tv U.S. Senate CSPAN July 24, 2015 10:00am-6:01pm EDT
to 54 republican senators and made an explicit promise that he wasn't lying to us. well as t.p.a. moved on, as it went to the house it became abundantly clear, there was a deal. there was a deal in the house for the export-import bank. and so the second time t.p.a. came up, i voted "no" because of that corrupt deal. now i will note to the public the majority leader and the speaker of the house have repeatedly said there was no corrupt deal, there was no corrupt deal. we made no deal, we made no deal. that's one element of the background context. let me tell you a second element of the background context. a number of weeks ago when we were debating the corker-cardin bill the iran review act, there were a number of amendments that senators had filed. i filed an amendment that will
actually put teeth in the iran review act by requiring affirmative congressional approval before sanctions on iran could be lifted. other senators filed very good amendments. senator marco rubio filed an amendment calling for iran to recognize israel's right to exist as a jewish state before sanctions could be lifted. our friends on the democratic side of the aisle did not want to vote on that amendment. and in response, the majority leader cut off all amendments. madam president, i sat in the majority leader's office, and i urged the majority leader invoke cloture on senator rubio's amendment. invoke cloture on senator
rubio's amendment calling on iran to recognize israel's right to exist and setting that as a precondition of any lifting of sanctions. i argued vociferously with the majority leader that if the democrats were so opposed to voting on that amendment, that was all the more reason because it was important substantively and the majority leader said no, he would not do so, that invoking cloture on an amendment was an extraordinary step, and he wouldn't do so. so he cut off every amendment. he filled the tree. and terrace -- it was striking a minute ago seeing the democratic leader harry reid calling out the majority leader for filling the tree, for engaging in the same procedural abuse that railroaded did over and -- that harry reid did over and over and over again in this body. now the republican leader is behaving like the senior senator from nevada.
what we just saw was not madam president, what the majority leader told you and me and every other republican senator. what we just saw was not that the proponents of the ex-im bank like anyone else, could stand up and offer any amendment they'd like on any issue. what the majority leader just did is, number one he called up that amendment. he called it up himself. why does that matter? because as majority leader he has priority of recognition. when he calls up an amendment no one can stop him. he didn't just call it up. he filled the tree, just like harry reid, he filled the tree, blocking everyone else's amendment. by the way i agree with senator reid when he said the obamacare amendment is a cynical amendment. of course it is. it is empty showmanship. we'll have a vote on repealing obamacare. the republicans will all vote "yes." the democrats will all vote "no." it will be at a 60-vote
threshold. it will fail. it will be an exercise in meaningless political theater. mind you when we actually had a fight to stop imoak and -- obama care and defund it, the majority leader was opposed. but an empty showboat, that is a good way to distract from what's going on. there is a profound disappointment among the american people because we keep winning elections and then we keep getting leaders who don't do anything they promised. the american people were told if only we have a republican majority in the house things will be different. well in 2010 the american people showed up in enormous numbers and we got a republican majority in the house.
and very little changed. then the american people were told, you know, the problem is the senate. if only we get a republican majority in the senate and retire harry reid as majority leader then things will be different. well in 2014 the american people rose up in enormous numbers, voted to do exactly that. we've had a republican majority in both houses of congress now for about six months. what has that majority done? first thing we did in december is we came back and passed a $1 trillion cromnibus plan filled with pork and corporate welfare. that was the very first thing we did. then this republican majority voted to fund obamacare voted to fund president obama's unconstitutional executive amnesty. and thun leadership rammed through the -- and then leadership rammed through the
confirmation of loretta lynch as attorney general. madam president, which of those decisions would be one iota different if harry reid were still majority leader? not a one. not a one. this senate operates exactly the same. the same priorities. and let me tell you why. it's not that this majority doesn't get things done. it does get things done. but it listens to one and only one voice. that is the voice of the washington cartel, of the lobbyists on k street, of the big money and big corporations. you know, if you go to the american people and ask is reauthorizing the ex-im bank a priority for you the standard response for most of them would be, the what? they don't even know what this is. let me tell you what this is. it is an egregious example of
corporate welfare. it is the american taxpayers being on the dime for hundreds of billions of dollars in loan guarantees given out to a handful of giant corporations. it is a classic example of cronyism and corporate welfare. and, by the way among others, you know one person who had the clarity of thought on that? then-senator barack obama who described it as a classic example of corporate welfare. that was when he was in the senate. now that he's in the white house, corporate welfare sounds pretty good. now just about all of the democrats are supporting the corporate welfare with the exception of bernie sanders. i'll give credit to senator sanders for standing up against corporate welfare. but every democrat who rails against big money and corruption of washington, every democrat who styles himself or herself a populist their actions on this
matter speak far louder than their words. and when it comes to republicans, republicans also are listening to k street and the lobbyists. why? it's not complicated. the giant corporations that are getting special favors from the taxpayers hire an army of lobbyists that write campaign checks after campaign checks. by the way these checks go to both democrats and republicans. it is career politicians in both parties that are kept in office by looting the taxpayer to benefit wealthy powerful corporations. the single-largest recipient of loan guarantees from the ex-im bank is the boeing corporation. the boeing corporation had an earnings call where their c.e.o. said -- and i'm paraphrasing -- but we'll be just fine without
the ex-im bank. it's not impacting us. there are plenty of private loan alternatives out there. but you know, even though the market could provide it's a lot easier to have compliant lawmakers rob from the public fist to enrich giant corporations. you know who doesn't have lobbyists? a single mom waiting tables. you know who doesn't have lobbyists? a teenage immigrant like my father was washing dishes making 50 cents an hour, struggling to achieve the american dream. you know who doesn't have lobbyists? a factory worker who just wants to work and provide for his or her children. they don't have lobbyists. and so what happens? career politicians in both parties gang up with giant
corporations to loot their taxes to make it harder for people who are struggling to achieve the american dream. coal miners, madam president in your state they don't have lobbyists who are representing them here, the individual miners while the majority leader teams up with the democratic leader to take from their paychecks to fund giant corporations. it is wrong and it is corrupt. madam president, it saddens me to say this. i sat in my office, i told my staff the majority leader looked me in the eye and looked 54 republicans in the eye. i cannot believe he would tell a flat-out lie and i voted based on those assurances that he made to each and every one of us.
what we just saw today was an absolute demonstration that not only what he told every republican senator but what he told the press over and over and over again was a simple lie. this institution should not operate at the beck and call of lobbyists in washington. this institution the majority and minority leader arm in arm again, should not team up against the american taxpayers. it's why our children are going bankrupt. now we're facing an enormous threat with this iran deal, a nuclear iran poses the greatest
national security threat to this country. and yet the majority leader refused to do what he just did for the export-import bank on iran refused to invoke cloture. that was an extraordinary step. madam president, if he was telling us the truth when he said there was no deal, why would he do what he just did? well we now know that when the majority leader looks us in the eyes and makes an explicit commitment that he is willing to say things that he knows are false. that has consequences for how this body operates. if you or i cannot trust what the majority leader tells us, that will have consequences on other legislation as well on how this institution operates. there are a host of amendments that the american people are focused on, things like defunding planned parenthood after the gruesome video.
the majority leader doesn't want to vote on that. that's actually something the american people are focused on. he brought up his obamacare amendment as a smoke screen because it's intended to fail. but you know what he didn't bring up is my amendment to end the congressional exemption from obamacare, the corrupt deal that harry reid made with obama. we've got to live under the same rules as everybody else. the majority leader doesn't want to vote on that because he doesn't want to end the cronyism for members of congress any more than end the cronyism for giant corporations who enrich themselves at the expense of the american people. there are a host of priorities that the voters who elected you and me. madam president, i would ask you to think about when you were running for the senate not too long ago. do you recall any of your constituents ever saying we want the export-import bank? no. they want other things.
they have other priorities, but those are not the priorities of republican leadership. sadly today we have government of the lobbyists by the lobbyists, and for the lobbyists. that is not how the united states senate is supposed to operate. a far more important amendment than bringing back this corporate welfare and cronyism is my amendment that provides that sanctions on iran cannot be lifted unless and until iran does two things. number one it recognizes israel's right to exist as a jewish state. and, number two it releases the four american hostages languishing in iranian prisons. that is a far more important issue than enriching some more lobbyists on k street and getting a few more campaign
contributions. that's what we should be voting on. and accordingly madam president, i call up my amendment number 2301 to the mcconnell amendment 2266 as modified. the presiding officer: the amendment is not in order to be offered as it is inconsistent with the senate's precedence with respect to the offering of amendments, their number, degree and kind. mr. cruz: madam president? i appeal the ruling of the chair that the amendment is not in order. the presiding officer: the appeal is debatable. mr. cruz: madam president i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president thank you so much. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mrs. boxer: i ask that it be dispensed with, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: madam president i want to start by thanking you for your work on the environment and public works committee. we did what some people think is the impossible. we passed a bill without one dissenting vote, to move forward with a six-year reauthorization of our highway and transit programs. and people say how could this committee do it? you're so split on other issues. it's because we recognize all of us whether we're liberal progressive, moderate,
conservative very conservative, that it is essential for our great nation to have an infrastructure that works. madam president, last week, a bridge collapsed in california. it was a miracle no one was killed. and this bridge carries people from california to arizona and that means commerce goes through this bridge. that means passenger cars go through this. this is what happened. this is what it's about. it's not about what committees got in a room. it's not about senator cruz's ideological issues. it's not about any lobbyists. it's about the hard, cold facts madam president, that more than 60,000 of our bridges are structurally deficient. and it's very hard to go to bed at night knowing that we haven't
done anything about this except just do these short-term extensions of the highway trust fund where states are simply not undertaking the kinds of projects they need to undertake which is inspection of these kind of bridges and moving forward with repairing them and strengthening them. madam president, the reason i have this here, to me it's the poster child of why on a bipartisan basis we need to continue to move forward. forget about the naysayers on the democratic side. forget about the naysayers on the republican side. let's have those of us who see this as the issue not process -- you know, not sequester which we have to solve. it's now part of this. we have got two bad problems facing us. the highway trust fund that funds the transit and highway system and sequester is another
problem. if we can solve this problem now, let's solve this problem now. and we have a coming together of a very sod coalition here of republicans and democrats despite the fact that i venture to say not one person loves this bill because there is always going to be things in a bill you don't like. we stripped some of the pay-fors that were hurting our cities, and thanks to senators portman and stabenow and peters, that was done. that's good. and we have a bill that's fully paid for for three years. the first time in ten years. and we can always find problems and we could always say why are we doing this and not doing that? well the reason we're doing this is if my numbers are right we're sort of single digits away from the highway trust fund going bust. it goes bust on july 31. imagine. and we're fighting about this?
we ought to be moving this fast. oh no. we have a filibuster. we have to be in this weekend. but it's worth it. i asked my staff to figure it out. over the -- i think it's three-year period, it's eight million jobs. eight million jobs. that's how many jobs were lost in the great recession. am i right on that number? well we'll go back and check the exact number. it's millions of jobs. and the fact of the matter is those families are suffering still. 800,000 construction workers out of work. so we will put in the record the exact number of jobs. now, i want to say this. when people say well, the lobbyists are winning here, you know, who are the people that are pushing us for a bill? and i would ask the american people make your decision.
the u.s. chamber of commerce, the international union of operating engineers the laborers international union of north america the aaa the u.s. conference of mayors, the united brotherhood of carpenters, the american association of state highway and transportation officials, mothers against drunk driving, american council of engineering companies. before we go to the second chart, andrew, i would just say to folks this is a rare coming together of america you know? madam president, you have been around here a while. it's hard to find the u.s. chamber on the same page as the laborers' international and on the same page with mothers against drunk driving and the conference of mayors and engineering companies. i'm telling you let's continue looking at this list. the american highway users
alliance the american public transportation association the american road and transportation builders the society of civil engineers, the american truckers the associated equipment distributors, the general contractors the equipment manufacturers the association of metropolitan planning organizations the national asphalt paving association. madam president, labor has come together with business, cities have come together with states, the users of the roads the aaa. remember how we call them when our car breaks down sometimes because it falls into a pothole and gets all messed up? the aaa they want this done. and i'm saying this is an opportunity. so they are naysayers on everything. it is rare that we can come together and get anything done. this is one of those moments. i want to share with you the
fact that on average federal funds provide 52% of every state's outlays for highways and bridges. 52% the average. there are some states that rely on the federal government more. i'll tell you who they are. montana, 87% reliance on the federal government. idaho, 68% reliance. oregon 54% reliance. colorado 64%. in other words these states are counting on us. new mexico, 70%. minnesota, 64%. missouri 65%. oklahoma 63%. mississippi, 65%. alabama, 68%. georgia, 62%. south carolina, 79%.
new hampshire 57%. vermont, 86%. i'm sorry. new hampshire is 68%. maine is 57%. is that right? and rhode island counts on it for everything, everything, 100% almost. connecticut, 71%. d.c. 52%. i mean, alaska 93% hawaii 79%. so west virginia, i thought my friend would be interested, 61% reliance. so what i'm trying to say to you is if we don't succeed in this and we give it a patch again our states will shut down.
already seven states have shut down their programs. they can't sign contracts to fix any bridge. could we put up that bridge again, because i really do think it's the poster child of why i am standing up here. and if seven states have already shut down, madam president and we do another extension, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs bleeding, bleeding bleeding. we will spin back into a bad situation. i see the senator frn montana's here. i was just going through the list and showing how our states do rely on this highway program and montana relies on it for 87% of their spending. the average in the country is 52%. but a lot of our western states that have so many miles they rely on us more. my own state is 49% but i've got to tell you we've got
40 million people, and if we're not getting 49% of what we are used to getting we're shutting down a lot of programs. i say all the time if you -- if you want to get a house and you go to the banker and he says oh, you're clear you get a mortgage for five months, you're not going to buy the house. you're not going to buy the house. you're going to say well, thank you for nothing. and that's the place we're at. so i know my colleague would like to have the floor and i don't need to say anything else except we have been working so hard across the aisle. senator durbin and myself with senator mcconnell and senator inhofe it has been a collaboration, and it has been difficult. we come to the table with different ideologies and different ideas. we've hammered it out and we've hammered it out because none of us whether we're a republican or democrat, a moderate, a conservative or a liberal wants to see this happen again anywhere.
and it is going to happen again. i can't tell you how shocked i was. imagine anyone going to arizona now has to go 400 miles out of their way. what does that do to commerce? what does that do to our truck drivers who are trying to deliver goods? what does that do to our tourist industry? how many people go back and forth. they are going to make a fix to this but it's going to be a little tough because they're going to take one span and shut it down while they fix it and the other one will be a one-way this way and that way. so it could be more dangerous. so i just say thank you to my republican friends to my democratic friends. we have two amendments. one is the ex-im bank. we'll vote on it on sunday. hopefully that will pass and be attached to this bill. it's an important jobs bill. and the other one the other one is a republican amendment to repeal obamacare. and i'm not going to go into it today, but i've got to say the
house has voted 55 times. the supreme court said it's fine. we're reaching 20 million americans who now have health care. why, as my friend, the democratic leader, said, why don't we just get together and make obamacare better? i have met so many people that are thrilled to have insurance but there are ways we can make it better. but to talk about repealing something that's already in law it will be there, we can make it better. let's not keep this repealing obamacare idea out there because it would hurt too many people. it would crate -- create chaos and i hope we'll vote against that and vote for ex-im. but much more important is we're going to see senator cruz and others who want to disrupt this offer a lot of irrelevant amendments amendments on iran, amendments on a women's right to choose. that's what's going to happen here. and the chair is going to rule
in accordance with precedent and we're going to have to support the ruling of the chair. it's going to be a tough and messy process. madam president, somebody said to me now that you're in the middle of this, is it true that passing a law is like making sausage. i said that would be an insult to sausage. that's how tough it is. it's tough. and, you know, last night at 11:30, 1 # 1:40, i thought the deal was off. it's been tough but we managed to come together. we don't want this to happen. we want to give certainty to states. and i hope we will stick together as this, you know, strange coalition because it is odd, of republicans and democrats. it's the way the senate used to work and get this done. again i want to thank all members, even the ones who oppose me strongly and oppose senator mcconnell strongly, thank you for you know, for being here. and i hope you'll be here sunday because we have a couple of very
important votes. thank you very much, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. daines: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: madam president some in my home state of montana like to say we've got two seasons: winter and construction season. in fact, i grew up in the construction business. you learn in montana there is a famous line when you're paving and putting in infrastructure, it's called 40 degrees and rising. in other words the temperature is at least 40 degrees and rising if not you're not supposed to pave. what that means is we don't have a real long construction season in montana to build our highways. and i also know how important it is to have certainty before you can break ground, before you can really plan a project. with long winters and short
summers, montana construction workers know what it's like to wait for 40 degrees and rising before putting down the asphalt. but unfortunately they have also learned they have had to wait for a long time for a long-term highway bill that provides the certainty needed to make the long-term investments in infrastructure. do you realize that congress has passed 33 -- let me say that again -- 33 short-term extensions in an attempt to keep the highway trust fund solvent? that is 33 too many short-term extensions. as somebody who spent 28 years in the private sector, it is ridiculous as i watch the way the federal government operates to try to manage in this spurt-driven short-term driven environment in washington d.c.,
i would argue crisis-driven environment. this uncertainty coupled with rigid programs that make planning and executing projects very difficult is prohibitive to progress in strengthening the infrastructure of our country. these short-term extensions, these short construction seasons for those who live in the northern part of our country along with these rigid regulations leave states like montana with their hands tied and hardworking montana construction workers with their pockets empty. montana's short construction season is already well underway, and it's critical that congress approves a multiyear solution that provides montana and the rest of our country with the certainty neeppedded to make -- needed to make long-term infrastructure investments. montana's extensive transportation system is a pillar of our economy.
it allows visitors, our tourists to come to our state and enjoy our national parks. it allows our residents including our farmers and our ranchers the ability to traverse the state and to get their goods to market. in any final frption -- transportation bill it's critical to maintain montana's share of federal highway transit and safety programs. congress needs to maintain support for the rural as well as the metropolitan areas. in fact, vehicle miles traveled increased in montana by 43% from 1990 to 2012, to nearly 12 billion vehicle miles traveled. this is estimated to increase another 30% by 2030. because montana is a bridge state, we play a vital role in national connectivity.
for example interstate 90 connects the east coast to the west coast. it runs from boston to seattle. i-15 connects our northern to southern borders. now, i-90 is 3,000 miles long. nearly 600 miles pass through the state of montana. in fact, you add up the number of miles of interstate highway we have alone in montana its over 1,000 miles. how far is 1,000 miles? to put that in d.c. terms that's like going from washington d.c. to kansas city. in fact, the i-15 stretch that runs north-south in montana it's the second-longest section of i-15, it's only four miles shorter than the entire north-south direction state of
utah. in fact, the research group the trips studies have shown the two largest transportation challenges facing montana are i-90 and i-15. there's inadequate capacity, there's deterioration of the pavement and we need bridges replaced. because these inadequacies will have a national impact, trip estimates $7.4 billion is needed to address montana's top 20 list of challenges. however, there's only $1.2 billion currently available. that leaves nearly a $6 billion backlog. what we need is to support a long-term highway bill. it creates construction jobs, its union jobs. that's what sitting on the table right now and going to be debated this week in the united states senate. and these new jobs that are created by increased access and infrastructure capacity are being left unrealized. specifically in these times of constrained funding it's critical to have states, it's
critical to allow our states to have the flexibility to direct funds to their top needs and the most effective projects. the bill we are now debating will create a multiyear highway authorization and provide time to plan important l long-term projects around the country and provide three years of guaranteed funding for the highway trust fund. i'm an engineer by degree. in fact, i'm the only chemical engineer that serves in congress. when you're engineering you take a look at the problem and find a solution. when you're an engineer, you lay out project plans. we need to put certainty in place so that we can plan to improve the infrastructure in this country to rebuild our highways rebuild our bridges that are so much in need of repair at the moment. if we pass a multiyear highway bill, it will reverse congress's trend of short-term band-aid temporary fixes to fund the
nation's transportation network. across the country and montana these patches have left states and localities without the certainty they need to plan and build long-term infrastructure projects. in the senate commerce committee, i've been working to ensure we have some of these needed reforms and i want to thank senator john thune for his efforts in committee. i look forward to a robust amendment process and debate on this much-needed legislation. the bottom line, i'm looking forward to passing a long-term multiyear highway bill that provides certainty that improves the infrastructure of our country and most importantly, creates jobs. thank you and i yield back.
a senator: madam president snp. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: madam president i rise to express my deep appreciation to my colleagues senator stabenow and brown and to the majority leader for the bipartisan work that was done to remove a harmful and economically costly financing provision from the bill that's currently before this body. i have significant concerns with a provision in the pending highway bill which could have impaired the economic recovery in my home state of michigan and in states across our country. i am a strong supporter of programming to invest in our nation's infrastructure and much of the substance of this bill is absolutely essential. i applaud the work that has been done on a bipartisan basis to achieve a compromise, something that happens too little here in washington. and while i believe congress must make smart investments in our nation's roads bridges and infrastructure, i also believe that we must do so in a
responsible way that does not hamper the economic recovery occurring in our states. there are numerous financing policy alternatives available to lawmakers to fund infrastructure investments, but the drafters of this legislation originally chose to pay for infrastructure investments in part by asking some of the hardest-hit communities in our nation and in my state to bear the burden. i'm talking about a provision in the original bill and in the substitute which would have eliminated an important economic recovery program called the hardest hit fund in order to help pay for the infrastructure investments contained in this bill. the hardest hit fund has successfully supported efforts by local lenders to promote economic revitalization and renewal after the deepest and most painful housing and financial crisis in modern history. the hardest hit fund helps states and municipalities invest in their citizens and communities. according to the data supported by the state of michigan the
hardest hit fund has assisted more than 25,000 of my constituents in preserving their piece of the american dream: their family home. not only are these funds being used to keep eligible families in their homes but these dollars have also been put to work improving neighborhoods that have been devastated by urban blight resulting from america's most recent economic challenge. in michigan, we know the impact that abandoned properties can have on economic renewal. blight is not just ugly, creating eyesores and dragging down surrounding property values empty homes and buildings also serve as weigh stations for criminals and drug dealers and further discourages outside investors and homeowners from taking a chance on a neighborhood that has been affected by blight. that is why local leaders have been working with the nonprofit and private sectors to identify and eradicate blight in our communities.
several thousand blighted properties have been demolished or removed thanks to michigan's partnership with the hardest hit fund and thousands more are in the pipeline to be addressed in the near term. thanks to the work done to address blight, homeowners are investing again in neighborhoods. urban farming and greening and businesses and nonprofits and local school children are transforming their communities one block at a time. some of the impacted cities have already made investments in the area in anticipation of reimbursement from hardest hit funds. it would have been unfair and an inappropriate breach of our agreement to pull the rug out from under these cities at this stage in the game. that's why i worked with senators debbie stabenow and sherrod pronounce -- brown to offer an amendment to strike this provision in the highway bill that would have rescinded the remaining hardest hit fund moneys from communities that most desperately need them.
