He gave 2 billion to nih, which is more than 5 . Its 5 plus inflation. Pretty darn good, better than the house, but better than the president and he did it at the expense of a lot of other good things in the bill. Dont get me wrong. Im not happy with the way he approached it, but he was sensitized by the researchers in st. Louis. Washington university to the need for medical research. And i believe this crosses the spectrum. We have to reach the point where we take the research and innovation and say this is a special consideration of the United States and the future. Its not going to be to the same budget control rules as z other expenditures. Last night Steve Kornacki showed an interview about how you and he were gym buddies and turned marco rubio around on immigration and used the gym as a Hunting Ground to turn people over. Who are some of your targets that you might like to was Chuck Schumer lying . I go to the senate gym daily. He said that republicans go early and democrats go late. Thats why i try to be there first at 5 30. I go there every day for no obvious reason. We talk about these issues. And theres an opportunity there. Your guard is down when youre sweating and puchffing and all the rest of this stuff. I have solved some big problems in the gym. I caught them at a vulnerable moment. I think approaching this issue on a human side makes a big big difference. Trying to get just beyond the dollars and crepts and talk to people people, he and i have met many times to talk about this issue. This is reaching into so many families across america, the alzheimers challenge. We see whats coming. The wave of not only cost to the government, cost to the families and what they are going through dealing with alzheimers. I think theres Fertile Ground here. One of the issues, susan will be joining us midway through. E she has targeted 2025 as the target date that she thinks an alzheimers treatment should be targeted calling this a Vital National issue and moving around. And you have a different approach sort of looking at prevention and treatment and more realistically by 2050. When you look legislatively and you talk to scientists, we had an incredible woman this morning. Stacey raised 217 million in the largest biomedical first round ever. When you see that amount of money coming into the private sector, alzheimers related research or Degenerative Research and you look at technology and the fast changing are we being too modest . Do you think ten years out we might be able to achieve more. Finely. It was nixons war on cancer that we see a 1 decline in cancer mortality on an annual basis. Politicians like to set target dates. It gives us some way to measure how were doing. I think the honest answer is we just dont know. Did you see the Fortune Magazine cover story on alzheimers. It jumped right off the rack. It was a cover story about biojen and what they are doing and its promising two different drugs, two different approaches. But what we know is when it comes to lilly, the National Laboratory in chicago lilly has a fulltime office there using the advanced source and make it work. You can lose me in a second when you get into this conversation, but i get that there are certain things that we have diagnostic tools. Also computing translational science and are using computers to do millions of tests that used to be unimaginable. So what im saying the pace of change and the pace of discovery is almost impossible to predict, but to set targets and hold politicians to the targets, that makes sense. Thats why i picked ten years. And i dont know if thats the right number or what, but if were incentivized to move towards targets, were not going to fall off and forget our responsibility. I have heard you speak on so many different topics. Youre always passionate and have found the soft point of where legislation might make a difference. I got an email and this is going to be out of left field. It has nothing to do with what were talking about today. Why demonstrates how a car is hacked theres a former nsa hacker and somebody with wired magazine was driving his car and it was hacked. This is a sensational text where they are throwing in a bill into the auto safety act. It made me think in your world to sustain interest in any one topic must be so hard. We have a lot of folks here today in washington coming to elevate the broader discussion on whats going on with Alzheimers Research in this area. But tomorrow its hacking a car. The next day im interested from a legislative what advice or counsel do you have for people who have been struggling for decades with such a dramatic problem on how to sustain interest. Because it seems to me a very difficult challenge given the number of things hitting the legislative docket. Theres a fellow who passed away a few years ago. Well known man who worked and became head of the the Motion Picture association. They once asked him about speeches. He says theres six words which i always put in a speech, which i think make a difference. And those six words are let me tell you a story. And when it comes to my world of politics, i have to get beyond the numbers and the statistics and tell you a story a about a person affected by something. I found that to be the most dramatic way to bring issues home to people so they understand. How many stories do we have in this room . Thousands. What you need to do is make sure that your member of congress or some trusted staffer hears those stories and understands what it means to a family what they have been through. When we debated bamobamacare and i stood on the street in front of my office with Tea Party People raging away they u finally said stop telling stories because i had them. Every time they were going to dismiss this as big government, i said let me tell you who couldnt get insurance in rochester. The point im getting to is no matter what the issue and this one especially because how poignant it is the story of medical research has so many different chapters. Make sure that member of congress understands them. I worked for years on the dreamers trying to help those undocumented kids brought to the United States who grew up here. It was partisan but i can recall sitting down trying to work out an agreement on something and she turned to her staffer and said will that help maria if we do it this way. It was a story she heard and remembered and brought to the negotiating table. So never stop telling the stories. Youre a member of the bipartisan. Task force on alzheimers disease. How many members are there . I can tell you i dont know the exact number but its in access of 40. When we had the budget resolution on the floor and i took all the medical research amendments and said lets put it in one amendment, susan went along with it. She had the amz alzheimers amendment and we had 42 or 43 who cosponsored amendments when it came to medical research. Now were all together democrats and republicans. Thats the way this works. And thats the way you build the coalition to the capacity. What is structurally going on . When you look at disease, alzheimers has the largest footprint and the costs are the highest, as i understand, they were among the highest. But the level of Research Dollars that the federal government spends is really a pathetic third or less of what you see going into similar rates of things. Im just interested structurally what do you think is happening in the alzheimers field thats made it difficult to step those numbers up. Thats a good question. How do you pick your Research Issues and Research Projects . And were near a cure, its a deadly disease, it affects children, things like that. And by and large it sounds like all of the above when you get down to it. I dont know. I dont know how to measure. Alzheimers is one of the medical diseases that they are going after in this new partnership between far mapharma and nih. This research may turn out to be more productive than a lot of other things. I wouldnt dismiss it by dollar amount. When i talk about the advanced source being so important to developing a that, who would have guessed that was Biomedical Research when we were developing it 30 years ago but it is. So there are many things that come into the whole quest to find the answer. When you think you talk about conservatives and i would imagine that would be very compelling. My family is from oklahoma and kansas. You went in there and had that discussion and there would be support. Who is the opposition that needs to be taken down . The opposition is not specific. Let me give you an example. My bill, 5 real growth over a tenyear period of time costs 150 billion. Its likely well spend in the neighborhood of 20 trillion on our federal budgets during that period. Big sum of money. 