Between salary level and teacher effectiveness. Does anybody want to defend that . There is no relationship between the expenditure of 80 of what we spend and effectiveness of teachers. Randy . I mean what i want of course theres a relationship. I mean, i wont speak for who is an amazing superintendent in des moines, but theres much evidence that there is relationship between the experience of teachers and the stability of schools and frankly part of what were trying to do in schools that are struggling is how do we nurture and secure Great Teachers to stay at those schools. So, obviously, there is both on a macro and a micro way, there are real both correlations here and things like that. I think what my colleague was saying is that the dollarfordollar piece that the that the department is proposing doesnt get you doesnt get you to the equity issues that you have spent your life, senator, fighting for. And you as well. And what im saying is whether the department, you know, ends up with this rule or doesnt end up with this rule, the reality is the way we are spending resources in this country im the first to say, maybe ill be the second or third because the two of you are here, the first to say we should pay teachers more in this country. Its a disgrace what we pay teachers in the United States. But how we pay them really is important. And i dont think we should be having people come here ten years from now and say there is no correlation between how we pay teachers and their effectiveness. And i think we need to Work Together to make sure thats not the case. Because then you cant make the case that we should have more resources. It worries me, you know, that we continue we come here, we tinker around the edges. And the reality is that if we dont have a solution to the kids that are showing up to kindergarten having heard 30 million fewer words, if kids dont have a choice of a school than any of us would send our kid and if Higher Education continues to continues to accelerate in its costs so that if youre in the bottom quartile of income earners it costs you 85 to go to college whereas if youre in the top income its 15 and you add it together the system of education is enforcing the income inequality gap that we have and thats an invitation from me to anybody on this panel to figure out how we go forward so that ten years from now were not sitting here having seeing these kinds of results and thats going to happen in america, not here. Well, i would just can i just comment on that, senator . I have seven seconds left. But please. I would just say, look, it took an extraordinary amount of effort for us all to kind of sorta barely come together to get this law over the finish line. It required a lot of engagement of a lot of stakeholders. Honestly, as we look to implement this law, were going to have to do the same thing, local district by local School District, state by state, and for us, those of us obviously who are very invested in seeing that equity outcome that we know is so important and consistent with our american values, you know, we believe that that flexibility is there, now that weve created this law. But it does not in my view undermine the importance of requiring appropriate, rigorous federal oversight. And striking that balance as we move forward is going to be the challenge and the charge for all of us. But i feel like in many ways our work has just begun as we look at how were going to try to do that with this flexibility in mind but i want a guarantee of strong, appropriate federal oversight as we move forward. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator bennet. Senator isakson . Whoop, senator murkowski, i made a mistake. Senator murkowski is next. Ive done that once before. I dont want to do it twice, excuse me. And, actually, mr. Chairman, i will defer to senator isakson as i just came back in, and im just finding out what has already been discussed. So, i will defer to senator isakson and thank you. Senator isakson. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, lisa, i appreciate that. Ranking member murray shes left, i guess. I want to thank the chairman and the Ranking Member on the essa and every Student Succeeds and the point were at today. I think it will be a great empowerment for the local boards and state boards of education to carry out the educational mandate in their state. Im the last remaining people that wrote no child left behind so i readily admit that. It was a great act for six years but it became an impediment as the ceiling got too low and people were put in nonperforming schools that shouldnt have been put in that category. But the thing i look at most with the assessment of children with disabilities, i married to a special ed teacher, and i worked hard on education and our kids with disabilities and learning disabilities to try to provide as much quality rules as we could and quality education. One of the things we had was a 1 1 exception i guess youd call it for kids with the kind of disability to have an alternative assessment rather than the mandated test under no child left behind. When we wrote every student succe succeed, it was overruled by the state board could not keep a local system from determining if a kid needed an individual assessment to ensure it was more flexibility so all of the 1 cap it really doesnt apply because the state and local education agencies i. D. E. A. Governs and the iep is the governing document to determine if the alternative assessment is necessary or not. Would you tell me how thats working and how you intend to carry it out in your respective systems . Well, the that was an issue of lots of discussion. Its a negotiated regulation. It is, its clearly the essa has changed the flipped the equation in that schools arent held to the 1 , states are. And we have an obligation to i think its an obligation as a state to make sure that we dont as a state exceed that 1 . In addition when we negotiated rules around that, there are there are rules that asking for a waiver for any particular district. We have to go through relatively rigorous process to make sure it doesnt happen. So its going to be about providing Technical Assistance to those districts that exceed 1 and well do that. Its our responsibility. In the past its been a local responsibility. But its clear that this committee determine that the state needs to be accountable for that, which we will be. Its something that weve we take very seriously. Yeah, thank you, senator. My district probably has a bigger challenge in meeting that 1 mark simply because of some of the specialized programming that we have for medically fragile and severely profoundly disabled students, but we always meet we always fall under that 1 mark. I think this is another example where its very difficult at the federal level to set benchmarks that translate into an equitable measure at the state and local level. So, one of the things that came up during regulations negotiations was just this issue. And theres certainly what seems to be a bit of a paradox there. The state cant go over 1 but individual districts can. I would argue that a district that a district could have a lower percentage of students with that alternative assessment than what i have in my district and be inappropriately testing more students than i am because of the nature of the programming that we offer. So, again, i think with good guidance from the state and the state offices, you know, working closely with the local education agencies, i dont see this as being particularly problematic. Well, thats good to hear because chairman alexander made a point that we got out of the National School board business and empowered the state and local School Boards and this is one of the areas where the federal agency decided to enforce its side of the 1 it would be negative to the local side of the states. We want you to be in control of education and thank you. Senator warren . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Weve spent a lot of time today talking about the financial accountability provisions in the new education law. And about the department of educations plans for enforcing these provisions. Now, weve heard concerns from witnesses who represent the professionals on the front lines implementing essa, but i want to make sure we have an opportunity to clarify a few key points regarding these provisions and why theyre in the law in the first place. Congress strengthened the financial accountability provisions in essa for a simple reason, to ensure that federal money is used to meet the purpose of title one. I dont have a poster but ill read it. To provide all children significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and highquality education. And i underline all not just children in wealthy districts. So, ms. Weingarden, let me start there. Why do you believe its important for federal law to require equity and adequacy in terms of how education money is spent . Its sorry. Im having a ive been having a microphone problem all morning. Essa is a civil rights law, and it is about trying to make sure that theres opportunity for all children. So, if that is the case, equity is absolutely essential in order to get to excellence. But as i was saying to senator murray earlier, that that what were seeing locally is that we have to actually have a fight for adequacy, too. Because its not simply, you know, what is eke ququal. In order to level the Playing Field we actually have to give our vulnerable kids more. And as senator bennet said, we have to flip whats going on in this country. So, what the law does is it starts us on that path, but its at the end of that path and we need to be vigorous and rigorous in making sure that the kids who have had the least get the most. All right. Thank you. I agree. And let me followup on that by asking, do you believe that the department has the authority to ensure that states and districts do not divert state and local funds away from Public Schools in low income neighborhoods . So, i am very glad, senator warren, you asked the question in that way. Because the entire testimony weve been talking about increasing as opposed to diverting. I believe that the federal government and the department of education has the authority to ensure that theres no diversion. They have that in three different ways. Its not just the title one funding formulas that focus on concentration of poverty. And i think dr. Gordon is probably better at this than i would ever be. But its the maintenance of effort issues provisions and the s s provisions as was clarified several months beforehand. They have that authority and need it and part of what were concerned about is making sure that its not overreach so that they can actually do their job. Good. Well, then, let me turn to that part of it. They have the authority but how can the department enforce these provisions in a manner that doesnt result in the unintended consequences that you and others have discussed . So, that is a really, you know, that frankly should have been what was the what consumed the time of the negreg committee with all due respect. As janet had said earlier, this is a very complicated law, and there is a lot of complicated factors because it is very much a law that is about human behavior. And about lots of different multiple parts as many of the senators and many of the witnesses have talked about. The law provides some very powerful new provisions including transparency. And that transparency provision, as dr. Gordon earlier said, can be over methodology not just over resources. So, we need to actually see what the funding levels are. We need to see how those transparency provisions operate. That can be the first set of enforcement processes. And then after that, one looks at what you do next. But right now, to move to something that some one size fits all Enforcement Mechanisms thats not even allowed by the law seems like seems not wise. All right, not in the right direction. Thank you. And i will ask more on questions for the record. But financial accountability is about making sure that federal dollars are used to make sure that the money goes to the children who need it most. There are legitimate disagreements over how the department of education can best enforce financial accountability provisions but these are not disputes over whether those accountability provisions should be enforced or whether the department of education has the power to enforce those provisions. On that issue, i believe that the democrats and the teachers are in very strong agreement. Republicans, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that financial accountability provisions of the law should simply be ignored. The Department Needs to figure out how to enforce financial accountability in a way that doesnt have unintended consequences that disrupt schools. It is critical that the Department Listen to our teachers and to our school leaders, but ignoring accountability provisions is not an option. Financial accountability is essential to ensure that states and districts actually give our teachers the resources they need to do their jobs and that the states and districts use federal money to help our most vulnerable kids get a decent education. That is the law. