nuclear weapons, well it previously focused on missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. what was the rationale for using the words missile designed to be capable of instead of simply, missiles capable of? if i could ask that. i don't know the answer. i will get you an answer if i can. does notesolution 2231 change the substantive prohibition on provision of any kind of ballistic missile technology to iran. iranian foreign saying that word in these saidiations design -- he it took me seven months to negotiate. everyone knew what it meant. what they are saying now is with the change, iran shall be called upon not to rather than not to, that they can go forward full speed with their icbm program

and that's what they are doing. not as though they are hiding the intent. they combine that with the rhetoric death to america, death to israel. let me let you respond. mr. countryman: i don't believe iran ever hit its intent to continue developing ballistic missile, nor has it slowed down doing so. >> we have a situation now where the security council -- what can we point to where we can say the security council now is taking action against iran's missile program? none, that i can see. mr. countryman: i don't focus on the rhetoric, i focus on the active effort to deny the export of technology from advance countries to iran. i understand that iran's interpretation is different from

ours. rep. royce: we've now given russia, or we've given beijing the ability to interpret this differently. we have forever now a less effective constraints on iran's missile program than we had before. and, on top of that, we now see in thesertiveness international community and we don't see the pushback from the united states. my time has expired. i will go to our ranking member, mr. engel, for his questions. engel: mr. szubin, let me ask you this. when congress was considering whether to oppose the nuclear deal of iran, we heard various statements from administration officials that iran's nonnuclear human rightsch is

violations, advancing their ballistic missile program, that those things would be outside of the scope of the deal. since implementation day we've heard a different message. no new sanctions. we've heard that from the administration. sanctions, even if they're outside the scope of the deal. can you clarify the administration's position? that int we were told supportpport, iran's for terrorism, that we could slap additional sanctions on it and it would not violate the jcpoa. had launched missiles, ballistic missiles, and we wanted to penalize them, that that would not butt heads with the jcpoa. but now we hear differently. with the administration veto new

non-nuclear sanctions against iran if the sanctions are not d-listed to re-enlist entities? with the imposition of nonnuclear sanctions violate our obligations under the jcpoa? mr. szubin: i would offer wants tor mull if he provide his view from the state department. our view has not been no new sanctions since implementation day. to the contrary, leasing the administration announced multiple rounds of new sanctions designations in asap we the areas you are talking about. iran's support for terrorism, hezbollah -- we have been knockuing on our path to

out the key proxies these companies are using to procure materials and move money. we have been very consistent on that, from exactly our statements announcing the deal and honest throughout, including less than two months ago new designations of the airline, and new designations against the liquid propellant missile companies within iran that work g.der the shi thee is no consistency with jcpoa, if it's outside the nuclear space so long that it -- as it doesn't undermine with our commitments to fulfill what we committed to fulfill in the deal. the question becomes what legislation are we looking at, and what are the details.

rep. engel: i think it's not so terrible to have congress come up with new sanctions, if we feel iran is violating its agreements. certainly in the launching of the ballistic missiles, the flagman spoke about the with death to israel on a 2 -- it, does a provocation. when they continue to support terrorists, that's a provocation. sometimes it's important for congress to speak out on these things. we've had a lot of hearings on iran, and the implementation of jcpoa. some of our witnesses have said,

if congress would have come out with new sanctions, it would give it that extra edge. it would really send a message to iran that we are aware of what they're doing and we're not tolerating it. it's true the president could implement and has the authority to implement new sanctions without the congress acting, but i really think it's important that the congress acts. i would hope the administration would seem to lessen its comingon to congress forward with new sanctions. after all, when they jcpoa was put in front of the congress, we were told specifically that it would not affect further sanctions against iran for things other than their nuclear program, which would be terrorism and ballistic missiles. that continues to be our view. i do want to point out that congress' sanction contribution

continues to be potent right now. i'm glad i have the opportunity. when we announce new designations in terrorism, human rights, ballistic missile, syria, yemen space that have to do with iranian actors, though sanctions do not just touch u.s. actors. though sanctions have extraterritorial effects around the world, which means if a financial institution in east asia, africa, europe or the gulf engages in transactions with any the missile actors, the human rights designated actors, thanks to congress, they face the secondary sanctions, namely a potential cut off from the u.s. financial system. those are supercharged sanctions, and is only thanks to congress' efforts. though stand behind every designation we issue even since implementation. that's why the chairman and i feel so strongly

that congress needs to continue to be involved. wonderingwith -- i'm if ambassador mull has anything to add. mr. mull: i think mr. szubin stated clearly that we knew sanctions on iran's behavior outside of the nuclear agreement would not be a violation of the jcpoa. we been clear about that publicly as well as directly with our iranian counterparts when they try to make that argument. we've been very clear throughout the negotiations and as recently as my last meeting with a , thatce last week sanctions on such things as missile launches which are inconsistent with security council resolution 2231,d estabilization, support for terrorism will continue to have consequences from the united

states government. to chris smithgo of new jersey. rep. smith: thank you for your .igorous oversight let me say a couple of points and then i will ask a question or two. this week our nobel prize-winning president lifted the lethal arms embargo on a cruel dictatorship, vietnam, a nation that has crushed dissent, journalists, bloggers, religious believers, "the new york times" had asked him not to do it -- he did it anyway, despite the fact -- words are cheap in washington and in hanoi as well. two weeks ago i had a hearing right here with mrs. lou, the wife of a human rights defender i had met in 2005. he likes all many others

fighting for fundamental human rights, he's in prison. administration officials have repeatedly testified that the deal in no way would impact are however then, administration has only sanctioned one iranian official for human rights abuses since they started negotiations. vietnam, is a cruel dictatorship that uses torture to hurt and even kill dissiden ts. why is that the case? credibility and messaging, even if it's clever and aggressive, needs to be honest. article"new york times" paints a highly disturbing picture into the administration.

" piecew york times mentions, the narrative that dan wrote shaped the story of the iran deal that began in 2013 with the moderate factions inside led by the rouhani regim e that beat hardliners. " points out that was actively misleading, to convey an impression that people would follow up. in the article that we created an onslaught of experts cheerleading for the deal. they are saying things that validated what we had given them to say. that he wasts out able to spoonfeed 27-year-old reporters, who knew nothing about this foreign policy, and they with the so-called experts constantly doing the echo chamber. that's not the way to do a deal.

this,ou do things like you are duping our ranking member. i too felt a sense of, are we missing something here? the more we look at the deal, the more we realize we are not. on the human rights deal, if you could speak to that. what is your view of this "new york times" magazine piece trade abassador mull, i ask you specific question about the iranian material trait you said it had been taken out and put on a russian boat, and we did not know where it met. do we know where it is now? been a u.s. validation as to its whereabouts and whether or not it is under lock and key? thanks, congressman smith. on human rights, there has been no doubt about the strength of u.s. feeling about this disturbing human rights situation in iran. we made that clear publicly and repeatedly reports in our

religious freedom report. i cannot from to you that in every meeting in which i participated with secretary kery with a rainy and counterparts, we've made very clear our concerns. it was those concerns that really motivated our effort to get -- every human rights violation is a serious one. we are most inserted with the human rights of americans are violated. our concern about that motivated our hard work to win the release of american detainees in iran earlier this year. i pledge to you although human rights is outside the scope of the nuclear agreement, i know secretary kerry feels passionately about these issues and will continue to remain engaged. i have worked in the foreign service for more than 34 years now. i've never seen an international agreement that is had greater transparency than the iran nuclear deal. it was released in full to the public on the very day it was

agreed to -- rep. smith: we could not read the iaea inspection regime, could we? i don't know what they are doing. do we take them at their word? transparency needs to have a little asterisk on it. mr. mull:the iaea has continued to report and will continue to do so. we grieve the congress dozens of times throughout the negotiation and since then, and we are available in open and closed session to do so. your question about the enriched material that was removed from iran to russia, i was in russia last month and if i can confirm that that material is secure in no risk of itss further proliferation, i would be please to refute in a closed session on more details on that if you would like. >> we are going to go to mr. brad sherman of california.

erman: people in this country what is to get along with everyone around the world. we long for peace. there are those who say that sanctions contradict that. but when you look at what iran hundreds ofsyria, thousands, perhaps a million withe killed by assad, providedvided, weapons by the iranian government -- when you see people killed by gas, webombs and sarin realize the right response to the iranian regime cannot be kumbaya. house was divided on the iran deal, but we were divided on one thing -- sanctions work.