20 trillion gets smaller when you put it in comparison. I started thinking about how are we going to pay for it. Well for the longest time, i have had this thing against tobacco. I knew that. The fact that you dont face smoking on airplanes is a bill i passed in. The house. Round of applause. So i said lets get real. 1 a pack goes to medical research. I went to a conservative republican senator who i dont want to give it away. His religious preference hates tobacco. So i said medical research, 5 im with you. 1 from tobacco, no way, no taxes. Is that a people signed this pledge. Even on tobacco. I said but your state and other states are doing this already. Republicanled legislatures and governors. So it isnt as if people are opposed to science and progress, they sign themselves up for restrictions on their power as a senator in congress to appeal to certain constituencies. Im never going to sign those pledges. I think you need to have the flexibility to make the right decision for the future. Do you think theres a tension from your perspective as we have been talking about research, its also about liveing with this, caretakers im interested in what the Affordable Care act and the social contract as you feel it between our government and Civil Society and those living with this disease. We talked about research, which may not help many of those with this. Does that come up in discussion . Im going to tell you a story. Each of this comes to this it with our life experience. If youve ever been a new father of a sick child and didnt have Health Insurance, youll never forget it as long as you live. I was one. I was a student at georgetown law just a few blocks from here. Brand new wife and bay u by and no Health Insurance. My daughter had a problem. I said i leave the law school classes, pick up my wife and baby and head over to childrens and sit in the room with people who had no Health Insurance and wait to see who walked through the door. I had a number and was hoping whoever came through the door was a competent medical professional that could save my daughters life. Youll never forget that as long as you live. Thats why Health Insurance and that peace of mind is a basic right we should establish in america. It shouldnt be a question of whether youre lucky or rich. This ought to be who we are as a nation. So we get into this conversation about the role of government, thats where i come from. It comes from a life experience. Affordable care act, most important domestic vote i ever cast. 16 million americans now have access to Health Insurance. The number of uninsured is down by 30 . The rate of growth in Health Care Costs is still at an incline, but its flattening just enough to get 1 more years of to the system. This is working. There are 16 million fathers not sitting in those rooms without Health Insurance praying that the right doctor walks through the door. I want to go to the audience and ask you one unfair question. If you were in the seat that president obama has, how would you deal with this political environment differently than he has . What would you do that hes not . What needles would you move that hes not . How would you deal with that task of making the nation healthier . He will be remembered for the Affordable Care act. We have soldiered on through some impossible challenges. How about the roll out and all the things we went through there. I believe this is going to be number one or two in terms of his legacy. We still have a year and a half to go. How could we have done it differently. I really encouraged him to take the act and make it part of his president ial lat form and budget. He hasnt quite done that, but he is moving in more and more research. Taylor make what individuals need. He is a great communicator, a great messenger and i would hope that he would spend more time on this medical research issue. Interesting, good answer. Wait who is it . Senator collins, come on in come join our living room here. [ applause ] thank you for joining us. Were going to get rid of him soon. He said such nice things about you. Lets take a couple questions for senator durbin. Do we have a microphone . How are you . Were going to have fun, i promise. Im on both sides of help inging the Alzheimers Association raise money through my national sorority, but. Im also a caregiver to my father who is 88 and has alzheimers. My challenge is we are raising money and i think its wonderful for research because i dont want any other family to go through what were going through with my father. But at the same time, i want to be able that my father lives a life of dignity because up until this point he was a very active gentleman, very happy, very charismatic. Where does the money come from and how do we get the different Nursing Homes and care facilities and inhome care to meet the requirements to continue to treat people with dignity because i feel that as we have been talking to some of the other caregiver. S before that thats one of the things. Theres no standard. Its a high turnover rate. Ive been fortunate and have found an amazing place for my father that i hope others can find, but then i hear Horror Stories about what is out there. When you talked about the Affordable Care act and health care and how we deserve it i think people who have served in the war and supported the family, he still has a level of care. Were also going to discuss this with senator collins because shes done so much in this area. Im going to hand it off to her because she can answer it better. Shes introduced a piece of legislation that gets to the heart of your question. Thank you, dick. First, let me thank you for hosting this forum and also say that theres no better ed a voadvocate in the United States senate than dick durbin for Biomedical Research and its been a great pleasure to work with you, dick, on this issue that both of us care so much about. Just a week ago senator baldwin and i introduced a National Caregivers act and the reason that we did so is exactly to answer some of the concerns that youve just raised. We are spending 225 billion on caring for people with alzheimers. The majority of that is uncompensated care a that exhausted Family Members are given. And we dont have a strategy for trying to ensure that caregivers have the support that they need. Whether its respite Care Home Health care, whether its support groups and thats what our bill is aimed at. Its modelled on the National Alzheimers Plan act which i authored with former senator evan, and that has z produced a National Strategy for alzheimers thats brought together all the federal agencies and its most important recommendation has to do with the appropriate level of funding for Biomedical Research. Senator, i commend your legislation to bring more money to federal research and there will be a breakthrough in the next few years. My question is you were asking how to pay for it. Why is it when the government develops these kinds of basic Research Things that the Drug Companies to pay little in terms of license fees and they give no break to medicare and provided to taxpayer in the first place. Why cant congress do something about that . Theres no reason why pharma shouldnt pay more. Its modest in terms of real dollars. We hope even that investment will lead to some breakthrough on alzheimers. But i think its not unreasonable and pharma is large, its important, but its revenues and resources suggest that it can be part of the solution here when it comes to medical research. Usually pharma will benefit first. They will develop these new products and when i read this piece i sent a copy out to collins who said it never mentions nih once in the entire article. Did you have anything to do with anything thats going on with biojen. The memo with ten elements of what basic research led to these linkage there. I think engaging farmpharma and funding some of this research. We had a presession this morning with the person who raised 217 million for this first Round Company working on research. What interested me about the amount of money, onethird of the entire budget of the 660 million they put in. When you talk to her about this funding gap between those in the lap to develop research and getting to market, those that invest earlier wiped out in the way equity is dill luted. Theres a structural bridge not being met. So to just say that pharma should do that doesnt. Necessarily figure out the incentive problem. I view this question noz not just Biomedical Research, but related research to be the kind of commitment America Needs to make in this 21st century. Look at our competition. They get it. What china is doing now, they see this coming. They want to be dominant. They want the 21st to be the chinese century. We better. Wake up to this reality. Im not opposed to finding the cure for alzheimers in china and using it in the United States but we have established a strategic industry that produces so much. What we do in mapping the human genome project has been paid back to us 150 times over in doing that. It will continue to. So its an economic driver, not just morally. I just want to encourage us to look at this in a broader way. Alzheimers is our nations costliest disease. It is going to bankrupt medicare and medicaid if we do not invest in the research. The Alzheimers Association said if e we could delay the onset by even five years it pays for the increase in research. So i think this is one of these issues where were looking at it far too narrowly because if you look at alzheimers is the costliest disease, if you look at the tsunami of cases that were going to be facing just because of the changing demographics of our country not to make this investment. [ applause ] youre waiting for senator durbin . Okay. Thank you so much for coming. We were talking about him moving into his own place. There had to be something in there about his daily routine. We were talking about Steve Kornacki doing an interview with Chuck Schumer and he talked about him going to the gym with dick and they would target republicans to seduce into whatever legislative game they have. Do you work that way yourself . I have a far more direct approach. I just bring people facts and then badger them until they agree with me. I spent much of last night actually reading about the volume of things that you have done not only Alzheimers Research but in ageing in place. I was just reading tweets of yours on diabetes and the whole broad arena of how to think about designing homes differently for the ageing, you must know more about this subject than any of your colleagues. Would you say thats the case . No, i wouldnt be that presumptuous presumptuous. But you have invested heavily. First of all, i have the privilege of chairing the ageing committee, so its my responsibility. But you wanted that job. Absolutely i represent the state with the oldest median age in the country. So if you had the youngest median age, you wouldnt do that . No, i would. But also i meet constituents every day including members of my own family who