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator warren. I would like to say to the witnesses that i have an unavoidable conflict at 11 40, and i will need to leave. But senator cassidys agreed to chair the remainder of the hearing, and i want to thank each of you for coming and for your excellent written testimony and for what youve said this morning. Senator murkowski. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you all for the discussion this morning. Very important on a lot of different levels. I come from a state where we spend a lot of money per pupil on our students, and yet the outcomes are not consistent throughout. Most particularly in our rural areas. Back in 2007 a case was heard before our state Supreme Court brought by stakeholders in three rural districts, and this was based on the concern that these districts were low performing because of a lack of funding equity. And considerable deliberation, longterm fact finding, but the judge came back, and he said the problem wasnt money. Because each rural district got about the same per pupil. But what they were seeing were, again, very different outcomes among them and among the individual schools. And what the judge found was that the issue was the degree of state support and its effectiveness within different communities or perhaps lack therefore within the communities. So, it was local support for schools. It was Community School relationships. It was effective and cultural relevant curriculum and teacher effectiveness. The data really demonstrated that this was what mattered here. Not that money doesnt matter. You have to have the money in order to do these things. But the judge back in 2007 denied the move for more money and ruled that what the state needed to provide was more effective state support. And then back in 2012 there was a settlement, because there was still an argument about whether or not adequate Financial Funding was being provided. So, in 2012 we see a settlement where the department of education and the state agreed to create programs to support prek, targeted resources grants, Teacher Retention grants, exit exam remediation. But it went specifically to the level of support that could be made available to these respective districts, rather than a dollarfordollar comparison. So, i questions id thrguess i anyone here on the panel. I noted, ms. Garcia, i wasnt here when you made the comment, but you apparently made a comment that we want to measure Actual Service and supports, not just the dollars. So, can you all comment on this situation in alaska and what our states courts found. Well, i want to begin by saying i was a utah teacher, but i was a fairbanks, alaska, student. I want to tell you that the best Teaching Assignment i ever had was the salt lake homeless homeless shelter, because the surrounding support that i had as the teacher that the district placed there, there were social workers that worked with the family. There was a health clinic, there was a dentist that came in every two weeks, the nutrition programs that they had, i was never alone. You had the support i needed as the professional who could deal with sometimes Mental Health issues that that family had. So i understand when you say its you do need every school needs the technology, the textbooks, the facility. You need the stuff, but you also need to deal with the reality of that childs life, and some children come to us with so many more needs that arent met in their home, in their community. They come from homes where they dont have disposable income sometimes to take a child to the dentist. So that child walks into our classroom in pain women we have to do something about it, whether weve been given the presources or not. So for me it is more than counting the dollars. The dollars are important, but you also have to say how creative can i be in seeing what kind of service and supports . What kind of Community Organizations are out there that can help me . And in utah were the lowest per pupil funded School District in the nation. We can stretch a dollar until you can see through it. We are the most creative educators on the planet. Give us more money, that would be nice, but whatever we have given, we try and leverage that into something more meaningful in supporting those children. Thats why we want to say which service . Which supports, which programs . It may cost a Different Number of dollars in this community than in this community, but for instance i keep using on support as on how can we make sure on you kids on graduate from high school having already earned College Credit . What would that look like . It might look like Something Different if youre in nome than in anchorage, where you have a university right there, and another might look like something online, but what we want is that power if of professionals working in collaboration in each community to design something that makes sense for tha community. If what youre measuring is, do you have the ability do these children have the opportunity to earn College Credit before they graduate from high school . How many of them are doing that . How many of them used Graduation Day as a springboard into Higher Education . Talk about what described what youre trying to accomplish, and then on be creative about designing something that meets the needs of that specific school community. Senator murkowski, maw i respond briefly . Im over my time, but if the chairman allows. What jumped out at me that you said initially about the case was that the judge ruled there was also a purrpupil equality in the expenditure, and i think for us thats what it sounded like you said, that it wasnt the money that necessarily made the dimples, but for us, that equality sell is important. Ive been in a lot of schools on both end of the spectrums. When you walk in the front door and the starkness of the resources hits you in the face, i cannot imagine how adding some extra dollars there actually equals he supplement when the scale is so tipped. Thank you. I would just add a point. Look, we know right now that black and latino students are 1. 5 times more likely to be taught by novice teachers. Is there a dollar for dollar solution that will directly assess that in every part of the country . Im not sure, but i do know that a zip code should not dictate the Resources Available to students, and we need to make sure that there is an opportunity for the voices of those communities most affected and impacted by the plans that are going to be set forth at the state level to be represented, and i think for us having affiliates, and we have affiliates in alaska, to have that voice heard so they can representing those state plans is going to be an important part of getting to an outcome that hopefully achieves that equity that is at the heart of the original legislation that i believe is still embodied, but for me its the strong federal oversight role that will ultimately be the counterbalance to making sure that is set forward in a manner consistent with what we have intended. Thank you. I didnt mean to duty you off. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to add that within the alaska court, the Supreme Court there, the funding may have been equally adequate, but the problem is the results are not. Again when youre trying to measure this dollar for dollar, this is where the discussion gets even more intriguing. I thank you for the additional allowance of time for others to answer and the opportunity to speak. Senator casey . Mr. Chairman, thanks very much. In the interest of time, let me say first thank you to the panel for being there. Ill submit a question for the record which will focus on nea, aft and la raza, but in my limited time i wanted to direct my questions to ms. Marshall regarding the 1 cap on assessments for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Maybe two if i can get to that. Its good that we had this win, that we codified an important policy made it law. How do you think in terms of how its going to work, how will this policy, which is a continuation of prior policy, help special education teams he, help schools, help School Districts making that very critical decision about which children should take which tests . Thank you, senator casey. I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue. On it was a huge win for us to get this cap. We are the students that are represented around the table at the i piismts whose teams are making these decision, and for all too often for whom there is a lack of presumption of competent, and before there was such a cap, we saw untold numbers of students taking off access to the grid general education curriculum, as early as second grade. Thats just unconsciousable. We think this cap is important, as someone alluded to earlier, or stated earlier. Its adequate, there are we have far more fights for children trying to stay on the regular assessment and graduate than we have who are not allowed to take an alternate assessment. So thats critical. I think the negreg process put up important guardrails to ensure that states and teams are asking the right questions, and theyre very careful not to put students on there on the basis of their disability or the basis of their past test performance, but that they push harder to make sure those students have what they need to succeed. I only ask you, because i know your work validates this principle, and i think the policy we were tblt to get done in this bill validates that students with disability it is have a lot of ability, and that i think is an important validation. But i want to ask you, how can we ensure that districts and states implement this guidance to ensure that all students are held to these very High Expectations . What would you hope would happened . In our experience, the clearer the guidelines, the brighter the lines, the easier it is for the families to enforce the laws, and