some believe that the sanctions got us a good deal. some believe the sanctions would have gotten us a better deal. the only agreement was that sanctions work. i join with the ranking member in saying we ought to have new sanctions. ambassador mull, i think you for clarifying that that will happen. i know the department of treasury does additional designations. you are doing your job. we need to do our job by passing statutes. is it correctl, to say that the administration's view of reauthorizing or extending the iran sanctions act would in no way violate the jcpoa? mr. mull: to be honest, congressman, we are aware of your interest in this house. believe we need to apple in now because it's valid through the end of this year. erman: sometimes congress

likes to get our work done. i didn't ask you the house schedule. we might want to get our work done sooner or later. is it a violation of the jcpoa to simply keep our statute going the way it was the day the jcpoa was signed? mr. mull: i would be hesitant to speculate, because i know under previous -- there have been -- rep. sherman: if it were published in the exact language that existed the day the jcpoa was signed, would that be a violation of the jcpoa? we have to look at what was published. sherman: you know was published. mr. szubin, you talked about branches of u.s. banks. does that apply equally to subsidiaries? does it depend how it's legally authorized? mr. szubin: it does depend. sherman: do you need

legislation in saying the u.s. bank that owns the subsidiary would be subject to penalties if it allowed its subsidiary to do what its branch could not do? mr. szubin: the distinction does exist. that's not unique to iran. i can tell you and practice, i don't know of a single subsidiary of a u.s. financial institution that is considering doing this business, given their global platforms. -- platforms, i think it's possible. rep. sherman: new legislation would be helpful. you referred to the airline. congressman henry and i have sent a letter to the eu shoulddor saying eu designate the airline under u.n. anti-terrorism sanctions. the airline cannot fly to europe or asia without ground service. it is now getting ground service from two companies, airport

handling, based in italy, and ahs group, based in germany. these same service companies also service u.s. airlines, put aside the terrorist risk of having the same handlers do would the treasury department consider listing these two airport handling companies before doing business with the airline? don't comment on who we might designate in the future. mahan tinued ability of is to fly around the world something i have raised in every i visited. i don't think it should be treated like a regular airline. it. sherman: the way to do would be to designate these handlers. our friends in the ukraine ask

us for so much. you would think they would have listened to you when you made that point. major autoee manufacturers, including fiat, chrysler, and restate he's investing in auto manufacturing in iran. it's only a matter of time before the products of these investments which are also being made by volvo will be used by the irgc. would investing in auto factories that are producing transportation for the irgc be sanctionable? mr. szubin: any type of material support to the irgc would be sanctionable. you buildan: what if in auto factory that sells its trucks to the irgc? mr. szubin: typically what were looking for if we are designating a company is to see if it is a waiting partner or colluding with the designated

terrorist group. investment in a firm that creates cars that then are subsequently appropriated by the irgc would be a little bit too attenuated -- .ep. sherman: just sold my auto dealer cooperates with me. i take my car in for service. he's a cooperative guy. are you saying that auto manufacturing facilities that sell trucks to the irgc are going to be uncooperative? mr. szubin: no, although i might need to get the name of your auto dealer, because i don't have that experience. are looking for and going after new designation targets is those were working with the designated entity, if we see companies that are propping up the irgc, whether with weapons, funds, experience -- rep. sherman: i would ask you to look at these investments. thoseition to sanctioning to do the wrong thing, warning

those who are thinking of doing the wrong thing, whether you choose to do it publicly or privately, and i look forward to giving you the address of fee at chrysler,olvo -- fiat volvo, and mercedes. >> i think mr. sherman's point is that more banks, ticketing agents, ground service providers and companies that are providing support for mahan air should be sanctioned. we go to mr. dana rohrabacher of california. rohrabacher: i'd like to thank you and the ranking member for taking seriously the responsibility we have to see what we disagreed on with you in this agreement with the regime in iran. , the purpose was to

prevent iran from it some point obtaining the capability of mass the governments it considered to be under the command of the great satan, meaning israel and the united states and anyone who disagrees with them. so, we did not want them to have this right to obliterate their enemies. at least not the right, but the capability. this agreement was supposed to prevent that. today we have three witnesses who are basically saying it was a good agreement and it brought us to a safer world.

what is concerning to me is when we go back, and as the chairman pointed out, the agreement flaws and perhaps some intentional flaws. one flow would be that it expires after a certain length of time, and so we can see iran moving toward that goal u nimpeded now to get themselves to a point after expiration they will then be able to have the power and force they want. isn more disconcerting to me that the treaty may well have contained what i call weasel words. i was a journalist for a number of years. it's very easy to find out when somebody is trying to lie to you without lying to you.

way word something in a that it appears to be accomplishing something that is not a cop pushing. as the chairman just pointed out actualquestioning, the words were changed to make them less enforceable. shouldn't that be a warning sign to anybody who takes this treaty seriously? how do you explain that? the chairman had two or three --mples, where for example let's go directly to the one i will ask you about. and we have a situation where a rocket is designed -- as long as it's not designed to carry a nuclear

weapon, the iranians now because we have changed -- there's a weasel word put into the treaty that they now can work and obtain that nuclear weapons delivery system as long as it wasn't designed to be a nuclear weapons delivery system. that was changed to the point when before they would not have been permitted that. why was that change? i was not involved in the negotiation of that word in that resolution. i do not agree that this is a dramatic difference in the effective resolution. rep. rohrabacher: in one wording, it prohibited them from getting a rocket. after the wording, it now permits them to have it because with the strict definition, the wording was they now have an opening to possessing nuclear weapons delivery system. that's not dramatic?

that's huge, except it's being hidden with weasel words. >> the permission of iran obtaining ballistic missiles, there remains a prohibition in that resolution. missiles thater: were designed to deliver nuclear weapons, not technology that can achieve that goal. if it can carry a nuclear weapon , even if it's not designed to do so -- maybe it's designed to put up satellites. we don't want them to have that if that indeed will permit them to drop a nuclear weapon in washington dc with a missile losing as a delivery system. that is very dramatic. we have been discerned. ,here is a disservice to us

and deception. a weasel word is a deception to make people think you are a cobbler she something you're not accomplishing. the interpretation -- this is not a problem of interpretation. this is a problem with actually a negotiation failure that we have obviously reached an agreement with them, meaning the mullah regime that murders its own people will permit them to achieve their objective. this was not a good treaty to begin with. i appreciate your testimony. obviously i disagree with it. we go to mr. gerry connolly of virginia. connolly: ambassador mull, agreement address their support for hezbollah, right?

mr. mull: no. rep. connolly: certainly it addressed the issue of money laundering. mr. mull: no. rep. connolly: syrian-assad support? mr. mull: no. rep. connolly: mahan air? mr. mull: no. any furthery: expression of death to america or death to israel? mr. mull: no. rep. connolly: what did the agreement address? mr. mull: the agreement address delimiting iran's capability to develop material to build a nuclear weapon. uniquennolly: that's a approach. surely in the cold war with the soviet union, we have a different model. we addressed every negative behavior the soviets were engaged in in every agreement we -- weched, including

addressed every aspect of behavior, unlike this agreement. mr. mull: that's not correct. rep. connolly: how? let's get to this agreement. does this agreement require iran to modify the iraq heavywater research reactor and to fill the reactor: andrea with concrete? mr. mull: yes. rep. connolly: did they do that? mr. mull: yes. rep. connolly: oh, my lord. did it require the reduction of installed centrifuges from 19,000 5100 to 4? mr. mull: yes. rep. connolly: did they achieve that? mr. mull: yes. rep. connolly: did it require that uranium enrichment be reduced to a level of 3.67%? mr. mull: yes. rep. connolly: did they achieve that? mr. mull: yes. specifynolly: did is that their stockpile be reduced and the rest of it sent out of the country? mr. mull: yes.

rep. connolly: did they do that? mr. mull: yes. i confirmed in russia where it is being stored. rep. connolly: did they agree to allow the inspection and limitation on centrifuge production and uranium mills under surveillance by international auspices? mr. mull: yes. rep. connolly: have they complied? mr. mull: yes. rep. connolly: has the internet will tell atomic -- international atomic energy agency verify this? mr. mull: yes. rep. connolly: i've got to admit, i find it -- we've had over 30 hearings on this. oh my gosh, i was worried. i had trouble sleeping when i listen to my colleagues predict cheating, stealing, subterfuge, evasion, and i hear you, ambassador mull tell me, maybe they wanted to do that they didn't gratis and now that we're

having hearings on compliance, we're talking about everything but compliance. we're talking about other behavior, which is to be conde mned. i condemn it. i voted for sanctions on the other behavior. did the agreement prohibit any further u.s. sanctions for any purpose? are we prohibited under this agreement for looking at new sanctions on unrelated behavior? that is to say, unrelated to the nuclear agreement? mr. mull: correct. rep. connolly: we can entertain other sanctions for their support for hezbollah? mr. mull: yes. rep. connolly: or putting sanctions on mahan air? mr. mull: yes. >> the gentleman asked a question early on -- if you would like an answer to that. withhold --n will mr. connolly.