are struggling with the issues that one of your questioners brought up. Maine is a lowincome state. We have a lot of rural elderly whose families have moved away. And we need to figure out a way to make sure that their needs are met. The statistics on alzheimers are really a call to action for all of us. What we are learning from the experts is by age 85, and many of us are going to live to at least 85, nearly 1 out of 2 of us will develop alzheimers or some other kind of dementia and the other one is going to be taking care of that person. So to me, thats a real call to action. Are people hearing you . Finally due to great advocacy and to some of the stigma which i have never understood thats been connected with alzheimers. Whats with the stigma thing . I dont know, i dont understand it. I grew up in an era where people didnt say that they had cancer. It would be whispered that she had the big c. I didnt understand that either. And with alzheimers theres been for some reason this desire to keep it hidden within families and i think thats really changed and thats what has helped us make progress. And as dick may have already said we made tremendous progress in the appropriations bill this year. We have only opinion funding alzheimers at the highest level has been about 600 million. This is for a disease that causes our society as a whole 226 billion, 153 billion is out of medicare and medicaid and yet we were only investing 600 million million. This year we got a 60 increase in the Senate Version of the appropriations bill to bring us 950 million. We should be at 2 billion. Thats what the experts tell us. That would still be less than 1 of what were spending but thats huge progress to have a 60 increase. Dick durbin was just sharing with us because are we at a different Inflection Point in technology and history and he was pretty modest. I was sort of looking at his target for dealing and treating with alzheimers in 2050 and yours of 2025. You got your colleagues to basically pass something saying this is a vital priority. When i think back 18 years ago we didnt have gadgets like this. We didnt have the embedded sensors. All of the Data Management we seem to be having today. Do you feel in your service to the country that all the stuff you sit inside the center of the wizard of oz. Do you see Something Different . I do because i have talked to so many researchers. I spent a fascinating two hours at mass general one day with their top Alzheimers Research. And they are making real progress. It takes money. No matter where you look whether its jackson labs in maine or mass general or the university of pennsylvania all across the United States they are finally a focus on alzheimers in a way that leaves more very optimistic that were either going to find more effective treatments that will probably come first but ultimately a means of prevention or a cure. Its the only one of the top ten most deadly diseases for which we dont have any and the trajectory is frightening. And heres what makes me optimistic. When hiv aids came on the scene, we really invested and focused like a laser and look at the breakthroughs that we have made in treatment of people with hiv aids. Its just amazing. And it happened if you think about it, really pretty quickly but it was because there was this concentrated effort, a National Strategy in the investment. E we still spend 3 billion on hiv aids compared to the meager 600 million, soon i hope to be 950 million for alzheimers. So to me, that shows the effectiveness of a concentrated effort. We had a wonderful conversation this morning with a woman i just mentioned who raised all this money for Biomedical Company and she said she was sick of mice. What shes trying to say in mice we can show that we have cured mice of alzheimers, but the transblt is so limited and theres so many problems and she made two really interesting points. One was that this stigma issue is still limiting those people willing to step forward to have genetic markers and e get into the population pool they would need. She said hundreds of thousands of people is what they would need over a period of time to map this better. The second is we have a ridiculously low tolerance for risk in the alzheimers area. If youre having a heart valve procedure or other procedures in which the risks are high, people take them. But in alzheimers there seems to be a barrier to that. Have you thought about that dimension of risk and population pools . I have. One of the hearings that we held on analyze hiemzlzheimers come testify and she sadly has early onset alzheimers and one of the wonderful things that she has done is a Public Service announcement reaching out to africanamericans in particular because they are not participating in Clinical Trials. And she is encouraging their participation in Clinical Trials. I have had members of my own family participate in a very unsuccessful Clinical Trial for alzheimers, but we need people to think not only about themselves, but the next generation. Yesterday i met with two constituents two were struggling with early onset alzheimers, which is the saddest kinds of alzheimers. They have now been identified for early onset and so that you can get tested for it. And they talked about the dilemma of their 29yearold daughter who is about to get. Married. And she cant decide whether to get tested or not. She cant decide whether she wants to have children or not. Because she feels if she doesnt get tested she shouldnt have children. Thats a horrible dilemma for someone to be in. I think it causes people when there isnt an effective treatment or a cure to be hesitant about getting tested for genetic markers. Nothing can be done. Do i really want to know . And i think that the more that we can get. People to participate in testing and Clinical Trials the more well know and the sooner well get to it. I think helping people understand the benefits for the next generation. I was thinking about the senate. One of the things that you think about. He stepped forward on Brain Research and has had difficulties. When you look at a number of the senators who have passed, a number of them likely had alzheimers, but not reported. That people hid it. They didnt talk about it. It wasnt disclosed, but i know in some cases. The senate is like a family after a certain period of time. Sometimes unwanted family. But you think more of the stories ought to be an effort for people to come out with their stories. Would that be a healthy thing to help other people around the country do some of the things youre talking about . It would be and ill tell you a person that i sogreatly admire is Maria Shriver who has been very vocal about her fathers fight with alzheimers. I remember when she testified it was so poignant because she said that he remembered every word of the hail mary the prayer, that we catholics say and yet couldnt remember her name. And when i heard that, it was so heartbreaking. But having people like maria come forward and tell their personal stories or their familys stories is very important. But its very hard because sometimes those Family Members still want it not to be known. So part of our job is to do more forums like this and to encourage people particularly celebrities to tell their stories. We had Glen Campbell come and testify before us. He played some of his music for me before going on with his daughters help and music had stayed with him. Ive seen that with members of my family struggling with alzheimers that music seems to still stay with him. You had richard gere up there playing an elder man who was homeless as well. So theres an element of homelessness being lost not being connected thats part of this as well. So working through those celebrities helps you broaden the story. Let me ask you a couple unfair questions. To be honest there are probably some democrats who are not big on science but there seems to be a lot more in your party. Thats not right. The investment in science, the belief that science can deliver something there, this seems to be a point of contention with some of your colleagues. One, is that true . And two, is there a way to bring that over . Dick durbin was talking about taking the most conservative members of science taking them, talking about medical research with your constituents and youll see them come alive. So interested in this debate about science and health and investment and whether that is a challenge for you with your colleagues in your caucus. Well, the best answer i can give you is the republicans are in control of the senate and for the First Time Ever we have had a 60 increase in alzheimers funding. So you make such a compelling case about the footprint of this problem. Its really a National Security issue for the nation at least on the domestic front. Dick durbin talks about it being an area of strategic necessity. Whats the problem in bringing more colleagues on more quickly . Whats the barrier . What are they distracted by . Well there are a lot of serious diseases in this country and it took awhile to get a focus on Cancer Research which we spent 5. 