it falls on their shoulder. Thats why we appreciate the federal oversight we have needed it repeatedly in response to what the senator was saying before, we rely on that data. We need it. Thats how we show that how our kits are being shortchanged and what they need to get equitable access to receive the benefit th this. I may take a contrarian viewpoint to some. Lets go back to the dyslexic children. Mow children in fact, if anyone difference with me, im not i dont think theres any School District in the nation which screens for dyslexia grade 1. So you have 20 of the population dyslexic, and at some point somewhere between third and fourth grade children typical child begins to learn to read, whereas the i think i go ahead that right. It assumes fluency, yesterday that dyslexic child is learning to decode, not a fluent reader, so in a sense we have programmed failure. At fourth grade, we are going to teach, were going to test 20 of the children in a way which they are not yet ready to be tested by. Now, i suppose if you have a 1 cap, lets imagine that in the future some progressive School District would find that 20 , but we till test them know by great four they will still not be reading adequately. That doesnt make sense to me. Do you have any thoughts on that . Well, i can just tell you, in my home state is that we do screen children entering scoot. For dyslexia . Its a more general screening, but it has to do with understanding and decoding skills and skills relating to phonics, things like that. Im sure some are caught by the screener, and we have state rules that children are requires additional happens, that School Districts have to develop a plan, whether its special ed or not. So i think i can answer the question generally, i believe our state is working hard to to address the needs of dyslexic children, but do if your question is, do we do a screening specifically for dyslexia . The answer would be no. I havent found one that does, actually. Most rely upon the child not doing well, but by grade 3 the horse is kind of out of the barn, so typically that deficiency is going to persist. If we should the able to screen these children, knowing they have not yet learned to read fluently, would we still give them the standardized test at grate 4 that the other children are receiving even we know they have not learned to read adequately. Would you advocate. Senator casey thats all right. I dont have my glasses on. Without that accommodation, im in trouble. That actually gets to my point. We absolutely agree that students with dyslexia are not being screened or not being taught, and the teachers dont have the training they need. In fact, i will broaden that to say that all students with disabilities who this law protects as well as every other student have trouble reading, and are not getting the services they need to succeed. 9 we obvious hear the argument that put forth around not taking the test, but it is our believe again that we need to know where students are against the standards. We should not throw them in there without the accommodations now and we should make sure, if you could just let me finish. What would you say is the accommodation . It differs for each child, but they need to have the accommodations and supports that they used in the classroom to learn when they take the test. That is of grave concern to us right now. We find that students are not having that accessibility. Lets go back to this go. This goes back to the content not on the ability to take the test. Lets get granular, not just conceptual. If the child has not learned to decode and the child does not read fluently, taking a test which presumes fluency, that child is going to fail, period. Do we really want to make that child take that particular test, as opposed to another chest which a different test which may indeed adjust for the fact that the child has not yet learned to read fluently . I cant make those decisions. Its on the individual basis with each student, but as a general principles, we want or kids to count and we want them to be part of the tests that all kids are taking to see where they are on grade level, according to the state standards. But we would nose these 20 of the kids, despite what are their i. Q. , they le read lest. Weve gotten rid the reason to take them is to know where the students are. Im not sure we came to a common mind, but im out of time, and i think it is now senator murphy. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you for all the panelists time today. I have one general comment and one specific question. I think she got it right when she made it clear that is a a civil rights law, because were in the business of civil rights, if its not at the foundation about equal student for disabled kids and poor kids, and i thought your answers to senator warrens questions were spot on. Were saying or disabled kits be treated fairly, local are going to accrue to the distributes of those kids. Its been at the found of our federal commitment to civil rights, and for decades i do think its important, and i have since the beginning of the drafting process for this law to have some strong accountability requirements and High Expectations for schools and for kids, and i dont think that it ends at the text of the law. I think theres a very important and appropriate role i understand dr. Gordon, the ways in which a requirement to spend more money on pour kids may occasional not work to the ben filled, but if the aggregate if youre spending more money, thats going to help students, even if provides some per verse dysincentives here and there. On accountability, i think we have a good accountability section, but we have to make sure the interventions that are being used to try to turn around schools are not just whitewash. The willingness to trying to states and partners in this, but the regulations are important to make sure we have some basic guardrails to make sure what is happening to make these schools better continuing to move forward i dont think theres a lot of disbreak on that. Its on a narrow issue thats a passion of mine. Thats the use of seclusion and restraints in our schools. So according to the department of educations latest Civil Rights Data collection 20112012, 70,000 students are physically restained, 37,000 of them were seclude. I think thats the tip of the iceberg. I dont think we understand how deep and brought, ill take ownership of it. In connecticut we have a problem. Scream rooms being used to throw kids into so that they can scream out their problems, so their not a disruption to everybody else. We include language in this big, bipartisan language that would require state plans to address the use of what the bill calls adversive which really means seclusion and restraint. What do you want to see from the department of i had indication when it comes to the guidance that they give to schools on how they attack this issue of the overuse of both seclusion and restraint . Thank you very much, senator murphy, for asking me this question, because its a passion of mine and also for your leadership in ensuring that clause was added to the law. We also there were many tears and dances of joy when this portion of the law was included to make sure that there are positive school climates, and that we need to take steps schools need to unequivocally stop this abuse of students in our schools putting a child in a locked room where they cannot escape, is restraints can only be used in emergency. The research is clear, its used for power and control on also tiny kids. That must be stopped. I would be happy to submit more comments for the record, but i would like to say one more thing. I spent year as a positive behavior support specialist in the schools dealing with the kids with the most challenging behavior to keep them in school and keep them learning. Again if youre in a seclusion room or four adults sitting on top of you, what are you or the other students watching this learning . The scream rooms in connecticut were called that by the other students, because thats what they heard. Kids in a room screaming. Imagine that effect on a little child when theyre trying to learn . Thats a life lesson no child in this country should be subjected to. So what i know has made the difference is not money, it is not it is about training. It is about the belief and the confidence of the teachers to keep all kids safe. The support of the principals and the other people in the building to make sure they have kind of those services around the kids who challenge the most, but it can be done positively, and it can be done without those barbaric practices. No teacher ever wants to engage in that kind of practice. Right. So you are right. This is about supporting plans to create climates and atmospheres in schools to make sure those situations never arise. Mr. Chairman, one additional caveat, i want to make the point that this conversation is also uncomfortable. We often place the burden on accountability simply on the superintendents and the administrators and the teachers. When you look at the difference in educational outcomes that still persist among different groups, it often has to do with all sorts of factor that is exist outside of schools, and so this conversation about accountability that, of course, i think is incredibly important is not a conversation just about what happens inside the school. Its a conversation about what is happening in systems at large that are controlled by frankly folks way above the pay grade of teachers and administrators and superintendents. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator whitehouse. Thank you, chairman cassidy. I would like to first make the point that under title i we want quite clearly that a school must get, and if i quote the text correctly, funds it would otherwise receive under title i. We did not say it should get the same funds as other schools receive. We could have said that, but there wouldnt have been agreement on it, and the law i think is fairly clear. What worries me is that if we get into a wrangle over disregulation, rereading the law as the latter statement rather than the former statement, which seems to me as a lawyer a reasonably clear statement, then were going to start to get distracted from all of the areas that we baked into this law where there was common agreement that there is a great opportunity for innovation. One of the keys was to open up curriculum. We had curriculum get slaw evidence in title i schools, because everything that didnt teach to the task got thrown overboard for fear that the boat would sink if the testing came back poorly. That was a terrible disservice to the students in those schools. We have said up innovative dashboard opportunities for people to report in much more effectively on how schools are doing so there can be real accountability. We want open the rooms for intervention, so theres a lot more opportunity to bring different perspective to bear. Weve opened the opportunity for Innovation Schools to exist. There are Bright Green Lights in this bill saying lets do this better, and to insist on driving down a street that has a red light on it doesnt seem to me to be constructive, and i hope it does take us into a place where were not taking advantage of all the green lights this bill clearly lays out. Teachers, School Administrators pretty much everybody in rhode island is very excited about the new tools that this bill gives us. So if we could avoid driving into this particular ditch and instead focus on the areas where there really is i think