which we employ investigative techniques. this was pretty much -- i don't want to speak to my colleague to runs the investigative side of things, but basically was a pretty simple thing to do using commonly available software materials and other approaches. . >> you didn't use any inside information, you just came as it as any consumer would, which makes your results, again more troubling than they might otherwise be. i think these are really important aspects to your report and i think from a legislative perspective, an oversight perspective, it makes this much more serious. mr. portman: the final thing i'll say is the amount of confusion this is causing people who legitimately are trying to get a subsidy is unbelievable. h&r block say 2/3 of people are getting their tax returns cut or getting a tax bill. the i.r.s. has told me half of the people this year are in that situation. this is not just about

verification flaws, as you said, this lack of controls and lack of balance between accessibility, pushing people to get enrollment numbers up, versus the verification, it's also about a lot of confusion for consumers. thank you, mr. chairman. >> quick question for you. did you look for any real people who attempted to deceive the system? mr. bagdoyan: good question. we did not. as i mentioned earlier. >> thank you. is it your job to figure out the number of fraudulent accounts receiving subsidies and health care coverage on healthcare.gov? mr. bagdoyan: not at this stage of our work. >> ok. of the 50,000 taxpayers who filed returns based on inaccurate subsidy data, how many of those did you review? mr. bagdoyan: none. >> because you're not the i.r.s. mr. bagdoyan: that's correct. >> ok. there's no doubt that it was a

disaster. a $4 million website that became synonymous with failure. mr. scott: we had a constituent in south carolina who was trying to figure out how to get his information off the website that was used erroneously. we couldn't get a response from c.m.s. finally had a committee hearing an administrator was there. we were able to get some information and help solve that problem. one of the things that concerns me the most about the challenges that we face is that when you combine the subsidies includinged medicaid subsidies we're talking about $1. trillion of subsidies -- $1.7 trillion of subsidies. and in the year 2025 we'll have about 31 million americans still without coverage. perhaps after billions and billions of dollars of subsidies that have been received by people who do not deserve them it may indicate why we'll still have 31 million americans without insurance.

my question to you is, outside of your investigation, how easy is it for most consumers to falsify their information in order to receive higher subsidies based on your fictitious individuals? mr. bagdoyan: as i mentioned earlier in the response to senator portman, it was relatively straightforward for us. i certainly cannot project that to the typical consumer. but there is a lot of information out there available for people who are committed to performing fraudulent activities. mr. scott: it appears to me that there seems to be almost a perverse incentive for relaxed accountability as it relates to internal controls because it seems to have led and will continue to lead towards higher enrollments. thoughts? mr. bagdoyan: i would take you to my opening statement regarding the balance between access and control. it appears based on our limited results from our undercover

tests that the balance is more towards access than control. our work continues. we'll have more definitive views on that in the future. mr. scott: said in fewer words, if it's tilted toward access and controls the chances are pretty high that someone will be able to get on, as did you with 11 fictitious individuals and get coverage, even if they were doing it at home on their healthcare.gov versus the g.a.o. doing it, basically the same results. is there anything that would lead to a different conclusion from your experience so far? mr. bagdoyan: well, i think the forensic audilt that we'll conduct on the entire population will give us a complete picture of what happened, whether there were additional real flags that we need to follow up on. but at this point i can't really project one way or the other. mr. scott: i appreciate a follow-up of that information in writing, then. that would be wonderful. thank you. -- that would be wonderful. thank you. i would say to my colleagues that the reality of it is, what happens when you have individuals receiving subsidies that they have not earned, do

not have a right to, when it's $1.7 trillion over the next eight or nine years what that results in in south carolina is what we've seen this past year, is between a 31% and as high on some plans a 50% increase in premiums. that's astounding. it's ridiculous. it's unaffordable. as those premiums continue to climb, what we've also seen is your deductibles get higher, more expensive. your out-of-pocket expenses are higher more expensive. and the number of facilities, whether it's hospitals or doctors that are available for -- to use that access card, continues to dwindle down and down and down. i'm not sure what good access is because you have a card, when there's not a health care provider on the other side. thank you, mr. chairman. coates coates thank you, mr. chairman --

mr. coats: thank you mr. chairman. i'm not surprised with anything i've heard here this morning. i go to the senate floor once a week to identify -- not to identify but to share with my colleagues a proven waste fraud and abuse in any number of ways and any number of agencies. we have a loaded bureaucratic, dysfunctional government that tries to do some with real intent, good intent, tries to do more than it can handle. thank god for g.a.o. and for the nonpartisan work that you do to help us point out ways in which we can help a struggling taxpayer not have to pay so much money into washington to function something that doesn't work. so i really appreciate you being here, i appreciate your candidness. how we can take this for anything other than a canary in

the mine saying, hey, there's a problem here, let's get after it what really is discouraging, and i'd like more details on this, you take these findings to c.m.s. and c.m.s. basically gives you a stall. we're waiting for the attorneys to respond. i can't -- c.m.s. should say thank you, thank you, you've pointed out some weaknesses here that we weren't aware of. we want to be efficient. actually we want to implement the president's program. we want to sign up more people. i mean they're obviously following that mandate. and this will help us, because if this becomes public, public is going to say, just one more example of a government, bloated, bureaucratic, inefficiency infectiveness, preventing people who needed the insurance from getting the

insurance, giving insurance to people who don't qualify and it's fraudulent. and i hear that, you know, well, we got to go through all this process and so forth before we even implement things -- they shouldn't have to wait for you for recommendations. you've told them here's the problem. i would think they would say, thank you. let us, you know, we're going to go after this right now and try to fix some of these things. you pointed out something that obviously, sure, it's fictitious. but i mean if this isn't -- if this isn't an alarm bell in terms of dysfunction, i don't know what is. so, can you describe a little bit more your efforts with c.m.s. to get them to say, thank you, yes, this helps us, we see the weaknesses here, and we're going to take steps to go forward, instead of some process that's going to take through the legal system and through the bureaucratic system that's going to take months if not years, while more

and more waste and fraud just continues. mr. bagdoyan: sure, thank you for your question. our exchanges with c.m.s. have been fruitful at times and we have gotten their attention on some of the key issues that we've identified. mr. coats: what about this issue? what's -- what you're presenting here. you said you went to c.m.s. and alerted them to the problem and you're waiting for their response. mr. bagdoyan: that actually refers to the good faith exemptionment. we're waiting for their legal analysis, for their -- mr. coats: yeah, we hear this all the time. mr. bagdoyan: working for the document verification process. that's just one matter. mr. coats: did it ring any alarm bells over at c.m.s.? did anybody say, wow, thanks so much for bringing this to our attention, we need to plug these holes right away? mr. bagdoyan: i don't know whether thank you was used but they're aware of the problems that we flagged.

mr. coats: they didn't just say, this is fictitious so what you're presenting is worthless? mr. bagdoyan:, no i can't say that that's what they said. mr. coats: i'm happy to hear that. i could waste the day or hour or minute thanks to g.a.o. and other investigative agencies that have pointed out that we have a dysfunctional government and we're wasting taxpayer dollars faster than we can send them to washington. mr. chairman, thank you. mr. burr: let me say thank you. thank you to you and all the folks at g.a.o. for the great work that you do and for the difficult task that you're asked to do. according to your testimony, people applying for coverage are required to attest that the documents they're providing are not false. c.m.s. officials say that contractors processing these documents are not required to

verify that these documents are authentic and that the contractor's not equipmented to identify fraud. c.m.s. has also stated that there is no indication of meaningful levels of fraud. do you think c.m.s. made this statement because nobody's monitoring the enrollment process in a meaningful way to detect the fraud that's clearly occurring in the cases of fake g.a.o. enrollees? mr. bagdoyan: yeah, i think the statement from c.m.s. is based on the fact that the contractor itself has not reported any fraud. but as you pointed out, they're not tasked with looking for fraud. that's not in their work order that's not -- mr. burr: how many people did you find you hadn't been asked to go look, therefore you didn't find any, right? mr. bagdoyan: at this stage, that's correct. about once -- but wwe once we move over to the forensic look, the entire enrollee database, that might yield dimp difficult

