mr. rubin, you talk about this false choice that i think in your opening statement that mr. rhodes set up and used this echo chamber of folks who literally know nothing to further this message to the american people, this binary choice either it's the deal or it's war. that's what he set up, right? and the thing that strikes me, mr. chairman, i won't take my full time here, i just wanted to make this point is, so this isn't the first time this administration on some big policy decision has deceived the american people. but maybe more importantly, it's not my judgment the first time mr. rhodes on a big policy issue, on a big concern to the american people, has tried to deceive them. mr. rubin, you're getting ready to say something, go ahead. >> the deception comes oftentimes in the way of cherry picking. if we want to look at previous iranians offers or acknowledgements of letters, for example, what's actually interesting when supreme leader khomeini on the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the

mr. rubin, mr. doran, mr. hannah, thank you for your testimony and for providing valuable information to this committee, which sheds lights on the deceptive manner in which the obama administration sold out the american people and our allies across the globe with the iran capitulation agreement. even when presented with the facts, like the facts each of you have laid in your testimony, the administration balks, doubles down and tries to discredit anyone who disagrees with their false narrative, including me. when asked about ben rhodes revelatory interview with the new york times magazine, press secretary josh earnest dodged and decided to lambast several members of congress, including me as liars, truly eliciting alinsky's principles to their core. why? because i said that under this illegal iran deal and lifting sanctions that iran would be able to assess up to $100 billion that was previously frozen? his treasury secretary, jack lew stated yet the sanction really could be worth about $100 billion. the presi

mr. rubin. thank you for the opportunity to testify. the major iran related issue [indiscernible] embraced the voluntary compliance with the additional protocol when previously ronnie had bragged that voluntary compliance allowed iran to reverse course. have iranians transferred work to labs in north korea? we will never know. another where it misled was rouhani as a moderate. withuffed his cabinet veterans of the intelligence kgbstry constructing a cabinet. in 2005 he laid out a doctrine of surprise. love the americans into complacency and deliver a knockout blow. it also misled about who benefits. the real tragedy is it pumps money into the coffers of the revolutionary guard. between 1998 and 2005 the european union almost tripled its trade with iran and the price of oil quintupled. a spokesman bragged about how he had defeated the west and we had an overt policy which was one of negotiation and can't does confidence building and a covert policy which was continuation of the activity. the pro

mr. rubin just discussed. before that is hiding the regional cost. the president has, in effect, recognized syria as an iranian spear of influence. one of the goals of the deception of mr. rhodes is to prevent people from connecting the dots between the syria policy and the iranian nuclear policy. the fifth part of the deception is blaming allies. the white house on background is on public -- in public very willing to criticize our sunni allies as creating secretary and extremism. it is willing to criticize and very derogatory terms prime minister yahoo! of israel. minister-- prime netanyahu of israel. now what we need to do about this. two points. number one, i agree with you chairman that we do not actually know what is in the iran deal. we still did is they do not know. i completely agree with your assessment about the activities of secretary of state kerry in europe last week. drumming up business with the iranians and they are saying this is part of the deal. is it part of the deal or is i

mr. michael rubin, the resident scholar at the american enterprise institute. mr. michael doran, senior fellow at the hudson institute. mr. john hannah, senior counselor at the foundation for defense of democracies. we welcome you all and thank you for being here. pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify. if you will please rise and raise your right hand. you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. thank you, let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. we would appreciate limiting your verbal comments to five minutes. that will give us time to ask your questions. your entire written statement will be entered into the record. now recognize mr. rubin. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. the major iran related issues about when the white house misled when selling the iran deal were verification, they loosened the standards set in south africa and libya, embraced iran's voluntary compliance with add

mr. rubin: yes. i thought there could be a much stronger agreement and i think we could have had leverage to get a much more favorable agreement. myself -- associate >> just to be clear, for instance, former secretary of state colin powell, as he is called the regime vigorous, this is a remarkable change. ". so we have stopped this highway race they were going down. i think that is very, very important. would you agree with secretary powell's quote? >> it reminds me of the agreement with north korea which we now know did not merit those and fort smith's. >> the former adviser to president ford and george h.w. bush, i quote, to turn our backs would be an abdication of america's role. that quotegree with as well? mr. doran? mr. doran: i disagree. >> mr. hannah, it strikes me in your response to some of my colleagues, comments about your role as spies -- with vice president cheney and the decision to invade iraq is that it was a mistake. you apologize for that in your own way but we should just move on