4 billion on a year and its paid dividends. I think we need to look at the successful investments in Cancer Research, in hiv aids in cardiovascular disease. Theres not an awareness of the prevalence. Thats partially because people used to die earlier and also remember when people would say shes just gotten see kneel. Do you remember that term and people didnt realize that alzheimers was the disease. They thought it was something that happened as people got older. So thats why i commend all the ed a vo ka advocacy groups, the Alzheimers Association and the many alzheimers u. S. Against alzheimers cures and all these groups because raising Public Awareness is absolutely critical to getting the kind of support that we need and that has been there for other diseases that have organized powerful advocacy groups willing to speak out. And thats what we need to do. But its change inging. Ive been the chair of the alzheimers task force in the senate for years. Ive always made it bipartisan. Its been quite awhile since shes been in the senate and so back then it was really difficult to get people interested. Now i have people clambering to be the cochair. Now senator warner is a cochair, senator toomey is a cochair, thats a real difference. And that matters in terms of our ability to bring bipartisan efforts. Hillary clinton, we are entering a political season and just about everyone you know is running for president. Do you think theres a chance . I dont know donald trump. I want to put that on the record. But in it, do you think theres a responsible way to elevate Something LikeAlzheimers Research in the president ial we seem to be talking about a lot of silly stuff. Is there a chance to bring some of the Serious Health issues into broader discussion . And how would you recommend doing that . Yes let me give you a great example. Jeb bush called me and asked for my support. I am endorsing jeb bush but. I took the opportunity to talk to him about alzheimers disease. For those of you tweeting, thats a tweetable moment. I would ask jeb bush to comment. And heres the good thing. Just a few weeks later, he talked publically about alzheimers disease, about his motherinlaws battle with alzheimers and the need for more investment so see it works. But in all seriousness regardless of who youre supporting for president , ask them what is their position on analyze hiem alzheimers. Encourage them to make it part of their platform, their agenda, and push them to speak publically about it. Thats what we need. And it worked in my case. Thats great. Let me go to the audience in just a moment. The other thing you have spent a lot of your time thinking about which hasnt really entered our National Discussion as much as ageing in place. Im interested in how you think about that what do you think we as a country need to get. Right in that arena, what are the doable things we should try to check off the box because its begin ingning to percolate, but not widely discussed. Well, im going to give my parents credit on this. When they built their house in 1957 they were smart enough to put a master bedroom and bathroom on the first floor. And im one of six children and they closed off the top floor. They left one as a guest bedroom when we come visit, but i cannot imagine how they had the foresight back in 1957 to think about their ability to climb stairs. And when my father had his two knees replaced one one year and one the next it wasnt an issue for them. I happen to have broken my ankle last december and the house i live in, thank goodness, has one of those automatic chairs that goes up a back staircase. Little would i have guessed that i would be the one to use it but it was it was going to the university of maine which has a whole program and they went out to assisted living places and interviewed seniors. They interviewed 50 seniors and set what do you need . It wasnt just stairs by any stretch. It was sensors. It was all sorts of indicators where they could be connected to their loved ones. Now, i will tell you there were privacy issues here that had to be dealt with, but were a long ways from the old ive fallen and i cant get up medical alert had button. And whats from them that i realized you could redesign Living Spaces and renovate Living Spaces so that there would be a sensor if you didnt close the refrigerator door or or if you left the stove on. Or just better pathways through your house. If you are losing your vision through macular degeneration. So it is a really exciting area. And lets face it most of us want to stay in the comfort, security and privacy of our own homes. And weve got to do a better job using technology to make that possible. There are also huge cost benefits of being able to live in your own home. So we had a hearing on this issue too. And we had someone come in who compared the cost of institutionalized care in a nursing home versus redesigning and putting sensors that would allow better connection to an adult child. It was wonderful. I cant imagine. I was talking to the amy about you the other night. And i cant imagine anyone telling you no if they ask you to work on a bill. Let me open the floor. Yes. Right up here in front. And were going to get you microphone. Im with next avenue. Yesterday i had a nice conversation with dr. David sacher the former surgeon general. He was a member of the alzheimers study group which came out in 2009 with a report that was supposed to be a wake up call, you know. A clearing call about all the statistics you mentioned and others have mentioned. And i asked him the question that steve just asked you. Which was, if all this is true and were facing the tsunami of cases and we have a fraction of the Research Money that is going to this case, why is that . What is the problem . And he doesnt know the answer. But one theory he has and id love to get your opinion is unlike hiv aids which more or less affected younger people his theory is that one reason for the slow response is that this disease, unfortunately, affects older people. And he also made the point that many of those older people who are obviously afflicted with the disease dont vote. To what degree it doesnt explain everything. But to what degree do you think it explains some of whats going on in terms of the slow response to the need for funding for alzheimers . Can i piggy back on that . With the self awareness that were all going to have at some point about our own health frame, our genetic make up, im thinking of having my gene sequenced, it is about a thousand bucks is the question of whether that changes the staikding ing stakeholding in that. First i have to tell a story about dr. Sacher, whom i got to know when i first game to the senate and he was surgeon general. It turned out he had done institutes of medicine study with my uncle who practiced in maine for many years and who has since died of alzheimers. And so i think the world of dr. Sacher. I dont agree with him in this case. Because any of you who have had a Family Member with alzheimers know that it affects the entire family. It does not just affect the victim. It affects the grandchild whose name is no longer remembered. It affects the spouse whose is trying to deal with a husband and wife who is for the first time yelling at them and wont bathe. It affects everybody. So having seen this very close up front and personal i dont think it is because it is a disease of the elderly. I think it was because for years it was hidden or people died earlier, or it was well, shes senile. And we didnt understand that it was a disease. Even though that works been done for years. But think of the difference. And dr. Johns would tell you, the difference in the last five years on Public Awareness is remarkable. When the Alzheimers Association bring those purple clad advocates to town, i always have a hearing that day because it fills up the entire hearing room. And it is important visually for people to know it. Im sorry you you answered my question by saying were all in the game. Let me take one last question. Right over here. I along with so many other people in this room want to personally thank you senator collins for everything you are doing. You are just an amazing advocate. Thank you. I also want to ask you, and knock it up a notch. Harry johns this morning talk about president ial candidates. Steve brought it up again. But im wondering if in the words of Jim Pinkerton whose a wonderful journalist, he said that we need to declare war worldwide war on alzheimers. And im wondering if you have worked with any foreign leaders or your kountdcounterparts in trying to address this in a much more global way. Excellent question. And the answer is yes. Great britain had an international conference. Last year i was invited to it and to speak at it. I desperately wanted to go but the Senate Schedule plus my Campaign Schedule precluded me from doing so. But i george bradenburg has brought in people to meet with me internationally. Because we do need an international approach. And we need to pool resources and research. And one issue i feel strongly about is that if you get federal funding for Alzheimers Research, you should be required to share your results. Is that the case today . Not always. I dont pretend to be an expert on this but im told that some of it is deemed proprietary if it is in conjunction with a pharmaceutical company, which it often is. And of course there is the new amp initiative also, where there is a modest it is pretty modest investments from both sides. And that one is going to be published, as i recall. But it seems to me that ought to be a minimum. But i agree we need an international approach. This problem is only going to grow worse across the world. And there are countries like in western europe and japan where the population is aging that should be particularly interested in a collaborative approach. I would just say in closing, this last point about the sharing of data, of research as long as the privacy issues are worked out. In the atlantics many forums in the health area, it is the single thing that comes up the most. Whether its hospital to hospital. We did a thing in camebridge with several researchers in harvard saying we dont share the way we should. And a absence of the protocols and commitment to share broadly is the biggest inhibitor. Everybody says it is Getting Better but it is not where it should be. Susan, thank you so much for joining us. The awesome senator of maine. [ applause ] senator. Thank you steve. This has been a remarkable morning. We surfaced important story, Important Information and a pretty gratifying amount of humor on such a serious subject as we talked about the critical topic about the