Transcripts For CSPAN Washington This Week 20150321

Chairman, and thank you, mr. Wheeler for your long and dedicated role, and i know it is often thankless. While opinions differ, your dedication is appropriated. Chair wheeler sir, i recognize your badge, and thank you. Rep. Russell thank you. You stated earlier today that it you came to an evolutionary decision because you determined it was reasonable for isps, but not reasonable for consumers with this ruling. Is it not true that federal taxes could be applied to consumers where it was once prohibited . Chair wheeler that is in the hands of congress. The tax freedom act specifically, the freedom of information act prohibits specifically that and whether that has changed is outside rep. Russell but from an Informational Service to a communication service, does it not lay the foundation for consumers being taxed. Chair wheeler again, that is going to be your decision and not mine. Rep. Russell was it possible when it was just an Information Service outside of title ii . Chair wheeler Information Services, some are taxed at state levels, i believe, and some some could be taxed at state levels, i dont want to say that because we have a tax freedom information act, and well, it cuts both ways. Rep. Russell article one of the constitution states that it is congress that has the power to regulate commerce. Do you believe this . Chair wheeler yes, sir. Rep. Russell do you believe that the public would have been better served by giving congress the chance to review the rules prior to their release, especially in light of your testimony today, where you said that rules have to apply across all agencies to be considered . Chair wheeler this has been, as you know, congressman, a 10year process there has been multiple input by multiple congresses along the way. There is legislation now which is entirely appropriate. I think what our job is is to take the instructions of congress as stipulated in the statute and interpret them in terms of the realities of the day. And that is what we did. Rep. Russell the quote that i would like to read to you by a Senior Vice President of a Communications Company says, the fcc changing a platform should be done after careful policy analysis and the congress, which is constitutionally charged with determining policy. Now, you and your agency have established a clear believe that belief that adopting these title ii rules would create problems, as we have seen in some of the email traffic that we reviewed today and you also stated in other emails that you produce to the committee that you did not intend to be a wallflower in your tenure at the commission. But given the coordinated efforts, and the pressure of the white house, coincidentally timed protests and other white house statements, would it be unreasonable, then, for americans to somehow feel betrayed that this decision was a cave against your earlier judgment, and damage the reputation of the fcc as an independent agency . Chair wheeler no, and i think it is also important to go to your key assumption there in quoting the Senior Vice President. The interesting thing and all of this is that there are four bright line rules, there are only four rules no blocking no throttling, no paid prior to her prioritization, transparency. You have been subject to this, and we would never think of not doing that, so when this person says it is going to change the basic operation of the internet, there is some kind of a discord there, because as they are saying, oh we are not going to do that, but when they say we require that, it is changing the operation of the internet, and i think that kind of is an underlying tension that has been going through this whole thing. Rep. Plaskett i would hope as we move forward in the future, that there is clearly going to be lawsuits in this process, there is going to be continued discussion about it, and that we would make sure the congress regulates commerce. I personally believe that what we will see follow will be a taxation of consumers. I think had they known that, they would not have been so quick to click the internet like to get these 4 million comments, and i think we have set back free information and access to all americans. Thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. Rep. Chaffetz thank you, we will recognize the gentlewoman. Rep. Lawrence thank you. First welcome. I appreciate you being here today. My friend, my colleague, stated you did not intend to be a wallflower, and i find that refreshing. Those who take an oath to serve to be part of a regulatory process, you should not be a wallflower, you should be actively engaged, and i appreciate the passion that you have distributed today. I wanted you to know that when i came to congress, i have heard a lot about this Net Neutrality, and had done my homework, and i came to congress with an open mind and willingness to see both sides of this issue. I also am aware that over 4 Million People filed Public Comments with the fcc. 4 million. Most of them average people voting yes. And i also saw the president s comments on this issue. One of the things that i want to ask of you today, mr. Wheeler, its to really solidify you in this position. Chairman wheeler, you were supported by Telcom Companies when president obama selected you to this position, is that correct . Chair wheeler i believe so, yes. Rep. Lawrence and you were unanimously confirmed by the senate and the house as well . Chair wheeler yes, maam. Rep. Lawrence so it was not just one side of the senate, it was both sides. From 1976 to 1984, you worked for the National Cable television association, which is clearly representing these agencies that would be affected. From 1992 until 2004, you served as the president of the internet association, is that correct . Chair wheeler yes, maam. Rep. Lawrence clearly you would not be a wallflower. You know this industry while very well, because if there was ever such thing as an internet or an isp, you would know that, correct . Chair wheeler i have spent my professional life in this space, maam. Rep. Lawrence knowing this, would you push for regulation that you knowingly would be aware that would damage the industry that you represented for so many years . So the decision and the regulation that you advocated for, your position was, this would not damage, but enhance . Chair wheeler thank you, miss lawrence, that is a very good question, and i think there are two answers to that. Number one, i think that yes, i was the chief advocate and the chief lobbyist for those two industries, when they were growing industries and not the behemoths that they are now, a different time. I hope i was a good advocate. They were my client. My client today is the American Consumer. And that is who i want to make sure that i am representing. Doing that, you do not help the American Consumer by cutting off the nose of those who provide competitive Broadband Service to spite your face, and so what we were doing in this was balancing the Consumer Protection with the investment necessary to provide competitive Broadband Services. And i went back to my roots as the president of ctia, and when i was sent to congress, and they said we need to be regulated as a title to common carrier with forbearance, congress agreed with that and that is the rule under which the Wireless Voice industry has since then has had 300 billion of investment and became the marvel of the world. The answer is yes on both fronts. You cant help consumers if you are not stimulating broadband growth, but my job today is representing American Consumers. Representative lawrence questioning today is inferring would you support regulations and you eloquent inly said would you support regulations that would hurt isp just because the white house thought it was a good idea . Chair wheeler i have been trying to be independent and thoughtful. Uptotheminute lawrence representative lawrence do you believe that the intelligent would hinder the growth of the Telecom Industry given your 40 years of experience . Chair wheeler no and it is not just my opinion. When Major Internet Service providers like sprint and tmobile and Frontier Communications google, hundreds of rural providers, say that they to believe they will be investing and continuing to grow competitive broadband, i believe it is a reinforcement of this point. Representative palmer thank you for testifying. You claim to your Opening Statement that this was the most open and transparent rulemaking in sec history fcc history. You claimed that all your medications were properly communicated for communications were properly we have a slide. While they are working on that slide, i have here a copy of your ex parte filing for the president s statement on Net Neutrality. Mr. Wheeler, it is two paragraphs long, three sentences total. Are we left to believe the entirety of the white houses involvement can be captured in just three sentences . Chair wheeler i am now being passed, thank you. This is the letter, november 10. Mr. Palmer that is correct. Chair wheeler i believe there is a twopage attachment that gets specific and says what the rules should be, things such as that. That wireless should be covered, things like that. Mr. Palmer do they have that . I believe it is three sentences. Chair wheeler i disagree that they put in here the entire statement of the president. In which he was saying, this is what i think we ought to stand for. Mr. Palmer are you telling us that jeffrey came over to meet with you and just read the president s statement . I will yield back. Chair wheeler i do not think that was the question. Maybe i am confused. Mr. Palmer let me be more specific. Your calendar shows february 2014, you had two phone calls. The same afternoon, one with the White House Office of science and technology. Is that correct . Chair wheeler if the calendar says that. I do not recall, but if the calendar says that. Mr. Palmer you do not recall talking to mr. Podesta. Do you have any recollection of a phone call . Chair wheeler if the calendar says so, i will stipulate to it. But, you know, lets mr. Palmer do recall talking to the Technology Office . Chair wheeler i have talked to them multiple times. Mr. Palmer can you give us an idea of what was discussed in either of those calls . Chair wheeler what was the date . Mr. Palmer february of last year, 2014. Chair wheeler i do not know with the specifics of that call were. I dont call it. Mr. Palmer do you have a recollection of having those calls . Chair wheeler if my calendar says, i must have. I do not have a recollection of it. The other thing is, there was a whole bunch of things that are going on. That are relevant. But i do not know what we were talking about. Mr. Palmer it shows up on your calendar. If you are having a difficult time remembering the calls or certainly the content of those calls, should either of those calls have been recorded as ex parte contacts . Chair wheeler i do not recall the content. Secondly, as we have discussed previously, there are specific guidelines as far as ex parte as far as what ex parte is, and thirdly, there