tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN September 10, 2015 1:00pm-3:01pm EDT
which laws you want to enforce. >> have you talked about immigration and assimilation and the need for immigrants to want to be americans. how is american defined and who makes the definition? how can it be enforced? >> look, what i believe when it comes to immigration, a smart immigration policy can make our country stronger. a dumb one makes us weaker. a smart policy says, if you want to come, you should be an american. i'm tired of hyphenated americans. we're all americans. if folks don't want to be americans, we shouldn't allow them to be here in the first place. that's common sense. millions of people want to come here. why in the world wouldn't we pick those that want to be here? secondly, i think we should say folks that want to here shouldn't use their freedoms to undermine freedoms for others. they should learn the english, come here legally, roll up their sleeves and get to work. there's nothing wrong with your heritage and where your from. my parents came here legally. they came here to be americans.
they loved india, their background, that's where their families have been and are. the reality is they came here because they wanted their children to be americans. they didn't come here because they wanted their children to be indians. if they wanted that, they should have stayed home. my immigration is we let people in that make them stronger. we learn english, adopt our values, roll up your sleeves and get to work when you get here. >> what about this term anchor babies? >> i don't go out of my way to offend people but i think people are too sensitive. hillary clinton was offended by the term anchor babies but she won't use the term babies to describe what's going on in the planned parenthood clinics. in terms of the actual policy, what i think is important is secure the border. that's causing the problems. secondly people have asked, what about changing the policies, changing the laws for those coming here legally? i have no problem with that. i have no problem changing the
law for those coming here legally. i think it's foolish to treat people here illegally as those coming here legally. it helps to remove one more incentive to help those coming legally. let's start by securing the border. everyone talks about it it. we don't neat a 1,000-page bill. we don't need a gang of eight. you can get it done in six months if we were serious about it. wouldn't be perfect. we can get it done. the only reason we have a 1,000-page bill is to stack them up at the border. you don't need a 1,000-page bill to get this done. >> let's do a follow-up question on trump. you called him full of foolishness. what's the biggest policy difference between and you trump? >> it's hard to take him serious. he's for and against anything and everything in a given interview. he will change positions. donald trump is for donald trump. here's the biggest policy difference. bobby jindal is for the united states. i'm for making america great again. i'm for applying conservative principles. i'm for getting us off the path to socialism, rescuing the idea
of america. donald trump is for donald trump. donald trump is for making donald trump great. donald trump's not for making america great. it's a great slogan. i love the fact he took ronald reagan's idea of renewing america. it's a great theme. but the difference between us is i'm about applying conservative principles and fighting to save our country. donald trump is for donald trump. i is for and against anything and everything as long as it's for donald trump. >> trump took the pledge. if he's the nominee, would you support him as the republican nominee or would you consider endorsing a third-party candidate? >> the reason i'm here is to avoid that hypothetical. the reason i'm here today is he cannot be our nominee. him being our nominee results in one or two very bad scenarios. he immroedz, immroedz during the general elections, hands it to hillary clinton. secondly, if he were to miraculously win, maybe she implodes worse than he does and he gets elected, we have no idea
what he would do. we have no idea what he stands for, what he believes. he has no ideology other than trump. he's not serious. he can't be our next president. that's why i'm here to avoid that hypothetical. my message, by the way, it's not for the -- somebody asked me earlier, is this about the d.c. establishment or do i want the -- of the republican party to keep them off the debate stage? absolutely not. if the republican establishment attacks him, he only gets strong stronger. this is a message to conservatives saying, we have a chance to apply conservative principles. are we going to depend on our time-tested, proven principles or turn to a man who believes in nothing but himself? a narcissist, an ee goeg goe maniac, unstable, unserious man who only believes in himself. he's great entertainment value. he's great for laughs. give him his tv show. give him another tv show. i bet he'll have great ratings. but don't put him in the white house. don't put him in charge of supreme court nominations. don't put him near the nuclear codes. what makes him dangerous is he