economic and emotional cost of caring. Before you leave today i have one request. Which is that in your email you have from me a survey about today. We would love your feedback on your experience. There is also hard copies in the room. I want to thank steve and mary louise for monitoring our conversations. Thank you all of our speakers for supporting this conversation. You have been a wonderful audience. You have been engaged. Thank you so much. Give yourself a round of applause. And have a wonderful wonderful day. And a live picture from capitol hill this morning at the cabinet secretaries are on capitol hill for the second week testifying about the iran nuclear deal. This morning secretary state john kerry. Jack lew and ernest moniz are testifying. This is live coverage on c span 3. Should get under way in just a moment. This hearing will come to order. Today we continue our review of the Nuclear Agreement the oobama administration reached with iran. A critical hearing on one of the most sweeping dmoemtic initiatives in years, some say decades, demanding the committees thorough review. The global threat from iran has been a focus of this committee for as long as i can remember. Last congress we passed comprehensive sanctions legislation via vote of 400 to 20. It would have given irans Supreme Leader a choice between its Nuclear Program or economic collapse. But the administration was successful in blocking that legislation. So instead of us considering a verifiable, enforceable and accountable agreement we are being asked to consider an agreement that gives iran permanent sanctions relief for temporary nuclear restrictions. Should iran be given this special deal . In september Committee Members will face the important decision of approving or disapproving this agreement. We will have that vote only because of the iran Nuclear Agreement review act passed in may which the administration did not want. To be frank, the administrations preference has been to sideline americas representatives. So i was not entirely surprised when the administration went against bipartisan calls and gave russia and china and others at the u. N. Security council a vote on this agreement before the american public. That is backwards and wrong. Weve heard serious concerns from experts about the substance of this agreement. First, iran is not required to dismantle key bomb making technology. Does that make the world safer . Second, it is permitted a vast enrichment capacity reversing decades of bipartisan non proliferation policy. Does that make the region more stable . And third iran is allowed to continue its research and development to gain an industrial scale Nuclear Program once this agreement begins to expire in as little as 10 years. 10 years that is a flash in time and then the iranian obligations start unwinding. Does this make the world more secure . We appreciate president obamas effort to secure the most Intrusive Inspections in history. But it came up short. Instead there is managed access with iran, russia and china having a say in where International Inspectors can and cant go. The deals 24 day process is a far cry from anywhere, any time. And this provision expires too. While the administration is professed absolute knowledge about irans program it is a fact that we have been surprised by most every Major Nuclear development in irans history. And iran has cheated on every agreement they have signed. So i ask, mr. Secretary, has iran earned the right to be trusted . This deal guts the sanctions web that is putting intense pressure on iran. Virtually all economic, financial and energy sanctions disappear. And where does all that money go . To the largest Terror Network on earth. Gone are the sanctions on irans Nuclear Program. But also on the bad banks that have supported iran Easter Ritual and Ballistic Missile development. And two our dismay iran won a late concession to remove International Restrictions on its Ballistic Missile program and conventional arms imperilling the security of the region and our homeland. If this agreement goes through iran gets a cashcarbosh bonanza. With sweeping sanctions relief we have lessened our ability to challenge irans conduct across the board. As iran grows stronger we will be weaker to respond. Yes the u. S. Would roil diplomatic waters if Congress Says no to this deal. Sanctions that iran desperately needs relief from. Sanctions that continue to deter companies from investing in iran. I understand the stakes but these are about as high stakes as it gets. So the committee must ask if we made the most of our pretty strong hand. Or are we willing to bet, as the administration has that this is the beginning of a changed iran . These are complex issues. And i look forward to what should be an extremely informative hearing and i nowturn to the Ranking Member. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing. Secretary kerry, secretary lew. Secretary moniz, welcome to the Foreign Affairs committee. Thank you all for your dedicated service no matter what side of the irkssue is on i dont think anyone here doubts your commitment to the United States and the good intentions on this deal. Thank you for the time you have taken to engage with members of congress on the proposed deal can and thank you for your testimony today. Congress gave itself 60 days to renew this deal. And i sincerely hope my colleagues take full advantage of the time to study this agreement torques ask questions and to make an informed decision when the time comes. Weve had many months and hearings to discuss the different aspects of a Nuclear Agreement with iran. But at this point we are no longer dealing with hypotheticals. We have a specific deal on the table. And we have to decide if that deal advances the National Security interests of the United States and or allies. To answer that question to be fair we also need to ask ourselves what is the alternative . Absent this deal or the International Sanctions regime and the p5 1 coalition hold together . If this deal fails how o would we get the iranians back to the table . Would new sanctions have to be coupled with the military action. As i continue to review the deal there are a number of issues i find troublesome. I hope the three of you will address them in your testimony and as you answer the committees questions. First i continue to have concerns that International Inspectors are not will immediate access to undeclared sites. Under the agreement iran has 14 days to grant access. If iran refuses access after that time then members of the joint commission could take another week to resolve the iaeas concerns. After that iran has three more days to provide access. So were already nearly a month after inspectors first wanted access. If iran continues to say no another month could go by while this is resolved that. Potential length of time gives me pause. Id like to know how we can be sure iran cannot use these delays to sanitize sites and get away with breaking the rules. Already were seeing irans leadership declare military sites will be off limits to inspectors if this is their version of transparency to implementation of the agreement were getting off to a bad start. Also how the arrangement reached between iran and iaea how partchen will be inspected. Second concerns about the Ballistic Missiles and the advanced conventional weapons. My understanding was these werent on the table during the talks. So i was disappointed to learn that after a maximum of five and eight years respectively they will be terminated. Id like to understand why we allowed this to happen and what we can do to ensure this doesnt make a terrible situation in the region get even worse. Im also concerned about what irans leaders will cowhen sanctions are phased out and new resources come flowing in. Were talking about tens of billions of dollars. Of course id like to see irans leaders use this money to help the iranian people. But even with tough International Sanctions in place, iran has bolstered hezbollah, shia militias hamas and the assad regime. If this deal goes through how would you propose to keep this newfound wealth out of the hands of terrorists and tyrants . Next, while im glad that iran will be limited in its development of advanced centrifuges for eight years i worry what happens down the road. After the research and Development Ban expires, iran could quickly move towards the next stage of its enrichment activities. Id like to know what other provisions in the deal, if any, will mitigate this risk. Finally i have a fundamental concern that 15 years from now iran will essentially be off the hook. If they choose irans leaders could produce weapons grade highly enriched uranium without limitation. They could use advanced centrifuges to speed this progress even further. This amounts to iran being a legitimatized Nuclear Threshold state in the year 2030. My big question is this what happens then . Are we back to square one . Is this deal just pushing pause for 15 years . I also must say i have trepidation. Barely a week after the iranians signed the deal there was the supreme lead erer ali ayatollah chanting death to americans. How can we trust iran when this type of thing happens . It is very disconcerting. So im looking forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses. Again thank you for your service and hard work. And i yield back to the chairman. Thank you mr. Engel. This morning were pleased to be joined by john kerry, ernie moniz, and jack lew. Prior to his appointment secretary kerry served as the United States senator for massachusetts for 28 years. Before being appointed secretary of energy dr. Moniz was professor of physics and engineering at mit where he was a faculty member since 1973. From director of the office of management budget. Secretary lew now serve as the secretary of the treasury. Without objection the witnesss full prepared