mr. rubin, how and how early did the administration start talking about minimizing congressional oversight of the iran deal? >> i am not privy to the internal discussions within the administration. but it appears from second hand sources almost from the beginning. >> i have passed the iran terror financier act, the only real effort to oppose the nuclear deal, which now sits in the senate, and with mr. rhodes' exposure the need for congressional oversight there are key provisions in my measure and it sits in the senate. that language even today could be acted upon by the senate that would provide us key oversight on on any decisions. the president acted unconstitutionally while he is free to make agreements and have negotiation, he is not free to bind us with treaty-like obligation. do you think that if we passed the key provisions out of the measure that currently sits in senate that would increase that oversight as was noted last week by politico, do ul think it would make what we do have bett

mr. mike at rubin, resident scholar at the american enterprise institute. mr. michael doran, a senior fellow at the hudson institute, and mr. john hannah, senior counselor at the foundation to defense of accept sills. we welcome you ought. pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify. if you will please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear other affirm the testimony you're good to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. thank you, let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. we would appreciate you limiting your verbal comments to five minutes, to give us time to ask questions, your entire sometime will be entered into the record. now recognize mr. rubin. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. the major iran issues about -- when selling the iran deal we are verification. lookened the standards set in south africa and libya, embraced iran's voluntary compliance with the additional protocol when previously rouhani had bragged that voluntary all

you're lucky mr. rubin, to be here today. mr. hannah, when you received an invitation from the senate intelligence committee in 2006, did you accept it? >> i don't remember getting an invitation. >> they published a report. >> i must not have. >> well, let me help refresh your memory. they issued a final report and they said that every request made to you for an interview was denied. and it concludes these decisions inhibited the committee's ability to pursue legitimate lines of inquiry. any reason why you would say no to the senate intelligence committee when it was under -- it wasn't under democratic control in 2006. but you still said no. you can't -- that doesn't refresh your memory? >> it doesn't refresh it. but i can tell you there was obviously especially in the office of the vice president the counsel there was an aggressive proponent of executive -- >> go ahead say it. >> you say it for me. >> was that word coming out. >> executive privilege. >> privilege. there you go. so for a republican white house it's perfectly okay

now recognize mr. rubin. thank you for the opportunity to testify. the major iran related issue [indiscernible] embraced the voluntary compliance with the additional protocol when previously ronnie had bragged that voluntary compliance allowed iran to reverse course. have iranians transferred work to labs in north korea? we will never know. another where it misled was rouhani as a moderate. withuffed his cabinet veterans of the intelligence kgbstry constructing a cabinet. in 2005 he laid out a doctrine of surprise. love the americans into complacency and deliver a knockout blow. it also misled about who benefits. the real tragedy is it pumps money into the coffers of the revolutionary guard. between 1998 and 2005 the european union almost tripled its trade with iran and the price of oil quintupled. a spokesman bragged about how he had defeated the west and we had an overt policy which was one of negotiation and can't does confidence building and a covert policy which was continuation of the activity. the problem goes beyond the supreme leader's inves

rubin that is have shown to add that to the conversation. thank you, mr. chairman. i concur with mr. nimmich and mr. nelson. i believe over time there has been a better understanding, better utilization after those types of disasters. we are recognizing all of the ways we can use those data in local dollars to help the community recover. there's an additional additional cost on administrative oversight of programs on the program requirement to affect recovery and subsequent mitigation. those programs can stretch into the decade for some of our larger disasters into the administrative cost also had to does high cost. >> administrator at nimmich, we see new disaster programs emerge ad hoc in reaction to disasters. they have different roles than requirement and do not seem well coordinated or focused on obtaining the best outcomes. though fema programs contain strict requirements on eligibility, use and cost effectiveness? are you aware of other disaster programs including such requirements? is this something congress can take a look at the weekend can teenagers remind