is and has been since the First Bush Administration a ruling that contact with the administration and with congress are not ex parte. Mr. Palmer last question. What other contacts the recall do you recall that you have had with the white house prior to april 2014 emails that have been publicly released . Chair wheeler you have my calendar and my emails. Mr. Palmer mr. Chairman, i yield the balance of my time. Mr. Chaffetz i recognize mr. Desaulnier. For five minutes. Mr. Desaulnier i just want to thank you for your service. I am tremendously proud of not just your decision, but your testimony today and how you have handled yourself considering your background. Coming from the San Francisco bay area, the importance to innovation for us, having many constituents who work at Companies Like facebook and google and apple, we want to make sure we get it right. And having a presence in my district of at t and comcast, i understand the balance you had to go through and the importance of your balance of your independence and expertise of independent commissions and relationship with the administration and congress. I actually think there is obviously a very strong argument to be made that someone like yourself or your staff are more appropriately situated to make avoid some of the politics and make these decisions. Having said that, i was particularly taken by your comments to one of the questions about whether you were by appearance looking like you were secondguessing your decision. And your response to that, i thought was very forthright and very determined and clear. That was to the decision. Knowing that the process is probably as important as the perspective of the process and the actual decisionmaking, how would you respond to the question of are you equivocating about your concerns about the questions you are being asked and the process . Chair wheeler i believe that we handle this, congressman, just as any other issue that comes before us. Whether it is exciting like this or much more mundane things we normally deal with. We use the established procedures and precedents very religiously. Mr. Desaulnier would you say that your comments about the decisionmaking, you feel equally as proud of the process. Chair wheeler i think the process works. Mr. Desaulnier you commented about the number of the input from the public in the form of 4 million comments. Would you describe the reason for that . I have gotten lots of input from average, everyday citizens. Would you describe the motivation . Chair wheeler you know, i think that the internet touches peoples lives more than any other network probably in the history of mankind. Everybody, believe me, everybody has an opinion about the internet. Everybody wants to talk about the internet. When you begin addressing issues such as will the internet continue to be fair, fast, and open, those are things it does not take an engineering degree or Computer Science degree for to be able to understand. Those are things that affect people individually. And i think that is why we had this kind of response. Mr. Desaulnier it is interesting seeing behind you a picture of the connection of the transcontinental railway. When you look from a Historical Perspective of how government and federal government has handled what considered aspects of the commonwealth, and also wanted to be fair to the people who were investing in the private sector, whether it is railroads or television or the media, from your perspective one of the concerns is who benefits and who does not. Usually, the poorest americans have benefited the least in the short term. Do you have any comments about the rulemaking about the Digital Divide . Will it help eliminate that . Or have sort of an opposite, how it would affect the poorest of americans . Chair wheeler if you do not have access, free, fair open access, then you per se have a divide. And so when we come out and talk about how there needs to be, no matter where you are, no matter what legal content it is, that there should be open access to it. That is the predicate to not having a divide. Not to say that there are challenges that we will continue to face. But that the baseline is there has to be open this. Openness. Mr. Desaulnier thank you. Mr. Chaffetz i recognize the gentleman from iowa. Iowa. Representative blum thank you chairman wheeler, for being here today and sharing your insight. I admire your tie. I did not get the memo. It is that day. I have a general question. Chair wheeler i grew up with an iowa woman who is big into irish. You make sure you well a green tie. [laughter] mr. Blum in your Opening Statement, you mentioned that one of the fccs goals is to protect the open internet as a level Playing Field for innovators and entrepreneurs. I am one of those innovators and i am one of those entrepreneurs. My concern, as a small businessman, is i have seen firsthand what happens to private and free marketplaces when the heavy hand of federal government gets involved. Typically, what happens, we see less innovation. Lower qualities. We see higher prices, higher taxes. An example of that recently of is the Affordable Care act which was supposed to level the Playing Field for small businesses. We have seen higher prices, lesser innovation, higher taxes. My question to you and the question i am asked in iowa often is what steps is the fcc going to take to ensure that the internet remains vibrant innovative, and open . When history has shown us, when the heavy hand of federal government gets involved in a free and vibrant market, bad things happen. Chair wheeler first of all, i would like to identify with you as an entrepreneur to another. I too have been a small businessman. I have started half a dozen companies. Some worked, some did not. Mr. Blum that happens. Chair wheeler you understand that experience as well, im sure. For the decade before i took this job, i was a venture capitalist who was investing in early stage internet protocolbased companies. So i know both personally from my own experience, as well as from my investing experience that openness is key. If the companies i had invested in did not have open access to the distribution network, it would have been an entirely different story. The thing that is most interesting about the difference mr. Blum what will you do to guarantee it . Chair wheeler you can tell your constituents that openness is the core of creativity. There should be nobody acting as a gateway and saying, you are only going to get on my network if you do it on my terms. And the key, then, is we go to the previous discussion that you make sure you have the gateway not blocking the openness of entrepreneurs. At the same time, that gateway not being retailprice regulated so it can continue to invest. That is the kind of balance we are trying to do. I would urge you to tell your constituents that the opportunity for innovation opportunity for scaling that is required of innovation, has never been greater. Mr. Bloom with all due respect, many people in iowa would say you are trying to solve a problem that does not exist. I have a specific question for you. During an interview at the Consumer Electronics show in january, you said you had an aha moment, when you realize that the title to classifications exempted phone providers from provisions. Later in the year, House Communications subcommittee chair greg walden said that he met with you in november of 2014 to reiterate Congressional Republicans concern with title ii regulation of the internet. In that meeting, he said you assured him you are committed to Net Neutrality without classification of broadband under title ii. Sounds to me like a flipflop. Can you explain the difference . Chair wheeler i respect mr. Walden greatly. I will be testifying before him on thursday. I saw that he made that statement. I went back to the contemporaneous notes from that meeting. And we have a completely different set of recollections and, in fact, notes. Because my notes say that i said that we would use light touch title ii and section 706. I do not know what is going on. All i am saying is that those are what my notes are. Mr. Blum i yield my time. Mr. Chaffetz i recognize mr. Carter. For five minutes. Mr. Carter thank you, mr. Wheeler, for being here today. We appreciate it very much. In the short five minutes i have, i want to try to get a better understanding of two things. First of all, throughout the process today and through my reading, through listening, it just appears the whole process there was more attention paid to the white house then there was the congress. I just do not understand why that would be the case in an independent body like yours. Did you serve on the Transition Team for the Obama Administration . Chair wheeler yes sir. Mr. Carter that is correct . It is true to say you have a i close relationship with the president . Chair wheeler i am not sure i have a close relationship with the president. Mr. Carter you served on his Transition Team. I do not think he would have someone on the team that was not close to him. Agreed . He did not ask me to be on his Transition Team. Lets put it that way. Well, after the rule, the day after the rule, the vote for the rule, did it strike you as being interesting that of fellow commissioner called the new rules president obamas plan . Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. I think it is appropriate to state something very clearly. To a response to what you are saying. Since taking this job i met once with the president in the oval office. It was the first week on the first couple of days on the job. It was congratulations, welcome to the job. In that meeting, he said to me, you need to understand i will never call you. You are an independent agency. Then why do you think a fellow commissioner made the comment that this is president obamas plan for the internet . He has been good to his word, sir. I do why do you think they made the statement that it was president obamas plan . I have noticed occasionally over time that both committees will engage in hyperbole. So you just think its hyperbole . Sir you agree with the statement . I believe it was put together by the fcc. So you do not agree with the dnc statement that this was president obamas plan . Lets get specific, one, he did not have section 706 and what he sent. Secondly he did not cover interconnection, which recover. Thirdly, he talked about for Bank Regulation and not the 26 other things we do. I think we produced a plan that is uniquely our plan. And is a plan based on the record that was established before us and that when the president joined the 64 democratic members of congress and the millions of people and he said he, too, that this made sense and he was piling on rather than be definitive. All thats fine but let me ask you. Through the process of this evolution of the plan, did your thought process change at all . Initially, it appeared you had in mind what was referred to as a hybrid 706 plan. You actually use the right word. My evolution. I started off with peers 706 and then i realized as i fed my testimony that that would not work because