statements will be made part of the record. Members will have five days to submit statements for the record. And before turning to the testimony we have most members present here. I know we all recognize the gravity of this issue. We want everybody to have a chance to question the secretaries. To accomplish they would ask everyone members and witnesses respect the time limit. And that means leaving adequate amount of time for witnesses to answer your questions. And nothing requires full use of your time. So we will begin with a summary of secretary kerrys testimony. Mr. Secretary. Well chairman royce, Ranking Member engel and all of the members of the committee, thank you very very much. We genuinely appreciate the opportunity to be here to, frankly, clear up a lot of misinterpretations, some element of public distortion that exists out there. There is one ad ive seen on tv has at least three or four major absolutely, totally incorrect facts on which it bases the ad. And with all respect to both the chairman and the Ranking Member there are conclusions that have been drawn that just dont in fact match with the reality of what this deal sets forth. And we happily, happily look forward to clarifying that of course at this hearing. That is what its all about. And we welcome the opportunity. We are convinced that the plan that we have developed with five other nations accomplishes the task that president obama set out, which is to close off the four pathways to a bomb. And i think as you listen to ernie moniz particularly on the technical components and see the whole deal i really believe that that is a conclusion that everybody can come to. Not saying they will. But can. Im joined by obviously two cabinet secretaries. Both ernie and jack were absolutely critical to our ability to do this. The treasury departments knowledge of the sanctions and application of the sanctions has been exemplary, and they helped us understand the implications of all of these sanctions. And as jack will let you know, were not talking about 150 billion. Were not talking about 100 billion. Were actually talking about 55 billion that will go to iran and well go into that later. But from the day that our negotiations began mr. Chairman, we were Crystal Clear that we would not accept anything less than a good deal. One that would shut off all of those pathways towards fissile material for a Nuclear Weapon. And after 18 months of very intensive talks, the facts are pretty clear that the plan announced this month by six nations in fact accomplishes that. I might remind everybody all of those other nations have nuclear power, or Nuclear Weapons. And all of them are extremely knowledgeable in this challenge of proliferation. So under the terms of this agreement iran has agreed to remove 98 of its stockpile of enriched uranium, dismantle twothirds of its installed centrifuges and destroy by filling it with concrete the existing core of its heavy water plutonium reactor. Iran has agreed to refrain from producing or acquiring highly enriched uranium and weapons grade plutonium for Nuclear Weapons forever. Now, how do we enforce or verify so that that is more than words . And particularly to speak to the Ranking Members question what happens after 15 years . What happens is forever. We have an extremely rigorous inspection verification regime. Because iran has agreed to accept and will ratify prior to the conclusion of the agreement and with if they dont it is a material breech of the agreement to ratify the protocol. Which requires extensive access as well as significant additional transparency measures. Including cradle to grave for the countrys uranium from mining to milling through the centrifuge production to the waste for 25 years. Bottom line, if iran fails to comply with the terms of our agreement, our Intel Community our Energy Department which is responsible for Nuclear Weaponry, are absolutely clear that we will quickly know it and we will be able to respond accordingly with every option available to us today. And when it comes to verification and monitoring there is absolutely no sunset in this agreement. Not in 10 years not in 15 years. Not in 20 years, not in 25 years. No sunset, ever. Now remember two years ago when we began these negotiations and a lot of people are kind of forgetting conveniently sort of where we are today. People are sitting there saying oh my gosh in 15 years this is going to happen or whatever. Iran is going to have the ability to be, you know capable nuclear power. Folks, when we began our negotiations we faced an iran that was already enriching uranium up to 20 . They already had a facility built in secret under ground in a mountain that was rapidly stockpiling enriched uranium. When we began negotiations they had enough enriched uranium for 10 to 12 bombs. Already. Already they had installed as many as 19,000 Nuclear Centrifuges and they had nearly finished building the heavy water reactor that could produce weapons grade plutonium at a rate of one to two bombs per year. Experts put irans braektdeakout time when we began which remember is not the old time with arms control. Breakout time as we have applied it is extraordinary conservative. It is the time it takes to have enough fissile material for one bomb. But for one potential bomb. It is not the amount of time to the bomb. So when we say they will have one year to a certain amount of fissile material, they still have to go design the bomb, test do a whole bunch of other things. And i think you would agree no nation is going to consider itself Nuclear Capable with one bomb. So if this deal is rejected, folks by the way that the existing when we starting negotiations the existing breakout time was about two months. We are going to take it to one year and then it tails down slowly. And ill explain how that provides us with guarantees. But if this deal is rejected we immediately go back to the reality i just described. Without any viable alternative. Except that the unified diplomatic support that produced this agreement will disappear overnight. Let me underscore the alternative to the deal that we have reached is not some kind of unicorn fantasy that contemplates irans complete capitulation. Ive heard people talk about dismantling their program. That didnt happen under president bush when they had a policy of no enrichment. And they had 163 centrifuges. They went up to the 19,000. Our Intelligence Community confirms and i ask you all to sit with them. They will tell you that is not going to happen. So in the real world we have two options. Either we move ahead with this agreement to ensure that irans Nuclear Program is limited rigorously scrutinized and wholly peaceful. Or we have no agreement at all. No inspection, no restraint no sanctions, no knowledge of what they are doing and they start to enrich. Now to be clear, if Congress Rejects what was agreed to in vienna, you will not only be rejecting every one of the restrictions that we put in place. And by the way, nobody is counting the two years that iran has already complied with the interim agreement. And by the way complied completely and totally so that weve already rolled their program back. Weve reduced the 20 enriched uranium to zero. Thats already been accomplished. But if this is rejected we go back to their ability to move down that road. You will not only be giving iran a free pass to double the pace of its uranium enrichment to build a heavy water reactor, to install new and more efficient centrifuges, but they will do it all without the unprecedented inspection and transparency measures that weve secured. Everything that we have tried to prevent will now happen. Now whats worse . If we walk away, we walk away alone. Our partners are not going to be with us. Instead they will walk away from the tough multilateral sanctions that brought iran to the negotiating table in the first place. And we will have squandered the best chance that we have to solve this problem through peaceful means. Make no mistake from the very first day in Office President obama has made it clear that he will never accept a Nuclear Armed iron. And he is the only president who has asked for and commissioned the design of a weapon that has the ability to take out facilities and has actually deployed that weapon. But the fact is iran has already mastered the fuel cycle. They have mastered the ability to produce significant stockpiles of fissile material. And you have to have that to make a Nuclear Weapon. We cant bomb away that knowledge. Anymore than you can sanction it away. Now, i was chair of the Senate ForeignRelations Committee when we a lot of us joined together and put many most of the iran sanctions in place. And i know well, as you do, that the whole point was to bring iran to the negotiating table. Even the toughest sanctions previously did not stop irans program from growing from hundred and hundred and what 63 to 400 to 5,000 more 19000 now. And sanctions are not an end to themselves. They are a diplomatic tool that has enabled us to actually do what sanctions could not without the negotiation. And that is to reign in a Nuclear Program that was headed in a very dangerous program and to put limits on it. To shine a spotlight on it. To watch it like no other Nuclear Program has ever been watched before. We have secured the ability to do things that exist in in other agreement no other agreement. To those wondering what might happen in year 15 or 20. I say this. If you walk away year 15 or 20 starts tomorrow. And without any of the longterm access and verification safeguards we have put in place. What is the alternative . What are you going to do when iran does start to enrich. Which they will feel they have a right to if we walk away. What are you going to do when the sanctions arent in place and cant be reconstituted because we caulked awalked away from a deal that our five fellow nations accepted. I