congress must come together and pass a multiyear transportation bill that makes smart investments to upgrade our country's crumbling infrastructure but it would have been unacceptable to fund this plan at the expense of the communities in michigan and in other states that rely on hardest hit funds to eliminate blight and improve their local neighborhoods. this proposal not only risks future blight removal funds it could have left cities across michigan on the hook for millions of dollars already outlaid for blight removal projects. as legislators, it's important that we first do no harm when making policy. in considering this highway bill, it is important for us not to harm the very communities we are aiming to help by advancing infrastructure policies. it was important for us to act to avoid impairing the economic renewal that is under way in places like detroit flint grand rapids, saginaw pontiac and other communities across my state. elimination of the hardest hit
funding would have been harming families businesses, schools and entire communities that are relying on public-private partnerships to transform their communities. for these reasons, i was prepared to oppose the legislation that we are considering today because i believe these changes would do damage to the economic recovery in my state. i could not in good conscience support this legislation under those conditions, but thanks to the unwavering dedication of my colleague, the senior senator from michigan, senator stabenow, and the cooperation of the majority leader, we were able to find a way forward that avoids disruption to this important program and avoids devastating economic outcomes in cities across my state. this is what the legislative process should be all about here in the senate. we were able to come from a point of major disagreement and through intense and respectful discussion we were able to agree on a workable solution. this process has demonstrated that colleagues on both sides of the aisle can work together to prioritize the needs of their
constituents while also advancing the economic interests of our country. i look forward to further consideration of this important legislation. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my remarks appear elsewhere in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. peters: madam president i want to take a moment to express my gratitude to my colleagues in the senate for prioritizing the needs of our nation's small businesses. last night the senate passed a critical and timely reform of the small business administration's flagship lending program the 7-a loan guarantee program. because of a growing economy and increased demand for small business loans the s.b.a.'s 7-a loan authority for this fiscal year may have been jeopardized absent the action that we took last night. this bill increased the 7-a loan program authority from $18.75 billion to $23.5 billion. it also tightened the standards on lenders' determinations to
eligibility in order to target the s.b.a. guarantee to promote loans to those who truly need it. and it included robust s.b.a. reporting requirements that will keep congress updated on the pace of lending going forward. i'm glad that we were able to act in a bipartisan fashion to address this issue to continue to put wind at the back of our country's entrepreneurs. we must make sure that small businesses continue to receive the resources they need to survive, to compete and to succeed. i'd like to thank senators vitter shaheen and risch for their leadership on this matter. i have been working with them since the spring to increase the lending authority and i am proud to say that we accomplished that for the rest of this fiscal year. small businesses need access to the capital that they need in order to grow and to create jobs. the 7-a program is a true success story that provides small businesses and start-ups with a versatile financing tool
that could be used to support a wide range of business development activities. it is also a promising sign for our economy that demand for the 7-a loan program is increasing at a faster rate than anticipated just last december when the previous authorization level was set. and last week, semi annual monetary report to congress, the federal reserve indicated that financing conditions for american small businesses were continuing to improve. in recent months, s.b.a.'s 7-a program has experienced unprecedented demand, improving over 45,000 loans totaling more than $16.5 billion a 25% increase over the same period last year. according to pepperdine university and a dun & bradstreet study published this summer america's small businesses are seeing rises in revenue with 48% of small firms reporting revenue increases 43% growth from three years ago demand for small business loans
increased by 9% over the first quarter study. these are positive signs that we have more work to do but they are very positive. if these trends continue, we will need to ensure that next year's lending authorization level reflects the still-recovering economy and the growth of small business loan demands so that we will not be up against the cap again next year. the reporting improvements in the bill passed last night will also help congress perform better oversight and monitor the developments in the 7-a lending program in a timely manner. the 7-a program is a critical tool in the small business policy tool kit because it helps our economy at no cost to the taxpayer. and let me repeat. this is a no-subsidy program. so increased authorization comes at no cost to the taxpayers. small businesses are the backbone of our economy and helping them grow and compete should be a bipartisan priority. as a member of the senate small business and entrepreneurship committee, i look forward to
working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to explore other small business policy changes in the months and the years ahead. our nation's small businesses create jobs and help support our local tax bases which in turn feeds education public safety and health care priorities. it is not a stretch to say that if small businesses succeed all of our communities succeed. that is why i was proud to work with senator risch as the leading cosponsor on the small business lending reauthorization act of 2015 earlier this year, and i am proud to work with the chairman and ranking member of the committee on small business and entrepreneurship to pass this legislation to deliver needed results last night. thank you madam president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
mr. gardner: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: madam president i rise today to join many of my colleagues in the senate to express grave concerns with the current proposed iran deal from the administration. this deal is fundamentally at odds with the goals that these negotiations set out to achieve in the first place. which is to prevent a nuclear iran. in fact, this deal does the opposite. it provides a patient pathway to the nation of iran. with this deal the administration has granted international blessing to a full-scale iranian nuclear program in 15 years. with this deal, we let iran keep its most prized nuclear assets,
such as advanced centrifuges and to convert but not dismantle its nuclear reactors at arak and fordfordhoe with this deal, inspectors need 24-day permission from tehran to access their military facilities such as par parchim. with this deal it our economic leverage in iran through the sanctions regime that was pain stalkingly built over a number of years will be completely squandered. with this deal, iran will build its economy and add economic resilience against future sanctions through $100 billion to $150 tbhl economic relief of -- 150 billion in economic relief. the arms embargo will be lifted in a mere five years allowing
iran to double down on its terrorist activities including support for hezbollah hamas and the murderous assad regime in syria. with this deal, the ballistic missile embargo will be ended in eight years. the ballistic missile embargo against iran will be lifted in eight year, directly endangering israel and further down the line the united states homeland. and with the many aspects of this agreement and hard-nosed verification gives way to iran's wishes. according to the new u.n. security council resolution, iran is "called upon" not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. that's the u.n. security council resolution. what if iran ignores the call of the international community as it has done through decades of deception and violations of u.n. security council resolutions? there is no other way to describe this deal other than a massive win for the range regime
at the expense of the national security of the united states and our closest allies. the leaders of the nation of israel the nation which iran has threatened to -- quote -- "wipe off the face of the earth" have agreed. as has the president listened to our military and the intelligence community before approvalaapproving this deal? even iran's other de-stabling activities will continue to pose a threat to the middle east, especially to the security of our allies and partners in the region and around the world. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey, testified that "under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking." defense secretary ash carter said, "we want iran to continue to be isolated as a military and limited in terms of the kinds of
equipment and material they are able to procure." and yet we have the conventional arms embargo lifted in five years, ballistic missile embargo in eight years under this deal. it still achieves -- this deal achieves none of those goals but let iran off the hook in just a few short years. yesterday i had the opportunity to engage secretaries kerry moniz and lew at the senate foreign relations committee. i was left confounded and stunned by their responses. i questioned secretary lew about several of the top nuclear figures who will be given sanctions relief under this deal. these are sides given sanctions relief under this deal. the father of the iranian nuclear program mr. abbacy, who the united nations black listed in 2009 for being a close aide to mr. fakarazeda working in nuclear programs in iran.
and mr. weizer, who in 2007 was convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison by a south african court for his role in supplying centrifuge components. they received sanctions relief under this deal. when i asked secretary lew what message these delistings will send to proliferators around the world, his response was "i think that the message is, if you violate the rules and develop new weapons and we and the world take action against you, it will have significant consequencesconsequences. but if you reach an agreement and you unwind your nuclear program, that will also have consequences." so the moral of the story according to testimony before the united states senate foreign relations committee if you cheat long enough on a large enough scale the united states will negotiate to give you complete amnesty from the consequences. a simply stunning outcome. when i asked secretary kerry
whether lifting the ballistic missile embargo will make israel safer, his response was quote "absolutely no question whatsoever that israel is safer safer." on the question of whether iran lifting the ballistic missile embargo against iran, the secretary of state believes that it will allow and put israel in a safer position, to give the iranians ballistic missiles lifting the embargo. in fact, the prime minister has said in response to lifting a vr right of shall -- a variety of sanctions, "i think to give iran these capabilities is a grave mistake." and yet secretary kerry believes that lifting the embargo the ballistic missile embargo against iran, "absolutely no question whatsoever that it makes israel safer." my guess is prime minister
netanyahu would certainly disagree with that statement as he has already said it would be a grave mistake. it's not just prime minister netanyahu that believes it would be a grave mistake. it is leaders on both the left and right in israel that believes lifting these provisions is a grave mistake. to secretary mow moniz i quoted a top iaea official, an agency that was brought up throughout the committee hearing as an agency that has done this time and time again that we rely on, that we respect that we trust to carry out the elements of this deal, former iaea official aali haninem said "a 24-day adjudicated time lining reduces detection probabilities exactly where the system is weakest." detecting undeclared facilities and materials. this deal gives 24-hour notices not anytime anywhere
inspections. 24-day notice. it is not anytime anywhere notice. it will allow them to hide and to be able to present facilities and materials in an undetected, undeclared manner. secretary moniz responded to this question, "we have to know where to look and that's the traditional role of intelligence. ours and those of our allies and friends." so if we're relying on intelligence to know where to look what access did we actually gain with the deal from iran? i finally asked the secretaries how many imprisoned americans will be freed as part of this deal? we all know that the answer is none. and yet the father of iran's nuclear program will receive sanctions relief. deal or no deal, four americans including pastor abedini will continue to languish in iranian jails. deal or no deal, we will no
nothing more about the whereabouts of bob levinson. deal or no deal, this administration continues to leave american citizens as prisoners to iran. these americans -- these american citizens being held captive is but one more reminder of the regime that we are dealing with and why they are not an equal and should not be treated as an equal negotiating partner. mr. president, let us never forget the nature of the regime that was on the other side of the bargaining table. on october 23, 1983, a terrorist attack on the u.s. marine barracks in beirut, lebanon killed 241 american service men and women. hezbollah, the wholly owned subsidiary of iran, is widely believed to have been behind the attack. last week, general joseph dunford, the president's nominee to lead the joint chiefs of staff, was asked about americans killed in iraq and afghanistan
by iranian supported militants. the general said i know the total number of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that were killed by iranian activities and the number has been recently quoted as about 500. so can a regime that has killed at least 700 american soldiers be relied to be -- relied upon to implement this deal in good faith and in a constructive atmosphere based on mutual respect, as stated in the text of the agreement? does the iranian regime deserve mutual respect from the united states? it does not and it should not. president obama insists that the only alternative to this deal is war with iran. that's a false choice and should be rejected. the alternative to this deal is what the administration said it would achieve and that's a good deal based on continued economic pressure and a genuine dismantling of iranian nuclear programs verified by what was said what happened all along any time anywhere inspections as promised by the administration. now the president has gone to
the united nations to approve this deal. without giving congress and the american people a chance to consider the consequences of this agreement. i urge my colleagues to rejeect this iranian nuclear gambit that endangers u.s. national security, the safety of our friends and allies around the world, and empowers the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president in january, 1941, president franklin roosevelt delivered his state of the union address as world war ii was under way in europe. even in that dark time, president roosevelt reminded us all of what he called -- quote -- the simple basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world unquote.
religious freedom was one of the four essential freedoms that president roosevelt outlined in that speech. president roosevelt's council applies today as the pace and degree of social council increase. last month the supreme court held that laws defining marriage as it had been defined at all times and in all societies are now unconstitutional. a bill has just been introduced in this body that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in areas such as employment public accommodations housing and education. and some are even calling for punitive measures such as revocation of tax-exempt status for religious institutions that do not accept such social and cultural changes. debates about these issues continue in all three branches of government. i might say branches of both
federal and state governments among commentators and experts across the media and institutions both religious and secular, and among our fellow citizens. president roosevelt's words turmoil and unbelievable complexity seem to describe the situation today. yet, these debates are not occurring on a blank slate. some advocates of the social and cultural changes now under way ignore or perhaps never understood the history importance and value of they seem to treat religious freedom as optional and are willing to cast it aside as a casualty of achieving certain political object tiffs. madam president, that would be a grave error. i wish to describe to my colleagues the backdrop for considering or implementing these recent social and cultural changes. the religious freedom that americans enjoy today has been nearly 400 years in the making.
almost two centuries before american independence, one religious community after another came to these shores seeking freedom to practice their faith. professor michael mcconnell perhaps america's foremost scholar of religious liberty writes that by the time the first amendment was ratified -- quote -- the american states had already experienced 150 years of a higher degree of religious diversity than had existed anywhere else in the world unquote. now, the first individual right in the bill of rights is the free exercise of religion. the choice of words is significant. the first amendment does not protect only some exercises of religion or religious -- or religious exercise only by some people but the free exercise of religion itself. this term the free exercise of
religion had appeared in american legal documents at least as early as 1648 and was a deliberate choice by those drafting the new constitution. in 1776, the virginia legislature considered a constitution for the commonwealth. george mason proposed this language, -- quote -- "that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion." unquote. now, james madison thought that this implied that the right to practice religion was a governmental favor rather than an inalienable right. he proposed this language instead -- quote -- "all men are equally entitled to the full and free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience." unquote. america's founders saw religious freedom as an inalienable right of the -- an inalienable right that government must respect rather than something that the
government can decide whether or not to tolerate. in fact, as supreme court justice arthur goldberg has written america's founders saw religious freedom as preeminent among fundamental rights. the religious freedom in america has two general feetures. religious freedom is both universal and it is row -- robust. it is universal in that it is a natural right shared by all people and as a constitutional and civil right protected by law. religious freedom in america is also robust in that it has three dimensions. it is freedom not only of belief but also behavior. it is freedom that may be exercised publicly as well as privately and it is freedom to act both individually and collectively. now, these two basic features of religious liberty that is, both
universal and robust, cannot seen not only in american history and heritage but also in the commitments that we as a nation continue to make. let me give three examples. in 1948, the united states joined 47 other nations in approving the universal declaration of human rights. article 18 of that declaration states that every person has a fundamental right to religious freedom, including -- quote -- "freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in teaching practice, worship and observance." there you see both the universal and the robust nature of religious freedom. the united states reaffirmed this view of religious freedom by ratifying the international covenant on civil and political rights. article 18 repeats the principle that everyone has the freedom -- quote -- "either individually or in community with others and in
public or private to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching." in 1998, the international religious freedom act which passed by a voice vote in the house and by a vote of 98-0 in this body. this law states that religious freedom -- quote -- "undergirds the very origin and existence of the united states." it declares that -- congress has declared religious liberty to be a fundamental right a pillar of our nation, a universal human right, a fundamental freedom. so 32 senators serving today -- 18 republicans and 14 democrats -- voted for that position either here on when they served in the house. in addition to congress, presidents have issued an annual proclamation designating january
16 as religious freedom day. on that day in 1786, the virginia legislature adopted the statute for religious freedom. in his proclamation -- and let me just refer to this chart again -- president clinton proclaimed in his proclamation on religious freedom to be a fundamental human right essential to our dignity as human beings one of the most sacred of human rights one of the core values of our democracy. now, president george w. bush said in his religious freedom day in those proclamations, he said -- he proclaimed religious freedom to be the foundation of a healthy and hopeful society the birthright of every man woman and child throughout the world, one of our nation's most cherished values, one of our fundamental freedoms, a corner of our republic.
and president obama has said in his proclamations freedom to be one of our country's fundamental liberties the right of every person to practice their faith how they choose a critical foundation of our nation's liberty, a universal human right, an essential part of human dignity a natural right of all humanity. the supreme court has held many times that religious freedom is a fundamental right and as it did in 1981, has held that the first amendment -- quote -- by "its terms gives special protection to the exercise of religion." now, there's no getting around the fact that universal and robust religious freedom is the foundation of this nation and an integral part of our national identity and character. it is the preeminent right recognized by all three branches
as fundamental -- that's an important word. this is our heritage and it's the backdrop for our debates occurring today over social and cultural changes. some advocates of these changes are joining -- are spinning a fictional tale about religious freedom in america. they may feel that this narrative serves their political agenda but that does not make their narrative true. as i described earlier religious freedom in america is both universal and robust. it includes both belief and behavior in public and in private individually and collectively. the advocates i've described want instead to make religious freedom selective rather than universal and reduce it to nothing more than an individual private belief.
one of my senate colleagues, for example, said in an interview shortly after the supreme court's decision that the first amendment protects the freedom of -- quote -- "institutions of faith to observe deeply held religious beliefs," but i don't think it extends far beyond that." this is more than rhetorical spin in the service of a political objective. this is simply wrong. from its very origin, the concept of religious freedom in america has always been an individual right. from the earliest laws in the 17th century to the founding of america in the 18th century to the laws, treaties and proclamations of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries religious freedom is first and foremost an individual right. the supreme court's very first case involved -- involving the free exercise of religion in
1878 involved an individual adell sherbet in the 190's and paula hobby in the 1980's, both seventh day add representist, went to the supreme court after being fired for refusing to work on their sabbath. perhaps the most notorious religious freedom case, employment versus smith was brought by an individual. whether these individuals won or lost, never did the court say that the right to religious exercise was not theirs. the argum the argument that institutions not individuals exercise religious freedom is mystifying for another reason. congress enacted the religious freedom restoration act an act that i had a lot to do with, in 1993 to make it difficult for government to interfere with the free exercise of religion. we saw it coming, and we passed that bill, i think it was 97-3
in the senate and unanimously in the house. when a company went to court arguing that a federal mandate burdened its religious exercise exercise liberals objected saying only individuals may exercise religion but now they say only churches exercise religion. think about that. they argued at one time only individuals may exercise religion. now they're saying only churches can. which is it? churches? individuals? or as some would have it, none of the above? the supreme court has contributed to that false narrative in its recent marriage decision by saying that the first amendment protects religious organizations and persons as they advocate or teach principles that are important to them. but that is not what the first amendment says, nor does that describe its full meaning. advocating or teaching would be protected under the first
amendment's free speech clause. the first amendment separately protects the free exercise of religion which includes much more the debate over cultural changes such as same-sex marriage and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity must take proper account of the history importance and value of religious freedom. this is not a new concern. the becket fund for how many liberty held a conference on this topic ten years ago. scholars on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue agreed that legislating same-sex marriage without without accommodations would create conflicts. in 2009 a group of scholars wrote the new jersey legislature which was considering a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. outlining such conflicts for both individuals and
organizations. madam president, i believe that the best way forward is clear. religious freedom should be properly accommodated rather than ignored disparaged, or distorted as some would do. those acting on religious beliefs about marriage, for example, should not face government retaliation or discrimination. and statutes prohibiting discrimination should include robust religious exemptions. doing so expands rights and protections on one side without diminishing or eliminating them on the other. i supported the employment nondiscrimination act last congress, for example because it took this balanced approach. and my -- in my state of utah similarly enacted legislation that protects the exercise of religion. government should not be in the business of retaliating against people because of their religious beliefs. this is true when individuals
worship privately as well as when they gather together in religious organizations or associations. when government retaliates against a person or group for acting in accordance with deeply held religious beliefs it undermines religious freedom and sends the message that the opinions of government officials trump rights of conscience. it tells worshipers their right to religious exercise far from being fundamental exists at the pleasure of the state. that is precisely the view of the james madison the primary author of the bill of rights rejected. government retaliation further tells the believer that he or she is disfavored. the believers' views are out of bounds they have no place in our modern, advanced age. this view of government as the supreme arbiter of faith and
morality is contrary to the vision of the founders, contrary to the first amendment and it is contrary to the line of cases that culminated in the supreme court's recent marriage decision. religious-based -- religion-based restrictions on intimate conduct the court said, must be struck down because moral disapproval cannot form the basis of law. how ironic it would be if the very principle that underlay the victory over traditional marriage were suddenly cast aside to enforce the new reality when government tells believers they must conform to current state creeds or lose out on contracts, licenses, accreditation, funding and other benefits, it puts them in an extremely difficult, indeed sometimes impossible position. either violate your beliefs or forgo something others have ready access to and you may inside to carry out your mission.
government should not be in the business of coercing citizens to condone conduct that their sincerely held religious beliefs forbid. it should allow space for free exercise of religion. surely we can work to end discrimination without retaliating against religious groups and schools for following practices that they all agree are rooted in sincere religious belief. surely there is a space in antidiscrimination laws such as the one recently introduced here in the senate for religious exemptions for religiously affiliated groups, schools and organizations. my point today is that religious freedom is not optional. it is a fundamental human right that is central to our existence and identity as a nation and it is the backdrop against which the current debates about social and cultural changes must proceed. finally, madam president, i want to ask my colleagues what
principles would attract the support of the following republican and democratments the chairman for the people for american way the focus on if family, the u.s. chamber of commerce and the afl-cio leaders of faith communities including mormons baptist ms., seventh day adventists and both the republican and democratic national committees? can anyone think of things that would bring these together? would could they agree on that would mean anything? these and many more leaders of government academia faith communities, business, law media and minority groups all signed the williamsburg charter. this document was first presented to the nation on june 25, 1988 on the 200th anniversary of virginia's call for a bill of rights to be added to the constitution. the charter presents certain
first principles that are in the shared interests of all americans. these include a precious fundamental right and inalienable right founded on the inviolable dignity of the person this is the williams big charter principles about religious freedom a precious fundamental inalienable right founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, our nation's first liberty which undergirds all the other rights and freedoms secured by the bill of rights, allows citizens to shape their lives whether public or private on the basis of their beliefs. if these leaders had differed in so many ways could agree on these principles, we should certainly be able to incorporate them into the current debates. the signers of the williamsburg charter said that -- quote --
"the ignorance and contention now surrounding the constitution's religious clauses are a reminder that their advocacy and defense is a task for each succeeding generation." i could not agree more. president reagan said it best. quote -- "freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." we didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream it must be fought for protected and handed on for them to do the same" -- unquote. i permanently believe that we can rise to that challenge and i think we must rise to that challenge. religious freedom is the first mentioned freedom in the bill of rights. and, frankly it's time to get back to the constitutional principles that made this country the greatest country in the world and we can do it without violating other people's
rights. some desire to reduce religious rights in favor of other people's rights. well we don't have to hurt other people's rights by acknowledging and accepting the fact that religious freedom is an absolute necessity for a great society like ours and it's been an undergirding principle that has helped make this country the greatest country in the world. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i understand there's a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 1861, a bill to prohibit federal funding of planned parenthood federation of america. mr. mcconnell: i now ask for its second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 2:00 p.m. sunday, july 2 6. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders
be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of h.r. 22. further, saturday, july 25, count as the intervening day with respect to the cloture motions filed during today's session of the senate. further, that the filing deadline for all first-degree amendments to h.r. 22 and the mcconnell substitute amendment number 2266, as well as the second-degree filing deadline for amendments to the kirk amendment number 2327 be at 2:30 p.m. lastly that the cloture vote with respect to the mcconnell amendment number 2328 occur at 3:00 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, if there's no further business to come before the senate i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on sunday, july
>> highway funding runs out at end of this month a couple of amendments are pending to revive the export-import bank and repeal the health care law. we'll have live coverage when senators return here on c-span2. >> c-span2 brings you best access to congress. live debate and votes from the senate floor. hearings and public policy events. every weekend it is booktv with non-fiction books and authors, live coverage of book festivals from around the country and a behind-the-scenes look at the publishing industry. c-span2, the best access to congress and non-fiction books.
followed by a session on state strategies on tourism and economic development. guests include robert it inning chairman of the board of pittsburgh pirates and ceo of rocky mountain elk foundation. starting at saturday morning on c-span 9:45. guests including former u.s. representative from cam california, mary bono and impact on the employment rate, u.s. labor secretary thomas perez. sunday evening 6:35 eastern former governor of rhode island and democratic presidential
candidate lincoln chaffey. on c-span2 10:00 p.m. eastern, booktv's after words on many unanswered letters ralph nader sent to george w. bush and barack obama on domestic and foreign policies. sunday afternoon at:30, new orleans 10 years after hurricane katrina. c-span3, sunday mourning at 10:00 a.m. eastern we commemorate the lyndon johnson signing the 1965 medicare bill. council and family how the president was able to get the bill passed. phone conversations between johnson and his aides and congressional members about politics and strategy. the signing of the bill at the harry s. truman presidential library. this weekend, saturday night at 7:15 u.s. army cyber command historian, lawrence kaplan on the history of computers, hackers and government response to computer abuses.