results. durdur who's ultimately in charge of -- mr. burr: who's ultimately in charge of the integrity? is it the c.m.s. administrator, deputy administrator, the chief information officer, who is actually the one on the hook for ensuring that fraud is not occurring within the enrollment process? mr. bagdoyan: sure, as a general proposition, i would say that the tone at the top is important. whether it's the administrator who is responsible for c.m.s. and his or her staff, it is leadership that sets the controls in place, ensuring that they are working as intended, monitors their effectiveness and then responds to any changes in the environment that may necessitate adjustments or changes. mr. burr: senator wyden came to an interesting conclusion that what you've testified on really

isn't valid because none of the individual enrollees filed an income tax. therefore you didn't allow the system as designed to catch that they shouldn't be there. your own testimony says that in correspondence between the applicant and the marketplace, that on four of the individuals, the marketplaces correspondence to the applicant referred to their filed tax returns. in other words the marketplace basically said, four of your applicants filed income tax returns and that's what we make our judgment on. when in fact none of them filed tax returns. and you stated that in your testimony. so, let me just say to my colleagues, what's my takeaway here? not only do we have policy

deficiencies, but we have indications of incompetence or intent to ignore the law. that should be the concern of this committee, it should be the concern of the american people and i hope that g.a.o. will continue with the instructions from the chair to look deeply into this. thank you for your work. mr. bagdoyan: thank you, senator. case case mr. chairman, thanks very much -- mr. casey: mr. chairman, thanks very much. i want to say first to mr. bagdoyan, that in my experience as an elected ofingtse in pennsylvania one of the most -- official in pennsylvania, one of the most significant parts of that time as a public official was as the state auditor general, an elected position elected to two terms, so i spent eight years doing it. i have some sense, even though i was overseeing a group of auditors or investigators, by some sense of the difficulty of your work. and a good sense of the reaction you get when your work

is completed. i respect and appreciate what you do. it's difficult. i wanted to ask you one question more just for the -- to make sure the record is clear and then i want to get into more of the specific health care issues. i want to make sure i have this right. based upon your testimony is it possible to make generalizations about the full population of applicants in the marketplace? mr. bagdoyan: no, it isn't. that was not the intent of our undercover test. mr. casey: i wanted to say just prelim narly, we know, those of us who voted for the affordable care act we know that there are issues we've got to correct. it's not perfect legislation, nor is any legislation of that complexity and impact on health care and on our economy. a number of us have voted for

already improvements to the law. i think what's indisputable though, in addition to the fact that it's not perfect, is that there's been a substantial benefit conferred upon a lot of americans that wouldn't have it otherwise. i'm not saying this to -- for your benefit really just for the record. 16.4 million people gained health insurance coverage in the time since 2010. in pennsylvania, for example 472,697 pennsylvanians selected plans or were automatically re-enrolled through the health insurance marketplace. about 1% of pennsylvanians who selected -- 81% of pennsylvanians who selected health insurance plans were elected available for financial assistance. lots of individuals of -- examples of individuals two individuals from southeastern pennsylvania, jenny and david,

are self-employed have two sons in college, jenny's a breast cancer survivor, worried about being denied health insurance because of her pre-existing condition. they were spending over $10,000 a year on health insurance thanks to their a.c. -- insurance. thanks to their a.c.a. plan, they now are spending about $3,000 per year. so the savings help them on college costs. such is by way of background. but i want to ask you a specific question about your work. do you think there are additional checks that can be imposed upon the system so to speak, that could help identify fraud which the g.a.o. did not test? mr. bagdoyan: sure. thank you for your question. that would be part -- a major part of our focus for the ongoing work. as i mentioned i believe

earlier in response to another senator's question, we will be applying a set of appropriate benchmarks to how we map out -- i'm sorry, the current process, that we obtained information from undercover work, the forensic work will inform, go in tandem, and once we apply those criteria, we'll be able to identify how to best respond to them. whether they're risk assessments, implementation of specific controls for specific parties -- parts of the enrollment process, that will be key. but that work is ongoing. so i can't really say waun way -- one way or the other which way we'll go with the recommendations. mr. casey: part of that is, i guess this is always difficult, when you have mandate, but you also have limited resources, you can't audit every or review every transaction or every part of the system. so you do sometimes have to

make a determination based upon risk. what's a higher risk, what's a -- mr. bagdoyan: sure. prioritize where you attack first in terms of control gaps, sure. mr. casey: i wanted to ask you too, to what extent you believe the i.r.s. has the capacity to identify fraudulent so-called aptc claims. do you have any sense of that? mr. bagdoyan: i do not. that is not part of our scope on this ongoing work, but i believe there are other mission teams within g.a.o. that are taking a look at that. i don't know the specific aspects, but i believe i.r.s. capacity and capability is part of that work. mr. casey: we're grateful for your work. it's difficult. but it's essential and we want to make sure that we get this right over time and one of the ways to inform how we do our work in terms of legislative

change or corrections is to have information from g.a.o. and other sources. we appreciate your work. mr. bagdoyan: thank you. mr. wyden: one last yes or no answer. is it correct that c.m.s. asked for these 11 fictitious cases and g.a.o. did not give them to the agency? mr. bagdoyan: that's correct. mr. wyden: i would again say, pretty hard to evaluate something you aren't told about. certainly can't fix something you don't know about. by the way, senator byrd's question, could you have gotten an answer to it if you had actually been able to get the information about these 11 fictitious cases. by the way, my staff asked for the information about these 11 fictitious cases. so, you know, to me the message here, and chairman hatch knows i am interested in working with him in a bipartisan way i

think i'm about as bipartisan on health care as anybody, you know in the senate, i just think that without these recommendations, which we've been told they are not ready to go, this is premature, at some point i believe g.a.o., i've worked with them often in the past, admire their professionalism, will give us some recommendations, they must work in a bipartisan way. i hope what people following this will recognize is as of this morning, general accounting office not covered any instances of real people committing fraud as part of this inquiry. i think that's an important takeaway this morning. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. bagdoyan it is true that your job is to look for fraud, it is to look for misconceptions. match mr. hatch: yourion is -- mr. hatch: your job is to look for things that are wrong or out of whack or whatever you want to call it. that's what you're doing, right? mr. bagdoyan: that's correct. mr. hatch: and you've done it

honestly right? mr. bagdoyan: yes. mr. hatch: you're disturbed by the fact that these discrepancies exist, even though it's been a limited investigation. is that right? mr. bagdoyan: we do have concerns about the flags we've detected. in terms of the control environment. mr. hatch: you're expressing those concerns here today. i have concerns too. a lot on our side don't believe that obamacare is ever going to work. and that it's just going to continue to take us downhill, with more and more costs and more and more expenses and more and more fraud. this isn't the only instance of fraud either, is it? mr. bagdoyan: i can't comment on that, out of scope. but if i may, mr. chairman. try to explain our decision to -- mr. hatch: i don't want people just slapping this off like

this isn't important. it's very important. mr. bagdoyan: right. i'd like to, if i may again, -- mr. hatch: i want you to tell us why it is so very important. mr. bagdoyan: it's important in terms of getting the responses that we need as our work is ongoing. i would respectfully ask that i explain why we decline to provide our identities of the 11 applicants. mr. hatch: sure. mr. bagdoyan: that is fully consist went g.a.o. policy protocols and practice that we do not divulge any information related to our sources' methods and investigative techniques, to any entity, so that we protect those for future use and so that's our perspective on that issue. mr. hatch: why is that? why can't you divulge? mr. bagdoyan: we can't because we have the sources and methods that i mentioned that need to

stay confidential, that are in general use by g.a.o. and certain circumstances. so revealing those would basically give up the ghost. mr. hatch: my understanding is through my service in the senate, the g.a.o. does a very good job of trying to get to the bottom of problems in our society and i think you're a good illustration of that effort by g.a.o.. now, this doesn't mean you're going to cease trying to find fraud and mismanagement and so forth in the future, does it? mr. bagdoyan: well, this work is ongoing. i think we're in it for the long-term. mr. hatch: we'll probably have you back again so we can figure out what's our job up here, what can we do? we can't just dismiss these type of things. we have to do something about them and hopefully we can do that with your help.