could blow this opportunity we have to rescue our country. >> would you comment on the activities in congress on the iran nuclear deal. and should funding be with held to implement that deal even if it would result in a shutdown of the government? >> look, a couple of things. one, let's look at where we are today. this is an awful deal. but let's look where the senate is today. yesterday there were reports coming out that the senate may not even vote on this bad deal. now there's an act of courage for you. what was the point if we're not going to force every single senator to take a stand on where they stand on this very bad deal. secondly, the senate got conned by president obama. what do i mean by that? so, they signed this very bad bill that instead of a two-thirds vote the way it should be to approve a treat y it takes a two-thirds vote to reject this bad bill. only one senator had the courage to stand up against the cork erbil, and that was senator tom cotton. good for him. none of the other republican senators stood against this bad bill. not ted cruz, not anybody else
stood against this bad bill. so, instead, now what we've got is iranians conned president obama. president obama conned senate republicans. the only group he is apparently able to outnegotiate are senate republicans. everybody else takes advantage of him. dictators all over the world walk all over him. he's an easy mark for the castro brothers, for iran, for russia, for putin. the only people he seems to outmaneuvers are congressional republicans. you have the senate who got conned by president obama. now you've got others on the hill debating about whether they should -- for example, one of the debates is whether they should get rid of the so-called filibuster rule. should they exercise the nuclear option. what better time to use the nuclear option than actually prevent iran from becoming a nuclear power? you want to talk about a real nuclear power, that would be iran, the terror state becoming a nuclear power. american policy has been not to negative with terrorists. not only does president obama negotiate with terrorists, he negotiates badly with the largest sponsor, largest
state-sanctioned sponsor of terrorism, iran. so, absolutely they need to stand up to this bad deal and they need to do whatever it takes to kill this bad deal. won't stop with iran, by the way. once iran gets there, green light, you'll see the sunni countries, saudis, going to pakistan. we could start a nuclear arms race in the middle east thanks to this very bad policy. absolutely congress should do whatever it takes to stop iran from becoming a nuclear power. in part, that starts with stopping this very bad deal. >> questioner mentions many generals, including colin powell, support the deal and the european allies are on board. does that acknowledge that this deal really is a touch call and why are so many people of prominence supporting it if it's going to be so detrimental? >> i'll do something unusual. i'll agree with president obama for once. let's go back and remember what he said a good deal would look like. he said all along, when you
remember way back when, this was going to involve iran giving up sent fujss, iran giving up enriched uranium, giving up any time, anywhere inspections. we didn't get those things. instead iran will get $100 billion to continue supporting hamas and hezbollah. they're not releasing american prisoners. this is a bad deal. this is going to lead to a nuclear arms race in the middle east. look, folks can throw names all around. it would be like me saying schumer and gardner are against this, does it show there are senior democrats that also understand how bad this deal is. at the end of the day, let's judge this deal for themselves. i think americans are smart enough to see through the smoke and mirrors and say basically the obama administration says we're weak, we can't negotiate a better deal, so we have to take this. this may have been the best deal obama could have done. this isn't the best deal america could have done. we have a lot of leverage.
especially with falling oil prices. he could have done better than this deal. it's a weak argument for him to come back to us and say, well, i got this very bad deal and it's better than no deal. that's nonsense. he should never -- i think they start off with that posture. they didn't say that explicitly but that's throughout their action. to deal is better than a bad deal. ironical ironically, saying that leads to a better deal. >> you've been engaged in a battle in your own state with the obama administration over planned parenthood. that issue is also active on capitol hill right now where they're talking about defunding planned parenthood. should congress proceed to a government shutdown, if necessary, to defund planned parenthood? >> we canceled planned parenthood's contract in louisiana. we wanted to make sure taxpayer dlrz were not going to planned parenthood because of these barbaric videos. we said, fine, they have a right to do that.
