed. with reference to march 24, if there is a "deal" will that deal be written? >> at this point, i cannot tell you. the expectation would be that we would be able to show all of the critical elements of the deal, and whether there would be an actual initial agreement that would be turned into a technical agreement, i can't tell you. >> wouldn't the outlines of the deal be something that the

iranians and the p5 plus one could sign on to? >> it would be my expectation but as i sit here today, i cannot tell you exactly the form. >> it concerns me that we may not have written agreement. if there is no deal on march 24 what then? >> senator, i think if there is no agreement on the core elements of the deal by march 24 , it will depend on exactly where we are. >> you may say, let's keep it going. >> if it is clear by then that we are simply not going to get to yes, by which i mean, it is clear that the iranians will not meet the requirements, i think we will have to work closely with you on what the next steps will be. if, however, we have closed off most of the key chapters, but let's say, for arguments sake,

one key chapter remains, is something we would want to talk to you about. sitting here today, a lot depends on where we are. if we conclude by the end of march that they are simply not going to do what they need to do, that puts us in a different position. >> are any of those 100 sanctions you talked about that you levied, was iran complicit in any of them in terms of trying to evade sanctions or was the individual working on their own? >> for some number of them, at least some of them were iranian citizens, people in iran, and others, there is no question that iran was waiting of what was under way. >> during this time, there were efforts by iran to evade sanctions. fortunately in those instances you caught them. it gives me another concern about their intent. let me say a couple of observations.

with reference to senator paul and senator boxer, not sure legislation that says, this is what will happen if there is no deal or a violation of the deal, which you said you think is acceptable, is really any different from what we are saying. i think that is nuance, at best. it is interesting to note that sanctions on russia visa v ukraine haven't caused them to walk away from what they think is an important deal to be achieved. the suggestion that sanctions whether you have concluded a deal or not -- if the russians wouldn't walk away with sanctions on ukraine, i think it's pretty telling. to be very honest with you, the overwhelming number of sanctions that this committee has levied

to the congress have overwhelmingly had a much more significant lead time than immediate position. obviously, the time for necessary for it to have an effect on iran has been even greater. there is no such thing as an immediate sanction that ultimately has an immediate effect. there are few of those. i don't know, but it seems to me it took us a fair amount of time to know about a covert operation. him -- i hate to see that doing something covert would take as long. finally, you stated that we would have the same ability to respond in the future should

iran breakout, and we would have all options on the table. i think that ignores the reality that iran will be in a different position. iran will be able to sell more than 2 million barrels of oil. it will have access to $100 billion in reserves currently being held overseas, and it will have the ability to procure critical items for its program. it gets a lot from an agreement that would require no dismantling of the program. we get a one-year alarm bell which may not be enough time to react in a nonmilitary faction -- fashion. the president telling people sanctions they break the coalition, and we may be left with only a military option. i will tell you something -- if you have nothing in place after a no-deal situation, the president may vary we'll -- well

be in a position where his only option is a military option or accepting iran as a military state. that is a terrible set of circumstances. maybe you don't hear that. maybe there is another set of secret deals or letters on the side that we don't know about. there have been a lot of those. maybe you can tell us whether there are are any we should be waiting for. >> there are not. >> that is good to know. hopefully, there are none that will surface afterwards, or else we will have to have a different conversation. no one has worked harder to try to get you to the point to succeed. by the same token, i have to be honest. you need to succeed in a way that is meaningful at the end of the day. there is a bit of a trust problem. when you have secret deals, when you don't consult, which is to say, ask -- and we are thinking about proceeding in this course,

what you think about that, versus telling us, this is what we've done. that is notification not consultation. and secretary -- when wendy sherman and secretary cohen were here in the past, -- it creates concerns about when you raise alarm bells, and then you harold -- herald it is part of your ability to get iran to negotiate. aspirations, how to strike a deal with north korea. realism is that they ended up being a nuclear-armed mistake. that is what we are trying to avoid. >> thank you for all of her efforts to bring us to this