of the commercially reasonably test. I started exploring title ii did anyone read you in this exploration . Yes, sir. All kinds of commenters and a lot of work that was put into that. Do you think any of those commenters were influenced by the white house . I have no idea. One final question. Do you feel that you played paid as close attention to the white house as you did to congress . Sir, i believe i have frankly, spent more time discussing this issue with members of congress then with the administration. Ultimately, do you feel that you listen to the input of congress more than the white house . I pay full attention to the record that was established in this proceeding. That included members of congress saying no, dont do title ii. It included members of congress saying do do title ii. Again, do you feel like you paid us close attention to congress as he did the white house . I think my responsibility is to be responsive to all of the people i cant tell if that is a yes or no. I think i was very responsive to congress. Thank you very much. I appreciate the gentlemans commitment to st. Patricks day as exempt if i buy that jacket, but the chair is prepared to rule that he has only been outdone by the gentleman from wisconsin who clearly is wearing his colors today. When i recognize that gentleman from wisconsin, i will recognize them for five minutes. Thank you for hanging around salon. Last week, the wall street journal had an article reporting that the white house had spent months in a secretive effort to change the fcc course. Did this news come as surprise to you question mark what was your reaction when you heard about it . There is a standard process i believe with a stand where the white house works on developing their position. I was not a part of it. Did that surprise you when you heard about it . It is not surprised that Something Like that goes on. Ok, last spring and summer you had various meetings with white house officials, did you become aware at that time that the white house was working on alternative to your original proposal . I had heard rumors that the white house was looking at this as they say, as they look at other issues to develop administration positions. The white house apparently had dozens of meeting with online activists, startups traditional telecommunication companies. Participants were told we believe for dissidents allegedly told not to discuss the process. Where you aware of these meetings at the time . I knew that there was a process and that there were this group, i did not know who they were meeting with. I yield back the rest of my time. I recognize mr. Cummings, for maryland. Mr. Cummings as we wind down the hearing, i want to thank you again for your testimony. I think that you know, when decisions are made by various bodies commissions, quite often people are in disagreement with those decisions. I dont think there is anything wrong with looking behind the curtain and trying to figure out what the process was because one of the things we have been pushing very hard on in this committee is the transparency. Your testimony has been very enlightening. I think we need to keep in mind, you know, that these decisions are made by people who come to government. They dont have to do that. But they come to government, trying to bring their own experiences to the table, their concerns, and their hopes. Their hopes of bringing us one more to that more Perfect Union that they cap about. I want to thank you for all that you have done and continue to do. I want to thank the other commissioners and your employees. I think a lot of times in these circumstances, we forget that there are employees who have worked very hard. And trying to do it right on these issues. So that is very important. I hope you will take that back to your commissioners and the employees. And i am hopeful that we can move forward here. Again, i have listened to you very carefully. There was a moment i mentioned to my staff that it kind of touched me a bit when you asked if you are backtracking on your decision. And the passion that you responded in the same that absolutely not, this was a decision you all made and that you are proud of it. And that is something that is very important to you. You cant fake that. You cant fake it. And as a trial lawyer, im used to watching people testify, and another thing that you said and you were very clear is that youre here to you adhere to the rules. And i appreciate that. And i believe you. And so, we look forward to continuing to work with you. Again, i want to thank you for your testimony. Chairman mr. Chairman, i appreciate you being here today. We were made aware that the Inspector General has opened an investigation of this process. Are you aware of that investigation . No. It is my understanding that it is not an audit but an investigation. We you be willing to cooperate with this investigation . Of course. I think one of the key things and it was brought up on both sides the process of openness and transparency. My personal opinion, there could have been a lot more done to maximize the transparency and openness. The rules do allow you latitude to give it more transparency than you did. I think one the things our bodies should look at is compelling that openness and transparency rather than making it simply discretionary. And that is something we will have to take that because there are warnings that go one direction and others, some are happy, some are not. The idea that the public would say have a 30 day opportunity to see the final goal, i think rings true with a lot of people. This notion that right up until the time he voted for it, nobody outside that commission is allowed to see the final product. It does not lend itself well to maximizing openness and transparency. That is my comment and not a question but i do think that a 30 day window would do that. I also think that the interactions with those who have an opinion is fine. It is a healthy one. But the lack of disclosure about those reads openly read acting emails and leads one to believe that there were a bit more of a secret type of communication going on there. I think you can understand. I hope that you can appreciate why some people would come to that conclusion, particularly given the dramatic change in the policy that you took. Nevertheless, i think this is a good and healthy hearing. We picked it we appreciate your participation and that is what this process about. I appreciate your participation here today. We do have a number of outstanding request from the fcc that we would appreciate your providing that information with this committee. Some take a little longer time and some are fairly easy, but we appreciate your staff who had to do a lot of this work and thank them for those efforts. This committee now stands adjourned. Next, deputy secretary of state and the testifying on i run nuclear negotiations. After that, defense secretary Ashton Carter and a joint chief chair dempsey testifying on the budget, isis, and other defense issues. Tonight, gabriel the Communications Director of twitter providing an insiders view of the companys operations and philosophy. Here a portion of his remarks. Gabriel for those of you who are familiar with must play with twitter, one of the parts that have allowed the rise of it is being this platform for Free Expression and we support pseudonyms. Unlike other platforms that require you to give your actual identity, because we allow pseudonyms, if you go into cases like arab spring for example, it turns out if you want to take down the man, it is a lot easier to do so if you dont have to say here is who i exactly who i am, my real name, my address and support forth. The flipside of that spectrum is if you dont have to give your actual identity, it makes it easier for you to express yourself in less constructive ways, not bringing down an oppressive regime, but potentially just in a controlling an abusive way. And that is a tricky balance. One that we are, today grappling with. Our ceo actually had one of our internal emails leaked out and our ceo was saying in his words that we have been falling short on striking that balance. It is something we are trying to figure out. What are the ways to preserve the beauty of the platform as this incredible vehicle for Free Expression while at the same time, having boundaries in the that prevent people from engaging in what is really indecency. It is a daily challenge. A discussion about twitter and free speech, hosted by the university of california berkeley. He can watch his night beginning at 8 30 eastern on cspan. Here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the cspan networks. On cspan2 book tv tonight and it Pulitzer Prize winning historian eric stoner on the efforts of free blacks and white abolitionist to help fugitive slaves. Information of the underground railroad. Sunday night at 10 00 journalist on the rise and leadership of ices in the middle east. Throughout the day on cspan today, American History tv joins historians and others at the Abraham Lincoln symposium, live from fords theater. Sunday evening at 6 00, on american artifacts, a visit to the National Museum of health and medicine to view items from the civil war collection. Including artifacts related to president lincolns assassination. Find a complete Television Schedule at www. Cspan. Org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. Call us at 2026263400, email us at comments at cspan. Org or send us a tweet at cspan comments. Join the cspan conversation. Like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. Tomorrow on washington journal douglas shaw, the former white house special assistant for arms control discusses the latest in iran nuclear negotiations. Then Thomas Hungerford of the Economic Policy institute looks at the Republican House and Senate Budget plans. After that, carly jim of the senate for strategic and International Studies talks about why president obama has declared venezuela as a National Security threat to the u. S. Plus your phone calls, Facebook Comments and tweets. Washington journal live sunday at 7 00 a. M. Eastern on span. On cspan. Sunday on newsmakers adam schiff talks about the Hillary Clinton email story and the future of the court. He currently serves as Ranking Member on the House Intelligence Committee and also discusses Cyber Security issues and the possible reorganization of the cia. Watch newsmakers sunday at 10 00 a. M. And 6 00 p. M. On cspan. Secret Service Director Joseph Clancy testifies on an incident in which two secret Service Agents allegedly drove into the white house barricade while drunk. He spoke in front of the house appropriation subcommittee and you can see his comments sunday at 10 30 a. M. Eastern also on cspan. Now, isi as rears their ugly head and the armys shaky. You cannot undo decades of soviet year and stuff with eight years. Especially when you taught them about it where they would have you u. S. Advisors and partners with them. Afghanistan, according to the president s announcement, we currently have 10,000 troops in a training and advising role but