with that we'll recess until further notice. mr. bagdoyan: thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> here's a look at what's on the c-span networks tonight in primetime -- >> nancy pelosi talked about the recent nuclear iranian agreement and why she supports it. ms. pelosi: two days ago early in the morning an agreement was announced by the p-5 plus one and that is the product of years of tough, bold clear-eyed leadership on the part of president obama.

i've closely examined this document and it will have my strong support. members are reading the document now. this is the document to hear not that long, past the annexes, very important. i'm very proud of the attention, the careful attention that our members are giving to the document, to the joint comprehensive plan of action. congratulations to president obama, to the leaders of the p-5 plus one, all of the countries. and i want to commend secretary kerry and secretary moniz for their exceptional leadership throughout these negotiations. we had two really talented, experienced leaders at the table. more than two. but those two, senator kerry, a long-term senator with experience on foreign affairs committee, as we know, chairman, and secretary moniz, one of the foremost authorities

in the world on nuclear and fizzle materials and technologies. so everyone knew they were dealing with people of knowledge, of vision, and knowing the possibilities. the president's been very clear, a nuclear iran is unacceptable to the united states, to the world, and in particular, to israel. this agreement is precisely about intensifying our vigilance over every aspect of the iranian nuclear program. we have no illusions about iran. president reagan said, trust and verify. in this case i would say distrust and verify. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> that was just some of today's briefing with house leader nancy pelosi. you can watch the entire brief in about half an hour here on c-span. or you can watch it yes time online at c-span.org. and tomorrow morning on

"washington journal," the national journal takes a look at the highway trust fund, which is set to expire at the end of the month. and what the house and senate plan to do about it. then author paul butler discusses his book "let's get free" which examines recent efforts to reform the criminal justice system. and e.u. ambassador to the united states on the greek economic crisis and why greek lawmakers approved austerity measures that were overwhelmingly rejected by the country's voters. plus we'll be looking for your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. all on "washington journal" live tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern right here on c-span. >> in weekend on c-span's road to the white house, two major political events from iowa. and we're the only place you can watch our listen to these events in their entirety. friday night at 8:00 eastern, we'll be live in cedar rapids for the iowa democratic party hall of fame dener. it will mark the first time that all five democratic presidential candidates share the same stage. and all day saturday, beginning

at 11:00 a.m. eastern, we'll be live in ames for the family leadership summit, where nine leading republican presidential candidates are scheduled to speak. on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. c-span's road to the white house 2016, we take you there. >> this sunday on q&a artist and journalist molly crabam apple on her use of drawings to tell investigative stories from around the world. >> gang affiliation might mean reading a book by a black panther or having a tattoo. pelican bay isn't alone in this. around the country you can land in solitary for your art, your reading, your beliefs, your gender status, your sexual orientation or your friends. >> i go around with a sketch book and draw. a lot of times that's not necessarily to show the finished drawing it's also to build are a pour with people. because very often when you have a big camera it puts a distance between you and the person. a big insect-looking thing

right in front of your face. you're taking these images, they can't see what it's taking. whereas when you draw, it's a vulnerable thick. they can see what you're doing. if you suck, they can tell you so. it's more of an interchange. most people haven't been drawn before. most people are pretty delighted to be drawn. and so a lot of times i just draw people because i like to and because i like talking to them when i do it. >> on c-span's "q&a." >> earlier today, house leaders kevin mccarthy and steny hoyer were on the floor discussing the house agenda and what's ahead before the august recess. including the highway trust fund and possible consideration of appropriations bills. they spoke for about 25 minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous donent -- consent to speak out of order for the purpose of inquiring of the majority

leader the schedule for the week to come and thereafter. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i now yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. mr. speaker, on monday, no votes are expected in the house. on tuesday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30. on wednesday and thursday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business, last votes of the week are expected to no -- expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. in addition the house will consider h.r. 1734, the improving coal combustion

residual regulation act, sponsored by representative david mckinley. this bill is essential to protect and create jobs. if we do not act, the e.p.a. will replace the existing successful state-based regulatory program with harmful new regulations that will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and result in billions of dollars in burdensome costs for job creators. the house will also consider h.r. 1599, the safe and accurate food labeling act sponsored by representative mike pompeo. this bipartisan bill will ensure uniformed national labeling of foods from genetically engineered plants, by addressing the patchwork of conflicting labeling laws, we will fix the growing problem of inconsistent and confusing information for consumers. . finally, the house is expected to consider the conference report for the fiscal year 2016 national defense authorization act, and i thank the gentleman

and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information with respect to the legislation for next week. as the gentleman knows we have now passed six appropriation bills. last week consider of the interior bill was postponed. it the gentleman and mr. rogers have both made representations that they hope to do all 12 appropriation bills. can the gentleman tell me whether or not you did not announce any appropriation bills on the schedule for next week, can the gentleman tell me whether or not he expects to bring additional appropriation bills to the floor prior to the august break? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. yes, it is our intention to get back to the appropriations process as soon as possible. as the gentleman does know there are some very serious and sensitive issues involved. we are in the midst of a constructive and bipartisan conversation on how we can resolve these issues.

i'll be sure to keep the members updated as the appropriation bills are scheduled for continued consideration. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment. particularly in terms of the willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion. as the gentleman -- as majority leader knows, there is on his side of the aisle and on our side of the aisle a great concern that the pre--02 allocations to the appropriations committee are insufficient to meet their responsibilities. mr. rogers, as you know, chairman of the appropriations committee, member of your side of the aisle, from kentucky, has characterized the sequestration numbers as unrealistic and ill-advised. the senate has not passed any appropriation bills, as the gentleman knows. it is my hope and i would like to ask the majority leader whether he contemplates any bipartisan discussions with

reference to how we might come to an agreement so that appropriation bills could, in fact, be enacted, sent to the president, and signed by the president. the president, as you know, sent down a budget which was paid for but which had defense numbers at the numbers that your side of the aisle used by utilizing overseas contingency operation funds to bridge the gap between the sequester number and the president's number. my question to you is that is there any contemplation either before we break or shortly after we come back, because october 1 will be on us very very quickly, to have bipartisan discussions ala ryan murray to get to a number we can agree on and pass appropriation bills and have conversations and send them

to the president and be signed hopefully before october 1, but if not before october 1, certainly before december 18. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and his continuing question throughout the months on this. it is still our intention on this side of the aisle to get our business done, uphold the current law which is in place. i know you and i have had many debates back and forth we know the sequestration started in the white house and we continue to play by what the law states today and move our bills in a bipartisan manner with a very open process on the floor where any member can bring an amendment up and we'll continue to use that process as we move forward. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. the majority leader, mr. speaker regularly brings up that sequester started in the white house. he knows i very severely disagree with that. and he voted for a cut, cap, and

balance act which had in its -- in that bill, which no democrat i think, voted for it sequester . and it was passed five days before our republican friends, mr. speaker alleged that mr. lieu segged suggested that to mr. reed as a -- suggested that to mr. reid as a way we could get by the house's refuse you will -- refusal up to that point in time extended which meant we couldn't pay our bills. i don't think that's very useful in discussing how we get by this loggerhead that we have met on the appropriations process. i served on the appropriations committee for 23 years. before i became a leader. we did pass bills. not always on time, but we had an ability, republicans and democrats working on the appropriations committee, working in the congress, to get our bills done.