get our complete schedule at c-span.org. >> treasury secretary jack lew health and human services secretary sylvia bauer well and labor secretary thomas perez explain the viability of the report of social security and medicare trust funds. they summarize the fiscal health of the social safety net programs. following their remarks the trustees took questions from reporters. this is about 40 minutes. >> good afternoon. microphone on? good afternoon. hello, everyone, thanks for being here. earlier today the social security and medicare boards of trustees met to complete the annual financial review of the programs and to approve the trustees financial reports. i would like to recognize and thank my fellow trustees for their productive and collegial
work this past year. i know i speak for all of the trustees when i say this year's review would knot have gone as smoothly without the skill and determination of the chief actuaries steven goss and. thank you everyone for your hard work. social security and medicare are the most successful social insurance programs in our thanks. they keep millions of older americans out of positive vert and if i have americans 65 and older access to affordable health care. these fulfill a solemn promise from one generation to the next. they embody values of fairness and opportunity fundamental to our nation's success. today's reports confirm both social security and medicare are secure today and will remain secure in the years to come. consistent with previous years today's reports also show that these programs are facing challenges that need to be addressed. the short-term projections in this year's report for social security and medicare are little-changed from last year while the long-term projections
are significantly improved. when considered on combined basis social security's retirement and disability programs have dedicated funds sufficient to cover benefits for nearly two decades one year longer than was projected last year. after that time as was true last year, it is projected that tax income will be sufficient to finance about 3/4 of scheduled benefits n addition, as we expected beginning in late 26 teen social security -- 2016 social security disability problem will have sufficient funds to cover about 80% of scheduled benefits. the president propose ad common sense solution to improve solvency of this fund in the short run so americans that rely on it will continue to receive the benefits they need. it is site that congress move forward to maintain the integrity of this critical program sooner rather than later. once again these reports show how the affordable care act
bolstered medicare and shored up the programs's finances. when they sign the health care into law would extend life the medicare trust fund from 12 years to 2017, to 2029. since then the affordable care act has helped reduce the rate of health care price increases to the lowest rate in 50 years. as a result, the trustees have over past several years down projections medicare costs and projected life of medicare trust fund now extends to 2030, even further than estimated when the affordable care act was signed. health care law has also put medicare on more stable footing by combating fraud eliminating waste, cutting patient costs and reshaping payment models toward quality of square not quantity of care. of course there is more work to do to fix the finances of both social security and medicare. as president pointed out in last week's conference on aging at the white house these programs are facing challenges because of demographic trends, including
the fact that the largest generation in american history is now reaching retirement age. the president is determined to protect the future solvency of social security and medicare and he is committed to keeping these programs strong. while the president will never support proposals that current current or future retirees he is ready to work with congress on bipartisan basis to create serious solutions. to those who say these challenges are intractables let me point out just recently democrats, republicans and the administration came together to pass a permanent doc fix. something eluded washington for 13 years. together we put an end to what had become a perennial manufactured crisis and realize ad break through for physicians and those who depend medicare, especially seniors and people with disabilities this improved medicare's long-term outlook. we must and can athief achieve this kind of progress again. 50 years ago this month at signing of the bill that created
medicare, president lyndon johnson declared this historic law was reminder to the call never be indifferent to despair. we honor that calling again. we honor it because as americans we believe hard work should be rewarded and most vulnerable should be protected and everyone of us no matter what we look like or where we come from should have a chance to live with dignity and security. we're now going to proceed to have other trustees make statements. i want to apologize in advance that because of iran briefings on the hill that i need to be at i will slip out a little bit before the end of this session but, all questions will be answered quite ably. thank you very much. secretary burwell. >> thank you secretary lew. next week we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the signing of medicare. we're going to celebrate that medicare has kept older americans healthy for half a century. and that it is constantly
working we're constantly to improve it and it is helping us lead the way in building the health care system for tomorrow. and today, with the 50th medicare trustee's report we reaffirm our commitment as responsible stewards of this program. i would like to highlight just a few items from the report. first, we project the medicare trust fund will be funded through 2030 and this is the same timeline that we projected last year and 13 years longer than we projected before the passage of the affordable care act. second, we project that over the next 10-years medicare spending per enrollee will continue to grow slowly, relative to his tore cal rates -- historical rates, specifically .1 of a percentage point higher than gdp. to build on this progress medicare is moving from paying for the quantity of services to the value of care. efforts to reduce hospital readmissions and acquired
conditions are saving lives and improving outcomes and generating savings for the taxpayer. finally i want to address the report's projections for part b premiums. under the preliminary projections 70% of enrollees in part b would see no change in their premiums for 2016. the final decision, including the impact for the remaining 30% will be made in the coming months. that decision will be based on our preliminary projections today, additional data, and the administration's consideration of policy options. for all medicare enrollees we project per enrollee part b spending to increase on average under 5% per year over the next 10 years. for 50 years medicare has granted dignity and security to millions of older americans. we need to continue our efforts to make the program stronger and better for the next 50 years and beyond. thank you and with that i turn
it over to secretary perez. >> thank you secretary burwell and secretary lew, honor to be here today as secretary of labor with my fellow trustees to report on the foundation of these bedrock programs that have worked so well for millions for so many years. with 10,000 people turning 65 every day for the foreseeable future there is no question that the issue of the long-term solvency of these trust funds are very important. and i'm proud to report, as secretary lew outlined earlier that they are on sound footing but not without challenges. and one of the most important things that we can do to address the challenges is to continue to build an economy that works for everybody, economy that generates good jobs that pay good wages. we're now in the middle of the longest streak of private sector job growth on record. 12.8 million jobs over the last 64 months. unemployment rate is now at 5.3%
which is seven-year low. there are one million fewer long-term unemployed people than there were a year ago. more people working means more people contributing to the payroll tax base and paying into social security and medicare. and so this is good news but we have more work to do and that is why the president's middle class agenda of middle class economics is designed to insure that we continue to grow this economy. that we continue to insure that everybody has an opportunity to punch their ticket to the middle class. when we do that we not only provide opportunity for everyone but we also continue to shore up the social security and medicare trust funds. this week we talk about areas of anniversary. there is another anniversary that we celebrate this week and that is the 25th anniversary of the americans with disabilities act. seldom do i meet more people, that tell me, tom, i want to i want
to be a taxpayer than i do meet people with disabilities. what we do, the promise of the ada we'll focus on last several letters of that word and not first three letters. we made tremendous progress in that area and as we talk about the issue of the social security insurance disability trust fund we need to focus on actions secretary lew outlined to insure the solvency of that trust fund. there are clear actions that can be taken. at the same time, we are working together with our colleagues in the social security administration and elsewhere to expand opportunities for people with disabilities to work, to that they can indeed become the taxpayers that they want to become. we have 20, 21 is% labor force participation rate of people with disabilities. we know we can do better. so our actions started with our own hiring and human resources efforts, thanks to 2010
executive order we have more people in as far as than in last 33 years. important rule making in the indictment of labor in 2013, created for federal contractors new requirements about insuring opportunities for people with disabilities to gain employment. over the last five years, through a grant problem called the disability employment initiative we're investing tens of millions of dollars to transform the public workforce system so more responsive to needs of people with disabilities. employment initiative help direct funding programs towards innovative employment for people with disabilities this is bipartisan issue. today i sent a letter to governors signed by myself, the governor of south dakota and the governor of delaware highlighting examples of states that passed legislation or adopted policies that make integrated employment of people with disabilities the rule rather than the exception. and the new workforce innovation and opportunity act gives us
opportunities to partner with the social security administration, the center for medicare & medicaid services and other stakeholders on working committee to advance strategies for integrated employment. so we're using every tool in our tool box. because of that, we believe that people with disabilities can untap the potential that they have and lead the lives that they want to lead. and so, as we celebrate this 25th anniversary of the americans americans with disabilities act and as we reflect on the challenges in the ssdi trust fund it is another reminder of the opportunities that present themselves to insure that people with disabilities have those opportunities that they so crave so often. with that, let me turn to karen holden. >> thank you, secretary perez. good afternoon. the social security and medicare programs are crucially important for the millions of americans who receive benefits and for the roughly 95% of our population
that is receiving or can expect to receive benefits from the program in the future. as trustees we are responsible for overseeing and annually reporting on status of two programs. the combined social security trust fund reserves are projected to become depleted in 2034 if no legislative changes are made to improve the overall financial status between now and then. at that time, continuing income would be sufficient to support expenditures at a level of 79% of the program costs. the year of combined trust fund reserve depletion is one year later than in last year's report lawmakers should act soon to address this imbalance to phase in necessary changes gradually and give workers and beneficiaries time to adjust to the changes. the long-range acutarial status shown in this year's report as presented by the acutarial
deficit more favorable than shown in the 2014 report. based on intermediate assumptions, the estimated long-range acutarial deficits for the combined social security trust fund over the next 75 years decreased from 2.88% of payroll in last year's report to 2.68% of taxable payroll in this year's report. this change in the long-range deficit can be attributed to a number of factors. one, the change in starting year from 2014 to 2015, thus adding new, 75th projection year of to 89 -- 208 9 effects of president's four four acts on immigration and change in methods assumptions and starting data values. consider the disability trust funds reserves are projected to become depleted much sooner than the combined social security
funds. this year's report projections that di reserve depletion will occur in the fourth quarter of 2016 and in the absence of legislative changes. at that point continuing income to the di trust fund would be sufficient to support expenditures at a, level of 81% of program costs. but the di program is immediate importance for 11 million americans currently receiving benefits. people who are not able to work on these benefits. in addition, all working americans who have currently insured depend on this program to replace the income they will lose if they become disabled in future. the president propose ad small, reallocation of a current payroll tax rate moving 0.9 percentage points of the oasi rate to di, for just five years. this reallocation would extend the reserve depletion date of
the di trust fund by nearly 20 years, roughly equalizing the financial status of the oasi and the di trust funds. enactment of this proposal will provide congress time to make careful adjustments in the order to assure financial soundness for this important program for the long-range future. thank you. at this time i want to bring one of our public trustees. >> i'd like to begin first of all, by thanking secretary lew, secretary burwell secretary perez, acting commissioner colvin. most of all i want to thank my fellow public trustee bob, who has been the model for me the last several years who i have learned and continue to learn a amount. i want to thank the many expert and hard-working staff present in this room now.
my conundrum as much i will leave out someone who is clearly deserving. the chief medicare actuary, and social security chief act wear steve goss for the outstanding work they do. mike anicio public trustees at ssa i would single out the treasury department staff who have done a exemplary job leading process. i mentioned. two individuals who made this process as good as it can be. i would like to say a few more words about that process if i might before turning to the substance. as we all know there is no shortage of criticism of government processes. certainly a healthy skepticism of government with any authority is a good thing but too often it tends to devolve in cynicism and participation in the trustees process, these last few years
certainly given us an opportunity and i believer the obligation to vouch for the inintegrity and quality of the work product that is being released today. each of the many staff many of whom you see around you some of whom you don't see they worked incredibly hard to put together annual reports and our prohe projections of course are not going to be perfect but i believe attitude these professionals bring to their work is very close to it. it has been humbling to witness up close the dedication of some of these able professionals to these programs, to the vital social security and medicare programs, their dedication to the people who depend on these programs and the to the public good in general. now, as has become our custom, i'm going to handle the social security side of things. i will leave it to my fellow trustee bob riesch hour to handle the medicare side. probably biggest and most newsworthy story on the social security side remains impending depletion of the program's disability insurance
trust fund we continue to project will occur in the fourth quarter of 2016. that is just a little over a year away. now for many years these reports of fundamental systemic imbalances in social security and medicare finances and now one of those financing short falls hases become on urgent concern. it is urgent concern to roughly 11 million commissioner noted 11 million disabled beneficiaries who face sudden reduction of 19% unless there is prompt legislative action. unfortunately action to correct the systemic short fall is delayed to the point where we don't have a whole lot of options for dealing with disability. there is no realistic reform of the disability program, no matter how well-constructed will reduce costs by 19% within a year without having adverse effect on beneficiaries. similarly does not appear to be appetite to raise taxes by enough to close the short fall within that time. and this means that not mare what else is done there is
almost certain to be needed at very least a temporary infusion of resources into the disability insurance trust fund from some other source. now, each potential source carry as different set of implications, some of them problematic but it is clear some type of infusion of resources is going to be needed no matter what else is done. one of the communications challenges we face as trustees each year is to try to explain often to many of you in the press why summaries of annual reports and information they need to be more sophisticated than simply citing the date of projected trust fund depletion as proxy for overall financial health of the programs. in practical reality the projected trust fund depletion date is not really adequate proxy at all for financial health as it contains almost no useful information about what specifically has to be done to sustain these vital programs. so my plea is, don't do that. don't rely solely on the date of projected depletion being a more significant piece of data than it actually is.
the current situation facing disability, as i would say it is an object lesson. shows how in various important senses by the time the trust fund depletion date arrives in some sense it is too late. the program spending and revenue lines are so far apart we're not willing to reduce costs enough or raise taxes quickly enough to fix the problem. we wind up looking to some other source to bail out the fund with additional revenues. this impending di problem is teachable moment for us, at least it should be. we can afford delaying meaningful action to the report that social security's retirement fund is also nearing trust fund depletion. some members in this year's report dramatized this important point, purely for the sake of illustration. let's assume we wanted to hold current beneficiaries harmless and balance finances of social security in combination by constraining growth of benefits to people newly coming on to the rolls this year. if you employed that strategy you would have to reduce benefits by roughly 19.6% for
everyone newly becoming eligible for benefits. but if instead we delayed action tried same strategy when the combined trust funds are nearly depleted in 2034, even then a complete cutoff of benefits, 100% to those newly eligible would not be enough to avoid trust fund depletion. we see last thing we need is continued delay. we need prompt enactment of legislation to address social security financial imbalance before they grow too large to fix. legislators would do well to necessary actions to shore up disability trust fund take some action to reduce the long-term financing short fall facing social security whatever extent agreed to on bipartisan basis. as for specific numbers in this year's report, there are no real big surprises. the principle difference between this year's report and last year we lost another year or two in action. we're a critical year closer to the depending depletion of
disability trust fund while a year without legislative action voided benefit of our having pushed out the projected trust fund depletion states for old age survivors trust funds and one year respectively to 2034 and 2035. so the sum is that we remain still closer to trust fund depletion now whether on individual trust fund bases is or combined trust fund basis than any point since the 1983 financing, social security financing crisis. today's projected long-range deficit of 2.68 percentage points of taxable payroll is significantly larger than the one solved with so much difficulty in 1983. another important measure in the report, that speaks to the program's financial health is the so-called trust fund ratio. this measures basically the fraction of a year's worth of benefits that the current trust fund balance can finance. both of social security's trust funds are experiencing declining trust fund ratios for last several years. old age and survivors insurance
ratio stood at 362 at start of this. year. from a peck of 42 in 2011. there are enough reserves if called upon could finance 3 1/2 years worth of benefits. the disability insurance trust fund ratio at the start of this year was down to 40. and that means that the trust fund reserves on the disability insurance side at the start of this year were less than what would be necessary to finance even five months worth of benefit payments. this year the combined social security deficit of tax income relative to costs is 1.31% of the program's tax base. now 1.31% may sound like a very small number. that is actually the largest such deficit social security ever faced. one reason that is important is that social security's other sources of income such as interest payments and any redemption of trust funds assets are paid from general fund of treasury but only last as long as there is a positive trust fund balance. after those other revenue sources are depleted
social security taxable income is only on going revenue source. reasonably possible to align important ongoing income stream with annual obligations. for these and other reasons given in the report and accompanying summary it is apparent that lawmakers act to shore up social security finances at earliest important time. with that i call on the public trustee, bob rieschuor. >> good afternoon. being the last trustee to speak i will try to be brief. the primary responsibility of the public trustees is to assure the public that the financial actuarial analyses and estimates in the trustees reports are objective. they use the best data and information available and deploy the most appropriate assumptions and methodologies. as dr. blahous mentioned he and
i agree without hesitation or caveat that we can provide the public with such assurance. once again we feel we participated in open, robust and vibrant discussion of numerous are you issues that have to be dealt with each year when reports have been put together. we're impressed by expertise and commitment to objectivity displayed by actuaries and their staffs. by the staffs of the ex-officio trustees. and the staff at ssa. i'd like to add my appreciation to all of them without trying to name anyone. to, the help that have provided chuck and myself over the last five years. let me now provide a couple of observations that relate to the content of the report whose bottom line is a number of speakers have suggested is differed little from those recent reports. chuck had an admonition that
don't focus on the date of trust fund depletion. we've done our best to help you adhere to that by not changing them you can focus more nuanced analysis of these reports. first let me add my voice to the chorus that under current law both of these vitally important programs are fiscally unsustainable path if one looks out for several deck grades. correction will require legislative action. sooner policymakers address these challenges the less disruptive the unavoidable changes will be. . .
many bishops near east are less sophisticated in the ways of washington. those of us in the room and the mayfair win an election approaches the gridlock in government shut down across the board cut of some kind of which they are familiar with me in some way impact timely payment of benefits. our beneficiaries deserve the benefit. as chuck indicated, he focused on social security. >> you can watch this event in its entirety on c-span.org. with the right now for comments by jason furman speaking today about the monthly jobs report from the bureau of labor statistics. this event hosted by the third way think tank. live coverage on c-span2. >> -- to help us achieve the mission, we are fortunate to have with us jason furman.
jason early in his first term, president obama said he made he him a nerd core cool. he's chairman of the president council of economic advisers and has been serving president obama can stay one a senior economic adviser. he held serve the nation of the great recession and also served under president bill clinton which means between the two presidents is responsible for 30 million jobs. he has a phd from harvard with articles on economics. he's the father of three and a brand-new father, three weeks now and his son felix and is also the subject lack dear of the best "washington post" profile i've ever read. he can juggle six flame torches
at once. number two he unsuccessfully argued to his wife that chopping wood failed to compare it at the package economic advantage test and is far less successful than his college freshman roommate, matt damon. without commenting them out for joining us today. jason will lead off the presentation and all us question and then your last questions. help make us better economic. >> thank you so much for organizing it and everyone here in the room and people watching this at home. i will take you through some slide that pretty much boil down to one important tip that'll give you.
it is of interest here this afternoon they will be up on the website in the council of economic advisers looked for her speech is to be up there. in terms of economic data i've been following carefully for the last 20 years. it began when i worked at the council of economic advisers in 1996 and one of the great danes is we are responsible for conveying the economic data. the statistical agencies will give us today in advance just four outs and we spent a couple hours and analyzed them and put that in a memo which goes to the president the evening before the
data so you can understand what is happening in the economy. for particularly significant relief like the jobs numbers that don't spend a lot of time on today and often gdp will brief on the president in person as well. we also share the data with the secretary of the treasury and the chair of the federal reserve to make sure they have the information they need to understand what is going to be happening the next day in markets and the economy. what is great about this is it gives you a real opportunity to think hard, but you also think without the annoyance of everyone else. anyone who gets the data and jobs number gdp at 8:30 a.m. and there's tons of analysis, tons of people's opinions. that's great and i recommend looking at all of that but there's something to just
locking yourself in a room and trying to digest acres of unbiased, uninterrupted by the other people looking at the data and test what you think against it and sometimes he found things other people didn't. sometimes it comes up with an insight that you wouldn't have had. the biggest tip i have and its underlying a pattern in the 10 different tips i have is to never get too exercised and too excited about any one piece of economic data. the economy is a complicated thing. it bounces around a lot from month to month and quarter to quarter. any given statistic only captures one aspect of the economy. it doesn't capture the entire economy. the statistics we have our imperfect. they depend unlimited samples.
they depend on complicated statistical adjustments algorithms to make sure every december people spent a lot more on consumer goods. that doesn't mean the economy grew a lot in december. get again christmas happened in december. their statistical errors, seasonal adjustment errors in the price of the economy and longer-term trends. everything boils down to one bias they see in the newspapers tends to be really good and informative and i learned a lot about it. the only bias i would say it has if it tends to get too excited. this is a great month. the economy is steaming ahead. this month is terrible it must be collapsing. this meant we can't tell what is going on. the truth is sometimes the economy does turn on a dime.
you want to be looking for the data but more often than not trends continue and it's better to look at a lot of pieces of data over a longer period of time. that is the big meta-piece of advice i have here. let me now go through a number of specific ways this manifested self and specific roles. in the course of this tell you the numbers i most like to look at. not just in the jobs report, the gdp and economic data more generally. so the first thing is some numbers bounce around a lot more than other numbers. every month we have two different versions of the number of jobs added to the economy. one is the number of jobs added by employers, the other is the number of people whose employment went up or down. the blue one is when employers
tell the bureau of labor statistics. the redline is what individuals tell the bureau of labor statistics. there is some conceptual differences in people who are self-employed for the most part 2 number should be the same. if you look at the red one it bounces around all over the place. october of last year it said plaintiff win up to 800000. and then the smart she would have thought the economy was collapsing. unemployment went down by 500,000. both of those months if you thought either of those things you would've been wrong and you would've been wrong because you are relying on a survey to sample 60,000 households and has a decent amount of air and volatility in it. the reason the markets and the newspapers concentrate on the establishment number or the payroll survey is because you are serving nearly 600,000
worksite unplayed millions of workers. that also has an error associated with it but a lot smaller. the two months i showed up over certainly was probably a better month in march but not the same dramatic difference. that is the first five minutes when you have a choice, two things are less volatile. if a file title are often things that rely on a larger sample value. the second piece of advice is just to look over longer periods of time. the blue bars are the establishment survey of our payroll survey jobs the number of jobs each month and there you see once again march looks really bad but then may looks pretty good. it bounces around from month to
month. i spent some time looking at the blue bars. i try to spend a lot of time looking at the red dotted line and the red dotted line is the average over the last 12 months. if you look at the average over the last 12 months lately where it tells you the pace of job growth has picked up a bit. 240,000 jobs per month for the last 12 months as opposed to 217,000 before that. it is higher than earlier but it probably conveys a picture of stability and that is an inaccurate picture because someone to go way up some months ago way down. but roughly the last several years has averaged out to a bit over 200,000 jobs a month. the red line at a real turning point will lack a little bit. you will not pick things up as quick way when you look at a 12 month moving average. generally looking over a longer period of time is going to get
you less excited about each month to month and a little bit more focused on the trend in the economy. this tip also applies with unemployment insurance claims. every week we find out unemployment insurance. this is administrated data. this is based on if you apply for unemployment insurance that has to get reported. we count the number of people that apply and they tell the department of labor. it's great because you get it every week. you can have a new piece of information about the economy. the problem is two weeks ago you would pay an eight because it jumped to 300000. this week when it fell to the lowest since 1973,255,000.
both of the numbers are too extreme and if you look here people tend to look at the four-week moving average as much smoother than the redline which bounces around and fix that a lot from week to week. when confronted with noisy data you can look to larger samples. another thing is looking over longer periods of time. a third thing you can do is find different bashers at the same calm that and combine them. this is something you are increasingly seeing being done and comments of federal reserve officials talk about this in the context of labor market indicators. investment banks and analysts do it which is take indexes that combined a number of different measures.
they are all slightly conceptually different but all embody different errors and quirks. compensation per hour the average hourly earnings and employment cost index. they are all bouncing around in different ways. there is a statistical technique called principal components analysis which says imagine some underlining component is within all three of these then let's try and estimate it. it is actually simple as a weighted average but it is a statistics to find out what ways you should put on the three and the black line is a better measure of wage growth than any one of those great underlining series hour. looking at the same thing and average them together or if you have a statistical package to a fancier average in college the first print to pull component. if you look there you will see wage growth went down.
the tentative signs of a pickup of wage growth you see in the black line that a number of people have referred to lately. another place where i really like combining data is when it comes to the gdp statistics and a little known fact is when the gdp numbers come out they always report -- not always that they eventually report to different numbers. one is gross domestic product and that adds up how much everyone thought in a given quarter. how much consumers bought how much businesses by an equipment and if you look at that for the first quarter of this year the economy contracted. minus 0.2. the other thing that statisticians do is add up all the income in the first quarter.