we will draw down to 5000 year and down to almost zero per year after that. I would warn that we would see a similar result to what we saw in iraq when isis attacked. That army will be shaky without u. S. Help. This sunday on q a retired general on the failed u. S. Strategies in iraq and i can stand. And what we should have done and afghanistan and what we should have done differently. Deputy secretary of state and then he told congress that if a nuclear deal with iran was achieved and iran failed to comply with the, the country would face severe consequences. He testified before the House Foreign Affairs committee on the status of the negotiations facing an end of march deadline for all parties to reach an agreement. The hearing is one hour and 45 minutes. This hearing will come to order and the committee here today will continue to evaluate the administrations Nuclear Diplomacy with iran. That is the center of the hearing today. A hiatus stakes deadline exit. We will hear the administrations case today. But it is critical of the administration that there are fighting partisan concerns here. Deputy secretary, this is your first appearance before the committee and i congratulate you on your position. I wish you well. After the hearing, i trust you will be in touch with secretary kerry undersecretary sherman and others that are involved in the negotiating process to report on the committees views. I think this is very important. This committee has been at the forefront of examining the threat of a nuclear iran. Much of the pressure that has been brought on the Islamic Republic of iran and that brought them to the table was put in place by congress. It was put in place over the objections of the executive branch. That is the executive branch whether it was republican or democratic administrations, but it is the house of representatives that has driven this process. And wed have more pressure on iran today if the administration had not pressured the senate to sit on the voice angle sanctions bill that the committee produced and passed in 2013 and passed by the way, unanimously. The past 40020 inhouse. Congress is proud of this role and we want to see the administration get a lasting and meaningful agreement. Unfortunately, the administrations of negotiating strategy has been more about managing proliferation and preventing it. The case in point that i bring up is irans enrichment program. The Key Technology needed in developing a nuclear bomb. Reportedly, the administration would be agreeable to leaving much of irans enrichment capability in place for one decade. If congress will be asked to roll back its sanctions on iran, which will certainly fund irans terrorist activities when we roll back the sanctions then there must be a substantial rollback of Irans Nuclear program. And consider that International Inspectors report that iran is still not revealed its past bomb work, despite its commitment to those inspectors to the iaea to do that. That ie eighaea is still eaeaiaea is still concerned. Iran has not began to address the concerns. Last of all, over 350 members were to the secretary of state expressing deep concerns about this lack of cooperation from iran. How can we expect iran to uphold an agreement when they are not meeting their current commitments . Indeed, we were not surprised to see iran supposedly Procure Nuclear technology during these negotiations. Or that iran was caught testing a more advanced centrifuge. That would help produce bomb material quicker. A new grade of supersonic centrifuge. Right in the middle of this process. This was a violation of the spirit and in my view, the letter of the interim agreement. Irans deception is all the more reason that the administration should obtain zero notice anywhere anytime inspections on irans declared an undeclared facilities. You have to have a verification bridging in this process that will work for us. There is also the fact that limits placed on Irans Nuclear program as part of the final agreement, now being negotiated, are going to expire. They will expire, and that means the final agreement is just another interim step. You call the final step as an interim step for the real final step with iran being treated as any other nonNuclear Weapon states under the nonproliferation treaty, thus licensing it to produce industrial scale enrichment. With a deep history of deception, covert procurement clandestine facilities, iran is not any other country. It certainly is not any other country to be conceded in an industrial scale Nuclear Program. Any meaningful agreement must keep restrictions in place for decades. As over 360 members of congress, including every member of this committee, are demanding a letter to the president this week. Meanwhile, iran is intensifying its destructive role in the region. The Islamic Republic of iran is propping up has sought in syria while its proxy threatens israel. Iran in militia are killing hopes of unified and stable iraq. Last month, and iranian backed militia displaced the government in yemen, formerly a key counterterrorism partner to the United States. Many of our allies and partners see iran pocketing an advantageous Nuclear Agreement and ramping up its aggression in the region as a result of the hard currency that they will have at their disposal as the sanctions are lifted. So, this committee is prepared to evaluate any agreement to determine if it is in the longterm National Security interests of the United States and our allies. Indeed, as secretary kerry testified on the go, any agreement will have to pass muster with congress. Yet, that commitment has been muddied by the administrations insistence in recent weeks that congress will not play a role. And that is not right. Congress build the sanctions structure that brought iran to the table. If the president moves to dismantle it, we will have a say. So i now turn to the Ranking Member mr. Ingle of new york. Mr. Ingle thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this important and timely hearing. Mr. Deputy secretary, mr. Undersecretary, welcome to our committee. We are grateful for your service and we look over to your testimony and i wanted congratulate both of you on your new positions. The chairmans remarks are very similar to mine. We have worked very hard on this committee to have bipartisan ship because both the chairman and i agree that if there is one place where we need bipartisanship more than any other place, it involves Foreign Policy. And so ever possible, we try to talk with one voice and i want to associate myself with the chairmans remarks. We have seen a lot of speculative reporting in the press about might or might not be included with the nuclear deal with iran. Today, we are going to send over a little to the president a letter to the president signed by 360 members of commerce in both parties. We will talk about some of the things we are concerned with and that we hope we could get a prompt response from the white house. It is truly a very bipartisan letter expressing congresss strong feelings about things that need to be in the agreement. I want to emphasize reemphasize what the chairman said. There really cannot be any marginalization of congress. Congress really needs to play a very active and vital role in this whole process in the attempts to sidestep congress and they will be resisted on both sides of the aisle. We have seen a lot of speculative reporting in the press about what might or might not have been included and the company head of the year deal with iran. We do not technically even know if there will be a deal, but if there is, i think we would all be wise to review the details before passing judgment and whether it is a good deal or bad deal or simply a deal we can live with. I think it is safe to assume that we are not going to see what i would consider a perfect deal. Iran should have been required to freeze enrichment during negotiations, but they were not. It is clear that the phrase is not on the table for conference of agreement. At this stage, we need to focus on making the deal as good as it can be. I am hoping there are witnesses that can shed light on it a few key areas that for me, could tip the scales between a bad deal and a deal that we might be able to live with. First, as part of any conference of agreement, we need total clarity about where iran stands in terms of its ability to weaponize its nuclear material. How far along are they . Secondly, with a deal given sufficient time to respond if iran reneges and presses a full bottle toward a Nuclear Weapon . There is a oneyear break up. Before iran has sufficient enriched iranians to build a bomb. Is that an attempt to catch the violation and react . Next, stop iran from pursuing a Nuclear Weapon covertly. If they make the decision to speak out rather than break out. Irans leaders dont deserve an ounce of trust. We need very strong safeguards. Lastly, how will we be certain that sanctions relief will not just open the fort fossett for funding terrorism or fuel the regimes of abysmal human rights records. In my view, these layout clear markers for what we need to see. Here is the bottom line if we say yes to a deal, will it be worth unwrapping the decade of sanctions and pressure that the United States and our partners have built against iran . If we say no, would we be able to hold the sanctions, and coalitions together . If we maintained or increased the sanctions, wouldnt iran just moved close be ahead toward a bomb . All these negotiations have gone on for months and months and one is in intense pressure to produce something, but we cannot allow them to push us into a bad deal being sold as a good deal. The administration has argued that reaching a deal is the best chance to solve a Nuclear Crisis to the mikey crisis diplomatically. As i have repeatedly said, i am willing to see what is actually in the deal before passing judgment and i strongly urge my colleagues to do the same. But make no mistake, congress will play an Important Role in the evaluation of a final deal. Again, i want to say that i will not stand by and allow congress to be marginalized. Any permanent repeal of sanctions by law is congresss discretion. Before we do that, we must be completely convinced that this blocks all of irans pathways to a nuclear bomb. I look forward to your testimony and hope we can have a frank discussion of these issues. Again, mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. Mr. Royce thank you mr. Ingle. We are pleased to be joined by senior presented is from state and treasury. Mr. Tony blanck and he served as the assistant to the president and was Principal Deputy advisor. He also worked as the democratic staff director for the Foreign Relations committee. He just confirmed that we will welcome him for his first appearance before the committee. Mr. Adam steuben is the acting undersecretary for the office of terrorism and financial of treasury. He previously served as the director we welcome him back. Without objection, the witnesses for prepared statement will be made and members here will have five calendars days and any questions for the record. We will ask you to please summarize your remarks and mr. Secretary, if you would begin. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be here. Secretary blinken as we speak and as you mentioned, under secretary of state sherman negotiating with the government of iran over the future of the Nuclear Program. Our goal for this negotiations is to verify and ensure that irans program is exclusively for peaceful purposes. To that end, we seek to cut off before pathways that iran could take to obtain material for a Nuclear Weapon. There are two iranian pathways to the activities for enrichment facilities. To cut off all of these pathways, any comprehensive arrangement must include exceptional constraints on Irans Nuclear program and extraordinary monitoring and transparency measures that maximize ability to have any attempt that iran will breakout covertly. As a practical matter, we are working to ensure iran, should it really of commitments, would take at least one year to produce enough material for one Nuclear Weapon. That would provide us with more than enough time to detect and act on any iranian transgression. In exchange, the International Community would provide iran with proportionate and reversible sanctions relief, tied to verifiable actions on their part. If iran were to violate their commitments, sanctions would be quickly we impose. It is irans responsibility to convince the world by building a track record of their by compliance that its Nuclear Program is exclusively peaceful. That is why we are seeking a timeframe for a comprehensive deal of sufficient length to firmly establish such a track record. Only then would iran be treated like any other noneurope state party with all the rights, but with also all the obligations of a. Including continued moderating monitoring. To not build a Nuclear Weapon. The Bush Administration first proposed this concept to iran and dozens of countries around the world adhered. They said recently that a deal with iran would have an eventual end date. In fact, some constraints would be removed after a significant. Significant period of time including a stringent and monitoring regime. Iran would have to fully implement the iaea safeguard and protocol together. That would give us access to all declared Nuclear Facilities and any suspected undeclared facilities. Even after constraints are completed, far more interested inspection is would be required of iran before the agreement. Some have argued that iran would be free to develop a Nuclear Weapon if we achieve a plan, but that is not true. To the contrary, iran will be prohibited from developing a Nuclear Weapon in perpetuity and we would have a much greater ability to detect any effort by iran to do so. Iran would be allowed to have a peaceful civilian Nuclear Program continuously verified by the iea. Our goal is to reach an agreement by the end of the month and to complete the Technical Details by the end of june. There has been a lot of reporting and this is but i can tell you, in switzerland they have been intense. We have made progress on core issues, significant gaps renamed on summer on some other issues. We believe in must be part of a conference of deal and what iran is going to do. While the negotiations are taking place, it is vital in our judgment that we avoid any actions that would leave the world to believe that the United States was responsible for their failure. Such actions include enacting new sanctions now. New sanctions at this time including socalled trigger legislation, are unnecessary. Iran is no scary well that if they refuse a reasonable agreement or reneges on its commitments, new sanctions can and will be passed in a matter of days. New sanctions now would be inconsistent with their commitments under the interim agreement. They would undermine our sanctions coalition, give iran is to support weight or take a hard line that makes it impossible to achieve while blaming the failure on us. In our judgment, we must also avoid judgment that call into question the president s authority to make commitments the United States would keep. The cushion with a four nation is the president s response ability. There is confusion on this basic point, no Foreign Government would trust that when a president speaks for our country, he actually does. In this case, such confusion could embolden hard buyers in iran, the fight is from device from allies, and make it difficult to sustain International Support for existing sanctions. That International Support is critical to the success of the sanctions regime that congress did such an Important Role in building. Up until now, we have kept other countries on board despite the hardship it has caused some of them. In large part because they are convinced we are serious about reaching a diplomatic solution. If they lose that conviction, the United States, not iran, could be isolated and the sanctions regime could collapse. Congress has played and will continue to play a central leading role in these efforts. Congressional legislation gave us the tools to get iran to the negotiating table and as it has been noted, only congress has the authority to lift sanctions as part of any conference of solution. Since signing the interim deal, we have been on the hill and dozens of times to update on the progress of the talks. All more 200 briefings meetings and phone calls, if we reach an agreement, we will welcome intense robust scrutiny. We also expect that any critics explain not only why the deal is lacking, but also what would be a better alternative and how it could be achieved. Our nuclear discussions with iran do not alter our commitment to the security of our allies in the region or are deeply affected by irans ability to spread and support terrorism. That will not change, with or without a deal. We will retain necessary tolls and determination to continue in countering irans troubling behavior. In deed, the most important thing we can do from keeping iran feeling further emboldened is to that deny is to deny them a Nuclear Weapon. They deserve and we will continue to insist that iran police iran help us find robert levinson. Thank you very much. Mr. Royce mr. Szubin. Mr. Szubin good morning. It is a pleasure to be here today and thank you for the invitation. This is my first appearance before a Congressional Committee as acting as under secretary. In my time at treasury including nine years leading the Foreign Office of access control, i deported the majority of my working hours to building honing, and implementing sanctions on iran. Both executive sanctions and strong congressional i partisan sanctions that you all have enacted. I am particularly appreciated of having the opportunity to testify on this vital issue. The global architecture of our sanctions on iran is unprecedented. Both in terms of its strength and the International Foundation that underpin it. Working together with our partners around the world and with congress, we have assembled a coalition that has fundamentally altered irans economic posture. As a result, we today have a chance of resolving one of the worlds most vexing and Persistent Security threats. At this critical juncture in the talks, it is important to note that iran remains under massive strain as had and has no viable route to an economic recovery without negotiated believe from international sanctions. This strain is visible across every sector in irans economy. First, their financial lifeline, oil. In 2012, iran was exporting about 2. 5 billion 2. 5 Million Barrels of oil per day to some 20 jurisdictions. Today, iran is exporting 60 less oil than just three years ago to just six jurisdictions. The losses, of course, have been compounded by the steep drop in global oil prices, such that irans chief Revenue Source is bringing in less than one quarter of what it brought in for iran just three years ago. Just as troubling for iran is the fact that it cannot freely access those revenues. It has a reduced stream of revenues that, thanks to congress, are going into restrictive accounts. Either frozen or tied up in banks around the world. Foreign investment in iran, it has dropped precipitously. From 2000 422 thousand 14 foreign capital was pouring into developing countries and iran saw an 80 drop in foreign investment. Irans oil minister recently estimated that the cut petroleum and gas sectors would need 170 billion to recover. The iran in it has depreciated since 2012 and lost 12 of its fire just under the jp 08 alone as we have been negotiating. The imf for this coming year projects that irans economy will enter stagnation. With gdp growth falling 2. 6 . Falling to. 6 . This is the lowest, including countries like afghanistan that sell no oil. Finally, irans Banking Sector remains isolated. It holds a high proportion of nonperforming loans. As you can hear, their economy is under strain, but this sanctions pressure cannot be sustained without work. Accordingly, over the jp 08. We have worked very intensively to enforce our sanctions. In the past 15 months, we have targeted nearly 100 actors individuals, countries, for either helping iran ebay sanctions or helping them conduct other misconduct. We have imposed nearly half 1 billion in penalties on companies that were conducting illicit transactions under our iran sanctions. We will not soft in our enforcement of existing sanctions. Now, as we speak, negotiators are hard at work trying to secure a joint conference of plan of action. Regardless of whether or not these negotiations succeed, i want to assure the committee that the Treasury Department and the administration has a hold are prepared or whatever comes next. If we are able to secure a comprehensive understanding, we will structure and their related sanctions relief that is away that it is face, proportionate and reversible. We will need to see verified steps on irans part before sanctions are lifted. And we believe that powerful u. S. Legislative sanctions should not be terminated for years to come, so we continue to retain important leverage years into a deal. Alternatively, if we determine that a conference of deal with iran cannot be obtained, the administration, working with congress, is prepared to ratchet up the pressure. Over the past decade, we have developed a very subtle insight into irans financial close economic stress points, and how it attempts to work around sanctions are in we stand ready to raise the cost on iran substantially, should make clear it is unwilling to address the International Communitys concerns. Of course, while we must prepare for every contingency, we remain hopeful that we can achieve a peaceful resolution to this serious and longstanding threat. Thank you again for inviting me to appear your today and i look forward to taking your questions. Mr. Royce thank you. If i could go to my first question. It goes to the sunset and a major concern is the expiration date. In as little as 10 years, all the restrictions and other measures that you are touting here today will come off and Irans Nuclear program will then be treated as though it was equivalent to the netherlands. Why 