these arguments are to me a smokescreen for not addressing the main issue. and the other argument used, which is clever but still flawed, which is, perfect is the enemy of the good. the fact that it didn't -- it's not in perpetuity. we couldn't achieve iran forever foreswearing any nuclear ambition means this is flawed. was that ever in the cards, ambassador mull? i thought we hadn't even talked to them for almost 30 years. so to get them to agree to this and comply seems to be, i don't know to me, some kind of achievement. why don't you comment because my time is up. ambassador mull: yes, sir. i believe it is an achievement. we believe that we and our allies in the region are considerably safer because of the achievements and full implementation of this agreement. in terms of whether it ever sunsets, while it is true

certain restrictions on iran's capability to -- on its stockpile and so forth, expire after certain periods, iran's commitment and full access to the international atomic energy agency is in perpetuity. so whenever the iaea believes that iran is moving to develop a nuclear -- military application for its nuclear program, it will report as such regardless when that happens. and we have every capability through law and through previous executive orders to respond immediately to put back in place the very pressures that brought about this deal in the first place. so we are very confident that we have the tools to make sure that this -- the security from this deal is long lasting and if it's not, we can change the -- turn the tables and go back to the status quo.

mr. rohrabacher: just to answer mr. connolly's point which was, yes, the reagan administration it was different. the fact is that in the reagan our goal was to bring down the soviet union. even as we negotiated with them on various treaties, we had efforts all across the globe to bring down that government, which actually what we should be doing with the mullah regime and we are not doing. mr. wilson: thank you very much. i want to thank also congressman -- the ranking member, eliot engel. i was grateful to actually vote with both of them opposing this dangerous deal. sadly, as we hear more and more about it, it becomes more dangerous. and it's so sad that we have a mullah regime which is suppressing the dynamic people of iran that continue as was

cited to proclaim death to america, death to israel. that is -- has not changed. i just find it incredible. my concerns, ambassador mull, have been verified through the iaea report and that is in early march the head of the international atomic energy agency disclosed that certain agreements reached under the deal, dangerous deal, limit inspectors from publicly reporting on potential violations by the mullah regime. the director general of the iaea, which is responsible for ensuring iran complies with the agreement, told reporters that his agency is no longer permitted to release details about iran's nuclear program in compliance with the deal. the recent reports are devoid of details about critical implementation issues, including the amounts of enriched uranium

in iran, nature of centrifuge, rotor and bellows manufacturing, and advanced centrifuge research and development activities. why would the administration agree to limit iaea reporting? why has the iaea reporting on iran been constrained? what specific component of the deal or u.n. security council resolution that implemented it limits the iaea reporting? and are there any americans or canadians who are serving as inspectors? ambassador mull: congressman, thanks for those questions. last week i was in vienna and i met with the director general of the iaea. i believe those press comments attributed to him are inaccurate and misinterpreted. it's quite clear that the iaea will be reporting every three months on the status of

implementation. in terms of the level of detail, i agree with you that in the last report there was less detail than in previous reports. that's because the iranian nuclear program is significantly smaller than what it was as a result of that deal. the iaea confirmed that iran was within all of the numerical limits to which it committed. director general assured me last week that the iaea would continue to address in its forthcoming reports iran's client -- whether or not iran is complying with every element of the deal. i think you can count on full reporting to continue from the -- mr. wilson: clearly, it was stated that it's devoid of details by critical implementation issues and whether it's low or not, it could say low or nonexistent the, including the amounts of low enriched uranium in iran, the nature of centrifuge and bellows manufacturing, and advanced centrifuge research and development activities.

that should be easy to say yes or no. and then, mr. countryman, the development of missile technology in testing, to me it's incredible. it's very revealing. there was only one reason you would be developing an intercontinental ballistic missile capability and that is to deliver a nuclear weapon. it would be against american families. and the past month we have had the spectacle of iran testing a missile which in hebrew, so people who would be affected understand, as cited by mr. sherman, and that is that in hebrew it's stated, israel will be wiped off the map. this was on a test. how can we possibly trust such a regime that makes such defiance as -- in the aftermath of this dangerous deal? mr. countryman: i don't trust them further than i can spit. mr. wilson: great. what measures are there -- i'm grateful i worked with

congressman moulton in the ndaa we have a requirement thereby will be a response to missile testing and identification of missile testing. is there anything in place to let the american people know what's going on? mr. countryman: i'm sorry. what's going on -- mr. wilson: to identify a missile test and the implication of the missile test? by iran? mr. countryman: there's a lot of information. some of which is not appropriate for this forum, but we are always prepared to brief members on the full range of information that we have about iranian missile tests. mr. wilson: american families are at risk. they need to in a moment i yield the balance of my time. mr. royce: mr. cicilline of rhode island. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. chairman and witnesses. i appreciate the testimony with respect to the compliance. i think for many of us who supported this deal we are pleased that compliance with the requirements have been met. that iran has taken the steps required.

i think part of the challenge for us, though, is we were told during this process that getting the nuclear issue off the table was so critical and that we actually could expect iran would engage in additional destabilizing activity. in fact, people suggested some of the resource that is they would have access to and some of the political needs that the regime would have would cause them to be worse in many areas. in terrorism and human rights and other areas. so we were assured that this would give us an opportunity to push back hard in these other areas because the danger of a nuclear iran would be off the table. i was persuaded by that. i'm very interested to hear the administration's efforts with respect to pushing back hard. i want to begin in the area of human rights. what has the administration done since the signing of the jcpoa with regard to imposing sanctions on human rights violators in iran, by all accounts there's been an increase in human rights violations.

i think in part as the regime shows they are still in charge despite this agreement. we have seen an increase in human rights violations. what has the administration done since the signing of the jcpoa with respect to human rights violators in iran, if anything? ambassador mull: thanks for the question. as i mentioned earlier to congressman smith the obama administration is deeply concerned about the human rights situation in iran. and in confronting that situation, we have a variety of tools available at our disposal. sanctions are certainly one important part. mr. cicilline: i probably should have been more precise. has the administration done anything with respect to the imposition of sanctions on any individual or entity since the signing of the jcpoa with respect to human rights violations? ambassador mull: there has not

been a specific sanction on human rights case. since the signing. but we have managed to address human rights concerns, for example, by getting americans out of -- mr. cicilline: i congratulate you on that. the existing sanctions regime has not caused the administration to impose a single imposition for human rights. second question, there's been a loft discussion about additional sanctions. i think everyone acknowledges the jcpoa deals with nuclear sanctions and that nonnuclear sanctions are -- remain a tool. i would ask -- mr. szubin, you recently expressed some concerns about the overuse of sanctions. and that sanctions, imposition of sanctions can impose costs. do you think we should impose additional sanctions on iran particularly in the context of the ballistic missile testing? it appears as if it is not a violation of jcpoa according to the administration but clearly a violation of security council resolution 2231. if additional sanctions are not

useful tool, what do you suggest we do to dissuade or put pressure on iran not to engage in this very nefarious activity with respect to ballistic missiles? mr. szubin: do i want to clarify the quote you are referencing about the potential overuse of sanctions was made in a broader discussion about this tool as we move potentially into -- for certain into a new administration. and how to use this tool, the tool of sanctions both on the congressional side and the executive branch side into a judicious way that would preserve its influence. with respect to their ballistic missile program i think sanctions are a key piece. i think we do need to keep the pressure on. and i find particularly important those brokers, procurement agents who are helping to mask the ultimate end

user. that's who the group i mentioned earlier, that's who iran's missile agencies are using to get the parts they need in violation of u.n. security council resolutions. the more we can expose those actors, both the individuals involved in the companies, the better and more we have seen it frustrate them. i do want to say that that public effort is not the only thing we have going. obviously there's strategic interdictions that are going on some of which you would see in the papers, some not. we have our own version of that in a financial sense, which is payments that are being made to broker procurement of dual use items where sometimes -- we are sometimes able to block those payments mid transfer which not only causes real damage to the procurement efforts, but also can sometimes spark a lot of useful intelligence from the

affected individual. mr. cicilline: am i correct in assuming that it would be useful in terms of sending a message to the iranians that congress and the united states is serious about stopping their ballistic missile system and stopping their gross violations of human rights by enacting additional sanctions in a nonnuclear sphere as an expression of congress and ultimately the american people's strong condemnation of ballistic missiles or human rights violations, it would strengthen your hand as the administration to know that, for the iranians to know, there are members of congress that feel very strongly about this reflecting the sentiments of the american people and we are committed to using all the tools at our disposal outside the jcpoa to really effectively dissuade them and persuade them and impose costs on them for engaging in ballistic missile testing or human rights violations? mr. szubin: i think the focus of this body of congress on these nonnuclear threats has been and remains essential, and frankly the fact it's been a bipartisan focus has been extremely powerful and it does give us leverage in talking to the iranians and international allies. with respect to the enactment of new sanctions legislation, i say what i said to the chairman.