very, very significant bipartisan, solid and legally found the opportunity for reform and innovation, boy, i would like to encourage that. That said, it is i think absolutely clear and bipartisan, and has always been the case that nobody wants to see federal title i money come in and provide an execute to School Districts or states to quietly ease money out of those schools and out of those districts to the favored and wealthier districts, knowing that title i was going to come in and make up the gap. If the equality of expect further ru expenditure rule is not the one we should by following, i would ask that each of the witnesses let us know what rule they would recommend the department of education to follow, because its to a degree, you know, i dont want to end up in a situation where no reg nobody will agree with any regulation of this if because people are, you know, waiting back to be against anything and everything, no matter what it is. So i think it is important that there be some affirmative statement from the folks here about what they think the regulation should look like, just not what it should not look like. I do have at least one hand up. I know what my my nea members think is the standard. Theres one thing about interdistrict equality and equity. Its much more dramatic when you look across district lines within a state. If you were to if you were to ask anyone with two eyes to go into the best school, the best Public School in that state, and everyone can think about what Public School would be. In utah, you go to park city, and you would say lets do an inventory of it is services, the school nurses, the professional librarians, the programs, the international baccalaureate, the art classes, the field trips, if you were to take an inventory of it is service and supports in the program in the best school in your state, make that your standard. Make that the dashboard. Why not . Then say now we are going to compare every Single School in our state by how well it measures up. Do you have a school nurse . Do you have a professional librarian . Whats your counselortostudent ratio . How are you serving your special ed kids . Whats your e. L. L. Program . Do you have clubs after school . If you were to do that and the federal government, by the way is not saying, and if you dont if you dont have perfect equality somebodys head rolls. Youre saying that role of the federal government is to be transparent, to give good information to people like the advocates sitting at this table, to say give us put that information in our hands so we can go back and we can fight for the students that are being shortchanged. There are ways you can do this without micromanaging from the federal level and making it one more level of bureaucracy. We have gone over my time, i appreciate it. Senator cassidy, and thank the panel very much for a. First, i also thank yall, putting a little southern tough on it, yall. The hearing record will remain there for ten days. Members may submit Additional Information and answers to questions if they would like. Thanks for being here today. The committee will stand adjourned. Donald trump holds a fundraiser this evening with new Jersey Governor Chris Christie at the it National Guard armory. Well hear from governor christie and the presumptive gop nominee, live on our companion network cspan at 7 00 p. M. Eastern. Sunday night on cspan, the state opening of the british parliament. Queen elizabeth delivered a speech this week on the british governments priorities for the comer year. Sunday night at 9 00 p. M. , well so you bbcs parliament coverage of the open. Our 2016 bus continues to travel throughout the country to recognize winners from the student cam winners. Recently it stopped in massachusetts to visit several winning students. They went to the same school in fox borough where all the students attended a ceremony to honor the seventh graders for their Honorable Mention video. And her winning video called vet wand services. , and james won for his video lbgt rights. They were honored, receiving 250 for their winning video. Thanks to Comcast Cable and Charter Communications for helping to coordinate these visits. You can view all the winning documentaries at studentcam. Org. The House Oversight committee on tuesday head a hear on how the Obama Administration sought to win support. The committee invited Deputy National security adviser ben rhodes to testify about his efforts to build public support for the nuclear agreement, but mr. Rhodes decline to appear. Instead the Committee Heard from representatives of conservative think tanks, this is 2 hours, 45 minutes. Good morning. The committee a oversight government reform will cup to order. Todays hearing is entitled the white house narratives on the iran nuclear deal. I think this is important we take this up and deal with the situation, as we get going. There are three items i would ask unanimous consent. First is New York Times magazine article, the aspiring novelist who became obamas Foreign Policy ghoul rye, the second is a her from the white house, addressed to me, copied to mr. Cummings, talking about how the white house would not make ben rhodes available to the committee today. Also a may 16th letter from senators cornyn, senator mark kirk, and senator john barrasso. Without objection id like to enter these three into the record. Without objection, so ordered. Iran, its one of three countries that are still on the state sponsors of terrorism. I think its important we have some clarity. There are issues that are outstanding, one of the most important Foreign Policy initiatives that the also has taken forward. We were hoping the clarity would be provided by benjamin rhodes, Deputy National security adviser for Strategic Communications and spee speechwriting, obviously a very talented and trusted person in the white house. I do not doubt his talents and his knowledge, but the deal that had been spun up and sold to the American People im not sure was as clear as it should have been. I have serious questions about the transparency, the truthfulness, and when it really ultimately started. I think those been legitimate questions, as we move forward. Here you have a state sponsor of terrorism in iran, and we still dont know fully the answer to a lot of these questions. Some may think they know the answers to all these questions, but theres still a shroud of secret sill, and he was in a unique perspective. What is mystifying to me how readily available he made himself to media, but only select media. Shall howed obvious disdain to people with Foreign Policy credentials. Hes entitled to those personal opinions, but he also elected to share those with New York Times and put them out there. Also very negative about congress, going so far as to stay could not have a rational discussion im summarizing here, so we provided that. Josh earnest from the podium there at the white house openly mocked congress, said that perhaps we should be calling other members up, such as senator tom cotton, who should also raise their right hand, swear and affirm and answer questions. I took that suggestion, shared it with senator cotton, we accommodated that. Senator cotton had agreed if mr. Rhodes would be here, to also be here to answer question, and ferret out any of these details, but mr. Rhodes elected not to speak. Now, he does have a public speaking engagement today. Hes out given a public speech today, but refusing to come and speak with congress. Im going to play a clip i have two clips in my opening statement. You can see where some on the other sigh of the aisle will say we know everything about it, its been thoroughly debated, were going to go to clip b, if we could, and lets watch this. One final question on the subject. There have been reports that intermittently and outside of the forms p. M. 5 plus one mechanisms, the Obama Administration or members of it have conducted direct secret bilateral talks with iran, is that true or false . We have made clear as the Vice President did at munich, that in the context of the larger p5 plus one framework, we would be prepared to talk to iran bilaterally, but with regard to the kind of thing ire talking about on a governmenttogovernment level, no. I notice you have let me try it one last time. I appreciate your indulgence, is it the policy of the state department where the preservation of secret negotiations is concerned to lie in order to achieve that goal . James, i think there are times when diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress. This is a good example of that. So as you can see there Victoria Nuland offered what turned out to be absolutely and totally not true. Ms. Psaki was mo candid, and basically the administration thofs at the in their best interest to store up the story that it was but thats not what had happened. That was fiction as well. I also want to talk about 24 by 7 access. I think the American People were let to believe that americans with the best interests would have access and be able to see and get in there, and go into these Nuclear Facilities 24 7, so im going to play another clip. This is clip e. So the israelis put out this list including inspectors to go anywhere anytime. That seems personally reasonable. No . Jake, first of all, under this deal you will have anywhere anytime 24 7 access as it relates to the Nuclear Facilities that iran has. You will also have what about the military facilities . So what well have under this deal, jake, is the strongest inspection regime that any country faces in the world. If that means if we see a site on a military the facility, we can get access. If its suspicious that we believe is related to the nuclear efforts, we can get access through the iaea. Ben told jake tapper of cnn on april 6th, and i quote,ened this deal you will have anywhere anytime, 24 7 access as it relates to the Nuclear Facilities that iran has. Is that a lie . No. Their Nuclear Facilities, theres 24 7 access to iran to verify their compliance with the agreement. 