how much wages were, how much profits were a few other concepts as well. that went up 1.9%. turns out when you go through the arithmetic, those two are the same exact thing by two different ways of measuring the economy and the simplest way to think about that is imagine we don't trade and people can save income and everything you make in a given quarter you will spend in a given quarter. income has to equal spending. go through something fancier and it turns out it is still true. one way of measuring the exact same thing was minus 0.2. another is plus 1.9. which of those two is better gdp or gdi. turns out the answer is an average era of 50/50 is much better than using either one of those numbers individually. it is a much more accurate
reading of how the economic data will eventually be revised. it is much more predictive of what will happen in the economy going forward and it is just if you could pick one number for growth, you would pick the average of the two. the good news i have for all of you is right now if you want the average of the two you need to add them together and divide by two. starting next week the bureau of economic analysis with the gdp number will start publishing that is a regular thing. i won't be the headline. it will be towards the bottom but i know i'll be turning to bat first before i look back up at the headline because that would be how much the economy grew. another thing you can do. you can look over a longer period. you can find the best data to
look at and combine different measures. every measure of the economy tells you some different facets of the economy. it can make it to look at a number differently. the first-quarter gdp fell by 0.2. appropriately colored red in this graph. employment rose by 2.2 which is a strong increase. income went up 1.9. consumer spending went up 2.1 in industrial production was 0.0. a lot of other indicators that these are five particular ones to look at. if you just saw gdp you'd be more nervous about the economy in the first quarter than if he taken the full context and the full set of data that one might choose to look at. one of the reasons why we are so concerned about data and why you don't want to overreact to any
one piece of data and put everything in context as the data we get is revise the law. the reason it is revise a lot is it's all based on survey and in the case of gdp for example the first time that publish it they don't have a lot of the most recent trade data for inventory data. they'll make it that as time goes on. so the successive revisions to growth if you look at the fourth quarter of 2001 for example the first estimate was revised up to 1.4 mm 1.7. the first quarter of this year went from positive to a big negative to a small negative. you see that all the time. if you get attached to a narrative around the first estimate turns out he might be attached to a narrative and have a new story to explain that is actually really good and
relatively weak the first-quarter 2015 at least measured in this way. this is a bit of stir for some but i thought i would share with you. not all revisions are created equally. if you look at the first estimate and the third estimate those are exactly the same because the gdp numbers come out and they have a very good measure on consumer spending. they basically publish the same thing. real health care consumption, the first and third estimate entirely unrelated because they are they a survey of the service sector to figure out how spending and they don't get the results until after they published the first estimate. very approximate guesses to do the first estimate and then they revised it quite a lot for the
third one. that is important because this year or last year people looked at the how spending data and its growing really quick way and two months later it turned out that wasn't what the data actually said. with the council of economic advisers had written some things they don't even look at this. this data will appear revised quite a lot. once you get the data we will tell you what we think at the first estimate isn't worth looking at. the educated consumer data has a sense of what's revise and what is not revised. part of why data is noisy as all of these statistical quirks, small sample sizes that you don't get the survey you need on
time, they need to do seasonal adjustment, all these different things. the economy itself, the underlying truth itself is noisy and weird things bounce around from quarter to quarter. the first quarter of this year we have really bad weather and that temporarily impacted the economy. you can look at the economic data and get a better sense of which things are transitory bounce around a lot and reversed themselves and which things continue. within gdp, inventories out the round. they can be positive, negative and if they are gray one quarter it doesn't mean they are great to macs. it might even be the opposite. consumption is more stable. one way we use that at the council of economic advisers is we are very focused on the growth rate, not gdp of the whole but consumption plus
investment because those are the two parts of gdp that we have found are the most stable which means the best predictors of what gdp is going to be in the next quarter or for the next year. if you look there at the blue that is gdp. it is negative at the beginning of 2014. a lot of that was for these noisy reasons. if we look at the variable we like, the orange one wasn't a great quarter because of the winter but it did not quite as bad. then it had a huge rebound. he didn't get as much of a rebound because it's a more stable measure. the orange bars don't bounce around a lot because they give you more of a signal the blue bars which is gdp are noise or another great piece of news for all of you as of next week the salsa was added to the release along with the gdp numbers.
you'll be able to look this up yourself and it will be one of the first things i'll do when i get the data next week. just a few more things down on the table for you and then we will open it up to discussion with chad and all of you. this is a real trade-off between some data which can be really up to the moment. the isn manufacturing survey. the market moves a lot or can move a lot and that is because you got it -- we are going to get it the week after next, the very beginning of august we look at the number for july and that is great because it is as up-to-the-minute as you get in economic data. but it's really noisy. if you asked me how the economy was doing in july of this year and you ask me that two weeks from now, i will look at the isn
manufacturing survey because that will be the only piece of data i have for july. if you asked me how the economy was doing in july of 1995 i wouldn't look at the data. i would look at everything else we have which takes longer to compile but is ultimately more accurate. the other extreme real median household income, the latest data we have is 2013 and we will find out the 2014 number in september of this year. find out more than a year after it he lapses. the market could care less about these numbers are they not care about the economy a year and half ago. if you want to ask what happened to the typical family in the 90s, would have been during the recession, those are the data you want to use. they are less timely, but more complete.
just to put two more things down on the table before we open it up is the careful about longer run trends. people like to look at the participation rate. those are useful variables but they don't just tell you if the economy is going up or down in the business cycle. they also tell you the force is like democracy, the age of the workforce whether women are participating. the example here if you look at the fraction of the population i was working, you would've thought 2009 was a better year than in 1955. if you look at the labor force participation rate you would've thought 2000 i was a better year than 1995. that is why when they compare the two years, we as the unemployment rate in 1995. we were in the great recession and the unemployment rate was very high. i would do the same in dallas
while when we go month to month a lot of people looking and those are important variables. there's a reason why the unemployment rate is the headline is more comparable over time because it's less than the bigger, broader demographic trends. finally, the simplest one always make sure you distinguish between real and nominal data. 1981, wages rose 8.6%. 2014 the wages rose 2.3%. which one of those years would you rather have been a worker in? the answer is definitely 2014 because the inflation rate was quite low in that year so you got a real wage boost as opposed to 1981 when the inflation rate was really high and that cuts into your real wages. this isn't just true of wages. it's true of everything.
also make sure you're looking at everything adjusted for inflation. to be a little bit specific as i look at the employment situation we will get it two weeks from friday. that'll tell us about the month of july so it's timely. watch for provisions remain in june the unemployment rate could rise or fall for good reason. when you look at the participation rate, the economy get better or worse it also tells you to the population get older or not get older for example. make sure you adjust for inflation because you have to wait a week or two for the cpi data. watch for the average gdp and
gdi and look at that private domestic purchase i was showing you which gives you more of a signal than the noise and look over the last four quarters because whether or not sorts of things the number up and down from quarter to quarter. that's what i try to do when looking at data. >> thank you. [applause] that was really terrific. i appreciate you taking the time to put together those tips and i look forward to seeing that on your website. for folks who don't do this already, you put out after the jobs report a monthly blog on this that i think is invaluable. it usually comes out in the afternoon. >> we usually get it out by 9:30 9:40 a.m. >> i usually read it for them. i think what it does is that
cuts through the noise and the clutter which is what you talked about here. just as like really one of the most understandable for the same time deep dives into the economic employment in which situation in the country that i read on a monthly basis. i appreciate the readability of that report. everybody should take a look at it. let's start with wages. because there's definitely talk about how the middle class is raised. we are also seen upward trendsby one of her later slides the 2013 numbers and one of the frustrations i have wicked uneconomic data how wages only rose 2% inflation is under 2%.
i worked in 1981. i don't remember at 8.6% raise that inflation was something like that at that point are even higher. what are you seeing an wages than what you look at? >> in terms of what data i actually looked to the jobs numbers when you get those also include wages. wages are based on a survey of employers and that is quite a useful number to look at. the three important lessons i have been all of this is looking at a couple different measures. lately something called the eci employment compensation indexes are at more quickly than the other wage measure. does that mean the other is true in the way they tell stories is
somewhere in between and that is what i've tried to show you that average. they are not enough pickup. if you look at real wages in the last two and half years on a date and rising. they been rising at twice the pace over the course of the last economic expansion from 2001 tonight 2007. again, we would like to see more about policy. you are seeing real wages growing. something that makes it hard for people to compare. partly late the idiosyncratic and the price of gasoline we can't expect gasoline to always fall in price. just the overall target or average for inflation has also followed over time.
>> in a talk he gave recently at the peterson institute, was that what it was? you talked about product dignity and you also talked about total factor product dignity. but that reminded me of the total factor product dignity is in some ways like the dark matter in the universe where it's both the solution of all the universities in this area is. can you explain a little bit what you are seeing in product dignity -- productivity. >> productivity and special factor product dignity are among the most things in the economy. labor productivity is how much output you get her one hour of labor interests.
the reasons why you can get the output is your workers can be better educated. your workers can have more capital machinery at their disposal. or because you combine labor and capital better. at larger scales of market better ways of managing and in tory what have you. the last day this product candidate and the most exciting thing you can have in the economy because it says for a fixed amount of labor or capital you get more and more stuff out of it. if you want to understand our fiscal situation, you need to know what productivity growth will be in the future. if you want to understand why wages are admitted since the 1970s you understand what productivity growth has been lower since 1970. if you want a recipe going for there is a there's a lot of things enable one of them is faster but it did today.
terms of measurement and the issues is just about the noisiest economics you have because the numerator has output in the denominator had error and one by the other. i like to look at product candidate over periods of 10 years, 15 years, sometimes even longer. and the evidence if you project the productivity to look at the last year or two. the look over the last 10 years 15 years and that gives you a sense of what the potential of the economy going forward is. we had about 30 years of high productivity growth after world war ii and declines for two
decades and it rebounds a little bit. is there a predictive nature to productivity? is that appeared after world war ii a unique. never repeated again unless we have world war iii. >> predicting productivity involves predicting one imagines people, both in the future that they have a cat. if i knew the answer to that i would invent those things with all of you talking about economic data. at a certain amount of humility and question. i think the end of world war ii was partly the decades as the global economy came back together and as we figured out how to commercialize innovations like the jet engine we developed
for fighting the war. a lot of other things could be reproduced without tremendous infrastructure investment and high levels of public investments in basic research. the reason we can't do that again. if we did that again but would get higher productivity results. >> go ask one more question and then turn it over to the audience. get ready to raise your hand and ask questions. go over to the microphone and ask questions. so again looking back from 1950 to 2000 u.s. economic growth averaged 3.7% and from 2001 through the first quarter 2015 it averaged 1.9%. are there things besides, a god you can predict the invention that come in the future. but are there factors
demographically that say look there is a limit to the growth that a country like the u.s. can have on a sustained basis or 3.7% is not a realistic place. what are the factors that go into growth that say they'd be it isn't as bad as what i just pronounce. >> maybe i'll do one equation with all of you. output equals output per hour. some output divided by ours. the hours counsel canceled the output. that i am quite confident it's true. so to understand the future of growth we need to understand the future of output per hour and the future of hours. output per hour's product dignity that we were just talking about.
there's a lot to be excited about in terms of productivity with the internet cloud computing clean energy you name it. there's all sorts of exciting things. they can potentially increase. there is reason for cautious optimism per hour. we are not going to get the ours growth that we had in the 50s and 60s and 70s. ours growth as a result of the baby boom people born in 1946 started to enter the workforce in the 1960s and 1970s and that led to a big bulge and the other thing is the percentage of prime age women in the workforce in the corridor to more than two thirds over that.
and we are just definitely not a ceiling and more room to grow but nothing like the huge transformation we have. only our side is another beautiful story. that is what will ultimately get to what we do. no reason we couldn't make choices to do about better in the future. >> just to follow-up on that, we also have an aging population so the output per hour is going to have to cover benefit for people who are no longer back in the workforce due to workers have a burden and do they need to become more days? >> two things going on. one is you are supported by
people and more with each hour. to understand the magnitude of the fiscal challenge we can predict reasonably well how many people you are supporting and sort of watch the baby boomers. and life expectancy will be and to get a sense as to get a sense as to what the fiscal challenges and how much you can produce at the showers is critical. >> thank you for this opportunity. i want to ask a question about the jobs report and the standardizing the data appeared you want to have a standard data set that goes back many years and decades with trends over time. are there any trip in the new economy that hasn't been captured by the job report or
other statistical sources of information. >> that is something we've been putting some thought into. i don't have a definitive there for you. it probably matters a little bit. most jobs are being picked up. certainly when you look at something like the household survey they ask you are you working or not. for most people that is the answer straightforward but if you do something they tell them yes or no. the establishment is the people you employ. again you are not necessarily working for business and bluebird isn't going to list you as an employee unless you are sitting at their head porters routing traffic or whatever they do. so this does present with the
different ways a set of challenges. i am just not sure how large those are relative to the overall story. >> thank you. >> in a marsh of transnational. good to see you again. thank you very much. i wonder if we can connect a couple of a picture items that have come out. when of course he talked about product dignity and the challenges driving. i wonder if you could help us marry that to the extent these things are connected with another big issue that is the risen to its larger focus on the short-term but hillary clinton causes capital. somehow depressing the amount of capital going into productivity enhancing technologies or other things because of the drive to show better results.
are those connected and if so how would you look at it? >> one is that set of data and i try not to a given week month or quarter. and where we are going. i certainly try to take a longer-term perspective and understanding what is going on in the economy because otherwise it's too depressed depending on the week. in terms of the public policy question which is at the heart of your question, that's a really important discussion to be had is what can you do to make sure senses are aligned and i was talking before and to some degree related to the government policy it do but basic research. that is something the
underinvested because they don't capture the full benefit. even a long-term given research because it benefits everyone. that is why sun didn't like nsf and nih is so important. we've seen a shift in our research portfolio and towards more applied research and development and that is important. that is terrific, too but it doesn't make up for what you need over the longer run. a longer one perspective is important. >> with limit the questions for those already in mind because we do have some type trades. >> woodrow wilson center. thank you for this different presentation. one feature you didn't mention is the trade and current account
deficit was growth but also over time the industrial structure you have which is often linked the innovation system which gets back to the productivity growth. t. think making more focus and how should we ourselves focus over time? >> that is a terrific question. just to clarify my goals here give you not as an up-to-date to which is some ideas about how to read numbers and then spend them, combine them. the trade deficit or a similar concept that is definitely important. it shows up in gdp. gdp is what we do domestically, plus mechanically the trade deficit the track gdp.
the underlying economics is a little bit more complicated. when our economy is doing really well, we will draw in more imports. rather than their economy. similarly when our economy weekends, trade deficit will go down. that is bad news, not good news. it is complicated to understand what is the trade deficit causing me and the overall economy causing in the trade deficit. certainly as you said it would also affect the competition. when certain countries run persistent surplus is because of their macroeconomic policies and currency policies. another thing i am sure of is the world as a whole the trade balance should at least measure correctly at 20. so somehow the large surplus is no deficit.
some major countries in the global economy are very committed to macroeconomic exchange policy is to give surpluses. the united states often has the flip side of that and as a result they can have some effects on the structure of our economy and that's why her international economic diplomacy and arrangement is pushing quite hard in the macroeconomic policies and currency policies. >> you see people point to the disparity in stagnating wages. and look at real media competition versus labor product candidate, and your total factor for someone who doesn't really deal with economics and do you
have any advice? >> that is a graph that is reproduced a lot. it is one that has a very important message. one message people usually don't see in that graph that is a really important one is one that jim brought up earlier which is productivity growth since the 1970s has been slower than productivity growth from the 1940s through the 1970s. part of why wage growth has slowed as product to the. one reason why sometimes that doesn't leap out at you in the graph as the graph my show a shorter period of time and most egregiously somebody doesn't do the graph and logarithms which is an unforgivable error when people do that graph and don't do it longer. logarithms give you the same movement that defends a logarithm is a growth rate. something keeps going up by the same unit of gross. you do it in bottles it is not
the case. the growth looks straight and is actually slowing over time. that is a pet peeve of mine that does not resonate with everyone. second thing is a gap between those two lines. between the product to video the wages. that gap as a result of two things. one is the increasing inequality and increasing failure of workers to get the full benefit of what it is they produce. a shift in the overall allocation of our society towards capital and away from labor. all of that to me at least is concerning and really important. the other reason the two lines diverge is a set of statistical forests. for example, productivity line uses one price index in the
wages line uses the different price index and they are behaving differently over time. that is a big part about half of the difference. about half of it is the real underlying inequality set of issues. the reason i draw to your attention is there are some conservatives have come out inside look at the statistical quirks. don't pay attention to the picture. they are right, but even correct but the picture remains. it's a long way of saying productivity growth target this story and fully capturing the story and then a whole bunch of complications around the data. even after you go through those who are still left with the changes. >> is the non-rich compensation part of that would have been the numbers? >> sometimes they show about 10%
of the difference between those two lines is non-rich compensation. a smaller part of the stories. >> final question. >> thank you for taking my questions. thank you, jim, for putting this together. one thing is the concept and to what extent you think that is playing a more pronounced role on this recovery are not in terms of labor markets in unemployment rate. on the first broad, do we have good measures for that and a good understanding of how that works and measuring and policy affect that much i guess is my question. >> so with a chorus of repeating the question, but may explain it a little bit for those that don't know the word history. the concept is introduced into the economics literature because
europe had a or really the unemployment rate for decades. in the 1980s that went way up and stayed up. and so olivier blanchard and larry summers advanced the argument i was european economy has gotten stellar in this new place and stayed there. there was and still is evidence denies its labor markets are much more flexible and flexibility means you are less likely if you end up in a bad place to get stuck there. when this recession first hit we had unemployment rates we haven't seen since the 80s and we have sustained long-term unemployment at race we hadn't seen in the entire postwar period. a lot of people, myself included for nervous. but if the long-term unemployment were here to stay. but if we get stuck? at the time i was cautiously
hopeful that the flexibility of the u.s. labor market would be more important and i think the data has become increasingly clear that it was justice justified. that is back to the average of one of us in the previous economic expansion. the long-term unemployment rate remains elevated relative to what it was before, but even they are it has come down even faster in the last year or two that the short-term unemployment rate. it seemed like that is also on track to beat in the neighborhood of where bias before the recession. i am feeling decently good about the u.s. economy, but i would never take it for granted and one reason it is so important to be aggressive in dealing with unemployment is the longer the unemployment life the more likely someone looses the skills to have a job, to find a job. employers don't want to hire
them comment that rate. temporary unemployment becomes current unemployment. i think we have for the most part avoided at that time around but it not something we can take for granted in the future. >> jason, thank you so much. i consider this our a gift. this was really to me just a spectacular less than how to look at economic data and i know is going to make a difference with me end with our office and i hope the people here and people watching at home really appreciate the way you broke this down in a very very simple but very informative way. thank you so much for taking the time i'd have been incredibly busy day that i'm sure you must have been joining us today. thank you. [applause]
>> now we take you live to washington d.c. for not date on the latest photo photographs and bringing them back to earth at the new horizons spacecraft. >> unprecedented images and science continues to be returned from the new rises spacecraft following that is doric july 14th flyby of pluto. but to set the stage for today's briefing, please welcome to the podium astronaut and had a direct or it with new horizons is one of almost 100 science missions in the directory's portfolio. ladies and gentlemen,.third --
dr. john rumsfeld. >> thank you very much dewayne. this week has just been a phenomenal week. monday we released the first image from the epic imaging camera on the discovery mission committed deep space blue marble. this is our first true blue marble of the earth since 1972 when the apollo 17 astronaut to the famous and manage of the earth and it pains an incredible picture of his home planet and how lucky and precious planet earth is especially when you compare it to the amazing views we have recently gotten from the spacecraft, which is a somewhat series hostile world.
.. a scientific theory that science never sleeps. and if you look at the panel here they actually look pretty cheery for a corporate scientists that have corvette scientists that have not been sleeping for the last few weeks. but they are here to tell us about the most recent amazing results from the pluto new
risings mission and i am pleased to hear those results. >> so we have before i introduced the panelists for this afternoon at nasa council with this mission and the resulting images follow the accounts on twitter, youtube facebook and other accounts. send your questions and ask nasa. we will try to answer questions as quickly as possible. you can follow the conversation and there's still a lot of conversation all over the world on this historical mission at #plutoflyby and again all of the
information today and in the future can be obtained by going to www.nasa.gov/newhorizons. first up, you will hear from jim green director director of planetary science at nasa headquarters. alan stern the new horizon investigator of the at the southwest research institute in boulder colorado. michael summers the investigator at george mason university, fairfax virginia. kathy new horizon deputy project scientist also at the southwest research institute and the new horizon investigator at washington university in st. louis, so with that i will
turn it over to jim. >> thank you. july 14 was very historic for the national flyby of the horizon spacecraft and we are just ten days away from that and we've only had an opportunity to see about 5% of the data. as many know we store the data onboard as we flew through the system and it's just now starting to come back. each and every day the science team has been looking at the data as it comes back and it's quite a pleasure to look at the data when it comes in and see the new discovery is coming out. today we are going to talk about the latest that came in in a few days. this is a spectacular set of data that it also happened and was taken on board prior to the
encounter after they had an opportunity to fly through the system and look back to pluto as it is hurtling away at more than 16 kilometers per second. these are just amazing discoveries. without further ado, let me turn over to the principal investigator to start off. >> as jim said last week the united states explored the farthest frontier ever explored the pluto system. we can't tell you how happy we are to be back as a team. we came back last friday and gave a report about the data downloading the reactions that we had to did and now we are ten days out, 7 miles away - we've had more time to think about the data sent on the ground, and equally importantly, we have about three times as much data on the ground now.
we have about four to 5% of the data in the 95 or 96% of it is on the spacecraft so we are only scratching the surface and we have got some great discoveries to tell you about. we also want to tell you the size of the data set is to know that we've done the exploration on the other side of pluto and that is this bumper sticker inspired by the deputy assistant engineer that says my other vehicle export of pluto and it has a nice picture made by new horizons in the rearview mirror. that's how you know. i want to say a few things and call up the graphic which is a beautiful image of a planet system. pluto on the left and sharing on the right made with true color added on top of the image and as i tell you a little bit about where we are in the mission
just feast your eyes on this. we've never been to a double planet system before and it's turning out to be a scientific wonderland. we have now finished the first phase of downlink that was an extensive ten-day inexpensive ten-day period of images and other data sets to tell us the basics about the pluto system into the discoveries that you will be hearing about by myself and mike and kathy and bill report on some of the most important findings that we have already made in the few days. we are moving into a second phase that is a little bit different and i think it's important for everyone to understand the difference. we will be transmitting a lot of engineering data from the flyby as well as data from the plasma instruments and to go with the images that we've already got. so for the next couple of months
until we reach mid-september it will only be occasionally but we will have new images on the ground and available to release. but starting in september it opens again and then about a year may be a little bit more the sky will be raining and we are happy about the interest and we are excited to share it with all of you and we want to do some of that right now. we are going to get right into the science. if you are seeing a cardiologist you may want to leave the room. there are some pretty mind blowing discoveries we are going to talk about. if i could have my second graphic i want to show the two by two of the pluto system this has twice the resolution of the previous best global image of the approach and its mouth watering the level of detail is spectacular. it has a resolution of 2.2 and i
think just looking at it you can tell as the science team pluto has a confiscated story to tell in a and a very interesting history and there is a lot of work we need to do to understand this complicated place. i want to stress that and drive it home by showing you the image of the higher magnification is. we want to look at the northern half of the image and we could easily blow this up even further and you can see across the northern terrain is his age group color image, essentially true color with a whole range of geologic expressions. kathy and bill will be talking about this more so i won't steal their thunder but just like your eyes go from the western across the disk over to the east and you can see different geological units and different features
telling a complicated story again which is better for us to unravel and we could go to the south and you see a still more complicated story with a great equatorial dark region with the heart on pluto and what look like massive tectonic features emanating as well as others that run more or less north and south. you will hear more about that later and i do want to talk about one aspect of the interpretation that we've been making over the last week in looking more carefully at the imagery of the heart. like a real hard it has two lobes once a left and right side. the left is the western side and i think that you can distinguish the difference between the two. the right side looks like a thin deposit on the topography and that material on the right as
well as the material emanating to the south below the western world is that in both cases we believe the source of that material is the western lobe the material is probably nitrogen snow being transported off but perhaps by wind and transport and sublimation or perhaps a process that we haven't thought about in any case we think they need to understand the feature just a little bit in its early days. what i want to talk about next is a false color image which has been stretched to show the dramatic differences in color units and how they correlate with the geology. this is pretty mind blowing. kathy will have more to say about this but as you can see for example with the the
western and eastern lobe that i was talking about the different colors. they are telling us something and soon we will have compositions backed her to support the higher resolution. you can see the polar regions have a different colors though and as we get back into the regions there is more information that seems to be correlated and this tells us the payload that we brought to bear on bus system is the right payload because we have on board the spacecraft now tremendous data sets with high-resolution colors, higher resolution and grammatic mapping for giving the geology and the spectacular data set of compositional information with over 64000 pixels that we put on the surface to get the spectrum at every location. we are going to be older to the story very well over the next year really looking forward to that. i'm going to move onto the next step and tell you a little bit
about atmospheric science where we have also made advances. this particular graph is to illustrate something about our ultraviolet share that we designed years ago to look for in atmosphere around the pluto's largest moon and it's been a pretty big body of literature speculating about how sharing could have an atmosphere. we just got the summary data in the last few days we don't yet have the full spectrum data set. you will see the yellow line represents the path of the sun as it is seen by the spacecraft moving behind him and you see that it just clicks the northern region. that is exactly what we planned and how we plan we planned dutch reject agree to go into just as you click each side of the body
you can see that red and white graph that the level from the sun just plummets straight down to zero. it doesn't look anything like the solar database that we showed you last week where we can see the decline in the light levels and here it is just basically telling us that charon has much less atmosphere than pluto if any. we don't have the spectrum and as i said we will be able to do that when we get out in september because it will be downloading. for now all that we can say it is is a much more rare atmosphere and that confirms the pre- flight notions and we are looking forward to seeing how that is is and it may be that there is a thin nitrogen layer in the atmosphere for methane or some other constituents that it must be very continuous. again emphasizing just how different these two objects are despite their close association
in space. and i want to also speak to another part of the atmospheric science, which is the fact that we have now got the ground, some of it is radio data for pluto where the deep space network transmitted the time to arrive just as the spacecraft is passing behind the planet so that we could measure the index of the atmosphere and as you will hear more about the data and they have a wonderful scientific surprise. the pressure measured at the base of the atmosphere is substantially lower than predicted and that is telling us a story. i would like to close with one more step. this is a spectacular image. this is the silhouette looking back after the flyby. this is our equivalent on the new horizons of the apollo first rise photograph that proves we
were there. you could only get this image by going to pluto and crossing to the far side and looking back. now it's striking and spectacular as it is emotionally, it's also represents a huge scientific discovery because you see above the dark disk of pluto the band of light telling us that they have a layer in their atmosphere >> good afternoon everyone. i'm going to talk about two new results on the atmosphere that are basically changing the way that we think about the atmosphere and we are happy to start from scratch to understand what we thought we knew about the atmosphere and the way the climate and the evolution worked so it has the first time step please. >> the first graphics please. this is one of the first images of the atmosphere.