as a technical matter the deal is talking about nuclear sanctions. as practical matter, if legislation were to undermine the deal by taking off the table commitments that we had put on the table, that would be a problem. obviously we don't want to see new legislation interfere with our fulfillment of the jcpoa. mr. cicilline: i yield back. mr. royce: mr. randy weber of texas. mr. weber: ambassador mull, you said in your opening comments jcpoa had been implemented cutting the enrichment program by more than 2/3 and the breakout time from two months to more than a year. it's your estimation that it went from two months, 12 months on your opinion we gained 10 months? ambassador mull: yes, sir. mr. weber: just as we have preserved our abilities to snap back penalties. then you further said at the request of our foreign friends, i'm paraphrasing, we have been

explaining the lifting of our sanctions. so the explaining of the lifting of those sanctions, that discussion time is going to be -- is that going to teak a month or two? ambassador mull: we try to be responsive, congressman, to whenever our international partners express questions about u.s. law and u.s. procedures, not just on iran but on anything. since the implementation day was reached in the agreement back in january, there's been a flood of requests, mostly from the world financial centers in asia -- mr. weber: a flood of requests from around the world. in the event that iran would get very aggressive and start doing things again we felt like a snap back sanction was in order here, it would take time, would it not, to explain to our friends around the world as to why we think they violated it and why we think an action is necessary? ambassador mull: i don't think

it would take that much time. mr. weber: how much time? ambassador mull: to notify the world of an iranian violation? mr. weber: that and to explain and get their buy in why snap back sanctions were necessary. ambassador mull: well, i think -- certainly if we decided to snap back we would make an instant announcement of that. i couldn't speculate if there are questions from our -- mr. weber: it would take a month or two. i'll leave it at that. it's not going to be instantaneous. i think snapback is the wrong word there. mr. countryman you said it's not sanctions but u.n. resolutions that cause iran to change its pursuit of weapons. not sanctions or u.n. resolutions but trade control. i notice you didn't read from your remarks. you pretty much spoke from the heart, i guess. if trade control was really the force du jour there we needed, didn't we have member going in the right direction?

-- didn't we have them going in the right direction? the sanctions? they were hurting. mr. countryman: if you'll give me a moment. i make a distinction between sanctions that are intended to impose an economic cost and change behavior, and that's something that my colleague, mr. szubin, specializes in. and strategic trade control which is how the united states cooperates with countries around the world to ensure that states of concern and nonstate actors don't get their hands on dual use technology, whether it's nuclear, missile related, or anything else. mr. weber: you're saying the force behind the sanctions was the trade controls. mr. countryman: there have been a number of institutions in place for years. the missile technology, control regime, for the most advanced countries in the world on ballistic missile technology that cooperate against providing that kind of technology to countries like iran. the proliferation security

initiatives started under the bush administration and they are back. mr. weber: i get what you meant. the denial of access to our monetary system being somewhat one of those sanctions agreed? mr. countryman: i would put that again, i'm not trying to make fine distinctions but i would say that's more in the category of economic sanctions. mr. weber: i want to go to mr. szubin on this because he did say, supercharged sanctions could be used. describe for us, if you would, the difference between normal sanctions, lesser sanctions, and supercharged sanctions. mr. szubin: i would be happy to. i did not mean to coin a new term and certainly not that term. mr. weber: when i was in high school supercharging meant something different. go ahead. mr. szubin: what i meant was to refer to the reach of a targeted sanction. so just to give you a very specific example.

if we target a human rights actor in democratic republic of congo and add them to the sanctions list, that binds the angsts of u.s. banks, companies, foreign actors are still permitted without any fear of u.s. consequences to do business, as long as they keep their transactions out of the u.s. so they can't be routing those transfers through us, but if they want to do it in local currency, fine. when it comes to iran, what congress did was to say, no. anyone who does business, anywhere around the world, in whatever currency, with an iranian actor that's on the blacklist faces a potential cutoff from the u.s. financial system. that's what i was referring to as these greatly augmented sanctions designation. mr. weber: thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. royce: mr. meadows of north carolina who was instrumental in the hezbollah sanctions legislation, we referenced earlier.

he was the driving force, the driver behind the bill. mr. meadows. mr. meadows: i thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you for your leadership in that particular effort. mr. szubin, let me come to you. all these sanctions and as we talk about this it gets very confusing, and so we have removed some sanctions, left some in place. to the average elected official, do we have really the intellectual discernment to decide which sanction is which and when it should it be applied and when it should not? is that easily done? mr. szubin: i sure hope we have that capability. that's what my office is there to do. mr. meadows: it's not necessarily what my office or other elected officials offices in terms of figuring out sanctions and how they should apply. if they apply in every case, is that correct? so if we have questions you are the go-to person to figure out whether we are complying, is that correct? mr. szubin: we would be happy to provide any consultation on

that. mr. meadows: since we are talking today about compliance and centrifuges and other kinds of other things, can you tell me, ambassador mull, when we look at the jcpoa talking about centrifuges, they were, quote, to be made inoperable. you have changed the language to be disabled, and most of those centrifuges from what i understand have been turned off and put in a storage place in iran, is that correct? ambassador mull: sir, the centrifuge that is have been dismantled had all of the equipment -- they are allowed -- mr. meadows: disassembled? ambassador mull: they are allowed 5,060 to be operating. mr. meadows: of the 19,000 you disassembled all of them and they can't be put back in place quickly. ambassador mull: that's right. mr. meadows: are they being stored in iran? ambassador mull: yes, sir.

mr. meadows: how long would it take them to get out of storage and put them back in operation if they decided to do that today? ambassador mull: if they decided to do so, it would depend, some of them are stored -- mr. meadows: they got rid of some not in use. what i'm talking about is the ones they were supposed to dismantle, how long would it take them to get that from storage and get them -- ambassador mull: this factors into our calculation of breakout time. it would be a matter of several months. mr. meadows: not my question. great answer to a question i didn't ask. how long would it take to take the centrifuge from the storage and actually get it back in place again and flick on the switch? ambassador mull: well, again, it depends on the centrifuge. it depends on the location. all of this, the storage is completely, sir, under monitoring full-time by the iaea.

mr. meadows: i didn't ask that. that's two answers to questions i didn't ask. i asked you how quickly from the storage could they be back in place? a month? ambassador mull: which centrifuge and from which location? mr. meadows: let's take some of the centrifuges of the 19,000 we put in storage. what would be the fastest time that they could get one of them that is most operable and put it back in place? the fastest time. ambassador mull: sir, i don't have an immediate answer for you. i would have to consult -- mr. meadows: range? seven days? ambassador mull: i have to check with our technical engineers. mr. meadows: let me tell you the reason why i ask. i've got a letter here that went to governor mccrory from you which by many descriptions is a pro-iranian marketing material suggesting that we ought to do more business with iran. and it says we need to check on sanctions and asking the

governor to do that, of which they don't have the expertise, they have asked me about the expertise in terms of compliance. why would you send a pro-iranian marketing letter to my governor? ambassador mull: sir -- mr. meadows: who instructed you to do that? ambassador mull: i disagree that's pro-marketing. mr. meadows: we'll disagreement who instructed you. in the agreement the -- ambassador mull: in the agreement the united states government permitted to inform the state and local authorities about changes in the nuclear situation in iran. mr. meadows: you sent a letter like this to all 50 states? ambassador mull: that's right. because the united states government -- mr. meadows: in doing that, you went to great lengths, number of paragraphs, to talk about how great this is and all that. instead of just saying you need to look at changing your laws as it relates to that, why was it in such a pro-iranian manner? ambassador mull: sir, i disagree it was in a pro-iranian manner. mr. meadows: we'll give it to

the press and let them opine on t is this something you released to the press? ambassador mull: i did not. mr. meadows: we'll let them do that. i guess the other question is, since we have our ally, israel, am of them are under attack by a b.d.s. movement, is the statement department going to send out a similar letter saying that states should not actually embark on a b.d.s. movement for all 50 states for our ally, israel? ambassador mull: i'm sorry. a b.d.s. movement? mr. meadows: boycott. ambassador mull: sir, our relations -- mr. meadows: it's troubling you wouldn't know what that is. i yield back. mr. royce: mr. scott desjarlais of tennessee. mr. desjarlais: mr. countryman, did i hear you say it was your belief that iran never intended to slow its testing of ballistic missiles? mr. countryman: i don't know

about never. it's difficult to talk about intent. but the record shows that they have had a consistent study program of ballistic missile development for missiles of various range similar to that of a number of other countries in the region and beyond the middle east. mr. desjarlais: it's your job to prosanctions for violations? mr. countryman: it's my job with the support of a number of agencies, both to apply strategic trade controls to inhibit iran acquiring the technology, and in cooperation with treasury and others to apply sanctions to entities in iran and outside iran that violate those restrictions. mr. desjarlais: you stated in your written testimony all the sang authorities we need are already in place and repeatedly used our own domestic authorities to sanction and will continue to do so as warranted.

you can say that you've got the authorities to deal with t. but that rings hollow the iran, north korea, and syria nonproliferation act of 2006, which levies u.s. sanctions on entities connected with iran ballistic activity, but the g.a.o. study commissioned by this committee from last year shows the state department to be completely delinquent in applying these sanctions. the report that triggers designation for sanctions for 2011 showed up in december of 2014, 36 months late. the last report sat on the deputy secretary's desk for more than a year, according to g.a.o. the state department needs to comply with six month reporting cycle and minimalize the delays in its ability to impose sanctions, would you agree?