mr. speaker i don't know whether you recall i presume you will recall, that when we got to a similar impasse mr. ryan the then chairman of the budget committee, miss murray then chairwoman of the budget committee in the senate, got together and came up with a -- some figures that we could agree on in a bipartisan basis. until that time, we had the same kind of scenario that we are now confronted with. mr. speaker it is my view that unless we have such a meeting of the minds we are going to put this country in another crisis of our own making. we democrats are prepared to enter into some sort of an agreement consistent with hal rogers believes we can get to a realistic and advised compromise not this unrealistic and

ill-advised, mr. rogers' words, republican chairman of the appropriations committee, not mine and if we don't do so, when we get to september 30 or we get to december 18 let's not wring our hands and say how did this happen? we'll know exactly how it happened. it will have happened because we refused to sit down as the majority leader said a few minutes ago in a bipartisan way to do the people's business in a responsible collegial way which we can get to an agreement so the bills can be passed. i would hope -- and i think this argument about who's responsible for sequestration clearly we have a different point of view. a bill that passed before the suggestion was made by jack lew so we could get by the impasse and america has to pay its bills is not very useful. mr. leader, let me go to another subject. you moved on two occasions to refer to the house administration committee

legislation which related to the use of the confederate battle flag. that -- both of those issues are now pending in the house administration committee. one has been there for some three weeks now. can the gentleman tell me whether there is any suggested action by the committee whether there had been any hearings scheduled, and whether or not we may see that legislation brought to the floor at any time in the foreseeable future? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. just to clarify before i answer your other questions. i am concerned about what the rest of the summer looks like. a lot of my concern stems from what i hear on the other side of the aisle, especially in the senate side. as the gentleman knows for his years of working for more than two decades on appropriations, the appropriation process we have today is the most open this house has ever seen. never in the history while you were in the appropriation committee was it as open in the

process that any member from any side of the aisle could just offer an amendment. not even prewritten not even a closed amendment. but your comments about sequester, what aim -- i'm really concerned about is the comments of senator schumer, senator reid he was going to have the summer of the shut down, the destruction, he was going to shut everything down, i'm concerned on some of your comments that leading in that direction i don't want to go there. i want to finish our work as we have been doing here. and history can't rewrite it. bob woodward respected journalist as we all know from his days back to watergate today his price of politics, he wrote of the time and history. sequester was not debated here on this floor created on this floor. not even on the senate as well. you can read it in his book. it was created in the white house of this administration.

it is the law of the land. we will uphold the law of the land and do our work based upon those numbers. now, the question you had before me was dealing with what we referred to, house administration. i have met with the chair and i have met with members on your side of the aisle. we have nothing scheduled for next week, but we are currently working towards solving this, to me a very serious and sensitive issue and i look forward to getting it done and working with you to make it happen. mr. hoyer: i appreciate the fact that we might be bringing something to the floor that we can express the opinion of this house. as the house and senate in south carolina expressed its opinion, it surely is appropriate for this house of representatives representing the values of our country, sworn to uphold our constitution, that stands for equality of all that we can express ourselves and take appropriate action. i appreciate the gentleman's view. i have great respect for mr. woodward. mr. woodward shortly after that

book came out i called him he came into my office, we had a discussion about that representation. i will tell the gentleman that i believe mr. woodward was incorrect. he did not have information i gave him. i don't mean that he necessarily says he's incorrect, but there is no doubt when you want to talk about history, you passed a bill five days before the suggestion was made by jack lew, which presumably coming out of the white house, to mr. reid, the majority leader, five days before that, you passed on this floor a bill which was called cut cap and balance which had sequester as your fallback policy. so you're right, you can't change history. that is history. the gentleman, i said that a number of times, the gentleman has not corrected me. i presume therefore he believes that i'm accurate in that representation of the timing. but very frankly that history is

irrelevant. what is relevant, as the gentleman and i i think both agree, if we don't get to an agreement on a number that is as we did in ryan-murray, we have done this before. we have done this before. my view is we did it because you didn't want to have your members vote on legislation that had numbers that were draconian before the election, but that may be only my personal perspective. but the fact of the matter is, the american people expect us to get their work done. getting their work done at minimum means funding the government at appropriate levels. and again i have said that mr. rogers does not believe the see quester. i believe you it's the law of the land. i think it's wrong. it's bad laufment it was not a law intended to go into effect. it went into effect simply because the supercommittee that was established in that same legislation couldn't come out with a solution.

and 13 months the congress couldn't come out with a solution. therefore on january 1 2014, we were confronted with this draconian, ill-conceived numbers, according to mr. rogers. let's not be confronted with those numbers 60 days from now on october 1 where we are unable to do our business. so i would urge my friend to -- i would be glad to work with him toward that end. we just passed a bill, mr. leader which i voted for we passed on a bipartisan basis the the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time of my members voted for t. the majority of your members voted for it, a highway bill. it was, however, i know on our side and i know in discussions with you your feeling as well, that it is not what we ought to be doing.

what we ought to be doing is pass a long-term, at least six-year re-authorization bill for the highway program so that governors, mayors, county executives, local officials contractors construction workers would all have some confidence that there would be a revenue stream to fix our roads repair our bridges and build roads where they are needed. can the gentleman tell me whether he believes that there is a plan to get to the -- i know he and i discussed it, but a plan to get to before the december 18 date that the present bill calls for a long-term highway re-authorization? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank my friend for yielding. i thank him for his work and help in passing the highway bill this week. the gentleman knows nobody in this house wants to pass a

short-term highway bill. we want certainty. we want to make sure the money goes the furthest and most efficient and effective way. the reason why we are going to a short-term december 18 because it is our plan and our intention together to be able to find the resources to have a highway bill that can be five years. and it is our intention to be able to have that. we have a plan, i believe, working towards and the first step was moving the highway to december 18th bill, and all we have next is to pass the senate. they pass our highway bill, we'll be in the right place prepared to have it done before december, five year that we can all work together in a bipartisan manner and have done. i yield back. mr. hoyer: io hope we do that. in the short-term, however, we have done another item which we have not re-authorized, that's the ex-port import bank. senator mcconnell believes that that has the votes in the senate and he believes the highway bill that we just sent them is a vehicle to add that export-import bank proposal to, and my presumption is it will be

in that bill when it comes back to us. . hopefully it will come back within the next few days because of course the highway authorization ends at the end of this month. in which case there will be no authorization to spend money on the highway program. can the gentleman tell me whether or not, if that comes back, that that will be on the floor? i've heard some discussion about the fact that the speaker says it will be on the floor but it would be -- the export-import bank would be open to amendment. can the gentleman tell me whether or not there are any plans along those lines? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding to me one more time. the gentleman's well aware of how i feel about the ex-im bank, export-import, we have a difference of opinion. i am one who has always believed in the principle that you should just deal with the subject that's before you. we have passed the highway bill. the best advice i can give to the senate, it is a clean highway bill to december 18.

to pass a clean highway bill and move it to the president. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i understand that's the gentleman's desire. i know he's opposed to the ex-im bank re-authorization. as you know, we passed it in a bipartisan fashion when mr. cantor was the majority leader. the gentleman voted for it. he's changed his mind. that's certainly -- many of us do that from time to time. but my question to him is, if they don't do what the gentleman suggests, a clean highway bill, and they send it back as is apparently mr. mcconnell's, leader mcconnell's', thought that they will do, consistent with his representation to the senator from washington state and others, if they add the ex-im bank to that bill and it comes back, i know the gentleman's reluctant to speculate, but we have very, very short period of time left in this session

before the august break. does he believe that if it comes back and is in the highway bill that we would make the export-import bank a portion of that bill at least open to amendment? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. if i just may correct the gentleman. it took the liberty of saying whether i -- he took the liberty of saying whether i changed to my mind. i did vote for the ex-im bank two years ago. but i voted for an ex-im bank that had reform in it. i did not see that reform. i did not change my mind, i kept my principle. the same principle that i have is my best advice to the senate. i know you want to talk hypotheticals and i know our colloquy is about next week. none of that is scheduled for next week. but to the gentleman and to the senate, my best advice for them is to pass our clean highway bill and send it to the president. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, the problem with that suggestion, ma the -- the majority leader makes is, the export-import bank will be out

of business. and if that happens, speaker boehner has said, it's going to adversely effect jobs in america. it will adversely affect the ability of small, medium and large businesses to sell our goods overseas. by people working here in america. the export-import bank is about jobs. and to simply let it twist in the wind and let it be unauthorized simply because of inattention, when it has the majority of votes on this floor, mr. speaker, i've said that over and over again and have not been contradicted. there are 60 republicans who sponsored the export-import bank's re-authorization. there are 188 democrats or at least 185 democrats who will vote for it.