we showed their videos over and over so they could see these images, see the barbaric language used to describe what's happening in those clinics. the left wants -- obama has the time to send the department of justice to intervene in the lawsuit against us. the left, they want to go after the groups that made this video but they don't have time to actually watch the videos or go after planned parenthood or investigate planned parenthood. congress has the constitutional responsibility to fund government. absolutely, they should defund planned parenthood. there's no reason they should get over half a billion taxpayer dollars. if the republican party cannot make protecting innocent life winning, what good is the republican party? this is ridiculous. we can't win this fight now, what's the point of having majority in the house. i don't think president obama should shut down government to preserve funding for planned parenthood. i think that's a mistake. i think congress should send him legislation that funds other priorities without funding planned parenthood, and i don't think the president should then
choose to shut down the government over this issue. i have said this. planned parenthood better hope hillary clinton wins the next election because under president jindal i will send the irs, the department of justice to investigate them. i got asked about that after the debate when i said that. i'll be clear. we will send the department of justice, the irs, the epa, osha, any other federal agency we can find as well. what you were seeing in those videos is barbaric. louisiana has been the most pro-life state under my leadership for six years. even those not pro-life, i hope they are offended by those videos. i hope their ksh consciouses would, woken up by what they see in those videos. >> what about the portion of planned parenthood that go for birth control and prevent abortions. should that go through or be cut as well? ? >> louisiana two clinics operated by planned parenthood. last year they billed for $300,000 to the state out of $19 million we spent on reproductive
health and similar family planning services for men and women. the reality is there are hundreds of other providers where men and women and patients can go in the state of louisiana. many, many other providers across our country that are not using their resources, their facilities for these bare baric acts. i think this is a smoke screen by the left. it's time to defund planned parenthood. it's time to investigate planned parenthood. i've launched an investigation in louisiana. we asked the fbi, we've asked the state of texas and others to join us in that investigation. we can provide these services without funding planned parenthood. there's no reason for them to get one more penny of our taxpayer dollars. and there needs to be an investigation. not into the states trying to defund them. i know the president doesn't have time to watch these videos. he has time to send attorneys to baton rouge to fight us. he should make time to watch these videos, make time to investigate planned parenthood. >> the world's been seeing the images of the refugee crisis in europe and it's been affecting
so many people. would you support the u.s. taking in more refuse geese? if so, how many? and what is the long-term solution? >> no to the first question. america is the most compassionate country in the world. that tradition should continue. we've got an established refugee process, established programs, but the reality -- the reason i say, no, we shouldn't be taking in more people today is that -- and we shouldn't be short-circuiting that process that vets folks, making sure folks come here with dangerous backgrounds, is that is trying to put a band-aid on a very serious problem. let's be honest. the reason we have the refugee crisis today is absolutely -- you can draw a straight line back to this president's failed policies. remember when he said this there would be a red line in syria. assad better not cross that line. assad used chemical weapons and
consequences didn't follow. the so-called moderate rebels, their numbers dissipated. we saw sunni allies. we saw syria continue to fall apart. russia and iran continue to prop up assad. today that effort intensifies with more reported deliveries of weapons and man power as well. we're seeing the direct result of this president's failure to lead. his administration's policy so far has been described as leading from behind. he doesn't understand that american strength leads to peace and stability. that weakness is provocative to sxooefl our enemies is one reason isis, the so-called jv team has grown and occupying so much territory in syria and iraq. the reason we're seeing this refugee crisis n large part, you can draw a line back to our failed policies in the middle east. this administration's failed approach. the long-term approach, assad
has to go. we have to hunt down and kill these radical islamic terrorists. we need to destroy isis. we need to take the handcuffs off our military and get the job done. otherwise we'll continue to watch millions of displaced refugees and the answer is not simply for america and our allies to continue to take more and more people. we need to solve the underlying problem that's causing this refugee crisis. >> how many u.s. troops would you be willing to commit to destroy isis? >> well, look. i think two things. i think the president should take the band off ground troops and three-year deadline authorization of u.s. forces. we should be directly training kurds. not going through baghdad. i think that we need to go to the commanders, military commanders and say, give us a realistic game plan to wipe them out, hunt them down and kill them. that may or may not be ground troops. here's the ironic thing, preparing for war is the best way to avoid it.
you want to destroy isis's ability to garner recruits and new resources, destroy their ability to hold land. they need to establish a so-called caliphate. we destroy their ability to hold land. we destroy their ability to hold a caliphate. destroys their ability to gather new recruits and new resources. this president says we have to win over their hearts and minds. we're not going to win this conflict with guns. that's ludicrous. if patten and eisenhower had said that in world war ii, the french would be speak german today. that's a ridiculous approach. these are barbarians, raping, crucifying, torturing christians, muslims, other religious minorities. you can't engage in changing their hearts and minds. you have to hunt them down and kill them them before they kill us. we need a president with more clarity and honest to tell us about an enemy. the president doesn't like to use those terms pep loves to