mr. desjarlais: they also stated that political concerns, such as international negotiations relations with countries involved in transfers, can delay the state implementing the process. would you agree with that? mr. countryman: no. mr. desjarlais: the ben rhodes comment and all that has nothing to do with protecting the president's legacy in your opinion? mr. countryman: i don't know which comment you are referring to. mr. desjarlais: the echo chamber. the fact they were trying to hide the fact this is not a good deal. you said that you don't think you're completely delinquent. do you not think 36 months behind on a six-month window is delinquent? mr. countryman: if you wanted a report every six months you would get an inadequate report. i think that we have to do better and faster. mr. desjarlais: they are shooting missiles now. there are missiles that have -- israel needs to be abolished.

and you're saying we have all the people in place to apply these sanctions. that's not comforting when we are looking at two, three year delays in a program where we have a deal that's designed to curtail the development of nuclear weapons, but a ballistic missile is the essential component to delivering these not only to israel but our allies and the united states. you say you have to do better doesn't give me much comfort. where are the delinquent reports right now, where are they in the process? mr. countryman: first, i would note that it's not our only tool. it's a congressionally mandated tool and we take that very seriously and we want it to be a good decision process and one that can be justified and explained fully to you when it is delivered. but we have other tools available if we need them in order to move against individual entities. in terms of where we are in the report, i am hopeful that you will get the 2013 report in the very near future.

the 2014 report is well in preparation and as i said, we are trying to -- mr. desjarlais: do you know where they are at. we are talking reports from three years ago. you are saying we need to do bert. do you know where they are at? mr. countryman: yes. mr. desjarlais: who has them? mr. countryman: they are in the process and will be completed shortly. mr. desjarlais: we are going to do bert. we are three years behind. they are shooting missiles. we are in the middle of a deal that secretary kerry all admitted it's not a matter if it fails it's more when. which could be a year, two years, three years. you are applying sanctions from reports from two to three years ago things happening now. is that what you're telling us? mr. countryman: i'm saying we have sanctioned the primary entities involved in iran's missile program. and if we rush this to you any sooner, it will not make a dramatic change in the entities that are already sanctioned. mr. desjarlais: or the president may look bad. mr. countryman: pardon me?

mr. desjarlais: or the president may look bad as the g.a.o. reported that's the reason for the delays. mr. countryman: the g.a.o. not correct. mr. royce: we are going to mr. lee zeldin of new york. mr. zeldin: ambassador mull, you referenced earlier historic verification and monitoring regime. have you yet read the verification regime outlined between the iaea and iran? ambassador mull: i'm not aware. which side deal? mr. zeldin: the deals between the iaea and iran to decide how the jcpoa will be implemented. what governs the verification of the iran nuclear deal. ambassador mull: iran and the iaea have a confidential safeguards agreement just like every member of the iaea. mr. zeldin: have you read that? ambassador mull: no, sir. mr. zeldin: i would offer you for you for secretary kerry, it's difficult to vouch for a

historic verification and monitoring regime when you don't know what the historic verification and monitoring regime is. all you know is what's contained in the jcpoa. but you don't know what's included in the agreement between the iaea and iran especially when we read about how iran might be collecting their own soil samples. responsible for inspecting some of their nuclear sites. as we read what the associated press reports as far as the verification of the jcpoa, if you haven't yet read it, it's impossible to say that it's a historic verification and monitoring regime because you don't know what it is. the administration says this deal is not built on trust but verification. why hasn't the obama administration, why didn't obama administration ask the iranians to sign the jcpoa? ambassador mull: why did we ask them -- mr. zeldin: didn't we ask them to sign it? ambassador mull: the jcpoa is a political agreement.

and that emerged -- evolved that way in the course of negotiations that in order to preserve our ability to exact the kind of penalties, kind of nimble ability and agility we would have to exact penalties if the agreement were not implemented correctly, we believe it served our interest best to have this as a political agreement. mr. zeldin: i would assume if you bought cars in your life, houses, you have signed many agreements, you have signed your name on all sorts of things. i would imagine if there was an example we need to come up with of something where you should get a signature, that the jcpoa is a great example of something where you ask the iranians would you mind signing it. the administration decided not to. what is a political commitment? the secretary kerry has referred to the jcpoa not as a treaty, the reason is he said because he wouldn't have been able to get it passed.

that's what he said right here. the reason why this is this isn't a treaty is because it wouldn't be passed. ridiculous answer, moving on. he says that's not an executive agreement. it's a political commitment. what's a political commitment as defined by the obama administration? ambassador mull: political commitment is one that is the official policy of the united states government that we are fully committed as a government to implementing the deal on its terms. as a political commitment we are or any future government is free to withdraw from that agreement with a minimum of legal difficulty. we have decided that -- mr. zeldin: you are allowed to withdraw from the political commitment without legal difficulty? ambassador mull: that's right. yes. mr. zeldin: that's what we are defining the jcpoa as something that you can withdraw from without legal difficulty? ambassador mull: well, if other parties, namely iran decides to withdraw from it, there are going to be serious consequences for that. we have preserved by

establishing this is a political agreement a freedom of action of ensuring there are dramatic consequences from withdrawal from that agreement. mr. zeldin: should the iran sanctions act be extended as is? ambassador mull: i know it's in place until december of this year. we are ready to work with the congress in addressing that question. mr. zeldin: what is the administration's position on the iran sanctions act. should it be extended? ambassador mull: we are billing willing to talk with the congressional leadership about that. mr. zeldin: when do you plan on coming up with a position on the act? ambassador mull: we are opened to work with the congress on this. at your disposal. mr. zeldin: i have a position, the iran sanctions act should be extended as s what say you? ambassador mull: let's sit down and talk about what that means. mr. zeldin: it means the iran sanction act as is should be extended. ambassador mull: in previous efforts to extend the act have been efforts, suggestions to change the implementation of it.

mr. zeldin: extending as is. ambassador mull: there are voices in congress o who would like-to-mend it. we need to have a conversation. mr. zeldin: the obama administration needs to -- i know this whole thing about legacy and turning over to the next administration that iran never acquired a nuclear weapon, but many of you-all need to pray to god the next administration cleans up your mess. i yield back. mr. royce: the gentleman's time has expired. we go to mr. scott perry of pennsylvania. mr. perry: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. countryman, good morning. you started with the administration in september of 2011? is that correct? mr. countryman: i have been a foreign service officer since 1982. i started my current post in 2011. mr. perry: did you have any participation in the negotiation/agreement that we are speaking of, the jcpoa?

mr. countryman: i was not a member of the negotiating team. mr. perry: what was your involvement? you are the assistant secretary for the bureau of international security and nonproliferation. i would think that this would fall under the nonproliferation moniker, if you would. what was your duties regarding this program, the negotiations, the deal, etc.? mr. countryman: as you know the negotiating team was small. and worked very well. i provided a couple of my experts for technical support. mr. perry: you are fully aware of what was happening and who was doing it even though you weren't there. you provided experts but you knew when things were happening. mr. countryman: i knew when people were talking to each other. i did not know a lot about the substance that was being discussed. mr. perry: you knew when people were talking to each other. so then you knew when ben rhodes made the claim that we were

dealing with moderates in iran that that was completely false. that was a fraudulent statement. you knew that because you knew the time line, right? you started in 2011 and you provided expertise and then you would have known that negotiations started in mid 2012. mr. countryman: no. when negotiations began under the previous iranian presidency, the negotiations began under president a hani's presidency. did not know the substance of it. mr. perry: you knew when that happened. when ben rhodes said we were dealing with -- sold this to the american people and the rubes up here in congress, us primitive people up here in congress that questioned the timeline, you knew at that time that that was a falsehood, right? you knew because you knew it started in 2012 and rouhani wasn't elected until june of 2013. knew that, right?

mr. countryman: i do not believe it was a falsehood, and no. mr. perry: did you not know that. mr. countryman: there is no secret. there was nothing concealed here. at the time of the preliminary -- mr. perry: you knew the negotiations started in 2012, right? did you know that? mr. countryman: did i know the instant they began, no. mr. perry: around sometime mid 2012. maybe december 2012. sometime in 2012, right, you knew that, because you were providing material help, right? mr. countryman: i was providing an expert who gave advice. mr. perry: did you know or didn't you know? mr. countryman: did i know what, sir? mr. perry: when negotiations started generally speaking based on that? when did you provide the individuals that helped? mr. countryman: generally speaking i knew. mr. perry: so -- you also knew, i'm thinking, that rouhani wasn't elected until june of 2013, right?

mr. countryman: yes, sir. mr. perry: so then when ben rhodes made the statement that we were dealing with the moderate in rouhani -- mr. countryman: at what time? mr. perry: he made the statement throughout the negotiation because that was what we were supposed to accept here even though many of us did not and questioned that. mr. countryman: in 2013 when the jpoa, the interim agreement with iran was concluded, there was extensive briefing to congress and to the press about the history of contacts between iran and the united states. mr. perry: leading up to that we had questions about that. the word was we were all supposed to accept it these were moderates and this is where the negotiation began. i'm not saying you came to congress and said that, but you knew that that was not necessarily the case. mr. countryman: i strongly disagree, sir. i have not heard any false statements from the white house. i have heard a lot of statements during the discussion of this agreement. but not false ones from the white house.