that's 249 votes. all you need is 21. there is no doubt that the --here is no doubt that the export-import bank has the votes to pass this house and the senate. and yet we fiddle while jobs are being burned. mr. speaker that's not good policy for our country. not good policy for our workers. it's not good policy for our businesses. for our exporters. it makes us uncompetitive with the rest of the world. 60 countries have a similar facility. i know in a perfect world, perhaps that wouldn't exist. but 60 of our exet -- competitors around the world have such a facility. that make their goods cheaper than we will be making ours. that's not good sense it's not good policy. and it's not the expectation i think the american people -- i think of the american people and it is not the will of this house. i regret that we have not

addressed this already. but i certainly hope when the senate as i expect them to do, adds it mr. speaker, to the house highway bill and i'm not sure whether it will be our bill or their bill, our bill amended we may have to go to conference or we may have to get to an agreement, but one way or the other we ought to adopt the will of this house and re-authorize the export-import bank so that we will protect jobs. it was speaker bain who are said that, it was shortly after -- boehner who said that it was shortly after the action we took on june 30 and allowed the export-import bank to expire, that we would lose jobs. in fact, that's happening. so i would hope that that would not be the case. lastly mr. speaker, i would like to ask the majority leader, i get a lot of rumors on my side, i know you get a lot of rumors on your side and i sort of smile at them. i say i think not. but i've had 20 members today

ask me, mr. speaker, are we not going to be here the last week of july, that is presently scheduled, and i'd like to clear up that. i yield to my friend for a definitive answer on the schedule for -- this is a scheduling question by the way, as to whether or not in fact we're going to be here the last week of july. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i do smile because the only rumor i heard more about tailor swift throughout the cap -- taylor swift throughout the capitol the other day. this is this is -- i think this is wirgful thinking by the members. we have a lot of work to get done. which will be here and will not leave early. mr. hoyer: i appreciate the majority leader's clarification. our members will not necessarily appreciate it. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s.

house, congressional hearings and news conferences, bringing you events that shape public policy. and every morning, "washington journal" is live with elected officials, policymakers and journalists and your comments by phone, facebook and twitter. c-span, created by america's cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> tonight on the c-span networks -- >> at her weekly briefing, house democratic leader nancy pelosi announceded her support for the iranian nuclear agreement. she also commented on other issues relating to iran,

including human rights violations and u.s. hostages being held there. this is 20 minutes. ms. pelosi: good morning, everyone. two days ago early in the morning an historic nuclear agreement was anounts -- announced by the p-5 plus one and that is the product of years of tough, bold clear-eyed leadership on the part of president obama. i've closely examined this document and it will have my strong support. members are reading the document now. this is the document to hear, not that long, past the annexes, very important. i'm very proud of the attention, the careful attention that our members are giving to the document, to the

joint comprehensive plan of action. congratulations to president obama, to the leaders of the p-5 plus one, all of the countries. and i want to commend secretary kerry and secretary moniz for their exceptional leadership throughout these negotiations. we had two really talented experienced leaders at the table. more than two. but those two, senator kerry, a long-term senator with experience on foreign affairs committee, as we know, chairman, and secretary moniz, one of the foremost authorities in the world on nuclear and fizzle materials and technologies. so everyone knew they were dealing with people of knowledge, of vision, and knowing the possibilities. the president's been very clear, a nuclear iran is unacceptable to the united states, to the world, and in particular, to israel.

this agreement is precisely about intensifying our vigilance over every aspect of the iranian nuclear program. we have no illusions about iran. president reagan said, trust and verify. in this case i would say distrust and verify. the aggressive restrictions and inspections provided in this agreement offer a very strong, indeed the best long-term plan to stop iran from building a nuclear weapon. all options remain on the table, we're hopeful that the plan of action will be honored throughout the terms, the years of its enforcement. but nonetheless, as the president has said, all options remain on the table. while we are examining the joint plan yesterday republicans passed another, yet

again, another short-term extension of the highway and transit trust fund. this time until december. it's unfortunate that once again they've chosen to take a short-term patch. but i'm hoping that we can work together to have a full bill long before december. it would be totally unacceptable to come back with another short-term extension. and already -- but we have a model. president obama's grow america act, which creates jobs and strengthens our global competitiveness. we had as our motion to recommit yesterday a version of that shorter term because that's all the money we had to cover it, in terms of stopping inversions, which produces about $35 billion for the life of our motion to recommit. what we really want is that bill, with some modifications, and congress acting its will

of course, but with that fullness as well as longevity. as soon as the senate gets that bill, we are anticipating, it is what was represented to us, that they will put the ex-im bank legislation on the highway bill and send it back over to us. . and then the house would be able to act upon that. we look forward to that happening. as you know, we're in appropriation season, but they're not able to do very much in terms of appropriations and we're asking the republican leadership, house and senate, let's go to the table. we cannot the president's veto on these bills that are on sequestration and what we can do in meeting the needs of the american people. and to do so in a fiscally sound

way. we have to go to that place sooner rather than later. as you know, last week, we went into the week thinking we were just going to being passing the polluter's delight. it wasn't enough for the republicans and overturning the amendments we had passed regarding the confederate flag. hope million people join us after votes when we come back here to talk about going to passing the voting rights act. august 6 will mark the 50th anniversary. the supreme court decided in my view wrongly to diminish the voting rights act. the least we can do is pass the amendments to correct what the

-- to deal what the court called for. we will be talking about that. i'm going to go back to iran. the joint comprehensive plan of action. i'm very encouraged and so proud of my members. so diligent, so thoughtful and what we will have as much education as possible for them to know, if they have questions the bill itself has answers but the agreement itself has answers, but we want the administration to confirm our understanding. we want to see this happen in a very thoughtful way and not in a partisan way. i reject those who haven't read

it, i'm against it. i'm develop optimistic to support the president. the day before, as you know, we heard from secretary clinton and spoke to you after that. you know what she told us. but i feel the response we are getting from their openness we are in a very positive place. it would be prime shoes to see

the plan of action 24 hours. members have not been home. i want them to be able to go home and talk about it with their constituents so they make the most informed decision but there is excitement about the fact. the fact that president obama was able to bring to achieve p-5 plus one plus germany brings them to the table and to sustain iraq engagement for a long period of time to produce an agreement is quite remarkable. i can say from my own experience that for around a quarter of a century when i first came to congress a little bit after that when i traveled to china, whether it was speaking to the russians.

and iran was a likely candidate for such an endeavor. when you talk to the russians, they say who are you to talk to us about selling weapons. talk about their centrifuges and unable september try fugse which are central for enrichment of uranium. and that applies to missiles as well. and talk to the europeans they say it's only simulation. we say it's dual use. i have been tracking this for a generation.

for a generation and to think that russia and china plus some of the other members of the p-5 are such strong partners in all of this, and this is a partnership, is quite remarkable and i commend the president and all involved. and president bush really started some of this. and then it became more successful as the countries came together. but it was that diplomacy that brought the countries together that gave the strength to the negotiations, to achieve what is here right now. so many steps along the way, great progress, a good product not only better than the status quo, not only the best possible option, but a strong, effective option, proposal for keeping the peace and stopping proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. questioner: -- [inaudible] --

there are some lawmakers here on the republican side who would like to impose some mandatory sentencings for undocumented workers who may commit such crimes. what do you think about those tactics and that sort of legislation? ms. pelosi: mandatory sentences are not something i have supported. the judges who have come before our appropriations committee any federal judges who come for their annual visits to us, have always said, give us discretion. give judges discretion. as to what a sentence might be for a particular crime. however, we did, in h.r. 15, have a graduated mandatory sentence for repeat offenses and i think that's probably a better model than the model that is being put forth by the republicans.