10 years does the administration why 10 years . Does the Administration Believe or hope the Iranian Regime would have moderated within that timeframe . Secretary blinken personal, more or less, that is all to be negotiated. I think looking at this as a sunset is not accurate way to look at what we want to achieve. What we are proposing and seeking to achieve is a series of constraints and obligations. Some will end after a long period of time and others will continue longer and some could be indefinite in perpetuity. About the bottom line is after certain obligations, even if they are completed by iran, it cannot become a Nuclear Weapon state. It will be legally bound under the treaty not to make or acquire a Nuclear Weapon and there will be legally blind finding safeguards to verify. They will have to sign a conference of safeguards agreement mr. Royce but that is why we are here today. You are putting this stock in irans signature to the npt and it is safeguard agreement. They have had those same commitments and they have been violating this commitments for years. That is why this process i would just point that out and the other point i would make is that 10 years or whatever that timeframe is, they are they going to be treated as any other nonNuclear Weapon npt state. And that means no sanctions, no restrictions on procurement, no restrictions on the stockpile or number of centrifuges they can spend. At that point, 10 years out, on a purity level to which it may enrich i will give you an example of where this would put iran. They would enrich uranium at that point to levels near weapon grade, i am presuming. Claiming the desire to power a nuclear navy because that is what brazil is doing, so i will assume they are going to do the same thing. That would all be permissible and all be blessed under this agreement, as i read it, no matter who was in charge of iran in 10 years, and that is why a Ranking Member that is i Ranking Member ingle and i have a letter going to the president signed by over 350 members of congress, demanding that the verifiable constraints on irans program lasts decades. E not the shorte not the shorter period of time. My next question, the administration has set a benchmark, when your breakup. , but is when youre sufficient to detect and then reverse potential iranian violations, and why not insist on two or three years . Secretary blinken we think a oneyear break out time is not only sufficient but conservative. We believe that with that their vacation and inspections and monitoring that we insist on with any agreement, that would give us more than enough time not only to detect any abuse of the agreement, but also to act on it. If you look at what various experts have said, many have said that a far lesser. A far lesser period of time would be hard to mr. Royce let me just add very quickly, when youre is very conservative. That is the most if everything went perfectly for iran it the idea that any country, including iran would break out for one bomb source of material is highly unlikely. Mr. Royce let me go to this question, will you and says that that the iaea have access to all facilities including guard bases from what we know about what was going on there . And will iran have to satisfy all questions that the iaea has regarding their Covert Research on a nuclear warhead, including access to key scientific personnel and paperwork . Secretary blinken without going into the details, we will insist that the iaea had to access it must have in order to do its job and verify. Mr. Royce i understand your perspective of what is necessary to do the job, but mine is a specific list of criteria based upon my discussions with the iaea and i want to make sure the circuit those are found and followed. Lastly it seems the administration plans to push the Security Council to adopt a new resolution to basically was this agreement for sanctions. At the same time, you are pushing off congress. Why push for that action but not congress . Secretary blinken we are not pushing off either. I think as you said and Ranking Member ingle said, congress will have to exercise its authority to lift sanctions at the end of an agreement if iran complies. Indeed, keeping that toward the end, until we see iran is complying mr. Royce our concern is that if you push is off for 10 years in theory, and it this is consequential enough to go to the un Security Council that doubt that under resolution under chapter seven, which by definition deals with a threat to peace breaches of the peace and ask of aggression, then it would certainly be consequential enough to be submitted to the senate for advice and consent. That is the point i wanted to make. Secretary blinken this is an International Agreement and would be made with other members of the Security Council, iran. Under these circumstances, it would be normal for the Security Council to take note of any agreement and to create a basis for lifting the u. N. Related sanctions. Congress will eventually have to decide whether to lift u. S. Sanctions. Mr. Royce my time has expired but suggesting that congress has a role to play by voting on sanctions relief years from now once a deal has run its course that to me is just ingenuous but that is my view of it. We will go to mr. Ingle for his questions. Mr. Ingle thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me first emphasize that the trepidation that all of us have about these negotiations involves at least for me what the chairman said. Any deal that would set in 10 sunset in 10 years or however much, we were concerned about it. We want to push that back as much as we possibly can because we really dont trust iran and i think the chairman is right on the mark in terms of our concern with the sunset in 10 years or so. Another thing that has bothered us, and again as the chairman mentioned, he and i have legislation which passed the house two years ago by 40020. And unanimously out of the committee. It involved strong sanctions and had the senate followed suit and then turned into law, i think we would have been in a stronger position. One of the things that is really annoying to all of us is that we are sitting and negotiating with iran over its Nuclear Program at a time when iran continues to be a bad actor all around the world. You take a look at capitals that iran is essentially controlled and yemen is being added to that , baghdad, damascus, beirut, this is not the regime that looks like it once piece. Iran continues to fuel terrorism around the globe. It is the number one in my opinion, state support of terrorism around the globe, so i believe in a Nuclear Agreement that should not white wash the fact that iran remains a destabilizing actor in the region and funds terrorism. Now, the Iranian Revolutionary guard corps theoretically could take advantage of any sanctions and result in the agreement between. Money is expendable. How can such relief be struck to minimize any benefit to the Iranian Revolutionary guard corps . Secretary blinken first we do share dirty concerns about irans destabilizing activities and support for terrorism. Which is why we will and we will continue to vigorously oppose those efforts and indeed, throughout the interim agreement , we will push back very hard on proliferation activities, terrorism support activities. Sanctioning individuals and working with our partners as we have been for more than six years to build up their capacity. With regard to any money that iran must sees as a result of relief from sanction, i would turn to my colleagues to discuss this, but let me just say i think what we see is that iran is in a very deep economic coal and a large part of the reason that he was elected as president was to respond to the desire for the people to get out of that hole. In one instance, at least, we believe a significant portion would go to try to plug their economic holes at home. Money is extensible expendable we also believe that the nine iran and Nuclear Weapons is the single most significant thing we could do to prevent older emboldening iran in the actions in the region. Mr. Ingle let me just say that that is precisely but we are concerned about. Iran has had a deep economic coal by having an agreement and releasing that. Helping them, so to speak, get out of that hole, and we went to obviously, and you do too, but make sure the safeguards are in. Thats what makes me nervous. Once you lose that leverage, it is very hard to get back. Mr. Szubin thank you and i will say as well, that is a concern we have been keenly focused on. The truth is, the size of the hole that iran is in a class almost any indicator you look at is far deeper than the relief that is on the table. Even a substantial relief should iran make good on all of the commitments that are being set out by the negotiators, we are talking about a whole that could be described in one sense of a 200 billion hold which are the losses we assess they have suffered since 2012 due to sanctions. In just the energy infrastructure, as i mentioned during my Opening Statement they came out and said they need 177 billion just to regain footing in that sector alone. The average iranian has seen steady decreases in their standard of living. Decreases in purchasing power, even since ali khamenei came into office. It will be a tremendous effort and a years long effort for iran to ride itself. That will not happen overnight. Finally, i just want to reiterate what deputy secretary blinken said, then it goes are going away and another on the table for discussion. With respect for interventions in yemen, and syria we will continue to pressure any forms of support that we see. Mr. Ingle let me ask you one question because you mentioned this we all agree that iran continues to support instability and terrorism in the middle east. However, the director of National Intelligence are not include iranian terrorism or his or any terrorist threat in the 2015 world wide threat assessment of the u. S. Intelligence communitys. Can you tell me why . It did not make any sense to me. We can talk and you can send me a letter about it. Mr. Szubin my understanding is forced about secretary blinken my understanding is, first of all the immediate concern we have withisi isil. It remains a Foreign Terrorist Organization and in our spotlight to put back and isolated around the world. The strangle it could not for iran. Secretary blinken that is correct. Mr. Royce we now go to thank you. During her confirmation hearing you promised senator rubio and the Foreign Relations committee that you and the administration would consult congress on any policy changes the administration was seeking toward cuba. That turned out to be a complete falsehood. I worry that the cuba example was a deliberate attempt by the administration to Keep Congress in the dark regarding the negotiations and why is this important . Not only because of the cuba deal but because of how that implicates the iranian deal. Keeping us in the dark, it foreshadows the administrations approach to congress. And keeping us out of the loop on the iranian deal. The administration has made