mr. perry: did you make any statements in support of the claim that this administration was negotiating with moderates from iran on this deal. did you make any of those statements? mr. countryman: not that i recall. mr. perry: did you support any of those statements and any you made. did you support them? mr. countryman: not that i recall. mr. perry: not that you recall. mr. countryman: my focus has been on the substance of the agreement. having done nonproliferation for five years i see an agreement that is the most detailed. mr. perry: that's great. mr. countryman understand while the last questioner outlined the fact there were 36 months late on triggers designation for sanctions, we have a trust issue here. we have a trust issue between congress and the administration who objectively falsified the timeline when many of us here knew t i think you could have said something but chose not to. for whatever reason that's your business. mr. countryman: i have not -- mr. perry: i yield back. mr. royce: we thank the witnesses.

we thank general scott perry and the other members of the committee here for this participation as well. and we'll continue the dialogue on this issue. thank you very much. appreciate your attendance. we stand adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

newsmakers, or gases admiral john richardson who served as chief of naval operations, talking about recent events in the south china sea. watch the interview tomorrow at 6:00 eastern on c-span. now, a house debate on how much money should go toward combating the zika virus. this comes after the senate approved a $.1 billion, which is double the amount previously approved by the house but less than what was requested by the obama administration. first we will hear from nancy pelosi. this is just over half an hour. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his forceful

arguments against this reckless rule that is before us today. i rise, mr. speaker, in strong opposition to the rule and really in a state of wonderment. wonderment about how on earth this congress of the united tates can be so insensitive to a challenge to the american people. it is our responsibility to honor our preamble to the constitution, to promote the general welfare. that's in the preamble of our constitution, which we take an oath to defend. the distinguished gentleman from oklahoma, whom i respect, said just be patient. no. no. 94 days since the president of the united states asked for the amount of resources necessary to address the zika crisis. an amount of money that was

requested by the scientists, documented by the urgency of this challenge for the research and for the prevention and for he resources needed to address this public health emergency. i rise not only as the house democratic leader, i rise as a mother and a grandmother and i speak to parents and grandparents in this body, because that's all i'm allowed to speak to. the questions i have for you e -- how can we ignore the president's scientifically based request expressed in the words of dr. -- the director of the national institutes of allergy and infectious diseases at the national institutes of health, a person, a health care leader in our country, a

researcher, a scientist who has been described by george herbert walker bush as a hero, as a hero in his work for the american people and their public health. he says if i don't get money that the president has asked for, the $1.9 billion, that is going to have a very serious negative impact on our ability to get the job done. and another doctor, the public health agency to stop this threat. he said, never before in history has there been a situation where a bite from a mosquito can result in devastating fetal malformation. testimony went on to say that

we're talking about children with irreversible brain damage who will now be able to walk, talk, see or hear, children whose care over a lifetime is estimated to cost more than $10 million. the money is one thing. the devastation to that child and to that family is far more consequential. so the $1.9 billion is a great deal of money. it's an emergency. prevent rice to pay to irreversible brain damage in our children. a small price to pay instead of saying to families, don't think about having children now because of this epidemic. republicans are treating the threat of zika with so little seriousness as they decided to use the crisis as an opportunity to eliminate protections for our -- for the

water of -- that our children drink. the so-called zika vector control act the republicans are adding to this package this morning that they're asking you to vote for is nothing but a long-standing and craven repackaged republican effort to cut the clean water act. it is a pesticide trojan horse that will do nothing to protect americans from zika. this is really a dishonoring of our responsibility to protect and defend our fellow americans. as our distinguished ranking member of the rules committee mentioned, this is a defense issue. it's about protecting the american people. this proposal today puts forth 1/3 of what the president has asked for. 1/3. people say why aren't you happy with 1/3 of the loaf?

it's not 1/3 of a loaf. it's 1/3 of a shoe. you cannot get there from here with 1/3. it's really an insult to the scientists who have spoken out. and so i started with a question. it's really -- actually it's 1/3 of the president's request but 1/5 what the c.d.c. has requested for the public health activities. we must elevate, we must elevate the importance of the public health -- public health responsibility that we have. if we had a natural disaster, fema has funds to come to the rescue of the american people. that is our compact with the american people, to help them in ways that they could never help themselves because of the scope of the challenge. this is no less a challenge. in fact, it will probably result in more loss of life,

malformation of children -- of unborn children and on top of that, think of the negative impact it will have -- distrust to travel to certain regions in our country. this is so reckless. just when i thought i had seen it all on the part of the republicans in the congress, to disregard meeting the needs of the american people, along comes this incomprehensible to explain to anybody why this might be a proposal worthy of the floor of the house, worthy of the challenge -- public health challenge to the american people, worthy of our concerns about the american people. my republican colleagues, you have outdone yourselves today. at you are doing is reckless

in this bill. we should be meeting this challenge the way we meet emergencies, with adequate resources, which will end up saving money because they will be an investment in the health of the american people. over 90 days since the president has made the request. it is not our role to i still fear but we have to state the challenge in a very clear way. this mosquito -- this virus from this mosquito is sexually transmitted. we have no idea it could be as long as 18 months how long it will reside in a gentleman who might be bitten. could be over a year. could be shorter. but it is not one night. secondly, if you get bitten by

this mosquito when you travel someplace where it might be pervasive, you not only get bitten yourself, you bring it home. again, it's sexually transmitted. t it's transmitted in even more pervasive way. any other garden variety mosquito that would bite you who have already been bitten by the other mosquito, now is a carrier of that virus. you turn garden variety mosquitos into an army on o the assault of the public health of the american people. so, again, as a mother and a grandmother, as a parent, fathers, grandfathers who serve here think of the children, think of the risk, think of the responsibility that we have. think of the irresponsibility

of this bill before us today and the reckless, reckless disregard for public health in our country that the republicans are putting forth on this legislation. and vote no. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: may i inquire how much time we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 13 minutes remaining. the gentleman from massachusetts has 11 minutes remaining. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: mr. speaker, i want to begin by saying i also have a great deal of respect for the distinguished minority leader. and shoe used in her remarks, made the point -- and she used in her remarks, made the point the president asked for a number of things. last year the president asked for a billion dollars more for the n.i.h. we said you know he we didn't think you asked for enough. we'll give you $2 billion. somehow that seems to get lost.

last year the president sent out a request for the center for disease control. we said you know we don't think you're spending enough on public health, mr. president, we are going to spend more money than you asked for. this year when the president submitted his budget, he decided i'm going to take $1 billion of discretionary spending away from the national institute of health and spend it someplace else. we said no, mr. president, we think that's reckless. our democratic friends agreed. we are not going to let you take $1 billion of discretionary money away from n.i.h. and spend it someplace else. we are going to keep it there. by the way, we are going to put more money than you asked for in this agency when the bill comes out and we are probably going to do the same thing for the center for disease control. to suggest the president hasn't gotten what he asked for is to misstate the facts. now, we have had a great deal mentioned that the president had for 9 days has had a requested. what we have not had is one shred of evidence that in those 94 days he has not had the

money to do every single thing he wanted to do. the chairman of the committee urged him to start spending the money immediately to do that. so there have been no loss of effort. and the bill in front of us now funds it for the rest of the fiscal year. also funds the research on the vaccine that the n.i.h. into next year. again, i'm going to simply disagree with my friends that money has not been available. it's been available and frankly to the appropriate agencies more money has been available than the president has asked for. more money will be available next year than he asked for. with that i want to yield, mr. speaker, if i may, four minutes to the distinguished chairman of the rules committee, mr. sessions, my good friend from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. mr. sessions: thank you very much. i want to thank the gentleman not only a member of the rules committee but appropriator who is directly in line with an understands the needs of not only the american people as it relates to the n.i.h. but also the funding mechanisms.

mr. speaker, i stand up to really disagree with the gentlewoman from california to call my party and our efforts reckless and irresponsible. i believe is unfair. i believe it's unfair because last night at the rules committee we had this virtually same discussion and the discussion started with me when i said that i had republicans and democrats only monday with the director of n.i.h., dr. collins, and the director of the institute of allergy and infectious diseases, dr. anthony fauci, up, and we talked directly about this issue. and what we learned, mr. speaker, is that there was a request for additional money. and that the n.i.h. had some $600 million that was sit being in -- sitting in a fund from ebola that had not been completely used and a determination was made, including the gentleman from

oklahoma, hal rogers, and nita lowey, that were engaged in a decision that said we'll allow the money to be switched over if you would like to do that, switch over and use that money for this specific event that we are now looking at. what happened is they used the money very quickly. they accelerated spending the money. that's fine. we want them to do what they need to do. some $600 million. as soon as that was known, the gentlewoman, mrs. lowey, the gentleman mr. rogers, the gentleman, mr. cole, went about and looking at a request to fill for the next five months hat would be some $1.2 billion that would be spent just this year remaining. we are in may. just until the end of september . the president asked $1st9 million for five years -- $1.9

million for five years and we gave $1.2 million of that for five months. we are accelerating the money that is necessary to n.i.h. the minority leader outlined how terrible this destructive behavior can be to a child. to an embryo. we agree. but to suggest that republicans are reckless is not fair. what is fair to say is that we are responding appropriately. we are responding immediately. and we are putting it together before we are gone next week on a work period that when we are gone next week, we are doing it this week. we are moving it as quickly as possible. if we weren't, we would be accused of the reverse, evidently. mr. speaker, the republican party, the gentleman, mr. cole, the gentleman, mr. rogers, our speaker, we care about people.