24 7 access anytime anywhere. To their Nuclear Facilities. Thats the quote you quoted me, right . Over the past week elf spoken at length about what exactly this deal is. I also want to make clear what this deal was never intended to be. First of all, as the chief negotiator, i can tell you i never uttered the words anywhere anytime nor was it ever a part of the discussion we had with the iranians. Thanks, you can take that down. So first of all, as somebody pointed out in our committee, i think mr. Palmer pointed out, i dont think mr. Kerry was the chief negotiator, but the second part, is there 24 by 7 access . Can you access anything anywhere anytime . Spinning quite a different story as we go along. We have also heard a lot of numbers related to sanctions release, dealing with escrowed oil fuzz. President obama because quoted in an atlantic article talking about 150 billion going back to iran. Iranians say they have access to 100 billion. Treasury Department Says 50 billion, secretary kerry said only access to 3 billion and then blamed treasury. Talking about a lot of money going to a state sponsor of terrorism. Also a conversation about Ballistic Missiles, there was a violation of the United Nations resolution 2231 in testimony by the iran deal coordinator, ambassador mull, but in march of 2016, you have ambassador United States ambassador power to the United Nations who toned it down. Know its an inconsistent with, as opposed to a violation of the United Nations resolution. Then also issues about boosting irans secretary kerry is currently on tour in we were. The state Department Suggests were object gaited to boost the commission, the iranian economy. Again, something we need to understand. We dont understand the side deals. There are still sanctions on terrorism on iran. We want to understand that, and then theres questions about everything that has actually been agreed to, not just in writing, but the side deals in any other he verbal commitments that were also made. I would also note to our colleagues that the chairman of armed services, mr. Thornberry has a very important amendment we should all consider and look at that would be part of the issue as we move forward. Again, there are a lot of outstanding questions. We wanted to get the person who was right in the think of things from the white house to come here and testify. The white house on thursday claimed that this wasnt about executive privilege, and less than 24 hours before this hearing, they reversed course and said, oh, it is about executive privilege. Now, who is being inconsistent . Who is being inconsistent . You have plenty of time mr. Rhodes, to go to talk to the media friends and talk to the echo chamber that you brag about in New York Times, but when it comes times to answer our questions under oath, they decide not to do it. My time has far exceeded what we allocated, now recognize the ranks members mr. Cummings. Thank you, mr. Charm. I thank all our witnesses for being here today. Mr. Chairman, sitting here today, im surprised and supremely very surprised and shocked that you would invite john hannah to testify before our committee as an Expert Witness. Particularly on the subject of false white house narratives. Mr. Hannah was Vice President dick cheneys top National Security adviser in the white house. He personally, personally helped prepare secretary of state Colin Powells infamous speech to the United Nations in the runup to the iraq war. A speech that secretary powell has called a permanent blot on his record. Mr. Hannah was identified by the Iraqi National congress as its, quote, principal point of contact, end of quote, in the Vice President s office. The inc was an organization that supplied our nation with reams with reams of false information about weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Hannah worked directly for Scooter Libby, who was convicted after the Bush Administration leaked the identity of a covert cia agent valerie plame. Her husband, ambassador joe wilson, had publicly debunked the administrations false claims about the Iraqi Nuclear program. S this was the same Scooter Libby who told the fbi that it was a, quote possibly, end of quote, that Vice President directed him to leak information about ms. Plames covert status. Thats mr. Hannah. I dont know mr. Hannah, and i dont believe i have ever met him before today, but based on a Public Record alone, let me say this. If our goal is to hear from an expert who actually promoted false, false white house narratives, then i think you picked the right person, but if our goal is to hear from someone who was not involved in one of the biggest misrepresentations in our nations history, then you picked the wrong person. Listening to john hannah criticize anyone else for pushing a false white house narrative is beyond ironic. He and dick cheney and their colleagues in the white house wrote the howto manual on this. The profound tragedy thousands, thousands of u. S. Service members from our districts were killed in iraq, and thousands more sustained terrible injuries. The american taxpayers have now spent hundreds of billions, billions of dollars even by the most conservative estimates. Unfortunate unfortunately flow invite mr. Hannah without consulting anyone. In fact this entire panel has been stacked with handpicked witnesses who all oppose the iran agreement. You did not invite prominent republicans like Brent Scowcroft on richard lugar, you did not invite any of the dozens or generals or add mirls or other military experts who support this agreement. Other of committees have held dozens of substantive hearings on the iran agreement. But you know how many this committee has held . Zero. Yet all of a sudden our committee is rushing to hold, without even one weeks notice on of the rules according to the parliament yaern. They are all repeating the same talking points, for the same republican political narrative. This committee has basically created its own republican echo chamber. With respect to ben rhodes, im struggling to understand the allegations against him. If i understand it correctly, republicans accuse him of misleading the American People by claiming that Nothing Happened with iran before 2013. When they elected a socalled moderate president. Republicans claim if the americans just knew the president was working towards an agreement before 2013, they would have rejected the deal. Of course, this is absurd. There are dozens of public press reports from every single year of the Obama Administration documenting house they were working to reach out to iran with varying degrees of success. All you have to do is google it. From the time that president barack obama was a candidate for president until today, press reports are full of accounts of how letters were being exchanged, meetings were being held, and negotiations were being launched. The republicans rushed to hold this hearing not as a way to change substantive information about the iran agreement, or even to investigate a legitimate allegation. Instead this hearing is exactly what it purports to condemn, partisan narrative, designed to mislead the American People. That is not just ironic, thats hypocritical. With that, i yield back and thank the witnesses again for being here. I thank the gentleman. The prime witness we had invited, mr. Rhodes, from the white house had decline has decline to come before the committee. Were disappointed in his failure to appear. The chair also nose contingent upon mr. Rhodes appears, a invitation was also extended to senator tom cotton at the request of the white house. Mr. Rhodes refused to appear before the committee today, the distinguished senator from arkansas is also excused. Mr. Chairman, we yes, gentleman from south carolina. I have an inquiry. Yes. Is mr. Hannah here . Yes. Well, why didnt mr. Cummings ask him the questions . Hell have the chance to we dont have a question to summer mr. Rhodes, because he didnt bother to show up. Would the chairman yield . Yes. I can say whatever i want to say in my opening statements. Yes, you can. It just needs to be fair. Just be fair about it. Gentlemen, gentlemen. State your inquiry. I wanted to know if he was here. And mr. Rhodes is not here. I would also note that the democrats were free and usually almost always in my experience invite a democratic witness, but there is no democratic witness today, because you didnt invite with. Would the champl yield . Sure. You know for a fact we got less than thes notice required in the rules. And we did not object and went on with the hearing. I disagree with the timing issue that you suggest. You gave us a required time . Yes. I disagree with you. Okay. Well sort that out. We have a good working relationship, mr. Cummings and i parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman from south carolina. Does the executive privilege apply to media interviews or only to appearances before congress . Uh, i dont know the full answer to that, but i believe they are free to talk to whoever they want to in the media, but they did claim executive privilege in the her. Is that a yes or no. Does it apply when youre being interviewed . Or just when members of Congress Want to ask evident evidently just when members of congress ask. Sill thank the chairman for that clarification. We are going to continue with the hearing. We do have mr. Mike at rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise institute. Mr. Michael doran, a senior fellow at the hudson institute, and mr. John hannah, senior counselor at the foundation to defense of accept sills. We welcome you ought. Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify. If you will please rise and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear other affirm the testimony youre good to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you, let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. We would appreciate you limiting your verbal comments to five minutes, to give us time to ask questions, your entire sometime will be entered into the record. Now recognize mr. Rubin. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. The major iran issues about when selling the iran deal we are verification. Lookened the standards set in south africa and libya, embraced irans voluntary compliance with the Additional Protocol when previously rouhani had bragged that voluntary allows iran to reverse course. Have iranians transferred some nuclear work to labs in north korea . Under the jcpoa, we will never know. Rouhani is no moderate. Loyalty to comainis vision was a major theme of thinks campaign commercials. He stuffed his cabinets with veterans of the intelligence committee. But a kgb cabinet. In 2005, he laid out a doctrine of surprise. Lulled the americans to complacency and then deliver a knockout blow. Just last week he offered fullthroated endorsement to the legacy of qods force leader. History belies moderates the country or trickles down to ordinary people. The European Union almost tripled the trade with iran, and the price of oil quinn tumled. Iran took the windfall and invested it in the Ballistic Missile program and covert Nuclear Enrichment facilities. A spokesman bragged about how he had defeated the west. We had an overt policy, and a covert policy which was continuation of the activities. In his capacity as chairman of the National Security council. The problem goes beyond the Supreme Leaderss investment arm. The economic wing controls perhaps 40 of the economy, including every sector now open for business. The of those supported it acknowledged it to be a flaw but argued the alternative was war. This may have been crafty politics, but undermined the u. S. Position by creating a binary choice, rhodes removed credibility to the notion that the Obama Administration, in in addition to the best this played into iranian hand, because they knew no matter what they pushed for, curry would concede. The probable is what rhodes did has become the rule rather than the exception in my written testimony i detale the long history of diplomats and politicians lies to keep diplomacy alive. Too obvious think blame political opponents more than foreign adversaries. As i document in dancing with a devil with as diplomat proceed, they too often calibrated to the fantasy they have correct v constructed rather than reality. It leads officials to and on occasion to lie to congress. During the 1990s, Senior State Department officials testified that they could draw no direct lisks from arafat and terrorism to avoid an aid cutoff. Likewise in 2007 during the Bush Administration, christopher hill, the state departments point man on north korean issued presented to congress as artificially rosy picture. In order to keep support for engagement alive, no matter the truth of about i dont think yangs behavior. Morse recently, diplomat lied both directly and by omanages to consequence in order to avoid reporting that russia his cheating on armed controls what is rhodes to do . He put the allies at risk. Certainly any dissemination of falsehoods merit a broader investigation. National security and congresss credibility are at risk. Thats