point. i look forward over the next few days to see if there is some common ground to address the consultation and congress possible role ultimately. i do want to say one thing. i know there have been a lot of discussions about bibi netanyahu's prop at the u.n. it is fair to note that wish -- that with additional research that iran has done, they are moving way up the food chain in terms of centrifuge development. they can move so much more quickly from zero to 90%. i think you are all aware of that. that is the concern we have. the research and development component, the things they are doing to move rapidly towards being able to reach 90%. let me give a few closing comments. i want you to be successful. i wake up every day wanting our

nation to be successful in every endeavor. i think i have shunted this administration my desire to work towards common ground to try to solve problems. i want these negotiations to be successful. i think our concerns are -- i had one of the most impactful meetings, along with a number of people on the committee, in israel in the last couple of days -- the concerns are, as you look back over the history of the last 10 years, iran has stayed here, and the p5 began here. as we have progressed, the p5 have continued to move towards their position. i would just argue that having congress as a backstop as you

enter these final steps, having congress as a backstop, somebody you do in fact not only have to consult with but seek their approval would be somewhat of an anchor to keep us from continuing to move towards their position. i think would be very typical for you to say that there hasn't been a continual movement towards their position. you look at where we began with the human security resolution. you look at where we began with us potentially agreeing with them to having enough centrifuges to serve their "practical needs," which every scientist has said was about 500 centrifuges. i think you would tell me we have moved way beyond that. congress can be an excellent backstop to you as you are moving down the road. i think senator kaine probably expressed it better than any of us. when we entered into these agreements that senator menendez

was a part of, i don't think anyone in giving you the national security waivers ever thought the president was going to suspend them until the end of his term. i don't think anybody ever thought that. the fact that we know that if you do that the entire sanctions regime falls apart, and i have tremendous respect for secretary cohen -- these take a long time to put together. to have to come to us on the front end of the deal before you dismantle the entire regime is an incredibly important step and i hope you will consult with us. we hope we will come to an agreement that takes into account some of the nuance you pointed out early. just stiff arming and saying, after the role that we have played, to basically put the international community at the table to stiff arm and say, we

don't want to play a role, is totally unacceptable from our standpoint. the supreme leader, we keep referring to him, and as we negotiate, we seem to be more concerned about the supreme leader's position. the supreme leader has said publicly that one of his major concerns is that iran enters into an agreement, and somehow over time, congress changes its mind. we have a presidential race coming up. i assure you that the iran component will be a major part of the next presidential race. i believe that to be the case. since there is so much concern about supreme leader and him walking away, i would just say that congress's approval of the deal to me would be reassuring that whatever deal that you've done would stand the test of time. i would encourage you to sit down, to walk through with us

some of the concerns you have about timing, but i would say that general movement today is towards congress playing a role. just stiff arming doesn't take us to a place that meets the test that both of us need to meet. i would encourage you to sit down and talk with us. we thank you both, despite our concerns, for your service to our country. let me just give some formalities. the record will remain open until the close of business friday, including for members to submit testimony. we ask witnesses to respond is probably as possible. the responses will be made part of the record. this hearing is now adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> at a news briefing, house speaker john boehner announced

that israel he prime minister benjamin netanyahu has accepted an invitation to address a joint session of congress next month where he is expected to discuss the ongoing negotiations over iran's nuclear program. the speaker also said that the obama administration was not notified about the invitation. the white house has criticized republicans for this break with diplomatic protocol. from the capital, this is 10 minutes. and rex good morning. this morning i want to talk a little bit about what the president talk on last night and that was flexibility in the workplace.

we could not agree with him more that we need to be helping working moms and dads, so we have the right goals, he has the wrong approach. more mandates on the workforce is not the way to go. we have seen this with obamacare and how it is -- has hurt job creation rather than bring along more jobs in this economy. we cannot legislate another hour in the day. we cannot. what we can do is give moms and dads the opportunity to make choices about their time. that is why i'm introducing the working family flexibility act. i am headed over to the senate side to join with senator mike lee who will be introducing the cap -- companion bill. this is about allowing hourly wage employees in the private sector to choose whether they want overtime or to convert that to paint time off. i am a working mom. i understand that time is our