we are doing the right thing. now, in the rules committee the gentleman, michael burgess, acknowledged some of the frailties he sees from the administration's point and that would be where is the alert to cities? where is the administrative action to say let's do something about alerting travelers? where is the information that is going to public health officials? where are we preparing ourself to look at what would happen in brazil? what is the administration doing other than just accusing us of not spending more money? mr. speaker, we all live in glass houses. we need to look at this the same way. and calling each other names is not a way to get there. so, mr. cole will be responsible and reasonable. hal rogers, the chairman of our appropriations will be responsible, and i said to my committee last night as quickly as we need to get together the

rules committee will come in, even if it's on an emergency basis, to handle this based upon a request. that's what we are going to do. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield four minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, the ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee on labor health and human service, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for four minutes. police delauro: -- ms. delauro: thank you, mr. speaker. i just will say with my colleague, mr. sessions, just said that the n.i.h. had $600 million in unused ebola money. that is false. the n.i.h. has used all of its ebola funds that congress allocated. so the gentleman from texas statement is not factual. the zika virus is a public health emergency. it's a crisis -- i'm sorry, i don't. i'm sorry. i can't. because the time is short. the zika virus is a public health emergency. it is a crisis.

and we must treat it as such. as of last week, there were almost 1,00 confirmed cases of zika in the united states and its territories. nearly 300 of them are pregnant women. and one person has died. when this congress, when we appropriate money for defense, or defense spending, or for wars, republicans say, and i quote, listen to the generals in the field, they are the ones who know best. well, we are in the midst of a war against the zika virus, and we should be listening to the generals and the experts in the field. who are they? they are at the center for disease control, they are at the national institutes of health, and they are the scientists in our country. we need to give them the resources that they need, and they have told us they need $1.9 billion. we should do the right thing. we should fund their request.

/3 of that request -- 1/3 of that request, which is what the house republicans have proposed, is not adequate. typically microencephaly occurs u.s. % to .12% of all births. but the washington post reported yesterday that among zika infected pregnant women that risk is as high as $13%. this summer every woman who is pregnant or trying to get pregnant will be afraid, afraid to go out on the patio. afraid to take your kids to the little league. afraid to go to a barbecue. it is our duty here to do everything that we can to ease those fears. to stop this disease from spreading any further. we must not put american women in a predicament of choosing whether or not they should get pregnant or if they are already pregnant wondering whether or not their baby is going to be

k. ron wrote in the "washington post" i quote, it is not a question whether babies will be born in the united states with zekeo related microencephaly, it's a question of when and how many. for years to come these environ will be visible. a human reminder of the cost of absurd wrangling in washington. a preventable suffering and frail your of our political system to respond -- failure of our political system to respond to the threat the infectious diseases pose. pregnant women are expecting delays in learning the zika results. the experts estimate a single child with birth defects can usually cost $10 million to care for or more. that says nothing about the life of that child with microselfly. they cannot eat, they cannot speak, they cannot walk. i do not often quote senator marco rubio, last week he said, i quote, it is a mistake for congress to try to deal with the zika virus on the cheap.

if we don't spend more money on that front, and i think we are going to spend a lot more later because this problem is not going away. we could not agree more. we have already stolen $44 million from our states to deal with this crisis. and the republican bill does not reimburse our states for the money that they need for dealing with emergencies such as this. we should defeat the previous question. we should consider a lowey-delauro-wasserman schultz amendment and we should fully fund the president's request of $1.9 million. it is responsible, but it is the moral thing to do. months from now -- 30 seconds. mr. mcgovern: an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. ms. delauro: months from now when the results of our inaction become apparent we'll ask ourselves why did we delay? why did we wait? we must take appropriate action now. we must reject this previous

question. we must do what is the morally right thing for the people of this country who put their faith and trust in us to come and represent their best interest and their public health. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: may i inquire to the time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma has seven minutes. the gentleman from massachusetts has 6 1/2 minutes. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i will reserve my time at this point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i would like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the whip is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to thank ms. delauro who is the ranking member on the labor-health committee. this is the story in the "washington post," front page. it is about the crisis that we confront about the danger to americans' health, about the

dangers to young children will be born with microselfly and dr. freedian, the head of our disease operation and defense force, if you will, says it will cost $10 million per baby born with microencephaly. $10 million per child. . that doesn't count the heartache. and mr. cole, he's a good legislator. the action you take today belies the representation you have made. what do i mean by that? if there is enough money now, as mr. cole argues, why take this action? this was not scheduled earlier this week. this was not having a rule until 9:30 last night.

so if your proposition is correct that there are sufficient funds right now, we don't need to act on this bill today. so why, my friends, are we acting on it today? because the public believes we ought to act, and the republicans are trying to protect themselves against the attack that they took no action 94 days into the president's request. because if mr. cole is right, we need not worry. there's plenty of money available, but they know the american people don't agree with that. so 9:30 in the dead of night they passed this rule, brought it to the floor so they can say, oh, we've acted. nothing, my friends, will happen as a result of what we do today. the senate passed a bill with 69 votes. $1.1 billion. not taking from ebola defense, not taking from other health

needs of america as our bill does, but saying this is an emergency. now, very frankly, my friends on your side of the aisle, mr. cole, when you want $18 billion from defense, you have no problem not paying for it. you take it from o.c.o., which is not scored. no problem. but when the president asks for $1.9 billion, about a 10th of of well, -- about 1:10 that, well, that's -- 1/10 of that, well, that's ok. it's not the 258 ban. it's not iran. we -- it's not the taliban. it's not iran. we don't have to protect against that. it's a health crisis in america and we fiddle for 94 days. if in fact mr. cole's representation is correct, if 's no need to act, but the actions that they're taking speak loudly that, yes, in is a

need to tell the american people, we get it, there's a crisis, we're going to act. the problem is nothing will happen as a result of this action other than a bill will go over to the senate with which the senate does not agree. they passed a bill with 69 votes. half of the republicans, all of the democrats said we need the $1.1 billion. now, the president has asked for $1.9 billion, but what they didn't do is steal from ebola, steal from other health priorities, and i hear the gentleman talking about how much money is out there, but if that's true, why do we need to act in the dead of night last night and today just as we walk out the door? we have not dealt with zika. we haven't acted on puerto rican debt. we haven't acted on a budget resolution. we haven't acted on flint water crisis. we haven't acted on criminal

justice reform, and we haven't acted on voting rights act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: this is a cover vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from oklahoma continue to reserve the balance of his time? mr. cole: no. i'd yield myself, mr. speaker, such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. cole: i appreciate that very much, mr. speaker. i want to reply to my very good friend of maryland whom i not only have great esteem for but frankly great personal affection for. i want to answer his question. this is not a cover vote. the main item here is veterans and military construction. that's over $83 billion. that through normal order is moving forward. now, to also move the zika bill with it makes a lot of sense. frankly, one of the things in this bill -- and i disagree with my friend's characterization -- we want to make sure that misguided environmental regulations don't

stop us from deploying pesticides that we may need. that's in this bill. that is pretty important to move forward. the funding is also important. now, my friends seem to forget, again, the long record here of who's been willing to support the n.i.h. and who's been willing to support c.d.c. we gave the n.i.h. twice what the president asked for in additional new money last year. that's being spent right now, by the way. we gave -- mr. hoyer: fleeled? -- if the gentleman will yield? mr. cole: not until i gave my point. we also gave the centers for disease control more than the president asked for. this year when the president tried to take a billion dollars away in adiscretionary money away from the n.i.h. both republicans and democrats said, no, mr. president, we will not late you raid n.i.h. and weaken the health care apparatus of the united states. and i made the point then and i my friends that

will back it up, we'll put more money in the n.i.h. this year, next fiscal year, than the president actually requested. now, in terms of zika, the moment there was a crisis, the chairman of this committee, hal rogers, immediately sent a letter to the president and said, spend all the money you need. there's -- they're in pots. so taking funds and using them in immediate crisis is not unusual. indeed, the administration itself has done this twice in recent months. once taking $500 million from an emergency response fund at the department of state and spending it on climate change instead of emergency response. $40 million in their own budget out of, quote, ebola money that they were going to spend on malaria money. i don't condemn them that, by the way. they say this will take several years. we want to deal with malaria right now. let's take some of that money. if we have a problem later we'll fix it.