apologize and criticize america but he doesn't like to talk about radical islam. that is the enemy we face. >> it sounds like you would be willing to commit ground troops if necessary but hard to know at this point how many that would take. >> i'm absolutely willing to do whatever it takes to wipe out radical islamic terrorist before they attack us at home. the best answer any commander in chief should say is we'll never take any option off the table. we'll listen to our military commanders and come up with a plan that actually wipes them out. what this president has done over and over, more than any president i can remember, is tell our enemies what we won't do. i don't know why we would go into any conflict and tell folks what we won't do. if i ever sent out our military, i want this dominate any potential conflict. this president keeps telling folks what we won't do and send a few hundred more troops into the region. that's a mistake. this incremental approach is not what it takes to wipe out isis. a more aggressive stance will encourage our allies to provide the man power and resources as
well. i think a lot of sunni countries willing to help us in this fight, regional allies are worried in part if they take out isis, because it strengthens assad, they take out iran. ironically this decreases the willingness of our allies to fully commit to this battle. >> this questioner says you've spent much of your time in iowa and new hampshire. what are your plans or strategies for south carolina? and will your message and strategy be different in the more diverse state? >> i will be going back -- we were in south carolina with senator tim scott and doing a town hall meeting. we'll go back there next week. unlike other candidates, my message doesn't change for my audience. i think voters are smart enough and tired of politicians who tell them what they want to hear. my message is the same for sh i talk to. i think that message resonates and works. conservative principles are what are needed to get america back on track again. the reality is, i believe in
limited government. we need to shrink the government economy, grow the american economy. i'm the only candidate that's reduced government spending. there's not two. we have nine former governors talking on the republican side. i'm the only one that's reduced government spending. we have a bunch of senators talking. they've never cut anything. they give great speeches, filibusters, pat themselves on the back. i'm glad they have big bladders. that's not enough to make them the next president of the united states. my message will stay the same. we need someone to cut the government economy, grow the american economy, it works in iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, in every one of the 50 states. >> what do you think of the black lives matter movement and has it made a negative or positive message to discourse? >> all lives matter. certainly when bad things happen and we've seen these instances,
it needs to be prosecuted and investigated. that's somebody's child. for every incident like that, there are thousands of other incidents we don't see where our police or law enforcement are performing heroically. running toward danger to protect us. unfortunately, that doesn't get the attention it deserves. we don't see that nearly as often in the media. we don't hear those stories. look, i've had enough of all the division in our country. i think we've been divided too much by ethnicity, by race, color, the color of our skin. i think that dividing -- treating people by the color of their skin is the dumbest way to treat people and should not be accepted. is there racism in our society? sure. is there stealing, lying, cheating? sure. we should do everything we can to eradicate it. as long as we're human beings, there will be sin in our society. that's not to excuse it. we need to be relentless to eradicate it from our society. one thing we can stop trying to do is divide ourselves. enough of the hyphenated
americans. we're all created equal in god's eyes. we're all valued because we're created in his image. >> speaking as a governor, and who was a congressman, what is your take on the conservative frustration with the gop capitol hill leaders and what is your message to gop capitol hill leaders? >> i view it like i was sentenced to three years in congress. that's what it felt like. the reality s, i absolutely agree with and understand the frustration. so, the republicans get the house and senate back. we get the senate back. we had the house last year. what changed? we were told by leaders they were going to get rid of amnesty and take care of obama care, nothing happened. now they're giving up before the fight even starts on planned parenthood. i want to give a backhanded compliment to reed, pelosi, they fight what they believe in. i disagree with the law. i think they suspended the law. ignore the law. violated the constitution. they fought like crazy for their beliefs for socialism. i want our side to fight just as
hard. we should obey the law, the constitution. i want our side to fight just as hard. i want us to fight and win. i think the only way to fight this is term limits. we have a political ruling class in d.c. that thinks they're different from us, better than us. i think that's a mistake. i think the frustration is real. i said this earlier, let me repeat this, look, i think too many voters believe their only choice is honest socialist and lying conservatives. honest socialists who say we want government to take over more and more of your freedom and economy, and lying conservatives who say, we'll do these things and they not don't do them when they get elected. they're frustrated. the republicans on capitol hill need to hear that message. i think you could see a wave election coming this next year and a lot of these guys could should be careful. it's time to fire these guys. it's time to get guys that live under the same rules they want to pass on the rest of us. it's time to get leaders in this town where we have to shrink the
government. not slow the growth rate. shrink the government if we're going to grow the american economy. >> you mentioned obamacare and you've long been regarded as a health care expert. what do you think the realistic chances are a gop president and congress really could repeal obamacare or is it just something republicans are going to have to learn to live with and maybe be able to adjust? >> no, we have to fight just as hard as they fought to get obamacare. we need to fight just as hard to get rid of obamacare. this is a program, the longer people are exposed to it, the more frustrated they are to it. makes no sense to increase taxes, decrease access when it comes to high detuktibles and tight networks. no sense to have bureaucrats interfering with their patients and doctors. makes no sense to spend money we don't have. maybe the most important defect in obamacare is that it reduces patient's freedoms. we don't need the government to tell us what kind of insurance to buy.