most valuable and set. we want to give parents in the private sector who may be taking care of young children but also to be taking care of aging parents at the same time. this is about letting them determine what to do with their overtime. this can begun in the public sector and this simple amendment to the fair labor standards act would allow private employers to do the same. the president has the right goal . he has the wrong approach. more government mandates. it is the last thing we need but flexibility in the workplace is a good thing for working moms and dads all over this country. >> thank you all. listening to the president last night, i believe he missed an opportunity. i listened to a lot of the old ideas, the old strategy top-down instead of bottom-up which this country believes in. i listened to more veto threats at a time he wanted to work

together. he said hire more vets, we have a bill moving forward. i believe that if you listen to the american public on the priorities there is a new poll that came out, printed before his speech that said number 1, 80 5% creating jobs. when you listen to the rosy numbers the president gave he skipped over the participation rate when you look at unemployment. it is the lowest point, 62.7% since 1978 at the time of jimmy carter. what does participation rate mean? those are the people that have given up. they have given up looking. they have given up on their dreams, they have given up on their future. that is why creating jobs should be number one and that is why it is with this congress. second is the feeding and -- defeating and dismantling isis. third is reducing deficits.

$18 trillion of debt. on passing legislation to secure the border with mexico, 58%. at the bottom of the numbers closing gitmo and addressing climate change. it is time for a new beginning with a new american congress that we focus on the priorities of america. putting us on the right track. no more top-down but bottom-up. let's congress has been working for you -- a few years on cyber security. you heard the president talk about cyberattacks. the president can work with congress to further solve this problem. we pass legislation last year to increase sharing between federal agencies as it relates to cyberattacks and that bill was signed. there is still threats in the

government sector in the private sector where whether it is individual hackers or foreign government that continue to attack our networks and you have seen millions of americans have their data and privacy placed at risk. congress is continuing to work on legislation to increase the ability for private sector and government sharing of the attacks that are out there, the threats of cyberattacks while also making sure that individual privacy is a very top priority. there is an opportunity where we have got an opportunity for the president to work with congress to solve this problem and we welcome his participation. i am glad to do something he mentioned. the real threat -- it is a real threat and those occur every day. >> as i listen to the president last night i could not help but think of the many hard-working americans that continue to have to tighten their belts because costs are going up, weathered his food costs on health care costs, or the rent.

moms and as who are having to work double shifts to pay their bills, to make ends meet, college graduates that are saddled with more debt than ever, that have high unemployment, continued to struggle to find jobs, and last night, i hoped to hear from the president that he would stand up for them. instead some much will -- of what i heard his he was denny up for washington, d.c.. he was standing up to that for the old approach, the top-down, outdated bureaucratic approach rather than a vision that is focused on the bottom-up approach. an open, transparent approach that empowers people, individuals, families, and creates a healthy economy. we agree that middle-class families continue to struggle. but what they need is to be empowered. they need to be empowered with lower taxes, lower costs, and more opportunities. that is what we are running in

america's new congress. more job opportunities in the legislation that we passed that is just the beginning. we want to improve people's lives. we want to know america's economy, not washington, d.c.'s economy. >> several years ago, i had the honor of serving as president at the national association of state treasurer's where we worked tirelessly together to expand and improve college savings tools, so families would have the opportunity to send their kids to the institution of higher education of their choice. congress created section 529 to help middle-class families plan and save for their children's future and there is no doubt about the popularity of these plans. ever since the earnings on the withdrawals for college expenses became tax-free back in 2001, one million account holders have

turned into 12 million. president obama wants to turn back the clock and further burden hard-working families with new taxes. middle income families that have worked hard and saved to send their children to college should receive our support. not a tax bill to pay for his agenda. taxing college savings plans as the president has pushed for and likely will again tomorrow in a speech in my district in kansas will only lead to less savings for middle-class families. it will remove the incentive for families to say for themselves and i hope the president is willing to work with america's new congress to fix our broken tax code and expand opportunities for all american families. >> good morning.