not enough. In the past six decades, the u. S. State department has failed to learned exercises as to why its high profile with rogue regimes has seldom if ever succeeded. That would be poisonous and counterproductive, but if the state department refuses Due Diligence it would be beneficial if congress would examine diplomacy if only to ensure that the same mistakes are not made for a seventh time. There should be bipartisan consensus. Even supporters of the deal acknowledge serious concerns about its flaws. So, too, do most serious arms control and counterproliferation experts outside of the echo chamber whose crafting rhodes bragged. One final point if i may. Im concerned that by perhaps creating an echo chamber and solely talking to people within it in effect what rhodes did was create a propaganda operation in which he trapped not other than secretary of state john kerry. Hes a victim of ben rhodes as well. Thank you. Thank the gentleman. And go to mr. Doran. Sorry, microphone there, please. Thanks. Chairman chaffetz, Ranking Member cummings if you can move the microphone up close and comfortable. Thank you for inviting me to address the problems in the New York Times article of ben rhodes. Mr. Rhodes admitted to the New York Times that he created a war room of some two dozen detailees from around the executive branch who came from the white house and monitored all Public Communications about the iran deal, communications coming out of the capitol hill, the think tank world, on social media and in the traditional media. He also created what he called an echo chamber a network of sympathetic ngos, think tanks and compliant members of the press to whom he ceded false narratives i would say about the iran deal and then he directed the reporters to these ngos and think tanks to give seemingly independent verification to the narratives that he put out. In my view the creation of the echo chamber and the war room does constitute a deception of the American People and of their representatives, but the question is what exactly was the nature of the deception. I think to understand that we have to understand the larger policy context. And that is the strategic goal of the president was to carry out a detente with iran. It was to end the conflict with iran as a as a necessary precondition to pulling the United States back from the middle east because ending the military engagement in the middle east i think is the president s overall goal. Now, if the president had been upfront about this with the American People and said that he wanted to, a, pull the United States out of the middle east and, b, make iran part of the Security Architecture of the region, he would have encountered immediately a severe political backlash that would have undermined his whole project and former defense secretary panetta, former chief of the cia panetta, said as much to the New York Times magazine. Now, thats the thats the need for a propaganda operation that to deceive the American People. Its not just to misrepresent whats in the iran deal, but to misrepresent Everything Else thats around it, that is the strategic goal of the president in the middle east. Id like to say a few words if i may about what i think were the what is the anatomy of the deception, that is, the main lines of false narrative that the war room and echo chamber put out. And in my prepared statement i go into more detail about this. Ill just summarize here five major points. Number one, conjuring moderates. The echo chamber created the impression that rouhani the president of iran was a moderate coming to power in representing a wave of moderation in iran, a desire to fundamentally change relations between iran and the west. This narrative of the moderates coming to power and the need to support the moderates have been the gift that keeps on giving to the to president obamas diplomacy. It creates it creates a pleasing story of breaking down of barriers. It creates a moral equivalence in political terms between those who are critical of the deal in the United States and hardliners, the supposed enemies of rouhani in iraq. And, importantly, it makes it lulls us into a false sense of security about all of the concessions that we have made to iran and in particular the sunset component of the nuclear deal which gives iran effectively in ten years a completely legitimate program and the ability to move Nuclear Program and the ability to move quickly toward a weapon. If iran is moderating, if we are supporting a process of moderation in iran, then allowing it to have these capabilities is really no danger. The second the second deception is falsifying the chronology of the negotiations, which began much earlier than the election of rouhani. They go back to july, 2012, and they were initiated by the United States. The third deception is erasing concessions from the United States along the lines of what dr. Rubin just discussed. The fourth is hiding the regional cost. The president has in effect has in effect recognized syria as an iranian sphere of influence, and one of the goals of the deception of mr. Rhodes is to is to prevent people from connecting the dots between the syria policy and the Iranian Nuclear policy. And the fifth part of the deception is blaming allies. The white house on background and in public is very is very willing to criticize our sunni allies as creating sectarian extremism in the region. Its willing to criticize in very in very derogatory terms Prime Minister netanyahu of israel. It never criticizes the iranians. You never hear a word from the white house about what the iranians are doing in syria in pursuit of the in pursuit of in support of in support of assads murder machine. Ill just sum up now by what i think we need to do were this and i would say two points. Number one, i agree with you, chairman chaffetz, that we do not actually know what is in the iran deal. We still do this day dont know. And i completely agree with your assessment about the activities of secretary of state kerry in euro europe. Last week he was in europe drumming up things for the iranians. Is it part of the deal or not . We dont know. So, i would support further investigation. And secondly, i think we have to trim the size of the nfc. I dont see how anyone that looks at this and sees a war room of 22 of 22 detailees from around the executive branch in the in the white house with the job of Monitoring Communications and creating a false narrative in the media is a legitimate is a legitimate part of the nfc. The nfc should be a coordinating body. It should not be a muscular imperial body running roughshod over all the executive branch. So, i would add my voice who those who are saying that the nfc should be cut back severely from the 400 members it currently has to something more like 100. Thank you. Thank the gentleman. Now recognize mr. Hanna for five minutes. Chairman chaffetz, Ranking Member cummings, members of the committee, on behalf of the foundation for defense of democracy, thank you for the invitation to testify on the iran nuclear deal. For me as a Foreign Policy analyst, perhaps the most important revelation made in the recent New York Times profile of ben rhodes was its allegation concerning president obamas overriding strategic purpose in seeking a nuclear deal with iran. A purpose which until now has been largely concealed from the American People. According to the article, quote, by eliminating the fuss about irans Nuclear Program, the administration hoped to eliminate a source of structural tension between the two countries, which would create the space for america to disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with countries like saudi arabia, egypt, israel, and turkey. With one bold move, the administration would effectively begin the process of a largescale disengagement from the middle east, close quote. Now, if accurate, this is truly a stunning admission with very big implications. As suggested elsewhere in the article, it does represent nothing less than a radical shift in american Foreign Policy. According to the article, mr. Rhodes passion for the Iranian Nuclear deal did not derive from any investment in the technical deals of sanctions or centrifuges or the future of iranian politics but rather, quote, from his own sense of urgency of radically reorienting american policy in the middle east in order to make the prospects of any american involvement in the regions future wars a lot less likely, close quote. Now, whether you agree or disagree with this inclination to step back from the leadership role that the United States has played in the middle east since world war ii, the troubling fact remains that this fundamental shift in american strategy has never been openly communicated to the American People. It has never been debated by the u. S. Congress, and it has never been revealed to americas longtime allies in the middle east. Determining whether or not this very substantive claim is true that is whether the white house is in reality seeking to engage in disengagement from the middle east is of vital importance to the u. S. National interests. Again, whether you agree with it or disagree and its one that i think the congress should seek clarification on. If, in fact, the nuclear deal with iran is as mr. Rhodes suggests the center of the arc for president obamas efforts to radically transform u. S. Policy, it raises a host of concerns. Certainly it casts doubt on the administrations repeated claim that no deal was better than a bad deal. To the extent that the preeminent objective instead in mr. Rhodes view was to, quote, eliminate the fuss about irans Nuclear Program rather than to actually eliminate that program itself, one wonders whether the administration did demand or had a tough enough posture in the negotiations as it might otherwise have been. Similar concerns i think exist now that the deal is in place and being implemented. When congress was reviewing the jcpoa last summer the Administration Made repeated assurances to the congress that it would vigorously enforce the agreement while using every tool at its disposal to counter iranian terrorism, the Ballistic Missile program and human rights abuses. Since then, however, irans bad behavior has dramatically escalated. It has significantly increased its combat role in syria, or its arrested additional u. S. Citizens, conducted multiple Ballistic Missile tests, its fired rockets in very close proximity to u. S. Ships in the persian gulf, held ten american sailors captive and threatened close the straits of hormuz. The u. S. Response to these repeated provocations, despite the administrations earlier assurances, has so far ranged from quite tepid to nonexistent. Even more worrisome perhaps has been the reported u. S. Willingness to at least contemplate granting iran additional sanctions relief that it failed to negotiate in the jcpoa. Specifically, iran is demanding access to dollarized financial transactions. This would be a huge unilateral concession that would greatly expand irans ability to do business internationally, while legitimizing an iranian Banking Sector that remains mired in illicit financing activities. Let me close by stressing that especially in light of the questions raised by the New York Times profile about what americas true underlying purpose is in pursuing the iran deal, its extremely important that congress now hold the administrations feet to the fire when it comes to the commitment to combat irans continued aggression. At a minimum, congress should do everything in its power to assure that iran receives no