questioner: should it be something specific for persons who are undocumented and -- [inaudible] -- there are issues with that. ms. pelosi: that's a different issue. i support the sanctuary. we have this terrible case and our hearts and prayers go out to the family. in terms of your question, i which is the bill about mandatory minimums, let me also say that if we had passed the comprehensive immigration reform, which is the answer to many of the questions that you may ask on this subject, then we'd be in a better place. and in fact some of the essence of the law the republicans are putting forth, but in a more sensible way, which really came out of the senate. and that we supported. questioner: will you be actively lobbying your colleagues on behalf of the administration regarding the iran deal? ms. pelosi: yes. i'm so proud of this. i am already making sure, not exactly lobbying, but making sure people have answers to the questions that they have. i made very clear to them my own standing on this issue and why i think this is a good agreement, i call it an agreement, this plan of action. it's pretty exciting because the members are very, they have informed questions and they will have more informed questions the more they read and study the annex and the rest. and so it becomes almost a master class of what is in this plan, but how it sits comfortably among other plans along the way. when president reagan and gorbachev came to their agreement -- one thing, anecdotally, some of the people who are very enthusiastic about this agreement now, include a group called plow sharers. you can tell by the name it's a group that has been -- its orientation has been to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

when they first started, one might have dear friends was one of the people who started it in san francisco, and other places in the country, but she was from san francisco, and i remember when she went to rikers with the women, you maybe weren't born yet, but anybody who knows history will remember the women who went there and who were advocating that president reagan take the position which he ultimately did. so, yes, i am -- i think it's really important that, after all these negotiations, with all the engagement, the diplomacy, the wisdom, the brilliance, the ideas and the imagination, and the compromises that have to be made, that this be supported and i am having this conversation very respectfully, because some of our members are at different places in terms of their involvement in these kinds of issues, or their service in

congress. and some have very definite views and have some very strong questions, all of it healthy and valuable. all of it to be respected by all of it, but yes, this is one of the joys of my service, to come back to what i've said to you before, one of my early goals coming to congress was to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. it's always on the horizon and what you're reaching for. questioner: you've also had a long history of supporting human rights around the globe. what do you think this agreement will do to prisoners of conscience in iran and the horrible human rights conditions we've seen in syria and the whole region? ms. pelosi: that's a very good question. human rights are really -- they're central to who we are. and i don't believe, i wasn't

present, but it is my understanding that every time there was a meeting with the iranians, the question of u.s. prisoners of conscience were brought up there and also the president has made with -- met with some of the families, as well as the fact that i think we're almost in a better place to shine a light on that. the human rights situation, it's interesting. because, more than you want to know about my schedule, but after i left you last week i had the privilege of going to new york and celebrating the 80th birthday of the dalai lama, his holiness, and 17,000 people at a convention center, and then to be with him more privately the next day and a great deal of our conversation was about human rights in china and tibet. and how can we have moral authority to talk about human

rights anyplace in the world if we don't recognize the challenge of conscience they pose in china and tibet, just because the country's a big economic power. so we have to make sure it's always on the table. we have to ever advance it. because it is who we are. but it is very essential that we have this nuclear agreement and continue the conversation about human rights. questioner: do you think the four american hostages being held in iran should have been released in a precondition? ms. pelosi: no. it would have been good but, no. this is a nuclear deal. this is a nuclear agreement. and i think that we have to -- i appreciate the fact that since we have a nuclear negotiation and now we have a nuclear agreement, that a much brighter light is being shone on the prisoners of conscience in iran.

and, again, i just took a trip through, in the spring with my colleagues on the subject of trade, and we brought up these issues with the government of vietnam and we brought up these issues with the administration about what was happening in malaysia in terms of trafficking. so, again, any issue that shines a brighter light enables us to say, are we consistent with what we believe or is it changed depending on our economic and commercial relationships with the country? security, protect and defend, that's our first

responsibility. who we are as a nation, that we respect the dignity and worth of every person, and that we want those prisoners released and the more attention that is paid to it, the better. the worst, most cruel and excruciating pain that can be inflicted on a prisoner of conscience, and again, i've been working on these issues on china as you know since i arrived here, is that they -- nobody remembers you're here, they don't know why you're here, you're wasting your time, you might as well confess or convert or whatever it is they want them to do. and this will shine a very bright light. i'm very optimistic. i know that the administration has this as a very high priority. there's so many prisoners of conscience throughout the world and so many countries that we do have dealings with. hopefully this will serve as a model, a bridge to better understanding of who we are as a nation and why that is important to us. unfortunately i'm going to have to go because we have votes on the floor. but thank you all very much. and we'll be back at 12:00-ish, 12:30, the break during lunch. we're not providing it. but you're welcome to join us. the congressional black caucus.

what i eat is ice cream. seriously, in terms of going from appropriations, the confederate flag, to now the voting rights act, and that's what we're excited about talking to you about later this morning. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] the speaker: good morning. here in the house we continue to focus on the people's priorities. especially when it comes to jobs and the economy. next week it will take us reforms to rein in washington's red tape factory, so small

businesses can hire and expand. this comes after the white house actually cut its forecast for growth for this year, to 2%. i think that's unacceptable, we need real economic growth, that means real pro-growth policies to get our economy moving again. also this month we'll take up a bill that gives the v.a. secretary the authority to actually fire an employee over misconduct. to date only two v.a. officials have been fired for the waiting list scandal that affected more than 110,000 veterans. president obama promised reform at the v.a., it hasn't happened, he promised accountability, it hasn't happened. so we'll continue to press for these reforms. but only the president can change the culture at the v.a. on iran, given everything i've seen so far, this is a bad deal. it paves the way for a nuclear iran. and yesterday the president

admitted that it will likely further iran's support for terror activities throughout the region. it blows my mind that the administration would agree to lift the arms and missile bans and sanctions on a general who supplied militants with weapons to kill americans. president obama says it's this deal or war. well, that's a false choice. the sanctions were working and bringing iran to its knees. we're going to continue to review this, but we're going to fight a bad deal that's wrong for our national security and wrong for our country. also this week at my request our committees have begun looking at some of the gruesome practices embraced by planned parenthood. i'm also demanding that the president denounce and stop these practices. if you've seen this video, i don't have to tell you how sickening it is. rest assured, we're going to get to the bottom of this and protect the values that we hold dear.

lastly, let me take a moment to congratulate our friend, dave espoe, from the associated press, on his retirement. he's worked here, well, forever. certainly the 25 years that i've

been here. i've always respected the way he's done his job and, dave, we wish you the best in your retirement. questioner: speaker boehner, president obama's visiting a prison today. bipartisan bill, congressman sensenbrenner and congressman scott, about criminal justice reform. will you allow that to move forward in your house? the speaker: absolutely. i've long believed that there needed to be reform of our criminal justice system. chairman goodlatte last year put together a working group that had recommendations and i support those recommendations and they're by and large embraced in the bill that mr. sensenbrenner has with mr. scott, i believe. i'd like to see it on the floor. questioner: what are a couple of specific things that you think are important in criminal justice reform and where you differ with the president? the speaker: i don't think i want to get into all the details. i'm not the expert on these. but we've got a lot of people in prison frankly that really, in my view, really don't need to be there. it's expensive to house prisoners. sometimes these people are in there under what i'll call flimsy reasons. and so i think it's time that we review this process, they have, and i'm looking forward to putting those recommendations on the floor. questioner: the pope finished a trip to latin america where he spent a lot of time talking about capitalism. i wonder if you imagine he'll bring that message here when he comes to congress and does that put him at all on step with the agenda of your congress? the speaker: there's one thing we know about this pope. he's not afraid to take on the status quo or not afraid to say what he really thinks. i can tell you this, i'm not about to get myself into an argument with the pope. [laughter] so, i'm sure the pope will have things to say that the people will find interesting and i'm looking forward to his visit. questioner: speaker boehner, the planned parenthood video, as far as the investigation that you're calling for, the hearing you're calling for as well, what kind of accountability could possibly occur if it turns out that planned parenthood ended up selling fetal parts? the speaker: i want the committees to do their investigation. i want them to do their hearings. once they have, then we'll decide what's the proper course of action.