it clear that it does not Want Congress to vote on the iranian deal anytime soon, but you just said to mr. Royce that the un Security Council will be having a vote on the iranian deal. Just to make a quick, you will be going to the un Security Council to ask her a vote on the iranian deal, yes or no . Secretary blinken we will be going to the Security Council presumably, because this is an International Agreement to take note of the deal and if there are any on the deal to Vote Congress can wait we had 10 years from now. Palestinian statehood, there have been reports last night that in order for president obama to continue this temper tantrum toward Prime Minister netanyahu, what we will be doing in the United Nations is in the shadows for a vote on Palestinian Statehood in order to pressure israel to be at the negotiation table with the palestinians. Is that true . Is that press report true . Secretary blinken no. The Administration Support for israel is absolutely unshakable. We have done more that support is very clear. Thank you. I will ask you another question on iran. I wanted to ask mr. Szubin, your cuba sanctions it took a very broad view on the administrations licensing on trading with i fear that the administration is using cuba as a test case, as i said, for normalizing relations with tehran, and will utilize its Licensing Authority to provide broad relief for iran. Under the jpoa the u. S. Is committed to removing nuclearrelated sanctions on iran. However as the author of the , iran sanctions law, the concept of an exclusively defined Nuclear Related sanction on iran does not exist in u. S. Law because the sanctions are intertwined with irans human rights report and support for terrorism. I ask you, mr. Szubin which sanctions will you seek to , suspend and ultimately lift under a final agreement and will you come ask for authorities to congress to ask for authorities before such action is taken . Mr. Szubin thank you. With respect to actions in the cuba amendments i will note that Licensing Authority is one that has been drawn on by administrations, democratic and republican, over the last decade and ive been involved under both presidencies, and its an authority thank you. This is going to take a long time. Mr. Blinken, iran has been cheating, skirting the rules violating International Agreements. What do we have to enforce any violation . Will there be penalties inbedded in the nuclear deal . Be specific. Mr. Blinken thank you. First, i should note that the iaea has said repeat lid the repeatedly that iran has complied have they also said iran is not complying and not letting them in. Mr. Blinken it said under the agreement iran has complied. You look at their reports and say, your cherry pick and say the iaea is happy with thus. Mr. Blinken no. I want to be clear to answer your question, that the iaea said that with regard to its obligations natural the interim agreement, iran has complied. Indeed, that will have to part of any agreement. As for enforcement, it is very straightforward. As undersecretary said, in the event that iran reneges sanctions could be im sure that iran is just shaking at that. Mr. Sherman representative sherman we should remember why where in the situation. The executive branch under the Bush Administration refused to enforce sanctions and violated american statutes for the benefit of iran for eight continuous years. The Bush Administration prevented congress from passing and used all of its power in congress to prevent us passing new statutory sanctions. Now, that doesnt fit with the image we have of president bush until you realize that at the time the sanctions all focused on International Oil companies which was not president bushs target of choice. Had we continued president bushs policies, we should know that during the Bush Administration, iran went from zero to 5000 installed centrifuges. Had we continued as policies iran would have 300 billion more available to it in cash right now because we have frozen 100 billion and 200 billion has been lost to iran and lost oil sales. But congress had it right for the last 15 years, which is why take such offense when i hear the administration say congress, if we have a view, were interfering and undermining. When you read the united constitution, you will see that when it comes to economic sanctions and international economics, all the power is vested in congress, except to the extent that the president negotiate a treaty that is ratified by the senate. Yet, i fear that when demonstration is doing what the administration is doing is using foreign rope to tie the hands of the United States congress. The foreign minister of iran was able to cite article twice seven of the convention on treaties, saying, well, the United States will be in violation of International Law if congress doesnt do whatever the president promises congress will do. I would and the administration feeds into that when a High Administration official declares, Foreign Policy runs through the executive branch and the president and does not go through other channels. I fear that we will have a situation where the executive branch comes to us and says, you have to take this action. Youre prohibited from taking that action. Because youre going to hold the United States up to ridicule for being in violation of International Law. I would hope that you would look at the memo issued by the Carter Department of justice, that stated, congress may enact legislation modifying or abrogating executive agreements, and that if that was formally turned over to the iran ian delegation, that we get a support under article 46 on the bni v in a convention on treaties. I should point out for the record that in 2007, senator clinton introduced, with the cosponsorships of senator obama and senator kerry, the oversight of iraq agreements act, which stated that any status of forces agreement between the United States and iraq that was not a treaty approved by twothirds of the senate or authorized by legislation would not have the force of law, and prohibited funding to implement that. For the record, because i just dont have time to give you at this moment, id like you to explain whether under the standards of the Obama Administration the introduction of that act by those three senators constituted an interference with policy undermining president bushs policies, etc. I want to focus on a particular question. There is a question here. I fear you have misled this committee in telling us that once iran has the rights of a nonnuclear state, subject to Additional Protocol, that youll be able to stop sneak outbecause sneak out because you said first, they cant develop a Nuclear Weapon because that would be illegal. That is a preposterous argument. Obviously theyre willing to break the law. The next point is you have conjured up this idea there will be inspecifics. The question is, inspections of suspected sites. Theres nothing in the Additional Protocol that adds to the npt. The npt was in force and it took two years after it was widely suspected that fordo was a secret site for the iaea to get there. So why do you tell us this iaea worked find for japan and the netherlands, it will work great for iran, when it wont allow us to get in quickly to suspected sites. Secretary blinken first, if iran makes an agreement it will make it with the full knowledge if it violates the agreement there will be severe consequences. Represent sherman talking about speaking sites. Not being detected. Secret sites. Secretary blinken the inspection regime well insist upon for any terrible let me finish will be beyond that, that any country has had anytime, anywhere in the world. That will from cradle to grave of the production progress. Mines, mills, factories, centrifuge facilities. That will create a basis of knowledge of the people, the places, the documents, that will last far beyond the duration of any of those provisions. Then beyond that its obligations under a safeguards agreement all of those taken together give us the confidence that the inspectors will have the ability to detect in the timely fashion any efforts by iran to break out of the agreement. Representative sherman so you need an intrusive inspection regime, youll have it for a few years, and then for reasons you cant explain, the blindfolds will go on and well hope that we can prevent sneakouts thereafter. I yield back. Mr. Blinken the blindfolds wont be off. Theyll be off. Representative roadblock ohrabacker thank you very much. Keep being reminded that president bush is responsible for all of our problems after all of these years. Theyre still blaming bush. Are we actually more concerned about the mullah regime in iran having possession of a Nuclear Weapon versus what we seem to be just talking about, is their ability to manufacture a Nuclear Weapon . Dont we see this do you see that in this debate, mr. Secretary . And shouldnt we be i think frankly, with mr. Netanyahus 202 7488000 i think, frankly, with mr. Netanyahus speech as well as what we have been hearing here i think the American People are being lulled into a false sense of security that if we just prevent them from being able to manufacture the weapon, that these crazy mullahs arent going to have their hand on the ability to possess a Nuclear Weapon. You have to push a button. Mr. Blinken apologize. Like your not, iran has mastered the fuel cycle and we cant bomb that away, we cant sanction that away, and unfortunately we probably cant negotiate that away. Representative negotiate what a way . Mr. Blinken their mattery of the fuel cycle. They have the knowledge how to put together a weapon. So the issue is whether the program they have is so limited so cob strained, so inspectioned so transparent, that as a practical matter they cannot develop material for a bomb, or if they did, we representative rohrabacker thats not my question whether they can manufacture it or not. Couldnt they get one from pakistan or from china or from korea or perhaps some stole a couple Nuclear Weapons as the soviet union was collapsing . Mr. Blinken youre point is very well taken. Which is exactly why, is a my colleague said, even if there is an agreement, the various sanctions and stringent efforts were making roped the world to prevent iran from proliferate organize receiving the benefits of proliferation will continue. Representative rohrabacher the only way well prevent these bad guys from having the Nuclear Weapon we keep saying iran. We dont really mean iran. The people of iran are nice people. An fact, i understand they like americans more than just about any other country in the world. Its the mullah regime, the bloody mullahs supporting terrorism around the world repressing their own people. Isnt the real answer trying to make ourselves partners with those people in iran who want more democratic country, a more democratic country, and has not this administration passed up time and time again the opportunity to work with the people of iran to free themselves from these mullahs . Mr. Blinken congressman, i think youre exactly right, that the actions of the regime are the