new sanctions relief in the absence of significant new iranian concessions. And far more aggressive use should be made of nonnuclear sanctions to constrain irans expanding Ballistic Missile program and deter the Iranian Revolutionary guard corps from their activities in syria, iraq and yemen. The bottom line is that the United States should not be sending iran a message that we now place such a high premium on its continued adherence to the nuclear deal that it will have Carte Blanche to pursue its increasingly threatening policies in other areas that endanger our interests and those of our allies. Thank you, again, mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. I know this is the place where i would normally say i look forward to your questions. But im may be more appropriately i stand by and im ready to try to answer your questions. Fair enough. I think thats a fair summary of where were at. Ill now recognize myself for five minutes. Mr. Rhodes i wish were here. He has a unique perspective. He said some truly amazing and overthetop things that were quoted in the New York Times. I havent heard anything refute that. One of the ones that i think would concern all of us is this quote that he said on the fourth page of this article, he says, its printed out, quote, i dont know anymore where i begin and obama ends. Thats a true if you really think and let that settle in, thats a truly stunning statement. He also said some other things that i think are very concerning. Quote, all these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus which i think he makes a good point on on that and then he says, quote, now they dont. They call us to explain to them whats happening in moscow and cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. Thats a sea change. They literally know nothing, end quote. He went on to say, mr. Rhodes said, quote, but then there are these sorts of force multipliers. We have our compadres. I will reach out to a couple people and, you know, i wouldnt want to name them and then he goes on and anyway. Its really interesting in his approach. But heres what thats one component. But you compile that on top of what you also hear former secretary panetta said. This is what secretary panetta said. And this is a quote from panetta. And you know my view talking with the president was, if i brought it to the point where we had evidence that theyre developing an atomic weapon, i think the president is serious that he is not going to allow that to happen. But then panetta stops, according to the article, and the author says, quote, but would you make that same assessment now, end quote. Secretary panettas quote is i would make the same assessment now, question mark, probably not. Probably not. So, he said it once. I repeated it twice. But this is of whats deep concern. I think it would be naive to just gloss this over and say, hey, we got this deal. Its in the best interests of the United States. Its noting . That was fully brought before the congress. I would hope that we would walk out with an understanding from the three of you of what those big outstanding questions are. But maybe somebody could shed some light on these socalled side deals, these things where iran has maybe made other deals. Do you have any insight, mr. Doran, any of you, on what these socalled side deals might be . No. And theres what we have uncovered, but as time goes on as time goes on, we keep finding out more and more that wasnt in the text, and, of course, the Obama Administration says there is nothing else, but the iranians are the iranians are saying that there is larger deal, in particular with regard to access to dollars and expanding their economy. And the behavior of our officials suggests that they are right. Our Officials Say that the iranians are not correct, but here we have here we have secretary kerry in europe last week meeting with banks trying to get them to overlook concerns about irans illicit activities and to drum up business for iran. So, theres a mismatch here between what were saying and what were doing, but what were doing actually does actually does match quite closely with what the iranians are saying. And thats been a thats been a characteristic of the deal from day one. The deal the deal has been shaped by the red lines of the Supreme Leader and not by the red lines of the president of the United States. Our red lines have dropped all along the way and the iranians have stayed consistent with theirs. Mr. Rubin . Very quickly the jcpoa is almost like a timeshare agreement, where you sign the deal and you only find out then what the true costs are. One of the subjects for oversight would be with regard to changing the language, restricting irans Ballistic Missile work. Was it a deliberate concession or was it the result of incompetence . What troubles me mostly is how we seem to having become irans lawyer, for example, the iranians will now complain that we are not enabling enough openings for their economy, and yet what didnt hit the western press was last week the iranians on the order of the Supreme Leader cancelled an order 20 million 2 million for chevrolets. And the answer was, we shouldnt be doing business with the americans. Whos kneecapping the iranian economy, us or the iranians . Its time to have the iranians stop blaming other people and take accountability to themselves. Thank you. My time has expired. Now recognize the Ranking Member, mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanna, you were dick cheneys top National Security adviser, is that right . Yes, sir, from 2005 to 2009. No, i dont think it is. As you said, we played an Important Role in making the first draft of secretary powells speech to the United Nations. That was certainly true, but we okay. But you were involved in making the first draft . Thats correct. Is this pretty much the draft he presented to the United Nations . I know a first draft usually goes through many more drafts. Sure. If you hear mr. Powells people now, they say it contained reports that couldnt be supported by the Intelligence Community and at the end of the day they threw out my draft and secretary powell spent four days with the high eest level of peoe at langley and he did a new draft. Their claim was my draft did not actually form the foundation of what he presented to the United Nations. Im sure you having heard that, im sure you probably said, let me at least listen to what he did say. Is that right . Did you read his oh, sure. Yes, i did, absolutely. And was there any mention of weapons of mass destruction in your draft as compared to the final draft of secretary powle . Yes, i think both of our drafts were entirely focused on weapons of mass destruction. What would you say was the difference . Because he seemed like he was very disappointed with the information that you had provided him that said that it was a blot on his reputation and pretty much that he, you know until the day he dies hes going to regret it. But im just curious. Just a correction first of all, when he said it was a blot, i think he was talking about what he presented to the United Nations. I dont think he was talking about the draft that i presented him, its what he did with george tenet and the rest of the Intelligence Community that he ended up presenting that was obviously filled with errors. Most of it was wrong. My draft instruction to me when i started that draft was that you need to go look at all of the intelligence there is, including raw intelligence, which we regularly got at the white house, which were individual reports by individual intelligence sources. I did that. And put it into a draft, and then have the Intelligence Community look at that draft and decide what pieces of intelligence could they support, which ones werent they able to support. That source was not reliable. Didnt have enough of a reliable record of reporting, and they would throw it out. So i wrote the draft knowing that large segments of it would be thrown out because the Intelligence Community just didnt have the necessary confidence level in that reporting. Now, let me read what secretary powells chief of staff said about your document. I take it has to the first draft. He said hanna, quote, hanna was constantly flipping through his clipboard trying to source and verify all the statements. It was clear the thing was put together by cherry picking everything, end of quote. In fact, they discovered you did not use the dia report properly, you did not cite a cia report fairly, and you referenced the New York Times article that quoted an Intelligence Report out of context. So, they scrapped, as you said, your entire document and the secretarys chief of staff described it in this way and i quote, he said, finally, i threw the paper down on the table and said this isnt going to cut it. Now, this was the chief of staff, right, for secretary powell. How could you have given him such a document that appears, in his opinion, to have been baseless and misleading . Well, i mean, theres a long history. It was colonel wilkerson who was his chief of staff. Thats correct. He has a long record that anybody can go read about his views of the iraq war and his regrets and deep regrets. I think we just have a different view of the draft i presented. I do acknowledge that it included an awful lot of stuff that i knew that came from the Intelligence Community that they would not be able to support if they thought it wasnt used properly, they could use it properly if they thought it was useful. So, we just have a basic i think difference of view about what i actually provided and what the purpose of my draft was. It wasnt meant to be a final draft, the final word that would go to the United Nations. It was meant to be a rough draft that the Intelligence Community would go through with a fine tooth comb and pick out those parts that they thought were the strong made the strongest case that, in fact, saddam did have weapons of mass destruction. But it wasnt just mr. Wilkerson, it was also george tenet who reportedly turned directly to you, and im sure youll remember this and said, you wasted a lot of our time, quote, end of quote. Is that true, and did he say that . He certainly didnt say it to me. Certainly i could easily see him saying that kind of thing, but he didnt say it to me. I thank you very much. Now recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. Wahlberg, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chair, and thanks to the panel for being here. We wish there were other members, of course. Mr. Doran, in your testimony you discuss the need to restore checks and balances and note that while mr. Rhodes behavior is scandalous and i think propaganda is the word that you used, it wasnt a rogue operation, but that he was carrying out the will of the president. Questions that im sure my constituents representing them here in the peoples house would want me to ask in reference to this is, number one, how can Congress Take steps to prevent this president and future president s from circumventing congress . I think this is part of the inherent tension in our government. I did i did say that i think that the mr. Rhodes is doing the bidding of the president. I think its important to remember that. We have now numerous accounts from mainly from former defense secretaries, panetta and gates especially, showing thousand theres an inner core in the white house, five or six people, who consult closely with the president about his views. And everybody else is pretty much left out of the conversation. Including principals on the national on the