all the president offered last night was more taxes, more government, more of the same approach that has failed the middle class for decades. these are not just the wrong policies, they are the wrong priorities. growing washington's bureaucracy here instead of helping to grow our economy and helping to grow opportunities for middle-class families. there is a better way. we need to fix our broken tax code, balance a budget replace the broken health care law with lower costs and protect jobs. veto threats in fantasyland proposals from the white house will not distract the people's house from the people's priorities. another priority is protecting the united states and our allies overseas. that is why i have invited the prime minister of minister -- of israel benjamin netanyahu to

address a joint session of congress on the grave threats of radical islam and the threat that iran poses to not only the middle east but frankly to the world. american -- america and israel have always stood together. we have a shared cause. we have common ideals, and now we must rise to that moment once again. >> speaker boehner, last night president obama said he'd like a new authorization military force agreement. is that going to happen? >> i would expect the president's going to send an authorization to the congress. i expect that we will have hearings on that and that we will in fact have a debate and a vote on it, the time yet to be determined. >> spring? >> surely. >> mr. speaker, did you consult with the white house before inviting prime minister netanyahu? and secondly, is it \[inaudible]

on an issue like iran when you know he's very much opposed to what he wants to do? >> i did not consult with the white house. the congress can make this decision on its own. i don't believe i'm poking anyone in the eye. there is a serious threat that exists in the world, and the president last night kind of papered over it. and the fact is that there needs to be a more serious conversation in america about how serious the threat is from radical islamic jihadists and the threat posed by iran. >> mr. speaker, you have said for years that tax reform is one of your top priorities. the president said last night it's one of his top priorities. where do you put the chances that congress happily accomplishing tax reform this year instead of talking about it? >> we'd love to do tax reform. you hear the president last night call for raising taxes again. now, if he wants to raise taxes, it's going to make it very difficult for us to come to some agreement how we're going to reform our broken tax code. >> last question. >> \[inaudible]

>> i do expect we're going to have hearings on iran sanctions legislation. timing yet to be determined. thanks. >> what's on your tie? >> coming up, former advisers discuss u.s. foreign policy at a hearing at the senate armed services committee. the senate foreign relations committee looks at iran's nuclear program. a news briefing with house speaker john boehner.

>> congressman steve israel talks about his role as the chair of the house democrats new policy and communications committee. republican tom mcclintock on middle class economics and the president state of the union proposals for tax reform, tuition free community college and mandatory leave benefits. live each morning at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. let's hear some of our future program for the weekend. saturday night at 10, former governor my copy be on america's current and cultural landscape. princeton university historian on the great society. and saturday at 8 p.m. eastern university of california davis professor eric rauschway.

and sunday sammy morris tours the schools a marriott -- a malia ehrhardt's exhibit. email or us -- or send us a tweet. >> in the senate armed services hearing, an overview of u.s. national security and global threats. this is the first hearing since taking over as chair of the

armed services committee. this is 2.5 hours.

x good morning. i would like to welcome our new members. for the benefit of our new members and all this committee has a long tradition of working in a bipartisan fashion of which we are very proud and had the opportunity of working with senator reid for many years

despite his lack of quality education, he has done an outstanding job here as a ranking member of committee. and for those who are political trivia experts, my staff tells me this is the first time that we have had chairman rank -- and ranking members from the two older service academies and so i welcome the opportunity of working closely as i have for many years with the senator from rhode island. the senate armed services committee begins a series of hearings on global challenges to u.s. national security strategy. i am pleased to have is our first witnesses to america's most respected strategic thinkers and public servants, general grants go craft -- brent scowcroft and zbigniew

brzezinski. we are grateful for allowing us to drawn your wisdom. a memoir was titled on the construction of the post-world war ii order. looking out at the state of the order it is fair to say to ask if we are now present at the unraveling. for seven decades, republican and democratic leaders alike have committed america's indispensable leadership and strength to defending a liberal world order, one that cherishes the rule of law, maintains free markets and free trade, provides peaceful means for the settlement of disputes and delegates wars of aggression to

their rightful place in the bloody past. america has defended this order because it is as essential to our identity as it is to our safety and prosperity. for the liberal world order is in her old before. in a speech riddled with unrealistic wishful thinking president obama told the nation that the shadow of crisis has passed. that news came as quite a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to what has been happening around the world. revisionist russia hasn't invaded and annexed the territory of a sovereign european state. the first time that has occurred since the days of hitler and stalin. a rising china as forcefully asserting itself in historical and territorial disputes and alarming its neighbors. all the while investing billions in may military capabilities