questioner: on appropriations, the democrats in the senate say they're not going to pass any of those bills until they get some sort of negotiations like a ryan-murray kind of budget negotiation. what's the downside to doing that now rather than waiting until there's a log jam? the speaker: the house and the senate have passed a budget. we've been moving appropriation bills in the house according to that budget. and that continues to be the plan. questioner: about planned parenthood, mr. speaker, do you buy the explanation that transfers of human tissue go on frequently, have gone on for decades, they're nothing unusual and that they were discussing reimbursement, which is allowable and provided for under the law? do you buy that? the speaker: if you saw the video, it certainly didn't strike me that way. i could talk about the video but i think i'd vomit trying to

talk about it. it's disgusting. questioner: mr. speaker, mr. flores is just next door calling on the congress to pass a religious freedom bill in wake of the same-sex marriage ruling. is that a bill that you support, you want to bring on the floor? what do you say to members of your party who say this may make it difficult to move on from the same-sex marriage issue? the speaker: you know, the supreme court's decision on marriage raises a lot of other questions. a number of members have concerns about issues that it raises and how they might be addressed. but no decision's been made on how best to address these. questioner: mr. speaker, on the iran deal, one of your republican colleagues said about the review bill, to vote on it that the game is rigged, is essentially enabling the white house to pass the deal. nancy pelosi earlier said she was optimistic the democrats

would help uphold the deal. what are the prospects for trying to block it? the speaker: i think every member of congress is going to have to make a decision. and they're going to have the next 60 days in order to do that. but it's pretty clear to me that a majority of the house and senate at a minimum are opposed to this deal. what those numbers look like post-labor day, we'll see. questioner: did you go to the all-star game? the speaker: yeah. questioner: how was it? [laughter] ringing endorsement. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> president obama said the defense department is making sure that all military recruiting centers are vigilant. four marines were killed. the president delivered the remarks after receiving a

briefing from f.b.i. director comby. president obama: i just received a briefing from my white house team about the tragic shooting that took place today. we don't know yet all the details. we know that what appears to be a lope gunman carried out these attacks. we eyed fide a name. and at this point an investigation is take is place and the f.b.i. is working with with local law enforcement. we have been in contact with the department of defense to make sure that all our defenses are properly attentive and vigilant as we sort through exactly what happened. and as details of the investigation proceed, we'll make sure that the f.b.i. as well as local law enforcement

are providing the public with all the information that is involved. my main message right now is obviously the deepest sympathies to the american people to the four march eeps that have been killed. it is a heartbreaking circumstance for these individuals who have served our country with great valor to be killed in this fashion. and although the families are still in the process of being contacted, i want them to know that i speak for the american people. and expressing our deepest condolences and knowing that they have our full support as they try to overcome the grief that's involved here. i also want to say that there

are reports of injuries who chattanooga, local law enforcement officials. thankfully as far as we know at this point, they have survived the assault and we want to make sure we are thinking about them and they are in our thoughts and prayers. we take all shootings very seriously. when you have an attack on a u.s. military facility then we have to make sure that we have all the information necessary to make an assessment in terms of how this attack took place and what further precautions we can take place in the future. as we have more information, we'll let the public know. in the meantime, i would ask all americans to pray for the families who are grief-stwricken at this point and i want

everybody to understand that we will be thorough and prompt in figuring out exactly what happened. thank you very much. >> this weekend on c-span's "road to the white house." . [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a discussion on to discuss

the potential challenges of the iran nuclear agreement. if iran takes steps to comply with the deal, it couldn't lead to positive international partnerships in the future. this is an hour and a half. to address the threats posed by the world's dangerous weapons. we organized to discuss p-5 plus one which is the most complex

and conch sequential which began 70 years ago today with the first atomic bomb which was detonated in new mexico. over the period of time, we sought to identify policy solutions to address the many different challenges on this issue so that the negotiators can help arrive at and agreement. and our analysis looking at the documents which is over 100

pages, quite substantial, is that it can effectively block iran on their weapons and weapons program for more than a generation. and that's a view shared from nonproliferation security experts and we believe it will be a net-plus for nuclear non proliferation, the effort to stop nuclear weapons. congress has 60 days to review this agreement and we believe that each and every member need to take a look at this agreement and get the answers to their questions and consider the benefits and the alternatives. and so to help contribute to this date, we have gathered three top-notch experts to discuss the agreement.

kelsey davenport and she has been very closely monitoring the talks for more than four years or so. and she is still recovering from her latest tour of duty in vienna. and next, we will hear from richard nephew. and he is see center of global energy policy and resident fellow at the fellow. and i want to hear from senior fellow for middle east security for american security and

foreign policy extensive government experience. so after their opening comments and remarks about the agreement and impacts, we will take your questions. i want to make a final observation. talk about the nuclear nonproliferation elements of the agreement. like any politic agreement it is one of give and take. we think it is very strong and many ways stronger than the framework that was reached in early april. yet it is clear already just a couple of days after this agreement was concluded that many critics believe that by rejecting the agreement, by increase ink sanctions the u.s. can convince the leaders of iran to dismantle its nuclear

programs. i think, i think the president thinks that this is basically a dangerous illusion. there isn't a better deal. if congress olympics this agreement, they are going to be tough negative consequences. we have spoken with our european allies and our international support will dissipate. iran will not be subject to limits on its nuclear program. we will lose out on enhanced inspections and the conflicts would grow. so a lot of it is at stake. and we hope congress is going to take a hard look at the agreement and the alternatives. with that. let me turn it over to our panelists. >> thank you all for being here this morning.

i'm not quite sure what time zone i'm in. i want to talk about the nuclear elements of the deal and i won't talk about all of the 158 pages of the agreement, we will explore on the agreement. the perspective this is a very strong agreement. in many ways, it exceeds the expectations of what we sought a good agreement would need to achieve to block iran's pathway and put in place that would ensure quick detection of any covert activity. no. this deal is not perfect, but good enough and meets the nonproliferation goal and safeguards national security and good for regional security as well. to get into the details.

the parameters that were agreed to were detailed and strong and from our assessment with these parameters in place it would take they will 12 months to produce a nuclear weapon. and that will be achieved by reducing centrifuges from 19,to 6,000. iran's stockpile will be capped at 300 kilograms. what we get from the final deal is details that iran cannot quickly move towards nuclear weapons. one of the things that becomes clear. all of the centrifuge machines will be removed. all of the piping, vacuums will be taken out and stored under iaea seals and we have greater

assurance that if iran were pry to access these machines, they would immediately know. it is important to note that iran will be using these machines to replace and repair any broken machines. and iran will not be producing any additional centrifugeses unless the stockpile is reduced to under 500. iran is going to use time to buildup centrifuges to deloy them later is false and they will be inventoried under the deal. these are provision that will add a greater level of confidence. we have more information about the stockpile. iran agreed to reduce stockpile so uranium enriched to reactor grade from the approximate 10

thureks kilo grams down to 3,000 dill l kilo grams. and oxide can be converted back to gas. so this entire stockpile. and any scrap material that is in process that is enriched to .6 % or 20% will be turned into fuel place and the material that can't be turned will be shipped out of the country diluted or mixed in a form that it cannot be enriched further. additional steps to ensure there is not scrap material. providing more assurance that iran cannot obtain a bomb. now there has been some concern about the agreement leaves 1,000

centrifuges at the facility which iran begins to build in secret deep in the mountain. now the 1,000 september try fugse that will be there 350 of the century fooges will be used for isotope production. these machines cannot be transitioned back to uranium enrichment and leaves 600 machines. the rest of the centrifuges and the infrastructure will be removed and will be placed under fields back in the facility which is where the 500 centrifuges will be placed.

cun of the crist simms that have been leveled, what will happen after 10 years, in 10 years iran committed for 10 years to operate 5,060 of its centrifuges. iran isn't going to go offer a cliff a this agreement makes it clear that the work on centrifuge machines will be limited and they will be phased in in such a way that one day after 10 years, that iran cannot deploys the centrifuges and be weeks away for obtaining the materials.