this is the image that stunned the team. for 25 years we've known the pluto has an atmosphere but it's been known by the numbers. this is the first time we have really seen it. this is the image that almost brought tears to the eyes of the scientists on the team. next please. >> okay. now what i will tell you now is what we are seeing here this is the atmosphere and the light across as what you are seeing is light scattered by the small particles in the atmosphere. and these particles constitute the haze layer showing the structure. the colors have been enhanced so you can see there is a structure. there's an argument going there is an argument going on whether it's a dynamic for chemistry. it's probably both but this is our first peek at whether on
pluto's atmosphere. to illustrate that a little bit more, there is a hint that there is either a layer of 30 miles 50 miles or a combination in this region. those are the kind of things we will have to sort out over the coming weeks and that is going to tell us about the details of how the atmosphere actually works. but it extends at least 100 miles above the surface. that is five times further than the model predicted. models predicted that the particles were to form load and the atmosphere with temperatures cooled but it's forming high in the atmosphere with the connectors are hot. it is inhofe from our perspective. but nonetheless it is a mystery. it's one of the things we have to sort out in the coming days. okay it's pretty but it is a
piece of a big story that we are trying to understand and that is how the atmosphere in the surface is connected. so i have a simple animation to illustrate one aspect of that connection. can i have the next time step please. this shows how the upper atmosphere is broken apart and the chemical compounds that react trigger the hydrocarbons. as time goes on they become supersaturated and they form particles which then grow and eventually they will get a big enough so that you will see the layer fall to the ground. at some point in this cycle those particles are chemically processed to produce chemically
altered carbon that have a red color and we think that is how the surface bought its way here and in a minute we will talk more about the color and composition of the surface. but this is just one piece of the story. it's not a cohesive piece. there are mysteries. we don't understand why it's up to 100 miles altitude. the next story regards the surface pressure and i will give you a bit of a context here. the surface pressure at any level is a measure of the way and acting so if you know the surface pressure of the good estimate of the total map of the atmosphere and it's important as a way of the global atmosphere.
this shows as the time the units might be strange to you. and from 1989 up to just before the president. what is interesting here it is at its closest distance to the sun. it should move away. and it's very interesting nonetheless. we have been trying to figure this out. what i'm going to show you now is a data point of information that we have to add to the story.
it is one data point but it is significant and we have to figure it out. okay. so this is it. this is what the science experiment contributed to the story. the data point that shows that the surface pressure is off most tend micro bars that is an upper limit, so the mass of the atmosphere changed by the factor of two in a few years. that is pretty astonishing at least to the atmospheric scientist exhibit is telling you that something is happening. it is just one data point these are early retrievals and we have more data coming, and there is more to the story. that is another mystery. we have to deal with it over the next few weeks and months and years and so on. i'm now going to turn over to kathy who is going to talk about the color and composition of the surface. >> thanks, mike. i'm going to tell about the
color and composition and try to tie this together. the color is an indicator of the different units so if i could have the first times that this is the same image that alan showed and i'm going to show you what we are seeing scientifically and some of the things we know and understand from looking at this image. first you can see the dark region at the bottom. that's near the equator and that is the darkest region and as you remember there are dark regions all around that area. and then in the north pole. but in this latitude putting this latitude and longitude grid allows us to help see and draw your eye to that banding
pattern. i want to talk little about it because it goes to the complexity mike was talking about about the atmosphere and the surface and the interaction. pluto has a very complicated a seasonal pattern of transport. it takes 248 years per pluto to go around the sun. sometimes it is much closer to the sun than other times. also additionally, the north pole is up 120 degrees. all of these factors together cause different parts to get different amounts of sunlight and the sunlight is powering from the surface into the atmosphere and so some parts are near the equator and other parts receive these as you could see on the north pole here.
there is one glaring difference in the pattern digest called out and that is - next time step please come if clearly entered up to the pattern of the longitudinal very nation of colors and one thing i should add is that the darker regions in the story that i was telling of the seasonal transport are likely with mike was describing. what is special about this region is that we are seeing nothing in the carbon monoxide this is telling us something that we need to understand. on the northern part of pluto we see methane and nitrogen but not
carbon monoxide so maybe what we are seeing is a sports region for some of these that complicates in addition the story of the seasonal transport that i was telling you about. we are going to be looking at that in the future. we will get a lot more information when we get the rest down. they are going to tell about the geology of the region. >> can i have my first graphic. next please. >> we will be looking at the fabulous hemisphere you can start the whole seven frames of what will ultimately be the 12th
frame mosaic that will come down later. this area in the next slide. this area covers in its entirety is more or less flat i see playing that we have been calling sputnik planet. it's just about the size of the state of texas and all around the periphery and in the interior are geological wonders. i would like to share some of those wonders with you. can i have the next slide please. so first i would like to look at the orange box. so that's the northern boundary of the sputnik planet with a
little bar down there but basically this is about 250 miles across about the difference between kansas city missouri and st. louis in the city that i picked completely at random. next slide. >> most of the picture that you see is well known for having the segmented or the cellular structure in the almost legal terrain. there is a rugged landscape and something to be geologist i it is deeply and extensively eroded and we can tell us all as well because you can see with your own eye the various impact craters of large-size but what
is interesting to us is the actual interaction to this rugged terrain to the top. if you look at the image you can actually see the pattern that indicates the flow towards the boundary on the terrain. we call these streamlined and when you look at the streamlines that we marked with those arrows that you see they look just like and we interpret them to be just like the glacial flow of her. >> pluto as temperatures will not move anywhere. it is a mobile and brittle. but on pluto, the kind of nitrogen, the kind that we think make up the planet in which kathy talks about carbon monoxide, methane, these are
geologically soft event of pluto conditions and they will flow. but we have actual evidence of the recent geological activity. now if i could just back up and add one more thing it's hiding at the 12:00 position we could actually see the flow of what is solid floating through the breach filling in the interior of the crater. and we knew that there was nitrogen. we've known this for years and we knew that it was convincing in one place but to see the evidence for the activity is a dream come true.
when i say reason i don't think yesterday i mean geologically recent but the appearance on the sputnik planet tells us that this is a younger unit and we have models of what objects would be on pluto but the best ones i should point out it is a congress of evidence but just to get back to the age is only a fraction. probably no more than a few tens of millions of years and what we know about nitrogen ice and the heat flow coming from the interior there is no reason why this stuff can't be going on today. okay.
let's go to the next times. so now, we are going to go down to the bottom. this is a very busy scene. it is bigger than the one that i showed you. this one is about 400 miles across so it's like taking a drive from la to phoenix. anyway, next time step please. >> so, here's some things at the top of the image you can still see the polygons and at the bottom of this ancient heavily cratered region. on the very right of the image of the 3:00 position are a group of mountain blocks that we discovered last week, and we named them. but in this picture you can see in the center or if you googled
above, another arrangement of mountain blocks. you might think that the ones on the left are different but that is because the sun is high here in the sky when the picture was taken to you don't see the shadows. it's similar from one region to another so we have given an informal name to this block after sir edmund hillary first cited everest back in 1953. the fascinating thing about this picture to me is that they seem to have moved and surrounded. they extend all the way down and
they just seem to figure out. and when you look at it in detail there is a lot of structure and a lot of the structure is different than the polygons that we have seen. that tells us that the ice in that region between the mountains is substantially thinner and one more thing you can see if you look at the edge of the dark unit you see that sort of circles of so they are basically nitrogen ice. okay let's put this together and take a fly over from one end to another if i could have the
animation. we are going to start at the north over the cliffs. there are the ice flows around the island. there is the polygons well delineated and as we move into the interior it seems like they disappear but they don't interview with carefully they are still there they are just obscure and it's approaching the region that is rich in the carbon monoxide cathy was just talking about. anyway, it is a long flight all the way to the south, so we will skip over that part and we will rejoin our tour coming up. there they are sweeping across them with big blocks small blocks come in as we move over, one of those craters is coming
into view and it is about the size of the dc metro area and as we move off coming into the her eyes - horizon the screen has gone dark but there's more there is more we are going to learn about pluto just as alan as allen and jim said, most of your images and data are still on the space craft outcome for pluto and we will be downloading this ahead. with that, back to you. >> now we are going to transition into the question and answers and we are going to start here in washington and then hit the phone lines and come back and i will give you the first question because your expression.
>> i have questions about a couple of things that i saw in the new disc image. it looks like a copyright mark to just to the west of the plane. it is a big crater and if you have any idea what that might be then also just continue on the flow you have elevation data and is it flowing down into the mountains? >> there are some features i didn't point out in the commission and to the west and to the north those are probably impact craters of some scale
maybe 150 or 250. some parts are probably at least fundamentally ancient but even though there may be active - >> are there central peaks - >> looking at the picture and you would be looking at the very distinct circles. >> i think that he was thinking of the one of the coffee elliott crater. >> you be the one of the 1030 position is that the one you mean? that's another. it's not really showing on my particular graphic but it's another one of them that has bright ice as a remnant of also the central peak is dark and your other question was elevation, yes.
we measured the elevation of the mountains but just not sure - a measuring and it's basically determined the relative slope and we get some estimates and we can actually see on the planet that of the individual cells are a little bit higher then the boundaries by tens of meters but the primary technique we want to use is called to steer your imaging and we do not get have the data to do that the stereo and out with us but we are going to get more frames of that mosaic and an entirely different set of observations covering the whole basically of pluto and we will have a beautiful stereo view whether it is high or low with respect to things thereby. one thing that you can certainly
tell is that it appears it seems too on lap two is a kind of boundary. >> did you have another question? here and then to the phone lines. >> if i could follow up and get you to speculate what could be driving these flows and also how the source region got there to begin with. there've been debates whether they've accumulated from above turning into glacier things over time or whether something is allowing isis to well up from within. can you explain how this come of this edifice is right in the belly of the planet and got to be there and then what is driving his?
>> we have a region that seems to be a reservoir. we describe this politically in the meeting cards. if maybe the supplies on for the entire atmosphere for a lot of the activity. ultimately how it was formed you could imagine different things. we see at the margins there is a jumble of mountains and highly deformed to talk to the typography and dave deformed the christ. we don't really - we cannot fully explain what's going on because we've only seen these seven images close-up. when all the rest of that stuff comes down and when we get this other stuff compressed on the ground we will have a much more complete story but you can imagine as i use the word reservoir it could be built in from the outside, it could be
filled in from below, you could imagine that inside of the cost of pluto there is enough space where nitrogen would be warmer where it is in sight spite of all planets with respect and the reservoir could supply the planet. these are all interesting ideas and it in its early days we are enjoying a great deal of animated discussion. >> i would like to add one thing which is that these images existed a couple of weeks ago. we are reacting to it and almost real-time but what we are learning very fundamentally is that we have a much more intimate and intricate interaction between geology and the transport and sees all climate cycles and those kind of things that are forcing one another and feeding one another and creating a very complicated
story about the planet's history and it's rare in the pantheon of objects in the solar system that we have seen this kind of an intricate and complicated story i'm reminded in some ways of the titan, but a few other examples that are so dramatic it's brand-new. >> just wait until the rest of the images come in because i know there's going to be great stuff there. okay let's go to the phone lines and then we will come back here for the social media and any other questions of the audience for the wrapup. online first up for "the new york times." >> if you could remind me to come to true of the flow at the surface and then higher up. >> the temperature at the surface is about 38 degrees which is 380 below zero.
so that is incredibly cold. if you want to talk about the ice temperature - >> but even at 38 kelvin solid nitrogen below ground will warm up a little bit and is very sensitive to temperatures. there is nothing physically and plausible about the flow - >> even if there is just a deep layer in the planet you get down tens of meters and the overburdened the pressure from the overburden can change the property because it is getting warmer so it's much more able to flow into there may be conditions where you can get liquid nitrogen flowing below a deep layer of tens of hundreds of meters and that may be part of the story as well we have a lot of work to do to be able to
say that with any confidence. >> i have a couple of questions. i think i heard you say that the surface pressure measurements show it's decreased by the factor of two in two years. could you tell us what the data set is and how accurate that is compared to what you're getting? >> the date out that i showed in that time slot for the atmosphere is based upon the applications where we follow the sunlight behind the atmosphere and look after the extinction to get a measure of how much gas is there so we had to use those to extrapolate down to the surface to get a surface pressure and that is what was done for each of those data points that you
saw. as far as we can tell those are accurate measurements of the atmosphere where this occurs. the thing that is different is with the waves you can go right down to the surface and the data book extremely good. so this should be the best measurement of the surface pressure on pluto. again, this is early, this is the first data retrieval and we've got more studies to do on this. but taking at face value yes it appears as though the atmosphere has changed quite a bit. >> all those data points are obtained from the earth. only the red data point is obtained from the horizon so we are detecting what may be a really significant short-term variation in the asp is here -
atmosphere. what will help i think is the most recent observations which is from out from out of 4747 and it's fabulous to hope that most recently in the end of june to break down to new zealand to chase the shadow and also by another store and got a very beautiful - that is a recent occupation that might help the interpretation of the previous observations. >> that is a really good point. >> as far as the theory that it's chemically altered the same but would that look like if you put were on the surface of pluto; whether the particles be good enough to see snow, ice or
frost and why would they not be or are they universally distributed to you think? and then something else happens on the surface and i know this is putting things together where you don't have the surface but i'm curious what your thinking on that is right now. >> several questions. one in terms of what it would look like we are talking about if you were on the surface of pluto looking out you probably would not see it. we only see it when we are looking at the atmosphere and even then looking at sunlight scattered on the particles is the way we get that image, so it is a very thin haze distributed over a large region it appears to be 100 kilometers high. in terms of the conversion of those particles we don't know the exact details.
that term encompasses a range of different substances that appear to be altered hydrogen from a hydrocarbon compounds or they've gone through the subclinical process where they've been kicked off just not in the particular substance and so without having more detail we can't really test the exact mechanism. the red color is distinctive, so it is a puzzle with lots and lots of pieces and the chemistry is one of those pieces. >> ibb there was also a question about falling uniformly on the surface of pluto and probably does have an episode we have a
lot of work to do to figure out the rate but it's one that reveals why we see the distinct different patterns and it has to do with the ones that absorb more light so they will become volatile and go from a solid into the gaseous state and then be deposited. they've been deposited onto the northern service will be pieces of the puzzle that we put together to understand the rate of production and the deposition >> did you have another follow-up? >> i did have one other question that may be too early to answer. based on the data that you've gotten so far can you say anything about the exact mass of
pluto and any changes in the model of what the interior they have? >> i'm going to start up and ask bill to chip in as well because this is a big area of the research interest. we've not been able to obtain a new estimate for pluto but before the flyby, they gave us very accurate mass and to constrain the interior properties, the primary uncertainty was knowing the radius that we could get the volume and then convert to the density. but they were able to contribute even if we were approaching was to discover the true radius. it 1185 or 1186 or 1187. so we had an uncertainty that ranged over 70 kilometers as we collapsed that and it's centered around 1186, so now that we know that it is somewhat bigger than
the others expected that will lower the density and have implications for the properties. hispanic basically everything allen said alan said is pretty much the case. we have decent masses for both pluto and its companion charon and we have good sizes for both and so we now have accurate density values and so in the years past we thought charon was very icy and had much more rock and now in fact they are much more similar but though still seems to be the rocky world of the two and as we will go into building the new models into testing the new models of the evolution of the system in terms of what the inside of pluto is without the gravity data it is hard to be absolutely definitive
everything we see, all of the activity that we see is consistent with the huge icy shell and then it's probably a little bit thicker and all other things being equal it raises come it increases the probability that there may still be an ocean wave down underneath that is a theoretical inference writenow that it's something that we are keeping in mind as we explore pluto. one of the things we also learned not just the size but we also learned that it was very close. we can't detect any browned bits in the body. some people will run around the solar system and look at this satellite or that satellite and they are very distorted and this tells about the history. the pluto probably was spinning
very, very fast after what we believe to be a giant impact that led it to the formation of the satellite. as after this formation they were very close together much like the the earth and the moon and ties between the two caused the orbit to expand and the bodies to slow down and they are now walked up the way they are. but pluto doesn't show any evidence in its shape from the early fast rotation so we think that it must have been really warm enough that no residual shape could be supported so this is still too early to say exactly how hot but that's the kind of thing that will be a fly in the research tools and theoretical models and going to the scientific conferences and running the papers and either coming to conclusions or not. that's how it goes in science but things are looking good for pluto.
>> thanks very much. i wanted to ask because the atmosphere density is higher than you expected it to the i'm wondering can you tell us anything about the possibility in the composition? >> the measurements suggested the suggest that the pressure is about a factor of two less than the previous measurements so it's on the other direction. we bb that the atmosphere has shrunk to put it crudely. that's why it's all fine and offshore. >> this will go down to alan. a couple of times in the double
planet it's a lot more dynamic. what does new horizon say in what the planet is as a contention with those who follow the pluto for some time now. and thanks for doing this. >> we call the system a double planet for a very specific technical reason because the two objects are close enough together and the ratio is sufficient to draw the balance between them out of the primary into the space between. that is analogous to the way that we defined the double system when the balance point is between the two and not in the massive of the two. it's not quite there in fact it's deep in the earth's mantle is not at the center of the
earth, so it hasn't yet moved out of the planet. but close. i don't think there's any controversy at all about the double planet moniker. there's been this controversy where astronomers and planetary scientists have been on different sides of it and i think that you and the public just like we can tell what we are dealing with and it's hard not to call an object like this at this level of complexity and atmosphere within internal internal ocean certainly with complicated seasonal cycles and cup pitted system of millions a planet. the way science works is the individual scientists make their decisions one at a time individually the consensus is reached and because we have made so many discoveries, both of the missions that were referred to a different kinds of planets around the galaxy and now the new class of planet in their own solar system would go to the period of transition and those definitions are in the transition also and it will
shake itself out but one side until we reached a consensus. >> okay. leo will have the following question and then the social media is tromping at the bit. leo. >> thanks very much. bill mentioned a - i was trying to understand how that might fit into what we were seeing. can you say that the nitrogen glaciers could be at play and quite easily without the liquid ocean underneath as other mechanisms could achieve if they simply cannot be explained without something like that? spinnaker should be explicit. we don't have any direct evidence for an interior liquid water ocean. what i was trying to imply is the picture of pluto as a complex active world plus the
with images of planets would be able to capture like this and it's different from the image. the equity repeat the question? >> the ring around pluto with images without atmospheres be able to be captured like this? >> images without? >> yeah sure, we have taken silhouetted images of other objects that don't have
atmospheres and then you see the ring extending above the surface. in fact we have a ring coming from the ground that hasn't been released yet. we are looking back into the glare of the sun and it actually was taken about the same time on the same day to show the crescent of pluto's big men share in and there's no evidence of atmosphere there whatsoever. it seemed like a brand-new men the same presence of light. it's quite a hunting image and once we clean it up we will make sure it is released. >> let's take two more and then we will close out here. >> this question is from simon and he said is there a theory of what is driving the badgers a nice flow and could the sun's light be responsible even though it's so faraway? >> i guess that's for me. it's not sunlight. its internal heat. if you have it thick enough and massive enough away or of these
kinds of eyes is whether it be nitrogen or carbon monoxide or methane it will move. if there's a sufficient slope it will move. in fact we have done theoretical calculations which of course we need to do better ones but we believe actually put it this way are leading model for the formation of the polygon at this moment is internal conductive motion rising and falling at a slow rate within the planet. as long as that ice is half a mile deep with the process can operate. >> i would just say it's driven from the heat that is leaking out of the interior. one more and then give you the final one the final one air again we will close out. >> when will we see the surface of the other side of pluto in high resolution? >> we have about the best images on the ground already of the
atmosphere. their there are nature of new horizons exploring pluto demanded that or it was a consequence that we were going to observe from one hemisphere in exquisite detail and the other side in much less detail. that's a combination of speed combined with pluto slower tuition rate so the last time we saw the far hemisphere we were 3.2 days out half of 6.4 days not corresponded to 3 million miles away as opposed to the imagery you are seeing taken when we were much more than 10 times closer so the net is we have a dichotomy on our maps the far side is not imaged as well and we got the basic patterns that we can detect the largest craters on the surface and the largest units but not nearly as well as close hemisphere. that said we have a good hit of imagery on the spacecraft that will help us improve a little
bit more and in the fall when does start to come to the ground we will be able to produce a better map of the far side and we have now. >> eric with science magazine again. atmospheric question for alan or mike. so the shrinking atmosphere, this plummeting pressure i'm assuming if it got to zero that means the atmosphere froze out. does this mean you got there in the nick of time and that's where pluto is heading toward the freezeout and a follow-up to that how can you reconcile a shrinking atmosphere with detecting haze much higher than was expected. it seems a little bit contradictory to me --. >> i will talk about the haze first. the haze particles are extremely small and they are very buoyant. they can stay up in an atmosphere suspended in the atmosphere.