that's all that's going on here. at the end of the day, the amount of resources that are necessary will be made available. the only difference here is one side wants to pay for it and not add to the national debt, the other side really doesn't think that's a big consideration. that's a debate worth having. i don't mind having that debate, but we heard the word reckless earlier. it's also shameless to exploit a crisis for political gain. i think we're seeing some of it today. some of it is sincere and some of it is great theatrics. doesn't change the fact that when the president made his request he's had every dime he's needed for that 94 days. when my friends say the republican bill only provides a third of the money, they somehow forget a third had already been provided. this is the second third. the rest of it will come, and the money is to be spent as the administration requested. not over weeks, days but over months and years. that's how they propose it deploy it. so giving them the money as

they need it instead of writing them a blank check and not even paying for it ahead of time seems to us the prudent and responsible thing to do. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, could i inquire of the gentleman how many more speakers he has? mr. cole: i'm prepared to close whenever my friend is. mr. mcgovern: ok. i'll close. mr. speaker, i yield myself the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: dr. thomas frieden, the director of the c.d.c. just wreently said in the way this house has handled the funding for the zika virus. he said, this is no way to fight an ep 2ke78ic. three months is eternity for control of an outbreak. there is a narrow window of opportunity here and it's closing. every day that passes makes it harder and harder to stop zika. so whether it's dr. frieden or dr. fauci or any of our nation's leading scientists or medical experts who all say that what is going on here

today is grossly inadequate, my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to think they know more than our scientists and medical experts. at these they have convinced themselves they know more. well, they haven't convinced me and they haven't convinced the majority of the american people who are watching this and in disbelief. i mean, this is an emergency. this is a crisis. why aren't we acting more aggressively? i want to ask unanimous consent to insert in the congressional record a letter to congress from the director of the office of management and budget and our national security advisor in which they talk about the importance of multiyear funding , long-term funding because they have multiyear commitments that they need to make to the private sector in order to prioritize zika, in order to develop vaccines and other preventions to protect the american people. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, what we are doing here today represents a failure, a miserable failure. this is a -- this represents a

failure of this congress to do everything humanly possible to protect the people of this country. it is shameful. it is unbelievable. a rigid right-wing ideology is trumping common sense, is trumping doing what is right, what i think most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand. we need to aggressively fight this crisis, and here's the deal. if we don't get this right, all the talk about fiscal responsibility and, you know, in controlling the debt goes out the window because the cost of this crisis getting out of control is astronomical. mr. speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle can explain away or rationalize or justify, you know, this inadequate response all they want but it is reckless. it is irresponsible, and for the life of me i can't

understand why on this issue, as we're confwronted with this health crisis -- confronted with this health crisis that we all can't come together and do what's right. when it comes to wars halfway around the world, nobody cares about paying for it, but when it comes to a war to confront a health care epidemic crisis, confront that epidemic, my friends can't find the money. please vote no on the previous question so we can actually have an amendment to properly fund this. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question and no on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma has the remaining 3 1/2 minutes. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield michaels the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for the balance of the time. mr. cole: i want to respond quickly to some of my friend's points, mr. speaker, and i want to go back to the essential reality that we're facing. number one, last year when the president asked for $1 billion more for n.i.h. we said that's not enough. we said we're going to give you $2 billion. last year the president submitted a request for c.d.c. we looked at it and said, it's not enough. you evidently don't care about

public health, mr. president. we're going to spend more money. this year he brought us a request to try to take $1 billion of discretionary funding away from n.i.h. my friends on the other side were as appalled as we were. we said, no, mr. president. you're not going to take $1 billion out of n.i.h. at a dangerous time of disease. we're not only going to keep that money there, we'll put more money, additional money than you asked for. we said the same thing about the c.d.c., and so we'll do it. in terms of what's been done, the minute the zika virus appeared and the administration asked for emergency money, hal rogers, the chairman of the committee, responded and said, spend whatever it takes and indeed the administration has done that. my friends seem to suggest that there's something that hasn't been done. yet, they never tell us what that one thing is. the reality is the administration's had the money to do everything it's wanted to do. this bill provides more money on top of that. our senators are proposing even more, so we go to conference to figure out the appropriate amount and whether or not and

to what degree it should be paid for. i hope it's all paid for. it should be because we have the funds to do that. so to suggest that there's some sort of failure of funding is simply not true. and my friends know it's not true. to suggest we're not willing to put the money here would suggest that recent history has no relevance because we put more money here than the president asked us to put and we committed to put even more going forward. so i would -- the only difference here and what drives my friends into a frenzy is that we actually want to pay for this. they simply don't. they think, let's just put another $1.9 billion on the national credit card. this is a great excuse to do that. well, we're not prepared to do that, but we are prepared to respond to the legitimate needs of the american people and use the resources that we have. so myrick, in closing, i -- so mr. speaker, in closing i agree with my friends on the other side we should address the issue. we disagree with the other body in how to do it.

we'll go on from there. mr. speaker, i look forward to working with my colleagues in conference on these important issues. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous >> washington journal, like every weekday with news and policies important to you. monday, aren't adjacent, to address how the administration is planning to address delays at airports security checkpoints. also, look at the current staffing and budget for the administration. then a senior military fellow for iraq and afghanistan will talk about memorial day and some of the issues surrounding veterans. he will also respond to the recent comments made by the v.a. secretary robert mcdonald which weeks times to customer

service. during the discussion. the weekly address from the president and the republicans give tribute to memorial day. first we will hear from president obama, and and senator joni ernst of iowa. president obama: hi, everybody. right now, there are american troops serving in harm's way and standing sentry around the world. there are veterans who've served honorably in times of war and peace, and often came home bearing the invisible and visible wounds of war. they may not speak the loudest about their patriotism - they let their actions do that. and the right time to think of these men and women, and thank them for their service and sacrifice, is every day of the year. memorial day, which we'll observe monday, is different. it's the day we remember those who never made it home, those who never had the chance to take off the uniform and be honored

as a veteran. it's the day we stop to reflect with gratitude on the sacrifice of generations who made us more prosperous and free, and to think of the loved ones they left behind. remembering them. searing their stories and their contributions into our collective memory. that's an awesome responsibility. it's one that all of us share as citizens. as commander-in-chief, i have no more solemn obligation than leading our men and women in uniform. making sure they have what they need to succeed. making sure we only send them into harm's way when it's absolutely necessary. and if they make the ultimate sacrifice, if they give their very lives, we have to do more than honor their memory. we have to be there for their families. over the years, michelle and i have spent quiet moments with the families of the fallen, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters. they've shared their pain, but also their pride in the sacrifices their loved ones made under our proud flag. it's up to the rest of us to live our lives in a way that's

worthy of these sacrifices. the idea to set aside a memorial day each year didn't come from our government, it came from ordinary citizens who acknowledged that while we can't build monuments to every heroic act of every warrior we lost in battle, we can keep their memories alive by taking one day out of the year to decorate the places where they're buried. that's something that so many of our fellow americans are doing this weekend. remembering. remembering the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guardsmen who died in our defense. remembering those who remain missing. remembering that they were our fellow citizens and churchgoers, classmates and children, and more often than not, the best of us. so this memorial weekend, i hope you'll join me in acts of remembrance. lay a flower or plant a flag at a fallen hero's final resting place. reach out to a gold star family in your community, and listen to the story they have to tell. send a care package to our

troops overseas, volunteer to make a wounded warrior's day a little easier, or hire a veteran who is ready and willing to serve at home just as they did abroad. or just pause, take a moment, and offer a silent word of prayer or a public word of thanks. the debt we owe our fallen heroes is one we can never truly repay. but our responsibility to remember is something we can live up to every day of the year. thanks. may god watch over our fallen heroes and their families, and may god continue to bless the united states of america. sen. ernst: hi, i'm joni ernst and i have the honor of serving the great state of iowa in the united states senate. it's a long way from red oak, iowa to washington, d.c., but often i think back to even more distant places i've traveled to like kuwait and iraq, where i served as a company commander, leading 150 iowa army national guardsmen during operation iraqi

freedom 13 years ago. i also often think of the nearly 4,500 americans who gave the ultimate sacrifice to our nation during the iraq war. i have been so fortunate that my 23 years of service in the military has introduced me to some of the most patriotic and selfless americans who woke up each day willing to put their lives on the line in defense of our freedom. unfortunately, all too often folks hear in the media talking about a divided america. but this memorial day, i implore you to push past the 30 second sound bites and instead join me in honoring those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for our nation since its founding in 1776. while memorial day is a day to honor our fallen heroes, i would also like to say a few words about our veterans whose sacrifices must never be forgotten. from those who responded after the shocking attack on pearl

harbor in 1941, to those sent around the globe after the tragic events of september 11th 2001, we honor them. this congress recognizes the service and sacrifice that veterans like the women airforce service pilots, also known as wasp, made during the 1940s. you see, during world war ii, these bold, revolutionary women flew non-combat service missions for the army airforce to free up their male counterparts for combat duty overseas. the wasp willingly put their lives on the line for this country during a time of war. this work wasn't easy and in fact, 38 wasp died in service to our great nation, such as beverly moses, who was born in des moines, and gleanna roberts who grew up near iowa city. these women served our nation with great honor -- and put their lives on the line. you and i know that their sacrifice and love for this nation dess