National Security council and mr. Rhodes is part of that inner circle. The only answer i have to this, i spent a lot of time thinking about it, the only answer i have are the two that i gave you. One is just exercising the oversight responsibilities that congress has, asking the hard questions, and continually putting pressure on the executive branch to come clean. The second is i think cutting back the size of the nfc. Its simply wrong i think anyone on both sides of the aisle would see that the National Security council created by statute in 1947 was created to be a coordinating body, not an operational arm of the government. And under president obama it has slipped into becoming an operational arm. And i think when you look at the war room, as described not by me, but by mr. Rhodes, this is this is an operational operational white house. Just one last point here. Theres an issue here that i think we all just need to be aware of but theres not much we can do about it, and that is the collapse of the press. So, one of the reasons why this is a threat to our checks and balances is because of the collapse of i would say certain informal checks on government on governmental power that have disappeared over the last decade, you know, very, very quickly because of the rise of the the rise of the internet. What ben rhodes said in that article about about foreign events being reported from washington and from the white house by young reporters who dont know anything and dont have any other sources of information except what the white house is telling them is completely correct and its a danger. Theres not much theres not much in terms of legislation that we can do about that, but we need to be aware of it. Its sort of a double danger because not only do the reporters not have alternative sources of information but because all of the information is coming out of the white houseve this of this white house and reporting the stories as the white house wants them. Let me go on from there as well and ben rhodes assistant in the article, the reports in the comments in the New York Times magazine article, indicated that there were compadres involved in this. Some of those were in the think Tank Community as well. Who would he be referring to in the think tank and policy world . The Plowshares Funds. The what . The Plowshares Fund has funded many of the elements of the socalled echo chamber, to use ben rhodes words. Supposedly neutral assessors, for example, in various arms control think tanks, perhaps in the Atlantic Council as well, and elsewhere were receiving grants. Now, one can say just because one has received a grant from this highlevel funder and by the way, this funder also had provided grants to Senior Iranian officials working in the United States as well at universities and so forth. Just because they have funded doesnt necessarily mean that theres a quid pro quo, but what you will find is that anyone who has received Plowshares Funding especially for the bulk of their grant or the bulk of their salary, never, not once, contradicted the assessment which ben rhodes sought to put forward. Thank you. I yield back. Thank the gentleman. Now recognize the gentle woman from new york ms. Maloney for five minutes. Thank you. After a good deal of deliberation and research, i voted against the iran nuclear deal. And at the time i was hoping very much that i was wrong. But everything that has happened since and the Additional Information that has come forward, it literally has convinced me that i made the right decision. But i have to say as a member who took the time to carefully study the plan before making a decision, as i believe all of my colleagues did, i had absolute, complete access to all documents. I read every document, even classified documents, every meeting was addressed in various areas. The administration bent over backwards to provide Accurate Information to us. And i must say that this was one of the most hotly debated issues that ive experienced since ive been in congress. But both sides were deeply involved in putting forward their cases. There were demonstrations. There were petitions. There were meetings. There were conferences. There were debates. There were it was completely and totally open to everyone to learn and to make their own decision. So, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are now taking another opportunity to attack the administration with a futile fishing expedition based on a widely questioned New York Times profile of an adviser to president obama. I believe its quite a stretch to suggest that the white House Building a comprehensive Information Campaign to support a major policy, a Foreign Policy initiative, amounts to any way in misleading the American People. And i find it incredibly hypocritical to invite mr. Ha a hanna, who worked for dick cheney and helped market the iraq war based on false pretenses to come now before us as an Expert Witness on an alleged false white house narrative. I find the hypocrisy really beyond belief. And id like to ask mr. Hanna, do you know who Scott Mclennan is . Yes or no . Yeah, well yes. Scott, other people may not know, he was the White House Press secretary and he wrote a book about his experience. He explained how a small group of advisors called the white house Iraq Working Group helped sell the iraq war by misleading the American People. And im quoting from president bushs press secretary. He said, the White House Iraq Group had been set up in the summer of 2002 to coordinate the marketing of the war to the public. And, mr. Hanna, wasnt Scooter Libby your boss and dick cheneys chief of staff, werent they part of the iraq group . The Vice President wasnt. I think Scooter Libby was. Im not 100 sure, but i think youre right. Well, Scott Mcclellan further wrote, he explained exactly how you and others misled the American People. And he said this, and i quote, as the campaign accelerated, qualifications were downplayed or dropped altogether. Contradictory intelligence was largely ignored or simply disregarded. So, mr. Hanna, why did you ignore and disregard evidence that contradicted your political narrative for the war . Congresswoman, i would just say that, you know, to the extent that i got it wrong in believing that saddam had weapons of mass destruction, an awful lot of people got it wrong. It was not a figment of the imagination are you saying are you saying that mr. Mclennan was wrong in the book when he said he misled and lied to the American People . All i can tell you is that there have been bipartisan commissions that have looked at how the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and they came to the conclusion that the president of the United States did not lie about im not talking about him. Im talking about mcclellan. Was mcclellan wrong . Was he misinformed . Was he lying when he said he wrote we were misleading the American People. We downplayed any contradictory information. Congresswoman, i havent read his book. All i can tell you is a lot of people that know scott very well, i dont know scott at all, really are you saying have contradicted his presentation. They believe he was wrong in his judgments and he are you saying that you did include contradictory intelligence showing that your case was weak or nonexistent . No. I think we were instructed to write what we thought was the best case for why saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The gentle womans time has expired. No, i have 21 seconds left according to this, so id just like to no, you are 27 seconds overtime. Oh, okay. Thank you. All right. Well, id like to put my closing statement in the record. Its a zinger. And its very hypocritical, mr. Chairman. Do you know mr. Hanna is here to answer questions. Mr. Rhodes is not here to answer questions. Thats whats difficult about this hearing. Well go to the gentleman from arizona and recognize him for five minutes. Thank you for your testimony and for providing valuable information to this committee which shed lights on the deceptive manner in which the Obama Administration sold out the American People and our allies across the globe with the iran capitulation agreement. Even when presented with the facts like the facts each of you laid out in your testimony, the administration doubles down and try to disagree with anyone who questions it including me. When asked about the interview with the New York Times magazine press secretary josh earnest dodged and decided to lambaste several members of congress including me as liars. Truly eliciting principles to the core. Why . Because under the illegal iran deal in lifting sanctions that iran would be able to access up to 100 billion that was previously frozen. Jack liu stated that sanctions relief would be worth about 100 billion. The president of iran said his country would get 100 billion. Defight t despite the fact that i said something similar, the white house is now trying to brand me as a liar and attempting to deflect ben rhodes recent statements. The point is not 100 billion or 50 billion or whether its all at once or over a period of time, the real problem is president obama is funding the Worlds Largest state sponsor of terrorism. Iran is no friend to the United States, to christians or jews or even sunni muslims. Iran is a rogue nation hellbent on nuclear war in middle east. A responsible president who loves his country and supports our allies would never lift sanctions and give this murderous regime money, much less billions. This deal is a strain is our national character. The next president we can only hope will terminate this nonsense and promote freedom and accountability overseas and not a regime that stones women and hangs homehomosexuals. Josh earnest suggest i show up to the oversight committee. Here i am. Where is ben rhodes . I guess you can run and hide. Now, mr. Doran, much of the News Coverage recently had focused on mr. Rhodes and the lies and misinformation he had spun relating to the iran deal, however, we know that no one operates in a vacuum. Does mr. Rhodes represent a rogue employee of the white house or does the spin campaign represent something more deeply about how the white house handled the iran deal . I believe it represents the president s Strategic Vision and the president s the president s will. He the president is on record as early as 2006 saying that he wanted to improve relations with iran and syria and that he saw iran and syria as sharing core interests and stabilizing iraq and that we should work with them with them to do that. I dont think he ever lost that so you would say that he actually is ultimately responsible for developing this frame of capitulation . Absolutely. And thats the key factor to understand why we made all of these concessions to iran, because were not actually trying to stop it from getting a nuclear weapon. Were trying to develop a partnership with it. Unfortunately as you said, the lies and misrepresentation that are deeply woven deep within the iran capitulation agreement are just the latest example of a culture of deception that has been this administrations m. O. Since its incepti inception. Lets noter er iforget this is same administration that sold the American People out to the Insurance Companies under the guise of health care reform. The president and his congressional minions drove a legislative garbage truck full of special interest giveaways through congress and over americans pocketbook while knowing and willfully repeating the lie, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. This is the same administration thatta