so you could have and i'm just pulling numbers out of the air right here but you could have the atmosphere pressure decreased by a factor of 10 and you could still have a haze present in the atmosphere and you could suspend and it could still be there. if you want to take the other part. >> you know for a long time there have been atmospheric models and climate models for pluto that suggested as pluto draws away from a sunday atmosphere are sure could perceive the sleep drop and in fact during the time when the national academy and other committees were looking at flying the pluto mission and its relative priority there was a real interest in trying to get to pluto while it still had a substantial atmosphere. that help motivate the case for why we needed to mission the launch of the 2000's versus waiting because wanted to get there while they were still an atmosphere to study and eventually there had came to be a belief that it's been 25 or more years since pluto is close
to the sun and maybe there won't be any atmosphere. the potential for the first ages of that just as new horizons arrives. it's an amazing coincidence but there are some on our team that would say i told you so so we will see if this is in fact what is happening or if it's a more complicated story not related to atmospheric collapse. as mike said it's early days. we have several more to come to the ground. this will help inform this question because we got data from two different stations at angers and to add egress and we only have one of those poor and only part of that dataset so this is an unfolding story. >> that's going to do it here. as you heard today pluto is very complex world and as dr. stern mentioned at the data is raining
down and we will be bringing you more in the future. stay tuned for updates on the cadence of how we will present data and share with the media and the public in the world and again follow us on the nasa social media account twitter, facebook youtube and send in those questions. keep them coming and we will get them answered at hashtag @nasa and this conversation will go on for a long time at hashtag @pluto flybys and any updates or types of information coming down in the future www.nasa. to the team have a great weekend and this team is not rewriting textbooks. they are writing textbooks. thank you for joining us. [applause]
>> the u.s. senate is holding a rare sunday session to vote on what is called the highway bill. it sets the federal portion of highway bridge and mass transportation projects nationwide for the next six years. funding runs out at the end of this month. senators will consider amendments to bring back the export-import bank and to kill the health care law. live coverage of the debate sunday at 2:00 eastern. >> the nation's governors are meeting in washington d.c. this week. during a session this morning national governors association
chair governor john hickenlooper of colorado was asked about congressional efforts to shut off federal grant funding to cities that don't import federal immigration laws. here is his answer. >> the issue of san shorey cities has become a pretty hot topic. the u.s. house passed a bill to limit access to funding for sanctuary cities. i'm not sure which of your states actually have them. i think a couple of them do but if you could sort of give a perspective if you think there should be state limitations on sanctuary cities and that sort of issue. >> if the stay should pass their own limitations instead of waiting. >> we have a city that has been listed as sanctuary city and i don't know who makes those decisions but labeling them as
sanctuary city but we certainly as an organization the national governors understand how important the forum is and passing immigration laws. you hear a lot of discussion about secure the borders and and that is kind of intuitive for a lot of reasons. we have to have a secure border but we also i call that the tall fence but we have to have it eight, a wide gate that works and i have had an opportunity to address this issue with the president terms of food if we don't fix the gate we have undue pressure on the border fence and we have certainly a lot of immigrants who would like to come into the country and work in a legal status way but then they'd like to go home and be able to come back and forth read the fear of not being able to come back causes them to overstay their visa and comment as an undocumented illegal. i believe that there ought to be in fact a rule of law and we
need to create immigration laws that unfortunately we have somewhat of a stalemate in congress. the last time we had any meaningful discussion that resulted in anything was back in reagan's day so that has been a long time. it's time for them to come together in a bipartisan way and in fact do something do something that is a positive thing and we think congress can and should and ought to and states have tried to do things. in utah we tried to come up with our own state laws to address the immigration issue. we are challenged in court and lost where the court said to us in essence this is a federal issue. despite the fact that we feel the pain and the frustration is a federal issue and so on behalf of the nga and governors we are
hoping that the congress will address this issue issue issue come up with a solution to compromise though it may be to get something down that shows in a positive way we are addressing this significantly frustrating issue. >> our immigration system is broken and it has been broken for a long time. as an organization we think congress needs to address immigration. we are a nation of immigrants who have come here but we also are a nation of laws and we need to uphold our laws and our nation. we also need to have an immigration system that allows people who want to come here and follow the law and be able to do that to be able to have a better quality of life to do so in a timely manner because it does take a long time to go through the process to become a citizen of the united states but i will tell you one thing that i am worried about is the times that the united states has criminal and i'm saying criminal illegal
illegal aliens are coming to the united states, kill people and kill people in and is releasing goes back, comes back like we saw in california. it was at terrible tragedy for nations that congress needs to get serious about taking up immigration reform are a nation to allow those who want to come here through our legal process to be able to do that and also needs to develop a system and to enforce a system of our laws if someone creates a crime that doesn't live united states.
[applause] we are going to show you now yesterday senate or in relations committee hearing on the iran nuclear deal. republican members told secretary of state john kerry that the administration was -- and negotiations by iran. secretary kerry is joined at the witness table by energy secretary ernest moniz and treasury secretary jack lew. this is about four hours. [applause] [applause] >> the committee will come to order. [inaudible conversations]
>> i want to thank the witnesses for being here today and we look forward to a folsom hearing. want to thank all of those also who are in attendance. i know there was a little bit of an outbreak prior to his convening. we thank you for being here. we do hope you will respect that now the meeting is in order outbursts of any kind are unwarranted and will respect the democratic trust us that is taking place here. so again we thank you for being here and we also thank you for your courtesy as we move ahead. i and other witnesses have agreed to be here as long as we wish so we will start with a seven minute questions. i do know based on last night's presentation that sometimes there's a tendency for witnesses
to want to interject and what i would say is obviously we conduct their meetings with a lot of respect and courtesy and i would just ask the witnesses if they would to respond directly to the question from senators on both sides of the aisle as if they -- when you ask it directly to a witness get them to respond and if someone else wants to interject that can indicate they want to do so but senator should feel free to say this or that witness and move onto the next to make sure we don't end up in a filibustered situation and we are able to fully get her questions answered answered. i want to start the day by thanking our committee. we would not be here today, we would not have the information that we have today if we had not passed the iran nuclear agreement review act. this would not taking place.
i think the american people now understand what this debate was all about. when congress put in place sanctions to bring iran successfully to the table as we did, we granted the executive branch something called a national security waiver and what that meant was the executive branch have the ability to waive our congressionally mandated sanctions to suspend them until such a time as we permanently waved them down the road. as you know unfortunately, over the objections of senator cardin and myself unfortunately the executive branch went directly to the united nations this monday morning. something that certainly was not in the spirit of this but this is what was eyes intended. i do want to say that while secretary kerry has often said
congress will have the ability to weigh in at some point in time prior to this law being passed in causing this hearing to happen today we now read the agreement and realize what he meant was eight years from now we would have the opportunity to weigh in because that is what is stated in the agreement created i want to thank everybody all 19 members for coming together unanimously making that happen and giving us a role. it's a heavy lift as we know but a role that would not exist prior to that passing. i would like to say where the briefing last night and i left there and talk to members on both sides of the aisle. i was fairly depressed after last night's presentation. with every detail of the deal that was laid out, our witnesses successfully batted them away with the hyperbole that it's either this deal or war. and therefore we were never able
to appropriately question or get into any of the details because every time we did it was either this deal or war. so i believe that to be hyperbole. i know the secretary last night pulled out a letter that was written in 2008 by the pirate administration. i don't don't know he will refer to that today but as i thought about it weighing last night in that i realize what he was really pointing out in that letter was unless we give iran what they want x. that is what that letter was used for so let me just walk through that. we even turn incredible journey. we began 20 months or so ago with a country that was a rogue nation that had a food on its neck and our goal was to dismantle their program.
we ended up in a situation where the deal that is on the table basically codifies the industrialization of the nuclear program. it's amazing amazing transition that has occurred and yet everyone here, not a person in this room including our witnesses, everyone here there is not one practical need for the program, not one. we have not had a single scientist, not a single witness ken lay out any reasoning, not a single reason for iran to be developing this program from the standpoint of what it means to them, not one. nine months after this agreement goes into effect we realize that after monday's u.n. adoption and congress intervenes 90 days this will be implemented and six months after that and total nine
months from now all of the sanctions that exist against iran will be lifted. incredible. or will be a few remaining sanctions but the big ones that matter will be lifted. so i have access to billions and billions of dollars. tara conner may well be growing and they will be shipping oil around the world. it's an amazing thing and so what happens i think all this figure this out. right now we have some leverage but nine months from now to leverage shifts to them because we have a sanctions that back. if we ever tried to apply that they have a nuclear stand that create the way to deal a structured they can immediately just begin and say if you add sanctions we are out of the deal. they can immediately snap acts of the leverage exists for now. the practical military dimensions i think of us call it
the previous military dimensions because we know they were involved in that basically that has no bearing, no bearing for the agreement. i know our witness will say if we don't deal with this properly want implement but according to the agreement it has no bearing whatsoever on whether the sanctions are removed or not and yet that was such an important piece for everyone to know. any time anywhere inspections. we had witnesses last night that said i never said that. it's been part of it since day one and a part of their mantra from day one anywhere, anytime inspections. now we have a process that they are to clearing is 24 days but we all know that's not right. that begins after the iaea has violations that they are concerned about and then you give a long time to respond to that and by the time it takes and there is the 24 day process but it could be months and as we know in laboratories when you
are developing a nuclear warhead that's about this big it's very easy to cover things up like that and all the focus has been on finding uranium. there are other aspects to this that are very difficult to find. they have said this is a comprehensive inspection regime. that is not true. i have talked to secretary of state and others. we had a far more comprehensive inspection program in iraq, far more and it certainly didn't serve us particularly well. we have written a letter asking for additional materials that we don't now have. one of the items we don't have is regarding the agreement between iran and the iaea and my sense is we are never going to get that letter said the inspection into the that we are
their own urine specimens in the mail and us believing that's where it came from them. so, look, i've got some questions. we're going to talk a little bit about who we're dealing with here. most of us have been to iraq many times. every time we went to general odierno in baghdad we would have on his coffee table aifp's. they were used to maim and kill americans. they were made the ieds. they were laying there on the coffee table every single one of them made by iran. once we developed the technology by the way to counter that what they did next was developed something called in the efp
explosively formed penetrator. now what they do is they have an explosion that heats up copper to go through piece of machinery to maim this -- this member of americans. this was all iran. every single bit of it. we have all been out to walter reed and visited these incredible heroes that have lost in some cases to arms and a leg. some cases to legs and to arms. we see them all over the country. they are living with this today. this is a country that we are dealing with, a country that created some of the most disturbing types and methods of maiming americans. they killed an ambassador in washington d.c. not long ago.
.. had taken photographs of the syrian presence, which by the way, iran supports. syria would not even be in office if it would not be for iran. we went over -- many of you have seen it on the internet. it's an amazing thing. it's happening right now by the way, as we sit. some people might say, well, that was iraq and i don't know should we have been there or not? do you understand that? people's genitals right now being amputated. people being electracuted. this is happening this very
second in a prison in syria that iran is supporting. some would say we have not done as much as we could to stop it because of these negotiations. i wasn't a good student at first in college. but i learned about the critical pack method and built buildings all over the country. i learned you start with something, have a vision, and build it out beginning with the end in mind and put first thing first. that is the critical pact. what i have seen our secretary do is i know we developed a tremendous warrant with iran's foreign minister. what i have done in the
negotiation negotiations is codify a pathway pathway. i don't think you could more perfectly lay it out. from my perspective, i am sorry, not unlife a hotel guest that leaves only with a bath robe on its back, i believe you have been policed. in the process, what you have really done here is turned iran from being a pariah to now congress
but i guess the other countries wouldn't come along. i know you speak to a degree of disdain about partners when you describe their reaction if we had dealt with dismantling their nuclear program they would not be responding in the way they have. not only has this not occurred, in addition we are lifting the missile embargo in eight years. i have no idea how that entered into the equation. this is going to be done in an acute way. unbelievable. we are immediately lifting the
ballistic missile testing program. we are lifting that man. i believe we have crashed a new threshold in u.s. foreign policy where now is the policy of the united states to enable a state sponsor of terror to obtain sophisticated, industrial nuclear program that has as we know only one real practical need. that is what you are hear -- here today to ask for. senator carter? >> first mr. chairman, thank you for convening the hearing. i want to thank secretary kerry and your entire negotiating team, who have devoted the last two years to negotiating with iran. an incredible service to our
country, and incredible sacrifice to their families. we thank you very much for your dedicated service, your hard work, and what you have given in your service to america. the iranian nuclear review act that senator corker referred to passed earlier this year was an effort by the members of congress to set-up the review of the deal are iran. we are pleased after difficult negotiations we were able to get a vote of the committee to get the support of the white house and we believe we accomplished two major objectives in passing that statue. first, of course we set-up the appropriate review for congress. it allows us to take action. or we don't have to take action.
it recognizes the fact that the sanctions regime was passed by congress and we have a role to play in regards to implementing any agreement as we now see in the jcopa that congress has a role to play. it setup an orderly process and this hearing is part of that. it took you two years to negotiate the agreement and two months to get to the final deal. this is day four of our 60 day review. i have not reached conclusion. and i would hope the members of the congress would want to get all of the information, allow those who were directly involved to make their case we have hearings setup next week and the following week and we will get outside experts, many of us have taken advantage of that opportunity in the past. i would hope we used that
opportunity before drawing a conclusion. this is a very important agreement from the point of view of u.s. foreign policy. iran in the region is important to the united states' security. but there was a secretary objective to the iran nuclear review act. and that is to focus all of our effort on the bad guy: iran. and speak with unity as much as we could in the united states. so our negotiators could focus on viena and not on washington in dealing with getting the very best possible agreement. and i am going to tell you mr. chairman, i looked at the framework agreed to in april, and looking at the final agreements we have gotten today, and our negotiators got an awful lot. particularly on the nuclear front which is beyond by
expertise. we got things that have been strengthened since the april framework. so i just want to applaud our negotiators are taking the strength of the unity and turning it into results. we will be talking about that as we go forward. the objective is clearly to prevent iran from every becoming a nuclear weapon power. that is our simple objective. we know who we are dealing with. this is a state sponsor of terrorism. this is a country that abuses human rights and violates the ballistic missile area. we know all of that. but we singlary are trying to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power because we
know that is a game-changer in the region. that is the objective of this agreement. and the standards we have to use, because there is no trust in iran supreme leader on friday after the agreements were entered into said we will trample upon america. we don't trust iran. but we have to leave amotion out of this. this will put us on a path that makes us more likely iran becomes a nuclear power. i hope these answers help us make the right decisions. since there is no trust, the inspection enforcement regime is
particularly important. we need to understand how it works. do we have sufficient time to discover if iran is violating the terms of the agreement in order it take action to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear power? we need to know the breakout times. we need to know what happens after the time period. do we have sufficient opportunity to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon. are the inspections strong enough to deter iran from cheating and if they do we need to know if the 24 hour delay, knowing what iran is likely to do does it compromise our
ability to have proper inspections? i hope our witnesses deal with that today because that is a matter of major concern. have we cut off all pathways for iran to obtain a nuclear weapon? particular the covert operations? we know that is a major concern. that is why the pmd is particularly important. the chairman mentioned the pmd and the work that the iaea and inspectors in that international expectance. they have great creditability in this area. but we will want to know whether they have the capacity to do what we are asking them. will they have the access we need? we do need to know about the military dimension in order to go forward and obtain any opportunity they may use for preferred opportunities. these are questions that we are going to ask.
we have read the agreement. we still have investigations and hope we will get answers as to whether we have effectively prevented iran from using the covert activities to develop a nuclear weapon. will this agreement provide us iae with sufficient access the people, place and documents so we know their prior military dimension? are the snap back provisions for reimposing sanctions adequate if iran violates the agreement? at the end of the time limit in the agreement, iran has the capacity to expand out to an industrial capacity with nuclear and uranium enrichment. do we have sufficient capacity knowing their commitment for
non-proliferation and the protocols, is that adequate to prevent iran if they try to become a nuclear weapon state after the time period that we have sufficient tools to prevent that? these are questions we need to have the answers to. there are other areas. i want to be reassured the united states stands against the human rights behavior. no one expects iran's bad behavior to change on implementation date. will we be able to use the powers in the past and build on them to take action against iran, particularly in light they will have additional resources, can we do that? and can graze work with the administration to strengthen
those tools without violating the jcpoa. i want to know how the administration is updating the policy against nefarious activity and how we will counter iran with partners. the chairman mentioned the lifting of the international arms embargo. that is a great concern on what impact it will have on regional partners. how will that impact an arms race in that area of the world? these are answers we need to make the best decision we can. and last week let me mention this because i think it is critically important, what is the option if the united states walks away? how will we be received internationally? will be able to keep up the sanctions with international partners? will iran come back to the negotiating table with a country that walked away from an
agreement? these are questions we need to know. we need to know the options right now and what are the consequence consequences we don't go forward. we have a full plate and i look forward to hearing from witnesses and i hope we will use the information to paint the issue, take the time we have and do what is right for the american people and ultimately make the decision we think is best to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power. >> thank you senator. i aprecate -- appreciate the way we worked on issues. i know the witnesses here need no introduction. they are known around the world and in spite of our policy differences i think each of us deeply appreciate this. we deeply appreciate the effort
put out in this country. we thank you for being here and thank you for being here as long as it takes. i would like to introduce secretary john kerry who used it serve with us secretary moniz, and secretary lew. thank you for your service to the nation in spite of the concerns. i think you understand the drill. take five minutes or so to explain as i looked at your testimony, i know it is brief.
but with that, secretary kerry. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking members, members of the committee and former colleagues. we appreciate the chance to discuss the plan we and our partners developed with iran regarding the future of the nuclear program. let me emphasisze this isn't just the united states of america. it is france britain, russia china and they have a pretty good understanding of this deal and of the challenges. and i appreciate the way in which they and germany which is plus-one all came together all
contributed, all were part of the debate. this isn't just what this table negotiated but the international community, the p5-plus 1 negotiated. and they are not dumb. they are experts in nuclear technology ratification verification and spent a lifetime on this. i am joined by two cabinet secretary members whose help was vital and i thank all of you as the role congress played. i was pleased to be the chairman of the committee bewhen we passed the iran sanctions. we passed it unanimously and it played a significant role in bringing iran to the table and making it clear we needed to bring about a serious and productive negotiation with iran. from the day those talks began,
we were crystal clear we would not accept anything less than a good deal. and we could find it up front, as the deal that closed off the four pathway do is a bomb. the covert a platonium and uranium. after two years of intensive talks, the facts are crystal clear. the plan that was announced last week in vianna does provide us with guarantees through the lifetime and participation of iran. some people are saying we have giving iran what they want.
folks, they have watt they want. they got it ten years ago or more. they conquered to the fuel cycle cycle. iran had enough material for 10-12 bombs when we started the talk. 19,000 centrifuges up from the 163 they had in 2003 when the prior administration was engaged with them on this topic. this is a question of how do you hold the program back? how do you dismantle their weapons program. not the whole program. we set out to dismantle their ability to build a nuclear weapon. and we achieved that. no body every talked about
dismantling that program because that is when they went from 163 centrifuges to 1900. every here knows the options for actually stopping that. full military action. because they are not going to stop it otherwise. they proved that during all of those years. iran is going to destroy 98% of their stock pile and dismantle two thirds of the installing centrifuge and take out the existing water reactor and fill it with concrete and agreed to reframe from producing weapon grade uranium for 10 years.
if they begin to do that we will know it immediately. iran agreed to accept the additional protocol and the additional protocol is outgrowth of the failure of the north korea experience which put in additional access requirements precisely so we do know what iran is doing. and they have to ratify it before the un sanctions are lifted at the end of this process, they have to have passed it in. they have agreed to live by it from day one. they are going to live by the additional protocol. if iran fails to comply we will know it. and we will know it quickly and we will be able to respond accordingly by reinstituting sanctions all the way up to the
most serious options we have today. none of them are off the table at any point in time. many of them are not just there for 10 15 or 25 years but they are for life forever. as long as they are in the npt. north korea pulled out of the npt. iran has not. remember when the nugaucheotiationnugotiations began we were facing 20% producing at a secret place and were stock piling enriched uranium, building a heavy water reactor that could produce
plutonium and could produce a weapon in about two or three months. if this deal is rejected we return immediately to this reality. except the diplomatic support we built with other countries would disappear overnight. let me underscore. the alternative to the deal we have reached is not what i have seen adds on tv suggesting. it isn't a quote better deal. some sort of unicorn arrangement involving iran's ending. that is a fantasy. and our own intelligence community will reinforce that to
you. the choice we face is between an agreement that will insure iran's nuclear program is limited, rigorously scrutinized or no deal at all. that is the choice. the fact is 189 nations live by the npt. five of them as we know the main nuclear powers of the un and 184 are non-nuclear in power. but they live by it. and we have lived with respect to what is insuring all of the 184 nations are doing including 12 that enrich.
it will be full speed ahead with a water reactor and install more efficient centrifuges and do it all without the unprecedented inspections and transparency measures we have secured. everything we have prevented will start taking place. and all of the voluntary roll backs of their program is undone. moreover, if the united states after negotiating with five other partners walked away from those partners we are on our own and our partners will not walk away. they will walk away from the sanction regime they put in place and we will have squandered the best chance to solve the program through fese peaceful means.
the president made it clear this is the only way guaranteeing that. they have developed the ability to produce the material for a bomb. and we cannot bomb that knowledge away. nor can we sanction the knowledge away. sanctions didn't stop iran's program from growing that it acquired enough material to produce the weapons. it didn't chose to produce them. unlike north korea that created a nuclear weapon exploded one and pulled out of the ntp.
this plan provides a stronger comprehensive lasting means of limiting iran's nuclear program than any alternative that has been spoken of and if we walk away year '15 and '16 starts tomorrow without safeguards we have put in place. over the past year i have spoken at length about what exactly this deal is and what this deal was never intended to be. first of all, as the chief negotiator, i never uttered the word anywhere any time no was that part of the discussion we had with iranians. this plan was designed to
address the nuclear issue. the nuclear issue alone because if we got caught up with other issues we would never get to where we needed to be to stop the program. it would be staying there forever. negotiating one aspect or another. and the highest priority of president obama was to make sure iran couldn't get a nuclear weapon. we were disciplined in that. and i have information about how we will push back against the terrorism terrorism. i have news for you. pushing back against an iran with a nuclear weapon is different from pushing back against iran without one.
we are guaranteed they will not have one. we are working with the gulf state in saudi arabia and the prime minister said iran's nuke deal appears too the provisions necessary to curtail iran getting a nuclear weapon. the forn minister of iran is going to be in the emirates this weekend. i will tell you, none of these challenges will be enhanced if iran gets a nuclear weapon. so the outcome cannot be guaranteed by sanctions alone.
i wish it could. but it can't be. it can't be guaranteed by military action alone. we believe we will show you this today and the deal ahead that this deal will make the country and allies safer and make sure the program remains under intense scrutiny forever and we will know what they are doing and insure the world community is united. we believe this is a good deal were the world. a good teal for america. a good teal for allies and friends in the region and we
believe it does deserve your support. >> thank you, secretary moniz. >> thank you, chairman secretary, and member of the committee. i appreciate being able to come here and talk about the deal reached between the plus three and iran. it prevents iran from getting a nuclear weapon providing verification methods and time to respond to iran violates this and takes no options off the table. i want to stress the experts northeast department of energy and laboratory was involved. we have oak ridge's pacific north west y-12 complex and the kansas city plant all played important roles. these nuclear experts were essential to evaluating and developing technical proposals and support of the u.s.
delegation. as a result of the work i am confidant the technical underpinning are solid and we ready to assist in the implementation. the deal meets the verification of the iran program that is peaceful and significantly lead time to respond if otherwise. it will extend for ten years, the time it would take for iran to produce just the material for a first nuclear explosive to at least one year from the current break out time of two perhaps three months. the deal addressess the urani-- addresses the uranium and plutonioum production. this is the number type and location of centrifuges, dialing back the rnd program, dureducing
the enriched uranium stockpile. excess infrastructure is removed as well. all of these reasons establish the one year break out time for accumulating highly enriched uranium. and something we have not stressed but i want to add. at the end of the ten years, iran will have far fewer than 19,000 centrifuges because they acknowledge the breakage rate and they will not have a large replacement capacity because of the agreement. they will have no source of weapon grade plutonium and oversight to produce far less
plutonium and especially immediate recognition if they try to deviate from that practice. and all of the plutonium bearing fuel from the reactor goes out of the country for life. this deal goes beyond the parameters in a number of ways. one area is that iran will not engage in several activities that could contribute to the development of a explosive device including special neutron resources. these commitment are indefinite and they will not pursue plutonium or uranium metal urging. because they will not engage in this activity an additional
period shb should be added. the deal is not built on trust. it is hard nose requirements that will limit iran's activities and insure inspection and trance transparency. i can assure you this is not what they wanted. it is significant dialing back on the program. we will have access to all of the declared facilities. it could be an exception if military occupied but that is not the case here or at sites of concern. as far as the entire chain from the centrifuge manufacturing and operation and this access to the are anuranium commitment is beyond 25 years and after a quarter century of compliance, we still have additional protocol in
place to monitor iran's nuclear activities. modifying code 3.1 means they must notify the iaea before they start building a nuclear facility. this eliminates a loophole where one could do something covertly and say whoops we were planning to notify before bringing in nuclear material. they must do this in the planning stage so that is another thing beyond 25 years. the iaea is perimated to use real-time enrichment monitoring which is a technology developed by oak ridge who played a major role in this. if the international community suspects iran is trying to chief, the iaea can request
access to any suspicious location. much has been made about a 24 day process insuring access to inspectors. i would say that unlike secretary kerry i did say the words any time any where and i am pleased yesterday a member of your caucus acknowledged that the full sentence was any time any where in the sense of a with el el -- well defined process and end time. the iaea can request access to any suspicious location with 24 notice under the additional protocol. the deal was not changed. the issue is if there is agreement not reached then when the iaea request access there is a 24 day clock starts. this is a new tool of finite
time for resolving disputes with what we think is a short period of time and that is because of the confidence in dry mineral sampling and implement to detect microsopic traces of materials even after attempts are made to remove the evidence of activity on nuclear material. in february of 2003 the iaea requested access to a suspicious facility and it was denied and after the long delay, the samples revealed nuclear activity even though iran made a substantial effort to remove and cover up the evidence. we have conducted our own experiences to verify the ability to detect very summary small races of uranium.