to look a little bit more closely at the r&d iran has 1,000 advanced september try fallujah machines at its pilot proubs facility. it will have a few months to finish up the testing with some of those. and it will remove nearly all of the advanced machines and store them under seal. iran will be allowed to operate one i.r. 4 machine, one i.r. 5 machine and one i.r. 5 machine. it contests these machines but can't acouple plate enrichede uranium. and after about 8 and-a-half years, iran will be able to test

30 implet r. 6 machines and 30 i.r. machines and they can begin producing 200 of each of these models per year but will not producing the rotors. so around the year when iran transitions, its capacity will remain a relatively stable for the next three years. so through the capacity is the measure of capacity. that means that the capacity of iran's 0,060 i.r. 5 centrifuges will remain. so if a machine has 10 times the capacity of an i.r. one machine if it produces an i.r. 6

machine, they have to remove the machines. we won't see a rampup immediately after the 10-year restrictions on using i.r. 1's. it's important to note that we should not voo any of these elements in isolation. in addition to these restrictions on the number of machines that are being produced. iran's materials that can be used will be monitored by the joint commission, which is set up through the deal and any changes that iran wants to make to its r&d will have to be approved. if iran starts to move or try to move away from the r&d plan that it will submit to the iaea, it will become clear through the

joint commission. so one of the other areas there has been a question relates to the transparency and monetary policy and this is something that the association we we were very concerned about because of iran's nuclear activities in the past. we feel that the inspections and monitoring and veskets regime produced under this regime that iran cannot pursue its nuclear facilities. so first at the declared facilities iran will have to expand it nuclear declaration under its additional protocol which iran will ratify within the eight years of the depreement. the additional protocol is an agreement that expands upon

iran's safeguard agreements and gives inspectors greater access and short notice to inspect thinks sites. the agreement lays down the provisions that allows monitoring. in the next 25 years that the uranium mines and mills, and then the continuous monitoring. essentially this means if iran wanted to pursue nuclear weapons they would need to replicate the entire fuel supply and find a new source of uranium ore and convert that into gas and enrich it. these are large program. you aren't going to hide it in a basement or a warehouse. thoy another check against this

covert -- the concern about a covert nuclear weapons program comes with the increased access that will be granted to inspectors and it's very clear in the deal that if concerns arise about illicit nuclear activities, the iaea will express concerns. manageed that iran can protect military information, but it's important to realize the iaea's decision about whether or not the conditions iran places on access is adequate and if they are not adequate there is an ajudication mechanism in place. iran and the aeia cannot come to a discussion, the joint

commission question includes the countries, the european union and iran will decide it. so five of the eight members. that means china russia and iran can't block access. and they will have three days. in total, if they want to ack assist a site they can only be blocked from that for 24 days. 1 days may be time for iran to remove any equipment but isn't enough time to arad indicate any indication. and that is in part due to the sophisticated that the iaea can conduct. these demonstrate the strength of the monetary and

verification. i think it's worth noting, too but looking at the iaea and not going to have its eyes. the national intelligence organization of the united states european countries will continue to watch iran very closely. in short to sum up, i think the director of national intelligence said this is as solid as you can get. no element is going to provide you 100 gar and at the but iran is not pursuing nuclear wins. i think it's important to note that iran's nuclear addition-making has been benefited. with this deal in place the cost of cheating has become higher because this is an

agreement that iran voluntarily signed on to and within the agreement there are further commitments by iran not to undertake any experiments related to nuclear weapons development. if they violate strong reaction by the international community and changes the cost benefit analysis. there are a few additional elements that are important and worth noting that i don't think has gotten much conch. there are conditions where iran cannot export technology unless it is approved by the joint commission. and there will be joint work on the fabry occasion of fuel elements which provides iran the ability to fuel the reactor

using the domestic fuel it produces and if there are concerns about noncompliance, there will be a time-bound, -day period that consists of review by the joint commission that really ensures that if any party is not satisfied with the breach it can move on and take the case to the security council. there are a number of other provisions in this deal that adds to its strength and amply files the nonproliferation value. finally moving forward, congress has the opportunity to weigh in on this deal. but with the power that congress has to vote on an greelt comes with responsibility. if they cause or prevent this deal being prevented, this will lead to escalation on the part of iran, sanctions from the u.s. side and could increase the

chances of a military conflict. when looking at this deal, congress looks at the deal. does it block the deal? yes. does it put in place monitoring and truth in modification? yes. and really, also considered against the alternatives, there is noo better deal out there. we have heard the time for anywhere, any time inspections. they can do their job. we have heard that more pressure would perhaps induce iran to make greater inspections. the deal that allows iran that it met its objectives of maintaining military programs and sanctions release, it makes the deal more sustainable because iran sees incensetive to

comply. this idea of more con sense -- concessions were necessary wouldn't make a stronger deal. all of these elements need to be viewed together. if we look too closely at any one particular detail, we may miss the relationship between the entirety of the package and ultimately this deal removes the threat of a iranian nuclear weapon. it is good for regional security. and it deserves the support of all in washington. >> i thank you for that overview and you mentioned sanctions and turn to that issue now. richard, thanks for being here. >> thanks for being here today.

i was going to touch on three points to deal with the issue. first, i wanted to touch on the contents of the relief and time line and how it would be rolled out. second i want to touch on what is left. while there is a sense left out there and the regime has been taken away that is not true. and soft sanctions remaining in place, it may be a future problem. and i want to touch on the impact of sanctions relief and how the combhi and the security apparatus may use the benefits of sanctions relief. first off, in terms of the contents i have a much easier job because the sanctions pack acknowledge is straightforward and direct and broad. the decision was made by the

negotiating partners to make this an issue of the nuclear problem by incentivizings. so the time line that has been established for implementation of relief is configured as such. they have to complete the configurations with a few thing by their very nature will continue on. before any new sanctions relief will be given. it is awful. the way the relief is structured and the way the deal puts in place, the iranians aren't going to see anything beyond the joint plan of actions until they have done their part, period. now, when thiff done their part,

the relief they are going to get is substantial. and in the judgment of myself and the administration, it was worth while to get the reconciliations. what's in play? first off, all of the u.s. sanctions that are going to be discussed hire are secondary in nature and don't discuss the embargo. what the united states has offered to do is to provide relief from the sanctions it imposes on foreign countries. if you are bp, any number of other companies, you are no going to being able to do business with iran after the iranians have done the steps they have to do steps. the energy sector both in tirms of the sale and purchase of products financial services and

financial transactions, insurance, transportation. again, with foreign companies and foreign actors subject to their own laws. this will not take place numb these stips have been taken. the way that the time line has been set up, we are now in a period that you could loosely call phase one. in 90-day period that every single country has to go to its national legislatures and bue into the deal. upon their erm recommendations then the iranians will take their steps. century trugse and variety of other nuclear things that kelsey was describing. for the united states-union

union, there is a requirement to have the waivers and legal modification to sanctions that will start upon i.a. verification. so there will be promulgation of new regulation and new executive orders. but they are going to be tied to a trigger and that is a report that the iranians are supposed to do that haven't been done. there are estimates as to how long this could take. my own estimate is that it would be easily four to six months before the iranians will achieve the removal. it is theoretically that it could take faster. if you add 90 days, we are talking about april, march, where the iranians will achieve

sanctions and start to see new business start to flow. that is very important, because that means for the time being, the iranians are incentivized to do things they were supposed to and see a dollar. backs during the joint plan of action, there was a lot of suggestion that the iranians were going to stop the deal. i think frankly the scope and scale suggests that would not be the case here. there is then a hiatus in sanctions relief for eight years or reaching a broader conclusion in a nuclear program. during this time, relief will continue to exist. but they are going to be underrestrictions. and how it relates to the sanctions that still remain.

under this eighth-yoor time period, the iranians have to go to the joint commission for any nuclear-related items. the resixes are restrictions are going to remain in place. so they have to submit itself to end-use verification checks to ensure their going where they're supposed to be going. in this instance it's both a restriction on the iranians as well as still being utilized as part of the sanctions regime that will be in place. the procurement channel itself will extend another two years beyond this eight-year period until the u.n. security council's requirements are canceled in 10 years' time.