problem, whether its destabilizing activity friday in activities in the region. Support for terrorist groups, and if their abuse of rights at home. Its exactly why across the board, whether it is standing up for those who are trying to get greater rights in iran, pushing back on proliferation and nonsupport for terrorism through the actions we are doing, thats exactly why we are representative rohrabacher i wouldgive you an a plus on trying to focus peoples attention on these peoples ability to manufacture the weapons. I would give you an has minus my comes to whether or not we can get a rid of the threat. This administration, from day one, frankly, the irony of this is i believe the administration is bending over backwards not to try to threaten the mullah regime, in order to get a nuclear deal which will make no difference at all because it still leaves that mullahs with the right to own a Nuclear Weapon which they didnt manufacture themselves, which leaves us vulnerable mr. Blinken i want to assure you that they wont have that right. Representative sires we dont seem to be part of this negotiation. We seem to be bypassed. I remember when the secretary was here. We talked like cuba. I asked him pointblank about no negotiations. They said nothing was going on. Now, we have a situation similar to what we had in those hearings. One of the questions i have is can you speak to how the un Security Council resolutions are being handled in the negotiations . Once these sanctions are lifted, i think its going to be virtually impossible to reimpose them. I dont think russia and china are going to go along with that. They have veto powers. How are we handling this . Mr. Blinken on your first point, i have to say, having been part of this, since the interim agreement was signed, there have been more than 200 hearings. Representative sires we dont get much on those briefings. I can get more information in my district them i get here. Mr. Blinken you understand that while briefings are going on, it is difficult to provide all the details. That said, i would be happy to talk to you further about this. Representative sire the problem is, the press comes to us and we look like we dont know whats going on with a mission nation. Mr. Blinken dont always believe what you read. Representative sire i know. Id always believe what i listen with people in front of me either. [laughter] q talk a little bit about the sanctions . Mr. Blinken absolutely. I will buy my colleague to do the same thing, just as our own sanctions, with regard to u. N. Sanctions, we would preserve sanctions related to the nonnuclear aspects of irans behavior. Second, any you and related sections also would be listed in a way that shows first, iranian compliance, with various obligations under the agreement. They too in some fashion would have to be sequence on iran fulfilling its obligations. We want to see a demonstration that iran is serious. All of that, including the frequency sequencing is under negotiation. Mr. Szubin absolutely right. Iran has violated its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty. It secret Nuclear Facilities, it we are very focused on the in the negotiation. If there is a violation there is an ability for one country to stand in the way of snapping back the sanctions. Represent sire have you had conversations with russia and china on this issue . Mr. Blinken yes, absolutely. Represent shotabbot iran has repeatedly violated its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty. It has secret Nuclear Facilities. Isnt it fullest to trust them now . Wouldnt a bad deal be throwing israel under the proverbial bus . Because of irans Intercontinental Ballistic Missile goals placing the u. S. Ike great risk, i know youre going to Say Something to the effect that its trusting or it is trusting, and verifying but there are a whole lot of us both sides of the aisle. Mr. Blinken you are right. Iran has repeatedly violated the obligations which is why it is in the position that we are in now. Its whats at the table now trying to negotiate an agreement. Those violations are what led to our ability to impose the most severe sanctions of any country as we convince other countries. Represent a shotative shabbot president obama has disdain for the elections this week. Maybe the only group i can think of, we may have more to stay for the representative of the congress. How is the administration going to prepare relations with our key ally in the region . Mr. Blinken in my judgment, no one has done more for israel than this a administration. If you look at the steps we have taken to provide for israel in the last six years, they are extraordinary. Netanyahu has called them such. Representative charbot there has no been and no president has damage relationships between United States and israel more than this president. Let me go to my next question. One of the concerns about the bad deal with iran has been proliferation in the region. There is a nucleus armed race. There are indications that saudis in particular are so alarmed that bad deal en is in the cards that they are already moving in that direction. What is your response . Mr. Blinken if there is no deal, iran could rush to Nuclear Capacity tomorrow, which is what i imagine would spark an arms riace. To prevent that, would be preventing iran from getting a weapon. The model for this agreement is hardly one that other countries would want to foll ow. The iranian model is more than a decade of isolation and sanctions. If an agreement emerges, i doubt anyone would want to follow. The answer is exactly what we have been doing, or venting iran from getting weapons, so other countries dont want to do it, and build up their capacity for themselves. Representative chabot our concern is we are going to end up with a bad deal and they are going to get Nuclear Weapons if the other countries will feel threatened then the others will end up in the middle of that. Other than iran is a far more dangerous country than north korea. There are a lot of us that believe we have seen this movie before. We know how its going to end. Mr. Blinken thank you. They are different cases. The north Korean Program was far more dance. When the clinton demonstration was in office, iran, we believe they had the material for Nuclear Weapons. Some analysis suggest he had weapons before the framework was signed. By the time president obama came in they had Nuclear Weapons. Iran has neither. It doesnt have the weapons or the material and of course as you know theyve already tested. They are in far different situations. The inspections regime that existed was far less than what iran faces right now under the interim agreement and then it would face under any comprehensive representative chabot my time has expired. There is great skepticism on both sides of the aisle for good reason. I yield back the balance of my time. Representative deutsche i understand that we are now approaching a deadline and i want to express my thanks as i have every single time ive had the opportunity for the focus on working to bring my constituents out. Raising the issue at this point can no longer suffice with respect to jason and bob levinson if anyone is to take , them seriously that there is any commitment they can make that would be adhered to that best would be to return those americans. I would urge you to make that a priority. Next. I have been clear. I know we are not supposed to prejudge any deal, but theres certainly things that would concern us in any deal and i think it is ok to address. I want to go through a few of those. First, a couple of straightforward questions. Will a final agreement be made public be readily available to congress and the public . Mr. Blinken thank you. First, let me say, we strongly agree with the statement about the american citizens in prison in iran. I want to assure you this is something we are working on every day that comes up regularly in the context of the nuclear discussions. We are working on it very vigorously. We want to bring them home. We very much share your commitment to do that. With regards to whether the agreement will be made public, certainly the core elements well. I dont know at this stage , because we dont know what form the agreement would take whether certain pieces would be , made classified and subject to classified reviewed, and what parts with parts would be public i cant tell you at this stage. The interim agreement was made public i and there was full access to it. Representative jewideutch congress had access to it. Does iran remained the most active state sponsor of terror . Mr. Blinken whether it is the most active, for sure in the very top percentage. Representative deutch is the administration considering removing them from the list . Mr. Blinken no. Representative deutsche when it comes to the issues, we talked about the number of centrifuges and the infrastructure. A question i have is whether the ultimate number of centrifuges is reduced from the close to 20,000 to 6,000 or the 3,000 whatever the arrays. What will happen to the rest and will any of them be dismantled will be will they go into a closet, an addict, will be the available at the expiration of the deal . Mr. Blinken all of that is subject to negotiations. You are right to point out in general that is a key component of the pitfalls of important to understand. Representative deutch i understand. Its difficult to be comfortable this is a serious enough step to prevent them from breaking up. Next. I think you can understand the frustration that we have when both you and mr. Szubin talk about phase proportionate sanctions, and then talked about the plan to go to the United Nations Security Council and to make clear that at the u. N. , venezuela and nigeria may get the chance to vote on this deal now, but congress will ultimately have a chance to vote on this perhaps 5, 10, 15 years in the future. I hope you understand the frustration. The real question i have is how can the sanctions relief be reversible, if the plan is to go United Nations to reverse all of the multilateral sanctions . Leaving only the american sanctions in place. Mr. Blinken again, i just want to make clear this is, as it happens, an International Agreement that has other parties to the agreement. That is done through the Security Council. The Security Council would take no of any agreement, and make clear that it is prepared, once i ran demonstrates that is meeting its commitments, which would be in some moment in the future at that point, to suspend or lift any international sanctions. Our own sanctions began with her own discretion, and ultimately congress has to pass judgment on that. Representative deutch if i could just ask mr. Szubin to put provide to us our breakdown of the 7 million that has been released. The money that has been released every few months 10 billion, 20 billion, 50 billion of the frozen money was released at one time, where it has gone in iran. Where it would go under the permanent deal. Would it go to benefit the revolutionary guard. Chairman we go to the representative from texas. Is that it is mr. Coleman