the agreement will be implemented in phases as has been said already. some 10 years, 15 20-25 years, and the key transparency measures that stay beyond 25 years as i described, of course as long as iran is in the npt. if they are not in the npt every alarm bell would go off all over the place and appropriate actions would be taken. in closinging i want to acknowledge the tireless work of the negotiating team led by my colleague secretary kerry. the multi delegation agency worked together. and the eu-plus 3 displayed a remarkable cohesion throughout this complex endeavor. the continued collaboration and cooperation among the leading nations, in particularly the p-5 is really crucial to insuring iran complies with the jcoa to
avoid the international sanctions regime and other responses as well. i want to say the deal is based on science and analysis because of its deep grounding and exhaustive analysis carried out by scientist and engineers i am confidant this is good deal for america, allies and global security. iran is fathered from nuclear weapon capability all of the time with rather than without this agreement. look forward to discussion. >> secretary lew. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman, rank member and members of the committee thanks to talk about the comprehensive plan. a foreign policy decision of this magnitude deserves review.
i am confidant the review will show this will strengthen our national security and allies. the powerful array of sanctions on iran constitute the most effective sanctions regime in history. they demonstrated the cost of fluting international law and cutting them off from the world's market and crippling their economy. it the iranian company is 20% stronger had it remained on the pre-2012 growth. the administration has received bipartisan support of this committee and together we established a web of far reaching international sanctions that persuaded iran's leadership to come to the table prepared to roll back its nuclear program. international cooperation to achieve this pressure is vital. the world's major power is watt
is keeping a nuclear iran from developing. there are national level sanctions in american countries and adhered to the sanctions by countries around the world. the point of the sanctions was to change iran's nuclear behavior while holding out the prospect of relief if the world's concerns were addressed. once it is verified that iran breakout time is one year then sanction relief comes into effective. there is no signing bonus. to be clear, there is no immediate changes to un eu or u.s. sanctions. only if iran fulfills the agreements. of course we must guard against the possibility that iran does not uphold its side of the deal.
that is why if iran violates the commitments, we will be able to properly properly properly properly snap back sanctions. the united states has the ability to effectively force the reposition of those sanctions. even as we phase in nuclear sanctions relief we will maintain significant sanction that fall outside of the scope of a nuclear deal including the primary u.s. trade embargo. with limited exexceptions iran is continued denied access to largest market and we will main continue targeted sanctions against hezbollah, the destabling role in yemen, the backing of the assad regime the missile program and abuse at homes.
we will not be relieving sanctions on iran's revolution guard force or subsidies or their leaders. some argue the sanctions relief is premature until they seize these opportunities. i understand the concern. but iran's ties to terrorist groups are exactly why we just keep it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. the combination of those threats raises a nightmare. a nuclear armed iran is a far more menacing threat. if we cannot solve both concerns at one we need to address them individually. this will address the nuclear damage and allowing us to check more aggressively. walking away from the deal would lead the world leading sponsor of terrorism with a short and decreasing nuclear breakout time.
we must be realistic in understanding what sanction relief means to iran. iran's $100 billion constitute the country's saving not the budget analysis. we estimate after sanction relief iran will only be able to access half of the ereserves or about $50 billion because $20 billion is committed to china where it can't be spent and tens of billions are loans to the energy and banking sector. iran can't simply spend the usable resources as they will likely be needed to make international payment obligations like financing for imports and internal debt. the president was voted in on revitalization and faces a parallel to meet those
prophecies. he faces half a million in government obligations. iran is in a massive hole that will take years to climb out. we will aggressively target any benefit of iran financing hezbollah by increasing cooperation with israel and partners in the gulf. backing away from the deal would be a mistake. even if one believed that extended sanctions pressure was a better course than resolving the threat of iran's nuclear program that choice is not available. our partners agreed to impose costly sanction on iran to put a stop to the nuclear program. if we change our terms now and insist those countries escalate the sanctions and apply them to all of iran's questionable activities they would balk.
it sun realistic to think additional sanction pressure would force iran to totally end. it is impractical to believe to impose pressure after turning down a deal our partners believe was a good one. there is phase relief only after iran fulfilled commitments to roll back with a snap back for later if they break the deal. that is an overriding part of the deal and it should not be put at risk. not from the prosspect of iran nuclear program presenting a threat to iran and the world. >> thank you very much. >> it has been stated the united
states maintained its ability to impose sanctions to support terrorism and human right violations and ballistic missile issues. i read the jcpoa and there are several things of concern. let me read one. it is paragraph 29 where the parties will refrain from policy indended to directly affect normalization of trade and economic relations iran. secretary lew, i want to get your assurance we have full ability to use the tools of sanctions against iran for its support of terrorism, human rights and non-nuclear type of activities which include congressional action congress might want to take. >> senator, it was a matter of
extensive discussion in the nu negotiation negotiations and we made it clear we maintained the ability and were going to keep in place sanction on terrorism, regional destabilization and human rights violations. we are not lifting sanctions that are based on those authorities and not assigning entities that were designated for those reasons. we made it clear we have the right to put additional sanction in place to address concerns about terrorism and human rights -- >> you say we you mean congress or the united states? >> congress has authority in this area. i know there is currently legislation pending regarding hezbollah. we work with you on legislation. the thing that we can't do is we cannot put right back in place everything that was part of the nuclear sanctions and put a new label on it. we have rereserved the right to
address those continuing activities. >> the iran sanctions act expires at the end of 2016. we will still be in the jcpoa period of time where the snapback of sanctions is a viable edge against iran's cheating. congress may well want to extend that law so that power is available. is that permitted? >> i think it is expiration that is one thing. i think if it is well in advance it is another thing. the idea of coming out of the box now is different from what you do when it expires. >> let me ask, secretary, the question is why would that be? we will get to that though. secretary muniz, the 24 days you referred to and there are three types of activities that could
take place. it could be directly using nuclear material that is in violation and you have already addressed those issues. it could involve weaponization or research not providing nuclear material. with the 24-day delay those cases compromise the ability of whether iran is in compliance. >> the nuclear material has been addressed in this. when we go into the weaponization activities there is a spectrum there. for example, working with uranium metal is something that would still involve nuclear material. and i think we would have very very strong tools there.
my second priority on the weaponization list is explosive sources and i think there are quite a few and tall tale signs we would have access to. as we get into other areas, like computer modeling that is a different detection challenge. in all of these cases going to undeclared sites we will rely on intelligence capabilities and those of partners to be able to point the iaea to suspicious activities. there are non-nuclear signatures but it is more complicated. >> secretary kerry, i want you to elabate after the time limits and iran's obligations after the time limits on its nuclear
enrichment toward a weapon. i understand they have obligation under the non-proliferation treaty and obligations with the additional protocols, but could you tell us how much lead time we would have? what the breakout is like after the 15 years? what assurance do we have we can detect iran and nuclear powers after 15 years? >> throughout the entire agreement, it provides right of access. that is where the 24-hour of notice of access comes from and they have to respond. if we had any intelligence regarding suspicious activity, shared among all of the p5-plus
1 and israel and countries in the region we will have sourcing. they have to respond and if they don't we can put sanction or other action. >> after the 15 years? >> yes. we have a 20-year component as well that allows us televised tracking of the rotors on the centrifuge and a 25-year remarkable insight which is access and monitoring tracking of their life of the uranium cycle.
that is what we have to make sure they are doing. so we have day-to-day insight. under the agreement, a number of peal -- people called it a mace take those same people asked us to keep that in place two years later because it worked. and the fact is iran has lived up to every component of that over the course of the last year. they reduced the 20% uranium. nothing ends in 15 years. the size of the stockpile ends
and enrichment. the civil nuclear program requires enrichment at 5%. we would have insight that would know if they are beginning to go somewhere else. red flags go off everywhere. we will be all over it and able to respond. >> thank you. >> one quick note. because it is what could be a collateral benefit of this agreement is that going to
safeguards this is something the iaea want to have more broadly. so this is a first in moving toward cradle to grave. >> i might add there are other firsts that unfortunately we cannot talk about relative to procedures which i alluded to. i would say to mr. secretary, yes, people have said they would rather move to something worse but that doesn't mean that. >> i have the highest respect for you and the statement of we need the motion out of this. i could not agree with you more.
we go from the mantra of no deal is better than a bad deal. now we getting to we have to accept this or it is war. the mantra has changed dramatically. and after reviewing this anyone who believes this is a good deal joins the ranks of the most naive people on the face of the earth. when you are dealing with the people we are, with the history they have of cheating, anyone who says this is a good deal -- i know the justification is it isn't perfect. the word perfect shouldn't be used in the sentence with this agreement. it is not close to that. one of the most disappointing thing i joined the chairman in a closed hearing in this we have been told we have no choice in
this. we had them isolated and viewed as a pueriah. think about where the nugauche negotiation negotiations have taken us from a situation where we had iran where we wanted to them to now if we don't go along with this we are the isolated puryea character. we have to have verification. this is number one thing. everyone here knows that there is a site called parch. and parch was a subject of these negotiations and it was
designed and i heard the secretary say we will insure the nuclear ambitions are only for peaceful purposes. how does parch fit that? they were designed and operated as an explosive operating place where they designed a detonation trigger for a nuclear weapon. parch is staying in place. does that sound for peaceful purposes? let me tell you the worst thing is we cannot take samples there. iaea can't take samples there. they are going to test by themselves. even the nfl wouldn't go along with this. how can you have a nation like iran doing their own testing? i know secretary moniz said we
can watch it on tv. are we going to trust iran to do this? this is a good deal? this is what we were told we were going to get when we were told the don't worry we will be watching over their shoulder and put in place verifications that are bulletproof. we are going to trust iran to do their own testing? this is absolutely ludicrous. the one thing that bothers me incredibly about this is the billions of dollars iran is going to get. we have been briefed while they are in this horrible financial condition, and we have gotten them there, one of their national priorities is to support terrorism. they supported hezbollah, hamas, with financial aid, military aid and every kind of aid there is. everything we are trying to do in the world has their finger
prints on it trying to do us in. so these billions of dollars are going to be put back in their hands in about nine months. we were told yesterday it doesn't matter what we do. congress do your thing. it doesn't matter. because we don't have control over this money. actually it is the other people who were sitting at the table that have control over the money and no matter what we do they are going to release the billions of dollars. well, i got to tell you, this is a very heavy lift when you sleep at night and you say well i am going to vote to release $50 billion started at $100 billion but whatever it is knowing a portion of that money is going to be directly transferred to people who are going to be trying to kill americans and kill innocent people and are trying to kill our allies.
to be able to walk away from this is a good deal is ludicrous. with all due respect, you guys are bamboozled and the american people are going to pay for that. >> senator boxer? >> are they going to respond? >> my time is up, mr. chairman. i suspect we will hear lots of their responses. >> isn't their time built in for answers or comments? >> i am more than glad for you to take an answer. i want to make sure this is a full and fair hearing. >> let me start with the comment about naive if you start with a good deal. this is from the "washington post." how the iran deal is good for
israel according to israelis who know what they are talking about. i urge you to read it. it says here a host of prominent members of the country's security establishment have come out and supported the obama administration's efforts. in an interview this week with the daily beast, israel's top domestic security agency suggested israel's politician are playing with fears into fear full society. he praised the agreement to curb the threat. i don't think he is naive. he praised -- former chief of the mosad, israel's spice agency, hailed obama's victly. but folks, you throw it around. senator you said we had them exactly where we wanted them. 19,000 centrifuges? enough material for 10-12 bombs.
is that where we wanted them? what was the purpose of the sanctions? i was chairman when we passed the sanctions and our purpose was to bring them to negotiation negotiations. we have nugoingssh -- negotiated. and for the first 15 years you have restraints from them doing anything about making a bomb. at the end of 15 years, you have every option you have today. your decision is if you want those 15 years to be right now or take them and figure out whether or not this is going to work. that is really the choice. i don't know what you mean by we had them right where we wanted them. to what end? >> i do want to say iran has done a masterful job giving you
a talking point about the 19 centrifuges, 10 are operating, but we know they are antiques. so we talk about the number of centrifuges but this deal lays out their ability to continue research and development on the ir-4, ir-6 and ir-8 and in eight year they can industrialize that. >> for a peaceful program under the iaea. >> they said the ir-1 is their future and that is an antique and doesn't operate most of the time. they want to get rid of those. they did a master ful job on getting the west and others to focus on something that is of no use to them while they are able to draft an aagreementuh agreement that allows them to develop a program
that be be in a covert facility and enrich in level and pace they never imagined. >> if i may add, i must say every element of the program is rolled back in time. the fact is right now they are very active in all of these areas and it is significantly delayed. that is a fact. >> is it a fact in year eight they are given to time -- that is why the president said in year 13 there is zero break out. >> that is incorrect, fair position. i apologize for saying in year eight they are in industrial activity. it is a small cascade they can start to do years after their current plans. >> and many people thought it was going it take that long to have the capacity to do that.
they have been brilliant from a critical path standpoint. >> you ready for me? >> okay. colleagues, put me down as someone who thinks iran is a bad and dangerous actor and i don't think there is one person involved that doesn't believe that. that is why i believe we need to curb their nuclear ambitions. i think it is essential. and i don't think the american people want another war. and at the end of the day, i know some disagree with this i think that at the end of the day that is really the option which everyone tip toes around. now, you know i support the right of my colleagues to say
anything they want. you sat there and let colleagues go after you with words you were going to repeat. you were fleeced one said, you have been bamboozled the other said. so putting aside the fact i think that is disrespectful and insulting that is their right to do. there are other ways to express the disagreement. but that knows to the core of you as a human being and your intelligence and i think you are highly intelligence. so let me ask you, and if you could just answer yes or no i know it is hard for you secretary kerry to do so because we are senators and it is not our way. but then i can get through the rest of my list. so my colleagues think you were policed and bamboozled and that means everybody was fleeced and bamboozled. i want to ask you does the
united kingdom our strongi ally support this? >> yes. >> does australia? >> yes. >> does germany support the support? >> yes. >> does france support this? >> yes. >> does new zealand support this? >> i would say yes. >> they are on the security council and they voted for it. >> oh you mean in the vote? >> by voice support or vote. did jordan voice in their vote? >> yes. >> spain? >> yes. >> nigeria? >> yes. >> you get the drift. if you were bamboozled the world has been bamboozled. that is ridiculous unfair and wrong. you can disagree for sure with aspects of this agreement.
but i think we should stay away from that rhetoric. i have the agreement here and i read it and oning thing i was surprised to do. we want to re'firm the deal. that is one phrase. and another one is this one is number 16. iran will not engage in activities including at the rnc level that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device including uranium or plutonium and that is in support. one of the things i want to do is send out a message to rebunt.
lots of people i think are good people here but to those folks that are dangerous. i guarantee you the consequences are not going to be pretty and that is an important message that has to go out because they said it and the whole world is watching this. secretary kerry, i authorized the u.s. strategic partnership act and the u.s.-israel enhanced cooperation act and i am proud of that and president obama signed both of those.
you read this it is quite there are some who think this is the way to go. for this relationship with israel, at the end of the day i think this relationship is going to be more strengthened. i want to get your view on that. because i know that ash carter went to visit and how did that go. >> secretary carter went with the intention of laying out and finalizing with the defense minister and they had a day long meeting in many ways there is
dangerous dynamics of the region secretary carter went up to review what the threat is from isil and so forth. these are all things we prepared to push back on. we believe there is the potential of the line in the region. i will go going to speak with the gcc members to talk about the ways in which we can come together with israel and others. >> i just am -- i don't have enough time to check it out. and i wanted to ask you do you believe the sod saudi arabians
are going to support this? >> i met with the prime leader who was prepared to support it if certain things were going to happen and they are going to happen so i believe that. i don't want to be accused of being the person saying the choice is military or otherwise. the chief of the mosad also said quote anyone who followed events in iran in recent decades or studied the matter has to admit truthfully we never agreed iran would agree to discuss the issues never alone privy the measures imposed on them. the alternative is military strikes which would put the region in deeper threats and not
solve the problem he said. senator, there is a real potential for containing in the middle east, and a potential to have a confrontation. >> would you just thank wendy sherman? can you bring women into this? >> it was an incredible team. a team all across the government of the united states, and experts whose life is spent analyzing iran and nuclear proliferation coming from the intelligence department and state department and elsewhere,
all who worked together and believe me they are a savvy group of people and no body pulled any wool over their eyes. >> senator ruben? >> it was expected this deal is going to be rejected by majorities of both sides in the house. so as far as the administration is concerned this is a done deal. but i do think it is important for it world and iran to understand this is a deal whose survival is not guaranteed beyond the term of the current president. and by the way i personally hope the next president is someone who will remove the national security waver and reimpose the
sanctions passed. this deal is flaw and i believe it weakens the national security and makes the world a more dangerous place. throughout the process, this administration in my opinion is leaving out important items. it begins by allowing a perception to be created that we were pressing for any time inspections and denying that was part of the promise now. there was a perception created among my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we were pressing for anywhere, anytime inspections. then the snapback sanctions are hollow. we have this complicated 24-day arbitration process that iran is going to test and exploit over and over again. they realize, they know once the international sanctions are gone they will be impossible to snapback. it has been bragged once the structure of the sanctions
collapse it will be impossible to reconstruct it. he bragged earlier this week incremental violations wouldn't be proscubitecuted. iran will be allowed to continue to develop long range missiles that only know one purpose and that is nuclear warfare. so all of these promises you are making about never pursuing a weapon are reveal as lies when they are developing a long rage rocket capable of reaching this very room one day not so far in the future. there is only one reason to develop those rockets and that is to put a nuclear war head on them. this deal provides billions possibly hundreds of billions to a regime that directly threatens the interest of the united states and our allies.
and nothing holds them accountable for human rights. they are being rewarded for the human rights record. i know you said you brought up the american hostages and i am thankful for that. this deal has brought no new information regarding their loved one's whereabouts or does nothing for the "washington post" reporter whose brother is with us in this room today. in fact you personally met and negotiated with an iranian official who who pressed on the case lied to the world saying we don't jail people for their opinions. this deal does nothing for the marine core sergeant who dictated a letter from evan prison that said secretary kerry is sitting with iranians and shaking hands and offering economic concessions to save them from economic meltdown as
iran as hostages. it does nothing for the pastor who was jailed for practice his religion. they want to continue to jail and execute people and hate israel is seek to wipe the jewish state and people from the planet and want to spread mayhem throughout the united states and want to help assad. secretary kerry i do not fault grow trying to engage in diplomacy and striking a deal with iran. i do fault the president for striking a terrible deal and i hope enough democratic colleagues can be persuaded to vote against this bill. even if the bill isn't defeated the iranian regime should know this deal is your deal with iran. yours and this administration. and the next president is under no legal and moral obligation to
lib up to it. the majority of members of this congress don't support this deal. if you are a company today and after the deal is signed go into iran and build a manufacturing facility and then the next president of the united states lifts the national security waiver or iran violates the deal, do the sanctions apply against that facility moving forward? in essence, if a company goes into iran now after the deal builds a manufacturing facility of any kind, they build car batteries, and then iran violates the deal, and the sanctions kick back in will that facility be able to continue to operate without facing sanctions? >> senator, if a company backs to go into doing business with iran while the sanction are lifting.