heard ask that the vienna agreement would somehow legitimate iez irans Nuclear Program. That is non sense. Under the agreement irans leaders are permanently barred from pursuing a Nuclear Weapon. And there are permanent restraints and access provisions and inspection provisions to guarantee that. And i underscore, if they try to evade that obligation we will know it. Because a civil Nuclear Program requires full access 24 7, requires full documentation and we will have the ability to track that as no other program before. The iaea will be continuously monitoring their centrifuge production as those centrifuges cannot be diverted to a convert facility. For the next 25 years the iaea will be continuously monitoring uranium from the point it is produced all the way through production so kit not be diverted to another facility. For the life of this agreement, however long iran stays in the npt and is living up to its obligations they must live up to the Additional Protocol. And that Additional Protocol as we can get into today greatly expands the iaeas capacity to have accountability. So this agreement, ill close by saying this agreement gives us a far stronger detection capability more time to respond to any attempt to break out towards a bomb and much more International Support in stopping it than we would have without the deal. If we walk away from this deal and then we decide to use military force, we are not going to have the United Nations or the other five nations that negotiated with us. Because they will feel we walked away. And make no mistake, president obama has committed to staying with the policy of stopping this bomb. So in the 28 years a little more, that i was privileged to represent massachusetts, i had a 100 voting record on every issue for israel. First traveled there in 1986. I have great friends there. Members of my family others who care enormously about israel. I understand the fear. I understand the concerns that our friends in israel have. But we believe that what we have laid out here is a way of making israel and the region in fact safer. And i emphasize we do not lose any option in 15 years 10 years, 20 years 5 years that we have available to us today. We will push back against irans other activities. Weve laid out a very detailed policy for working with the gulf states and others. And we look forward to working with israel in the effort to do that. Our current Security Cooperation with israel is at an unprecedented level and it is why we have a robust military presence in the region and it is why were working so closely with the gulf states. So mr. Chairman, we will continue to push back against iran on every front available. But the fact is it is a lot easier to push back against an iran that doesnt have a Nuclear Weapon rather than one that does. Thats been our principal strategic objective. Deal with a Nuclear Weapon, and then you have an easier time dealing with the other issues too. The outcome here is critical. We believe this makes our countries and allies safer. It will guarantee irans program is under intense scrutiny. It will ensure that the World Community is unified in backing this up. And in the end it will guarantee irans program has to be peaceful and therefore is a good deal for the world a good deal for america a good deal for allies and our friends and we believe it richly deserves your support. Dr. Moniz. Thank you secretary kerry. Secretary kerry has been very thorough. Dr. Moniz if you could be brief and well get back on time and recognize you at this point. Thank you chairman royce Ranking Member engel and members of the committee. And thanks for the opportunities to discuss the nuclear conventions of the agreement reached. The jcpoa prevents iran from getting a the Nuclear Weapon provides strong verification measures to give us time to respond if they violate its terms and takes none of our options off the table. I was backed up in the negotiations by the nuclear competency built over decades at doe and supported by this congress. Americas leading experts at doe labs and sites were engaged throughout the negotiations. Nine labs and sites in seven states took part in supporting our negotiating position. These experts, again were essential. And as a result of their work i am very confident that the technical underpinnings of this deal are solid and the department of energy stands ready to assist in implementation. The jcpoa will extend for at least ten years. Fissile material being reduced from 12,000 to 300 kilograms. Stringent constraints on irans enriched uranium stockpile as i said for 15 years. A strong containment and surveillance measures on all centrifuge manufacturing and the uranium supply chain for 25 years. The verification is forever stronger than it would be without the agreement. The iraq reactor redesigned. And further more the irradiated fuel sent out of country for the life of the reactor. Thus the parameters are maintained and all paths to a bombs worth of Nuclear Weapons material are addressed. In fact lazon is materially strengthened in the p5 1 vienna agreement. One important area and only one of that strengthening is that iran will not engage in several activities that could contribute to the development of the Nuclear Explosive device including explosively driven neutron sources and multiple point detonation systems. These are indefinite and in addition iran will not pursue plutonium or uranium or uranium alloy metal lur ji for 15 years. Mr. Chairman, i cannot agree that the agreement does not dismantle irans Technology Efforts or relevance to Nuclear Weapons. In fact every aspect is rolled back. The iaea will be permitted to use advanced technologies such as enrichment monitoring and electronic seals technologies that Doe National Laboratories have in fact developed. Much has been made about a 24 day process for ensuring iaea inspectors getting access to undeclared sites. In fact the iaea can request access to any specific location with 24 hours notice under the original protocol. Which iran will implement under this deal. The deal doesnt change the baseline. The jcpoa goes beyond the baseline recognizing disputes could arise regarding iaea access and provides a crucial new tool to resolve such disputes within a reasonably short period of time so iaea gets the access it needs within 24 days. Again this is the first time there actually is a cutoff in time. Most important to complement that is environmental sampling provides extremely sensitive measurements of the microskop ek traces of the Nuclear Materials even after attempts are made to remove the materials and a 2003 example found undeclared Nuclear Material even after iran delayed access for six months. The combination of the agreements eagreement s technical measures and the coherence of p5 1. Any time must earn a sharp response by all necessary means. In fact a steep response must be clear from the start for any violation of the agreement. Blocking the convert path i should emphasize will always rely on the work of the american Intelligence Community and those of our friends and our allies. The deal is based on science and analysis because of its deep grounding and exhaustive Technical Analysis carried out largely again by our highly capable doe scientists and engineers im confident this is a good deal for our americans and allies and global security. Individuals dedicated to stlenging the bonds between israel and the United States. And i quote this landmark agreement removes the threat that a Nuclear Armed eded iran would pose to the iran and israel specifically. We see no fatal flaws that should call for the objection of the agreement and have not heard any viable alternatives. As stated by many thoughtful analysts the big gamble would come in turning away from the agreement rather than in implementing the agreement. So thank you for this opportunity to be here. I look forward to our discussion. Thank you. We go to secretary of the treasury, secretary lew. Thank you mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and members of the committee. The powerful array of u. S. And International Sanctions on iran constitutes the most effective sanctions regime in history. These measures have clearly demonstrated to irans leaders the cost of flouting international law, cutting them off from World Markets and crippling their economy. Today irans economy is about 20 smaller than it would have been had it remained on it pre 2012 growth path. United States Government stood the forefront of this effort across two administrations and with the bipartisan support of dock. Congress. We created a web to. International consensus and cooperation to achieve this pressure was vital. The worlds major powers have been and remain united in preventing a Nuclear Armed iran. That the point of these sanctions was always to change Irans Nuclear behavior while holding out the prospect of relief if the worlds concerns were addressed. Accordingly, once the iaea verifies iran has completed key steps to roll back the Nuclear Program and extend the breakout time to at least one year, phased sanctions relief will come into effect. Theres no signing bonus in this agreement. To be clear there will be no immediate changes to u. N. , eu or u. S. Sanctions. Only if iran fulfills the necessary conditions will the u. S. Begin suspending sanctions on a phased in basis. Sanctions that target third Party Countries doing business with iran. Of course we must guard against the possibility that iran does not uphold its side of the deal. That is why if they violate once weve suspended sanctions well be able to promptly snap back both u. S. And u. N. Sanctions. And since preventing requires an affirmative vote from the u. N. Security council, the United States has the ability to effectively force the reimposition of those sanctions. Even as we phase in sanctions relief well maintain significant sanctions that