that are designed to displace and erode u.s. power in the asia-pacific. the accredit iran is seeking 11 that could unleash a nuclear arms race and collapse a global nonproliferation regime. a vicious and violent stream of radical list islamic ideology metastasizes across the northeast and africa. and in its most government formed the islamic state [inaudible] occupied wide swathes of territory, destabilize one of our most strategically important parts of the world, and possibly threaten our homeland. in human the country president obama wants hailed as a successful model for his brand of counterterrorism, al qaeda continues to facilitate global terrorism as we saw in the barbaric attacks in paris. and rebels have pushed the

country to the brink of collapse. american allies are increasingly questioning whether we will live up to our commitments and are adversary seems to be betting that we will not. it does not have to be this way. working together, this congress and the president can immediately begin to restore american credibility by strengthening our common defense. american military power has always been vital to the sustaining of the liberal world order. it enhances our economic power and aunts leverage to diplomacy reassures our allies, and deters our adversaries. despite the array of threats we are on track to cut $1 trillion out of america's defense budget by 2021. readiness is cratering across the services. army and marine corps and strength is falling low.

the air force has aircraft inventory is the oldest in its history. the navy's fleet is shrinking to pre-world war i levels, and top pentagon officials and military commanders are warning that advances by china, russia, iran, and other adversaries mean u.s. military technological superiority can no longer be taken for granted. this state of affairs is dangerous and unacceptable and represents a failure to meet our most basic constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense. we must have a strategy driven budget and not a budget driven strategy. we must have a strategy based on a clear assessment of the threats we face and a budget that provides resources necessary to confront them. by crafting a reality-based national security strategy, it

is impossible under the mindless mechanism of sequestration and there would be no clearer signal that america intends to commit to the defense of our national interest in the international system that protects them than its immediate repeal. i would hasten to add while a larger defense budget is essential it will be meaningless without the continued pursuit of defense reform. rethinking how we build posture and operate our forces in order to maintain our technological edge and prevail in long-term competition would determine -- with determined adversaries who seek to undermine the architecture we have long championed. this hearing will be the first in a series of how we build a national security strategy that consists -- can sustain the year -- american power and influence needed.

i am pleased we have with us such a distinguished panel of american statesman to help us begin that conversation. but thank you. let me join you in welcoming our new members and our colleagues. also let me congratulate you on your leadership role. the committee is in very strong and capable hands and i look forward to working with you and to underscore your comment about the nature of this committee and its approach to problems which we will continue under your leadership. thank you. welcome. both of you have been strategic thinkers and we thank you for your service to your country and for agreeing to be here today. that may commend chairman mccain

for calling this hearing as a series of hearings to look at the challenges which he outlined so articulately that face the u.s. today and how we may respond to this challenges. this hearing and those that follow will provide us an opportunity to hear from leading experts, retired military commanders and key leaders in our country about the national security issues that we face. i welcome a chance to take this perspective and view. the number and breadth of these challenges seems unprecedented. that threatens the integrity of states around the region. two iran's pursuit of neck or

weapons. and to cyber threats or north korea and other malign actors. we would be interested in hearing your perspectives on each of these challenges and the principle you believe should guide us in addressing them. they include and this is not an exact -- exhaustive list. how would you define u.s. interests in the region? what do you inc. is required to defeat violent and extremist groups like i saw in terms of u.s. policy and international collaboration. what role should the middle east play in addressing divisions including the sunni-shia divide. with regard to iran there are a variety of ongoing developments. another round of negotiations wrapped up over the weekend. a july deadline looms.

it is approaching quickly. the senate banking committee is working on legislation that it hopes to markup as early as next week that would impose additional sanctions. the committee would be interested in your assessment of the likelihood that these negotiates will succeed or fail. and your assessment of iran's ambitions and how iran will change the dynamics in that region. also the broader sunni-shia conflict area and the u.s. and its allies contend with russia while [indiscernible] with regard to china, how should the u.s. keep from conflict

while counterbalancing china's a services -- assertiveness? what are the implications of this vulnerability? let me again commend the chairman and join with him finally in underscoring echoing, and reinforcing his very timely and critical comments about sequestration and the effect of our military and the need to couple sequestration with reform and purchasing. i can think of no other gentlemen to come forth than general brent snowcroft and dr.