>> so it is important for companies anywhere in the world to know that whatever investment they make in iran they to know that whatever investment they make in iran they risking it, and they are betting on the hope that iran never violates the deal and they are also hoping that the next president of the united states does not reimpose u.s. congressional sanctions by which they would become a sanction entity. one more specific question about the deal. there's a document that states those that negotiated the deal are prepared to cooperate with iran on the implementation on nuclear security guidelines and best practices and 10.2 reads cooperation through training and workshops to strengthen iran's ability to protect against and respond to nuclear security threats including sabotage and
physical protection systems. here is my question. if israel decides it doesn't like this deal and it wants to sabotage an iranian nuclear program or facility, does this deal that we have just signed obligate us to help iran defend itself against israeli sabotage or the sabotage of any other country in the world? >> the -- i believe that refers to things like physical security and safeguards all of our options and those of our allies and friends will remain in place. >> well, i guess that's my point. if israel conducts an air strike against the physical facility does this deal, the way i read it, does it require us to help iran protect and respond to that threat? >> no. >> it does not? >> no. >> the purpose of that is to be able to have longer-term
guarantees as we enter a world in which cyber warfare is increasingly a concern for everybody that if you are going to have a nuclear capacity, you clearly want to be able to make sure that those are adequately protected. but i can assure you, we will coordinate in every possible way with israel with respect to israel's concern. >> if israel conducts a cyber attack against the iranian nuclear program are we obligated to help defend them? >> no, i assure you that people will be coordinating closely with israel as we do on every aspect. >> that's not how i read that. i think we just have to wait until they get to that point. you know i listen to a long list of your objections here about it it, but there is no alternative that you are anybody else has
composed. >> i sure have secretary kerry. >> i have confidence that the next president will have enough common sense if it's being implemented fully they are not just going to arbitrarily ended. they might want to engage them find a way if they think there's a way to strengthen it but i cannot see somebody just arbitrarily deciding let's go back to where we were when they were completely free to do whatever they want without any inspections, without any input without any restraints without any insight. i don't think any president would do that. >> the status quo was already in relation. it was in violation of existing mandates and provisions including things they have signed on into the past. >> this deal brings them back into compliance senator. that's exactly the purpose of this deal. and if they don't live up to at every option we have today is on the table so we don't lose anything here. the way we would lose is by
rejecting the deal because then you have no restraints. you have no sanctions. you have no inside, you have no inspectors you have no viewing of their centrifuges and no reduction of their stockpile and if you want to just forget the fact that they have enough fissile material to build 10 to 12 bombs that's the threat to israel. if you go back to that without any alternative other than what most people think is going to be the alternative which is confrontation, nobody has a plan that has articulated is reasonable as to how you were going to strengthen this, do something more when the supreme leader of i ran and the president of iran and others believe they signed an agreement with the world. and the rest of the world thinks it's a good agreement. now if you think the ayatollahs going to come back and negotiate again with americans that is fantasy.
you are never going to see that because we will improve it. we have 535 secretaries of state who can do with anybody and that's going to undo a whole bunch of efforts and a whole bunch of things that matter to people in the world. that is what is at stake here. >> thank you mr. secretary and just to ensure i have a properly address the situation i want to refrain and say that we have been not directed at any individual. i do want to say one of the ways we have brought them into compliance is that we have a great -- agreed to let them do what they are doing and to let them do it on and industrialize basis so i will have to say that is that we brought them in to compliance. >> with senator this is a very important point because we are not alone in this folks. the bush administration repost the same thing.
this is not something president obama dreamed up and thought was a good idea june 12 of 2008 president bush and through condoleezza rice signed a memorandum with the p5+1 said that in return for iran doing things with the nuclear program here is what we are ready to do right nice iran's right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. that's all we are doing retreat iran's nuclear program the same manner as that of any nonnuclear weapon state party in mpt in the exclusively peaceful nature as restored. provide technical and financial assistance for peaceful nuclear energy including the state-of-the-art power reactor support for r&d and legally binding fuel supply. improve relations with iran and support iran in playing an important constructive role in international affairs. think about that.
work with iran and others in the region on confidence-building measures and regional security. reaffirmation of the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force. corp. on afghanistan steps towards normalization of. and economic normalization's. civil aviation corporation assistance in iran's economic and social development. all of that was offered by president george w. bush june 12, 2008 but it didn't happen. >> you are sort of filibustering here. the one element that you left out that they did not agree to was allowing them to enrich so if i could. senator menendez. >> thank you mr. chairman. let me start off by saying that i appreciate the enormous work and the arduous quest that you have been in pursuit of and i think no one would want to be
applauding you more than i who has been following iran since my days in the house of russian relations committee 20 years ago and in the office of sanctions regime recognize to bring iran to the negotiating table however i am concerned that the deal enshrines for iran and in fact commit to the international community over time to assisting iran in developing an industrial scale nuclear power program complete with industrial enrichment. while i understand the program is going to be subject to iran's npt obligations i think it fails to appreciate iran's history of deception and its nuclear program and its violations of the npt and it will in the long run i think make it harder to demonstrate that iran's program is not in fact being used for peaceful purposes because iran will have legitimate reasons to have advanced centrifuges and an
enrichment program. we will then have to demonstrate if in fact that is the case it's intention is dual-use and not justified by its industrial nuclear power program. that's a much more difficult burden. now mr. secretary u. have always been skeptical about sanctions. when you are chairman of this committee and a hearing on sanctions legislation that i was authoring when the administration was vigorously vigorously arguing against it your comment was to wendy sherman and david collins what you are really saying is this is a blunt instrument which risks adverse reaction as opposed to a calculated effort. so in that hearing every member had to come back because i didn't expect that even the question of the amendment was going to come up trying to
excoriate. was embraced as a reason to come back to the negotiating table. so let the ask, under the sanctions heading of the agreement paragraph 26 says and i quote, the united states administration acting consistent with the respective roles of the president and the congress will refrain from reintroducing or reimposing sanctions specified which is the sanctions at this committee and congress passed that has ceased applying so secretary lew i read that to mean that we cannot reintroduce our reimpose the existing sanctions congress passed into law. is that right? >> senator we have been very clear that we retain our right
and we will if we need to reimpose sanctions for reasons that are not nuclear if they live with the nuclear agreement and violate others. >> i'm talking about existing nuclear sanctions which expired this year. it snapped back provisions are to be an effective deterrent is the administration has suggested of iranians breaking the agreement will the administration agreed to support the reauthorization of the existing sanctions that passed the senate 99-0 and which expire next year? yes or no? >> let me be clear that the sanctions that are being lifted if iran complies, if they comply we said we would not reimpose nuclear sanctions if they live with a nuclear agreement is. >> i know but my point is this. if you are going to snap back it up to snap back to something. if you are not snapping back senator.
please don't eat up my time with all due respect. if in fact the sanctions which exist which you heralded and brought iran to the table expire next year and 2016 and we don't reauthorize it there is nothing at least in that context to snap act to so why won't you simply say that the administration supports under all the same provisions including the presidents waivers the reauthorization of the sanctions so the iranians know if they violate that the snap back will also include snap back to what the congress passed? >> senator what i said earlier is that right now sanctions remain in effect. we have a regime in effect. if iran complies we will lift sanctions and it's premature to talk about extending the law. >> it expires next year. iran's authorizations go out
eight years before the ratification of the protocol not ratification only takes place if the congress lifts the sanctions so i don't understand how we ultimately have a credible belief that snap that means something if in fact you are not going to have the ability to have the sanctions in place. let me ask this to the secretary. is the president willing to make a clear and unequivocal statement not that all options are in the table because iran does not believe that's a credible military threat. i think you asked our intelligence community that is what they would say to you that under no circumstances will iran be permitted to a choir and nuclear weapon. secretary kerry. did you hear my question? >> i apologize. >> this is my question. is president obama willing to make a clear and unequivocal statement not that all options are on the table because i think
if you talk to our intelligence people they will say they don't believe there's an incredible military threat that iran under no circumstances will be permitted to choir a nuclear weapon? >> absolutely. he has said that. >> he said all options on the table and i hope make that clear. >> the president has said very clearly under no circumstances will they be allowed to get a nuclear weapon and i think in fact ash carter reiterated specifically that very thing. >> i'm sorry. i have limited time. >> is worthy. mr. secretary let me ask you this. i'm seriously concerned about the lifting of the arms embargo but creeps its way into this deal. as i read the security council resolution on page 119, the ban on arabian ballistic missiles has -- the new security council resolution is quite clear. iran is not prohibited from carrying out a listed missile work.
the resolution merely says quote iran is called upon not to undertake such activity. now previously, in security counties resolution might -- 29 the council used a mandatory language word said quote decide that iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. why would we accept in theory a language that changes the mandatory shall to a permissive qualifier? we often call upon a lot of countries to deal with stop certain actions in the u.n. that doesn't have the force of shall not switch has consequences if you do. can you answer simply, is iran banned them from ballistic missile work for the next eight years? >> is v no.
>> do you want an answer senator? >> guess i will. >> the exact same language that is in the bark was in the agreement with the respective launches and that is under article xxv of the u.n. and that is exactly where it is today in the language. but in addition to that iran did not wanted and we insisted on it. they are restrained from any sharing of missile technology purchase of missiles technology exchange of missile technology to my work on missiles. they cannot do that under article xli which is chapter 7 and mandatory and it does have the language. >> i am reading to you from the security council resolution that was adopted, find the agreement. did that security council resolutions say mr. secretary
am reading explicit language. i'm not making this up. iran is called upon not to undertake that. b that's far different. that's exactly what it is today. that's the same language that is in the embargo now. if we transported to this, that's what it is. >> the same language as the security council 1929. i'm not sure you would keep the same language that is clear that you shall not them because they're shall not exist there are consequences if you do. mr. chairman final question i heard senator risch and i don't know whether it's true or not -- the whole purpose of understanding the military dimensions of what happened is not for iranians to declare culpability but in fact to understand how far they got along in their weaponization efforts. general hayden who is the cia director said we have estimates but they are just that. is it true that the iranians are
going to be able to take it means nothing if at the beginning what you are given is derived by the perpetrator. >> as you know senator that is a classified component of this. it's supposed to be discussed in a classified session. we are perfectly prepared to fully preview and classified session with respect to what will happen. secretary moniz has had his team team, red team that effort has made additional add-ons to where we are but it's part of a confidential agreement between the iaea and iran as to how they do it. the iaea has said that they are satisfied that they will be able to do this in a way that does not compromise their needs and that adequately gets the answers we need. >> my time is up but if that is true that would be the
equivalent of the fox guarding the chicken coop. >> senator i'm simply saying that we are confident they iaea has the ability to get the answers that they need and secretary moniz can speak quickly to that for a moment if he me but also -- did you want to say anything? >> as secretary kerry said this is a roadmap worked out between the iaea and iran. we do not have those documents as this customary confidential between the country and the agency but clearly they know that they must have and be able to articulate a process with integrity in terms of making the measurements and being able to analyze them do their own
laboratories and the network of laboratories including the u.s. laboratories that do the analysis of these kinds of samples. >> let me just say during the part of my seven minutes, you need to go down and have that done. it'll take about five seconds. you need to go down and meet with secretary moniz and get that answered. i would also add that we as a nation don't even have a copy. senator cardin and i asked for this. we don't even have a copy of the agreement to even understand. you will understand this very quickly in about five seconds with the secretary to ascertain on behalf of the american people
whether the iaea process which again you should go look into this part of it has any integrity so it's very disappointing and i know senator cardin and i -- >> this is a very important point and i agree with you the document in question are traditional between the country and they iaea and i kept confidential between the countries in this case iran and iaea but it's part of the possible military dimensions which are critical for a baseline in order to deal with moving forward so it's a very important part and from what we can tell when you get eyes on the document it may answer some of the questions. secretary moniz has reached colon -- conclusions and i think transparency will help us better understand that and i just open a confidential setting there will be an opportunity to review those documents.
>> we are going to move on. >> love me just make the comment rate how can that be confidential and why would that be classified? i can see iaea having those confidential agreements with normal powers. iran is not a normal nation to the largest state sponsor of terror and we rushed to the united nations, have this deal approved and we don't even understand how the samples are going to be collected under the chain of custody. it's unbelievable. secretary kerry i've heard this deal described as historic. i won't use vice president biden's full terminology but this is a big deal, correct? this is a big deal, right? >> it's an important agreement. >> during our and fortunately limited debate on the iran nuclear review act i offered a couple of amendments and try to operate third but one was to --
it's such abuse -- big deal to rise a level two-thirds of the senate should approve such a big start deal. that unfortunately failed. my next step in the process is let's deem this a executive agreement where you said both both chambers to be involved would have two of permanently approve this which is a simple majority vote. the third amendment i tried to offer really reflected what we actually ended up getting this convoluted process of a vote of disapproval which would have been a congressional executive agreement with a low threshold approval of only 34 votes. now the parliamentarian or purply said that is unconstitutional. yet that is what we have. my question to you is if you are so confident that this is such a great deal why wouldn't you have been supportive of allowing the american people to be involved
in the decisions through their elected representatives as to whether or not it was by allowing both chambers to have a simple vote of approval rather than this convoluted process which let's face it you are quite confident you are going to win this. you have run the united nations security council. convince me that what we are going through right now is just a big charade because i'm afraid that's exactly what it is but again please tell me why wasn't this if you are so confident such a great deal why didn't you allow this body, this congress the ability to at least affirmatively vote to approve this deal? >> it wasn't my decision. >> the administration certainly did not offer any kind of support for a more robust review process and you certainly circumvented this congress and i undermine every few process by having the security council approved this.
is that true? >> senator on the contrary this is a long time on her process for several centuries in the executive of political agreements between countries. >> this is way more than political agreement. secretary moniz if iran wants a peaceful nuclear program there is no reason for them to have to -- is there? >> well i think clearly there is uranium available. but it's also the case in many countries for their nuclear program. >> again there is no need for them to enrich. in the past when south african libya gave up their nuclear programs you welcomed into the world of nations anymore and eight -- normal fashion like iran supposedly would want to and they completely gave up. we dismantle them and that's what we demand it, correct?
>> certainly south africa the whole weapons program they had a weapons program that was dismantled. if i may add by the way relative to the last discussion the documents of the iaea in south africa in a full nuclear weapons dismantlement program remain confidential. >> are you familiar with the emp commission's 2008 report? >> no i am not sir. >> you are. >> you are not? do you know what emp is? >> you'll have to explain it to me. >> electromagnetic poles. >> oh i'm sorry whose report? >> the 2000 emp commission. >> no i am not come i apologize. i can respond for the record of the other question. >> i will send you a number of questions because the recommendations were for the department of homeland security. they held a hearing. are you familiar with
dr. richard garwin? >> yes absolutely. everyone is. >> he testified before committee yesterday with the cia former director james woolsey about the threat of emts and one of the reasons i thought i would hold the hearing is now what i believe in its disputable but no one knows how this will all game out that the inevitable conclusion is iran will have a nuclear weapon plus with a have ballistic missile technology. are you where the fact that iran has practiced ship launch using scud missiles? >> no i'm not sir. >> they have done that according to doc your peter vincent tried. an emt would be conducted like someone like north korea or iran of it would be conducted from a ship off of our coast using a scud missile and the fact that you ask the secretary of the department of energy are not
even aware of the 15 recommendations, basic recommendations things like evaluating implement with fixes in the event of an emp attack and the fact that richard garwin said literally 20 to $70 million we could protect 700 critical transformers that could help us recover from something like that. i am highly concerned. as the secretary of energy not even aware of these recommendations that were made public in 2008. seven years later in testimony before committee we have done nothing virtually nothing to address these 15 recommendations by the commission. >> first of all if i may say i don't know that report and clearly many of them must apply to dhs and the dod however if you look at our review published in april we do identify emp is a
risk to transformers and we are beginning to work on a respond to that. >> seven years later we have done virtually nothing to protect ourselves. my point being in lou will provide a number of questions on the record to make sure we start taking action on that but my final commenthave heard 50 billion to $104 billion in our terms doesn't seem like that much but it's 13% of iran's economy. for example if the american economy had an interjection of 13% that would would be $2.4 trillion so this isn't trump change. we have already scene exactly what kind of actor iran is on the world stage so again i can predict is holding up basically what this deal does is enter jack's tens of billions, 13% upfront of iran's economy into the economy of the large estate sponsor of terrorism so when
senator risch said we have them right where we want them i agree. this deal puts them in a far better position to strengthen their hands and from that standpoint i'm highly concerned. >> mr. chairman can i respond to the point about the randian assets? let's be clear what those assets are. it's not money we are giving to iran. it's iran's money visits and other countries that is locked up excessive and international sanction designed to bring it to the table to negotiate a nuclear agreement so all we have gone through is trying to analyze what that is, it's not us giving them money. if there is a nuclear agreement that meets the criteria that the sanctions were designed to achieve, that was the reason they were locked up. there are competing demands for whatever it is. we think it's about $50 billion. there are at least $500 billion
in demand. they can possibly scratch the surface of that need do we never said there wasn't going to be a penny going to those purposes. under the sanctions they have managed to find money and i would not exaggerate how much that's going to change things. the assessment that we have an art intelligence committee has said it will not be a change in that direction. it will be on the margin not on the increase you are describing. >> and by the way. >> senator shaheen i do want to say we haven't lifted our sanctions on the already gc which by the way has the nuclear file and is the entity that carries out all of the terrorism on behalf of iran. what we need we did was we lifted sanctions on all the financial institutions they deal with. they are going to be the number one beneficiary of the sanctions lifting so we didn't lift sanctions on them.
it's not like lifting sanctions on the holding company but we lifted sanctions on the entity that gave them the money. the economic growth in the shipment of oil and all the things they do will empower them. this is almost chump change compared to what will happen over the next decade to senator shaheen. >> mr. chairman we are not lifting sanctions -- it was sanctioned for reasons related to terrorism. >> any other banking entities and others that they rely upon we have. >> with entities that they violate the terms of our sanctions and our regime forces sanctions on terrorism we have not said that those sanctions are protected and in terms of the snap that the point that senator menendez ended up concluding is not correct. we have enormous tools to snap back sanctions do the ndaa
sanctions institutions. >> i would just like to move to senator shaheen by saying they disagree with that. great britain disagrees with that, germany disagrees with that, the e.u. i talked to about this last night. the tools that we have through the nuclear file are not available to be applied. senator menendez tried to pursue that and the other countries disagreed and as a matter fact the most accurate assessment of this deal from what i've been able to read has been coming from iran. >> that if iran violated the sanctions could come back and if they violate sanctions we have the ability sanctions on other grounds was not a fair conclusion that institutions have continued to engage in funding terrorism or regional destabilization are immune from the sanctions. it's just not correct. >> i stand by my assessment as
to the other countries who negotiated the deal. i'm just going to stop. we will get to you in the second. senator shaheen. >> thank you mr. chairman. and ranking member cardin. thank you to our witnesses for your testimony today into the negotiating team for the tremendous effort that it took to get us to this point. before you ask my questions, and i do actually have questions, i just want to say that i don't think it's to the benefit of this committee, this congress or the american people for any of us to impugn the motives or intellect of anybody involved in this discussion. i think people have strong views about how they feel and it's appropriate to express those views but because someone disagrees with you to suggest that their motives are not in the best interest of this
country or their intellect is questionable i think does not advance the debate in the way that it should be advanced cell mr. chairman i appreciate you and the ranking member and hope that we will keep this debate in a civil discussion. i also want to point out for the record that ended -- everybody on this committee voted for the iran nuclear review active 2015 and it was unanimous so while all of us had concerns about everything some of the provisions that were in that it was voted for by the committee unanimously. to go to my questions i want secretary mo needs to follow up on the issues that were raised with respect to the possible military dimensions of the past iranian nuclear activities. that's an area where i've certainly am not clear about how we can be confident that the
iaea is going to be able to get the information that it needs to complete its investigation so can you speak to that a little bit and talk about why you believe we are going to have the information we need? >> again senator all i can say is the iaea is very strong technically. i might add that every inspector since 1980 has been trained at los alamos national laboratory in terms of nuclear techniques etc.. they have a strong reputation that they need to guard to make sure they have a process with integrity. there is nothing unusual here. there is no side agreement. this is the way it works. the iaea to go sheets with the country but we have achieved in the negotiation to get iran to the table with them is without
satisfying the requirements by october 15 to satisfy the agency there will not be any agreement going forward. that's very clear so after years of stiffing them to be perfectly honest to use a technical term than what we have done is we have forced them to the table. they went to tehran not just the director general but the senior people who do safeguards etc. and they came back and feel that they have a process with integrity. in this environment i can only say and i would say flat out i personally have not seen those documents mr. chairman that the chairman referred to. with that we have assembled a national lab team to think through the process we anticipate and to recommend
steps that might mitigate any risks but again ultimately we rely upon the iaea. they will make a report and the director director general has committed to trying to get that out this year come of this calendar year and of course that report is where one will see what the conclusions are and what the basis for their conclusions are. >> can i get this to you somehow mr. chairman? this is the iaea roadmap a letter we submitted with all the documents to you but it lays out the agreement between iran and the iaea as to what they are going to do and when and how. >> that would be helpful and could we have introduced for the record? >> i would like that very much. >> and i also ask either before or after that report is produced will the intelligence community here or our other partner countries weigh in and assess
whether they believe that report reflects an accurate discussion of iran's past activity? >> i would have to defer to the intelligence community for their reaction but i can assure you that our d.o.e. experts are going to be looking over this very carefully. >> thank you and secretary lew and you commit that there will be no sanctions relief? i think you have said this but just to be clear again until iran has provided the iaea with this information and access that is required? >> absolutely and until iran has completed its obligations we will not be releasing any of the u.s. sanctions nor will the sanctions be released. >> i don't know who wants to respond to this either secretary monies are secretary kerry but at the time we began the negotiations what was the best estimates of our intelligence community about the time for
iran to break out with a nuclear weapon? >> the best estimate was two to three months. >> was their agreement among our intelligence agencies about that estimate? >> yes, pretty much. there was a disagreement with a couple of other countries but there was not disagreement in our intelligence. >> and as we look at the disagreement goes into effect is there an estimate from our intelligence community about how long it might take to get to a nuclear weapon at the end of this agreement if iran decides to pursue that option at the end of 15 years? >> the breakout time that is used in this investigation is a hybrid of a traditional understanding of rake out time. breakout time and arms control is usually referred to as the time it takes to get a weapon. we have been dealing with only
the amount of time it takes to get enough fissile material to produce one weapon. you still have to produce a weapon and most people don't guesstimate that the country's only going to be satisfied with one weapon so there's a lot of time beyond that. we have been operating with a huge safety cushion here and we will have one year of breakout time for fissile material for at least 10 years and then it begins to tail down but not as a cliff. it begins to tail down as we go through the next five years and then we are indeed arriving at a point where iran has hopefully achieved normal status in the npt and i say hopefully because of a haven't the agreement has not worked in the sense that they violated it and we have two step back and put sanctions back in place. >> again can you answer whether all of our intelligence agencies
agreed on that particular breakout theory or is there difference of opinion? >> our intelligence community and everybody worked on this very hard and precise formula which feeds then the most rapid possible rate by looking at the numbers essentially the amount of enrichment the capacity for in richmond and all the many factors. it's a complicated formula and everybody's in agreement as to where we are. >> it also includes capacity to rebuild all the infrastructure that they are taking out. i just might add beyond the 15 years where there are severe constraints like the stockpile in terms of visibility i remind you that for 20 years they are still a containment and surveillance activities for any centrifuge sensitive parts manufacturing. they will all be tracked labeled
etc. and after 25 years the uranium transparency so it's like follow the uranium and the centrifuges. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> i might have the present was clear there is zero break out and they began industrialization that your eight to. >> i don't agree with that mr. chairman. >> i hope you'll take these questions in the spirit they are given. i do want to play gotcha at all. i commend you all for the hard work that has been done but there is some disagreement here it seems with the text of the agreement as we read it and the explanation that is given. let me cover a couple of these points. number eight on adoption day in the annex of the implementation
plan iran will officially informed the iaea that effective iran will apply the additional protocol pending its ratification by the parliament rated and will fully implement modified code 3.1. we talked about the agreement although it's voluntary to live by the additional protocol. what happens if the parliament and first what is the timetable that is required by the parliament to address the additional protocol? >> senator they have to live by the additional protocol. >> understood that -- >> going forward they have a ears and within eight years to adopt informally that their material breach as of adoption day is they do not live by it and it's fully understood by everybody that i would be a material breach. >> but there is no timetable.
>> they have to do it within the eight years. >> okay so that's the timetable. second which is before the sanctions were lifted. you have the snapback capacity as a result. >> understood. >> december 2011 the president signed the anti-aa that included sanctions on iran's central bank bank. the sanctions penalized foreign financial institutions that were doing business with iran's central bank. these sanctions will ultimately be suspended because of the jcp oa. what i'm trying to understand that feeds off the question asked by senator cartons another another -- senator cardin and others acting consistent with the respective roles with the present of the congress will refrain from imposing the sanctions specified and annexed
to the edited cease to fly into the gpo it without prejudice to the dispute resolution process. this is what i think a lot of us are having a hard time reconciling here. what would constitute reintroducing reimposing sanctions -fest -- specified existing sanctions if because iran didn't violate the nuclear part of the agreement but for other reasons committed terrorism abroad abducted americans and we want to sanction them could we impose sanctions on iran's central bank because that would be similar to what was done before but it would be in a different comment text. would that be allowed or would that lead to some violation on our part of the agreement secretary lew? >> i'm going to take a stab at this because we have been going around on it and i want to try to if i can answer it does
positively first of all. we will not violate the jcpoa if we impose sanctions on iran for terrorism human rights missiles or any other non-nuclear reason. the jcpoa does not provide iran any relief from u.s. sanctions under any of those authorities are other authorities and i will go to some of those other authorities. what we have committed to do is quite specific. iran was fearful that having witnessed the desire within congress before sanctions that even if we cut an agreement you folks might turn around a day after and say too bad we are coming back with the same sanctions and then the president is in veto or override status or whatever. but they really wanted was clarity that we are not going to
reimpose the specific nuclear related sanction provisions as specified in annex two to the jcpoa contingent on them abiding by the commitments of the agreement. so it's really simply a clarification to them that we are not going to come back and slap them on again but that absolutely does not mean we are precluded from sanctioning iranian actors, sectors or any actions that circumstances warrant so all of our other sanctions authorities remain in place. they are unaffected by this agreement and ivana only said if you read what it says, that they would treat the imposition of nuclear related sanctions as the grounds to cease performing but they are clear and we are clear that we have all of the kinds of authorities and let me get specific on that because it's important for this whole debate
to be clear. even with the lifting of sanctions after eight years of missiles or five years on arms or the u.n. sanctions is only the u.n. sanctions. we still have sanctions. our primary embargo still in place. we are still sanctioning them and i might add for those things that we want to deal with in terms of their behavior, for instance hezbollah there is a u.n. resolution 1701 that prevents the transfer of any weapons to hezbollah. i will continue and what we need to do is make sure we oversee it rated. >> i think we have got that. i just want to make sure that if we say all right what was effective on iran what is really brought them to the table more than anything else in my view are the sanctions on the central bank has it's more difficult for russia china and other actors to help them evade the sanctions. if we want to impose penalties to deter them from terrorist
activity we impose sanctions on the central bank that won't be a material breach of the accord. >> one other question on the broader topic assuming this goes into you to reach out to the relative committees as the fromwork is put in place to make sure it can endure longer than just the first couple of years of the agreement. to have the international fortitude to move ahead, it's best to have congress involved. and there's -- there are many