fall outside the scope of the deal including our primary u. S. Trade embargo and other measures. With very little exception, iran will continue to be denied access to the Worlds Largest market and we will maintain powerful sanctions targeting irans support for terrorist groups such as hezbollah, the destabilizing role in yemen. Backing of the assad regime, Missile Program and human rights abuses at home. Just this week, sanctions were made. And we will not be relieving sanctions on irans revolution guard core, it forces subsidiary subsidiaries or senior officials. Some argue the sanctions relief is premature until iran ceases activities and funds recovered could be divert forward malign purposes. But the concerns is exactly why we must keep iran from obtaining a the Nuclear Weapon. The combination of the two threats would be a much worse scenario. If we cannot solve both concerns at once we need to address them in turn. Jcpoa will address the nuclear danger. By contrast, walking away from this deal would leave the worlds leading sponsor of terrorism with a short and decreasing Nuclear Breakout time. We must also be measured and realistic in understanding what sanctions relief will really mean to iran. Irans 100 billion in restricted reserves will many feel will be direct forward nefarious purposes constitute the annual savings not the budget. Over 20 billion is committed to projects with china where it cannot be spent. And tens of billions in additional funds are in non performing loans to irans energy and banking sector. As a matter of Financial Reality iran cant simply spend the usable resources as they will naturally be needed to meet International Payment obligations and financing and debt. And the president there faces a political imperative to start meeting unfulfilled promises. He faces over a half trillion dollars in pressing requirements and government obligations. Iran is in a massive economic hole from which it will take years to climb out. Meanwhile well aggressively targets attempts to fund hezbollah or military proxies. Backing away from this deal to escalate the economic pressure and try to obtain a broader capitulation from iran would be a mistake. Even if one believed that extendingextend extending sanctions pressure was better course than resolving the threat of irans Nuclear Program, that choice is simply not available. Our partners greed to impose kostzly sanctions on iran for one reason, the put a stop to its illicit Nuclear Program. If we change our terms now and insist the countries escalate the sanctions and apply them to all of irans activities they just wouldnt do it. They wouldnt balk. And weed be left with no nuclear deal and additional sanctions. Its impractical to turning down a deal our partners believe is a good one. The joint comprehensive plan of action is a strong deal w. Phased relief after iran fulfills its deal, and its terms achieve the objective it was meant to achieve thats blocking that. Thank you again, and we look forward to answering your questions. Thank you, secretary lew. To get back to a point that was made, as i read it, the 24day suspect site process does expire in 15 years. The iaeau Additional Protocol alone, i think that point stands. The other question i would like to ask secretary kerry relates to what the secretary of defense said in his testimony about the i in icbm stands for enter continental, which means from flying from iran to United States. Simply countries develop icbms to deliver a war head and they will be aimed at us and not at moscow and at the same time these restrictions are coming off, those involved in the bomb work are also coming off so how is that making us safer . Seems to me the winner here is russia which demand and won on the lifting of the sanctions, and why did we concede on that . We didnt concede on that, mr. Chairman. In fact, we won a victory because the we have seven nations negotiating and three of the seven thought the sanctions ought to be lifted immediately, iran russia and china and four thought they shouldnt. What we succeeded in doing was keeping both the arms embargo and the missile component, the missiles for eight years and the arms for five years, not withstanding the fact that iran has a very legitimate argument which they were making that the u. N. Resolution 1929 which is what created the sanctions and the structure that we were negotiating under said that if iran comes to the table and negotiates, all the sanctions would be lifted. Now, they just didnt come to the table and negotiate, they made a deal, they signed an agreement and came to an overall agreement, so they felt that they were in compliance with the u. N. Resolution and we felt on the other hand, their behavior in the region was such it would be unconscionable to lift, and we dont feel we lost anything in that, mr. Chairman, for the following reasons. The u. N. Resolution 1929 is a nuclear resolution. Susan rice put the she was then at the u. N. And she put the arms piece in at the last minute. It was a throwin at the last moment into this Nuclear Nuclear resolution. And the nuclear resolution always contemplated if the iaea came to what is known as the broad conclusion that iran was not engaged in any elicit activities in its declared or undeclared activities, all san sanctions were lifted, and no matter what happened we would lose that arms under that component, and here is what we have done in the meantime that we believe actually takes care of this issue. First of all mr. Secretary i followed the arguments that you made about the laws that we have to defend against irans Missile Program, and i understand the steps that you took here. I am just saying big picture, big picture, when we end up with a bottom line where in eight years they get the missile, it doesnt look like a victory to me it looks like but they may not get the missile at that time but they can buy the material at that time. But they cant. We have several other protocols that prevent that from happening, we have an executive order by the president of the United States that in fact presents the transfer i would just point out, theres a reason why russia pushed it, and theres a reason we did not want because they did not want the u. N. Component of this, and they know we have separate capacities and would apply them. I would hope that we could strengthen our hand in this as we go along, but the bottom line is iran is getting a financial win fall and increases terrorists support for proxies and they announced that recently and it upgrades its conventional weapons and i think it upgrades its Ballistic Missile program in this over the time of the agreement, and has an Industrial Nuclear sized program in ten years and thats the timeframe only if they dont cheat. When i look at this, and i see that irans neighbors who know it the best, trust it the least, i just ask were presuming iran is going to change its behavior and that behavior did not change last weekend when they were chanting again death to america. With all due respect we are not presuming any such thing. There is no presumption about what iran will or wont do. There is one objective. Make sure they cant get a Nuclear Weapon. On the backside of that, we have a very robust initiative that will push back against irans other activities. Let me be very specific my time expired. It authorized u. S. Sanctions that material contribute to the materialization of missiles by any person or foreign country of papaw paw live ration concern. My time expired and i will go to mr. Evenngel, but thank you very much. I want to get back to 15 years because that disturbs me the most. The truth is after 15 years iran is a Nuclear Threshold state and they are legitimized in this agreement as being a Nuclear Threshold state which means they can produce weapons with uranium without limitation and i know you say they are at that point now, but why not negotiate a deal where they couldnt have those things in 15 years. I also want to mention a Nuclear Agreement doesnt whitewash the fact that iran continues to remain a destabilizing actor in the region and continues to fuel terrorism around the globe. Our friends in israel rightfully are concerned that iranian funding of terrorism would continue to affect them and one of the issues i had in this agreement from day one it limits irans Nuclear Program. With this agreement, the way i look at it irans financing of terrorism will continue and could become much worse. The Iranian Revolutionary guard corp. Can take advantage of any relief between p5 plus one. So i would like to know how specifically will we work with our allies to minimize the potential win fall from terrorists organizations and protected israel. And the lifting of the arms embargo and the sanctions around irans Ballistic Missile program further destabilizes the region, and i was disappointed the sanctions had been lift, and i was told they were outside the scope of the negotiations, so in my opinion the changes to these sanctions should have been outside the scope as well. What that means when the arms embargo expires iran can shift weapons to president assad so he can continue to torture and kill his own people. Would the administration be open to further congressional consideration of new sanctions on the Missile Program, and the arms embargo and missile sanctions are not specifically mentioned in the jcpoa, only the resolution governoring and does the snapback of sanctions apply to violations of the arms and missile embargoes if iran would continue to ship weapons to hezbollah before the arms embargo expires and would they be in violation of a jcpoa . Congressman, there are so many questions in there. Obviously we are very happy to come back to you on the record and i want to answer every single one of them. Let me try to take on the biggest ones, first of all. Let me just call to everybodys attention here the irgj opposed this