brzezinski. >> >> i appreciate the opportunity to present some of my views on issues that the chairman and ranking member have laid out in the world, which is difficult for all of us. my opening comment hope can

contribute to your deliberations over some very vexing issues and choices that we have. the world we live in is full of problems. some of them seem to result from new or novel portions and influences and i intend to focus on them. let me begin my comments with just a few words about the cold war. the cold war was a dangerous time in our history where problems abounded. a mistake could have resulted in a nuclear war, but the cold war had one advantage. we knew what the strategy was. we argued mightily over tactics, but we were always able to come back to what is it we are trying

to do them a and that was contained the soviet union until such time as it changed and that helped enormously in getting us through the cold war. with the end of the cold war that cohesion, largely disappeared. but shortly thereafter, we were subjected to globalization, the blending of many worldwide trends of technology, trade other kinds of things, and with it an undermining of the westphalia structure of most of the world's nation-state systems. the west failure system was created after the 30 years war and the devastation and caused.

it made the nation state the element of political sovereignty in the world. totally independent, totally on its own each one, all equal technically. it was a tough system. and for many, many have claimed it was responsible for world war i and world war ii. it is basically the structure of our nationstate system today. as modified in the west philly and system. the u.s. has spent much of its national interest focus softening the harsh independence of the west failure -- west philly and -- westphalian

system. like laws that apply to everybody, like reading us together rather than having these unique cubicles who are law unto themselves but do not relate outside. now, we have something new to confuse the international system, and it is called globalization. adnnd tw aspects ofo it are particularly difficult to manage in this west failure -- wes tphalian world. globalization says modern science is pushing the world together and the westphalian system says, nonsense, we are all unique, separate sovereign. two of the globalization efforts

are particularly interested, -- intrusive, is that is the right word. one is communications, and another in a different way climate change. communications is connecting the world and connecting people to the world like never before in history. for most of history most of the people of the world did not participate in the politics of their system, did not participate in anything except their daily lives and they were just like their parents, they expected their children to be just like them, on and on. for now, they are surrounded by

information. and they are responding, they are reacting to it. it is not that kind of a world at all. i am not just chattel for the boston on the street to use any way he wants -- the boss down the street to use any way he wants. i am a human being and i have unity. this has been sweeping throughout the world and altering our system in ways that it is difficult for us to cope with. one of the ways, of course, is the impact of cyber on our societies, which could be enormous as deadly as nuclear war, not deadly to the person, but deadly to the society. thus the kinds of things that we

face now. it focused most importantly on the middle east. and i think one of the things we have seen that, if you want to object like in egypt, for example, you go out and parade in the square. that is a difficult thing to do ordinarily. you have to find people who will go out with you, you have to avoid the voice, so on, and so forth. globalization has made it really easy. all you have to do is pick up your cell phone and say, there will be a rally tomorrow in tumors square -- the square and giving get -- you can get people. the system is to block

information it did not want people to see and that is basically what we're facing and we have barely begun to do with it. i had -- add climate change to it, because it demonstrates what we cannot do, the nationstate alone. no nationstate can deal with climate change. we have to cooperate to make it work. it is just that way. these are new impacts on our system, and they make governance more difficult. and more so for the united states because we have been at

the forefront in liberalizing the westphalian system in making a more just world for all. to help us in this difficult task, we should look to our lives, especially nato. i think nato in many ways is as valuable as it was during the cold war. in a world where the relationship of the individual to the state is frequently under attack, an alliance of states to whom that personal relationship to the state is sacred, is valuable. and nato has many areas where it

can deal with these new forces on us in a cooperative way to my which negates the independent sovereignty and atomizing the world. the impact of globalization on communications seems medic in the middle east -- most dramatic in the middle east where the impact of the arab spring was very heavy and still very much being felt. it has brought city and shia differences to acrimony and even combat. and the isolation in syria and iraq is an example. of the devastation that dedication can create in the

nationstate system. it is attempting to transform political state systems to a caliphate or religious order. i do not think the system is under gross attack, but this is a new and very different development which could be dangerous or painful for all of us. also in the middle east however, besides chaos, are some situations where it is conceivable that real progress toward peace and stability might be made. one of these areas is iran. the iranian nuclear issue is excruciatingly complicated. resolution, i do not think is out of the question. the resolution of this difficult issue could -- could open the

way to discussions of other issues in the middle east region which we used to have with iran when it was a very different state. and it might serve to change some of the sunni-shia issues in the region to benefit all of us. another enduring issue in the middle east region has been the palestinian peace process. many would say that expecting progress is grasping at straws but a determined effort from the top, including the u.s., might bring surprising results. just a word about the nuclear

arsenal. as more and more nuclear delivery vehicles reach replacement condition the discussion about numbers and types required becomes more valuable and more difficult. -- voluble and more difficult. one way to calculate nuclear needs could be to create a balance, and i am talking between the u.s. and russia. that means that nuclear weapons would never be used and that is that our numbers and character of the force is such that no one can reasonably calculate that in

a first strike, he would destroy his opponent's systems and escape unscathed. if we look at that, he gives us guidance and numbers and characteristics of the system which we need. one other nuclear comment. in order to avoid a world demand for nuclear reactor fuel, creating other iran-like states i think the u.s. should consider establishing a nuclear fuel bank. where states can check out reactors, return it after it has

been used, and thus avoid what could be almost endless moves toward nuclear power. mr. chairman, i focus remarks on aspects of world development i thought most vexing and unique. i would be happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you, general. doctor? >> mr. chairman and numbers of this distinguished committee. thank you for the invitation to address you. i will be very brief and i generally agree with what the

general has said. we did not consult our statements. my hope is that your deliberations will shape a bipartisan national security strategy. such bipartisanship is badly needed and i think we know that. given the complexity and severity of the challenges that america faces in europe and the middle east and potentially in the far east. together, they pose an ominous threat to global security. in europe, vladimir putin is playing with fire. financing and arming a local rebellion. and occasionally even intervening directly by force in order to destabilize ukraine

economically, and politically. and thereby destroy his european aspirations. given that, the current sanctions said -- should certainly be maintained until russia's verbal commitments to respect ukraine's sovereignty are actually implemented. in the meantime, nato, and especially the u.s. should make some defensive weaponry available to ukraine. something that i have been urging since the onset of the crisis. not to provide them simply increases russia's invitation to escalate the intervention. at the same time, i have also advocated and do so again today that we indicate to the kremlin

that the u.s. realizes that a non-nato status for a europe -oriented ukraine could be part of the constructed east-west accommodation. there is a good example. the preservation of peace in europe also requires enhanced security for the very vulnerable baltic states. in recent years, and we should take note of this, russia has conducted menacing men's -- military maneuvers near the borders of these states and also in the isolated region. one of these exercises quite recently involved even a simulated nuclear attack on

neighboring european capital. that surely itself. the only credible yet peaceful way to reinforce regional stability is to deploy now in the baltic states some tripwire nato contingents including those from the u.s. such display -- deployments would not be threatening to russia because of their limited scale. they would reduce its invitation to recklessly replay the scenario that transpired recently in crimea. prompt pre-positioning of u.s.- nato military equipment in nearby poland would also significantly contribute to enhancing regional deterrence. turning to the middle east, we

should try to avoid universalizing the current conflict in europe into a worldwide collision with russia. that is an important point. it is both in america's and russia's interest that the escalating violence in the middle east does not get out of hand. containing it is also in china's long-range interest. otherwise, regional violence is likely to spread northward into russia. do not forget that some 20 million russian live in -- live there and to the direct detriment of russia and china.

america and russia and china should jointly consult about how they can best support the more moderate middle east states and pursuing either a political or military solution. in different ways. america, russia, and china should encourage turkish engagement. iranian cooperation which is much needed and could be quite valuable. egyptian participation in seeking of possible some form of compromise in syria and elimination of the regional extremists. and the three major powers should bear in mind that there would be no peace in the middle east if "boots on the ground

come mainly from the outside and especially from the u.s.." the era of colonial supremacy in the region is over. finally, with the president soon embarking on a trip to india let me simply express the hope that the u.s. will not unintentionally intensified concerns in beijing, that the u.s. is inclined to help arm india. and start an anti-chinese asia coalition. that will encourage the chinese that will discourage the chinese from becoming more helpful and

coping with the volatile dangers that confront us in europe and in the middle east. to sum up in my preliminary statement, global stability means discriminating american engagement. >> thank you. that gives us a lot of food for thought. i guess to begin with, would you both agree that sequestration is badly given the events as we see them, is this something that we need to a repeal? >> absolutely. it is a terrible way to determine strategy or anything like it. it is undermining our ability to

do what we need to do to retain an alert for the contingencies of the world. i am opposed to sequestration. >> i agree. >> it seems to me that if we are going to develop a national security strategy, given the marriott complexities of the challenges we face, it seems to me that we have to have -- >> cyberattack. >> we need to set some priorities. would you give us your view of what our priorities should be?

>> and foreign policy, i presume. >> in order to develop a national security strategy. >> i believe we need first of all to pay attention to our nuclear structure and nuclear relations with russia. because we do not want, above all a nuclear war to erupt. i think we also need to look carefully at how the world is

changing and what we can do to assist that change, to produce a better, not a worse world. one of the big challenges in this world is cyber. i am not intellectually capable of dealing with the cyber issue but it is a worldwide issue and as i say, could be as dangerous as nuclear weapons, and there is no control anywhere about it. i think i agree that the u.s. has areas where it can work with both the chinese and the russians, and sometimes both of them. i think we should not neglect

those. the chinese especially did not participate in the west alien world i was talking about their system is very different. there is china and there is anybody else. and we need to learn how to communicate to them so that we have the desired effect. i think russia is a very difficult place right now -- case right now. i think the cold war is not returning and we should not aid and abet its return. >> on the issue of russia, there are some that believe that because the price of oil and its effect on the russian economy

will lead but were put in to be more conducive to lessening some of his aggressive and confrontational behaviors such as you describe, not only in ukraine but with the baltics and moldova, etc. there are others that say because of this, it will make him more confrontational in order to maintain his standing not only with the russian people, but in the world. i wonder what your assessment is and i know it is a very difficult question. >> could i comment very briefly. first of all about the nuclear confrontation. obviously, we confront each other. we have had some crazies in the past. i think we have learned a great deal from them and i hope the russians have, as well. but it is -- what is somewhat alarming is the fact that in

recent times during this current crisis, which is a limited ground-based prices, cash crisis -- crisis, putin has commented on the fact that we have nickel your weapons have the capability and so forth and he has been -- matched cap with provocative air overflights of scandinavia, parts of western europe, even all the way to portugal. i am a little concerned when i say -- i am understating -- underestimating light concern that there may be a dangerous streak in his character that could push us to dangerous confrontations. he reminds me a little bit of christian of -- christiankhruschev.

it is important that we have no misunderstandings as to the nature of our commitment and determination and this is why doing something on the ground that deters him from trying to leapfrog on the ground with a military solution is needed and i alluded to that in my opening comments. insofar as china is concerned, i think probably the chinese have some genuine interest from the standpoint of the enhancement of their international power in the acquisition of cyber-capabilities of a confrontational type. i do not want to over exaggerate this and i am searching for

words that do not create some impression but part of military strategic history is the notion that you do not prepared to fight your opponent at that given stage of weaponry. you leapfrog and then you engage in some offensive activity. am concerned that the chinese may feel that they cannot surpass us in the nuclear area. there is restraint in terms of nuclear deployments that highly any weapons are targeting us. we have many times over on china but the cyber issue may pose at least at this stage the possibility of paralyzing an opponent entirely without killing anybody. that could be very tempting solution for a nation which is

increasing significantly economically. there is an a that suggests we have to be far more inclined to raise those issues with the chinese, which we have done to some extent, but even more important, to engage in deterrence by having the capability to respond effectively or to prevent an attempt from being successful. on the point you've just raised, which was about putin and how to contain him -- >> basically his reaction to this economic crisis that he is confronting. >> he is confronting a very serious economic crisis, which he is trying to deny. i think he is in the denial