we don't need the government to tell us how we should be getting our health care. republicans need to fight for that principle of freedom. remember, he was against the individual mandate in the kad lat tax when it was mccain and hillary's idea in the 2011 election until it was in his bill. i want to commend governor walker for the plan. you shouldn't run for president. i disagree with his plan in two specific areas. he creates an entitlement programs when we can't afford the entitlement programs we have today. secondly, he has to subsidize everyone's income. one estimate is it would cost over $1 trillion. that's the d.c. way, to spend money without telling us where you'll find that money. my point is bigger than scott's plan. my point is, yes, republicans
need to fight and repeal and replace obamacare. i say replace because i think we have to offer our own solutions. i don't think it should involve a new entitlement program. my plan lowers costs, targets assistance to the truly vulnerable. that is the better approach. >> as governor you have had trouble striking a budget deal and had troubles with those in your own party. how does that bode for how you would work with congress? >> wie balanced our budget for eight years. we've had eight credit upgrades. cut our state budget 28%. we have over 30,000 fewer state bureaucratic than the day i took office. i don't think anyone cut spending any time, anywhere, anyplace. we've always passed our budget before the end of the session.
we've never done these -- unlike d.c., we don't play these games. we don't kick the can down the road. yeah, we fought for our principles. we've said we would veto any budget that includes tax increases. i think folks are looking for a president that will stand up and fight with congress, with the left, with the media, for our conservative principles. the results speak for themselves. not only in louisiana have we had eight credit upgrades, we're also now a top ten state for private sector job creation. more people working in louisiana than ever before, earning a higher income than ever before. our per cap ka income ranking is higher than it's ever been in our state's history. i think that it shows when you cut the government economy, you can grow the real world, the american economy. again, in d.c., we have too many republicans not willing to fight. they want to go along to get along. that's not the kind of governor i've been, i think that's what voters are looking for. >> we just passed the ten-year anniversary of katrina. what's goth gone right in the
recovery of new orleans and what's gone wrong? >> with the anniversary, the people of louisiana are resilient people. they got knocked to their knees but they didn't stay there. they got right back up. it was hard, but that leads me to the second point before i get to specifics about the recovery, i want to thank the people of america. i referenced this earlier. we're in an incredibly generous country. most generous country in the world. people from 49 states came to help us. they sent their resources through church groups, school groups, civic groups. they didn't wait for government position. they rushed towards the gulf coast to help us. we've seen that generosity for ten years. we continue to see that generosity today in our state. in terms of what's gone right, you look in new orleans, a few examples, the educational system is strongser than before the storm. nearly 100% of the kids are in charter schools. cohort grod wags rates went to three-quarters. highest graduation rates in the
state as well as city of new orleans. new orleans you've seen the kids in failing schools over 60%, now less than 10%. i think it's been one of the most dramatic turn-arounds of a large school system anywhere in the country. there's a lot of work to do but dramatic progress in a short period of time. a brand new health care system so folks don't have to go to emergency rooms for routine care, preventive and primary care. there are -- the city is in the process of rebuilding public housing better than it was before in terms of integrated housing. the economy has rebounded and is growing again. so, there are a lot of things work -- a lot of work to be done. there's still work to be done. we shouldn't be satisfied until everybody that left has the opportunity to come back. the state's population is larger than it was pre-katrina. when you look although the greater new orleans area, 90% of the population is back. it's actually lower than the city itself. more work to be done so those that want to come back. a lot of work has been done.
most important thing i want to say, out of all that, is to thank the people of this very great country. even before there was government position, people ran to help and they're still doing that. >> are you concerned about the impact offshore drilling could impact the seafood industry? >> i released a national energy plan that allows states to opt in and expand more opportunities for producing energy and our federal lands and waters. it would allow those states to participate in royalty sharing. i think that is a smart way to give states incentives and -- more domestically produced energy. back louisiana we have $60 billion of projects coming into
our state. over 0,000 jobs. many are coming in large part because of affordable energy. in terms of our seafood energy, we love the outdoors. in louisiana we call ourselves sportsman paradise. it's our motto, who we are. it's our logo, if you will. absolutely, the industry in a thriving seafood industry can and do exist. many recreational fishermen will tell you some of the best fishing is around those platforms. charity guides will tell you, that's where they take their customers to routinely fish. i think you can have affordable energy, a strong economy and protect your environment. i think it's only the left that thinks you have to choose. only this president thinks have you to choose. you can do it all and we are doing that in louisiana. >> governor, you have a minute to catch your breath. >> i appreciate you jumping up and down.
you're getting your exercise today. thank you. >> i want to remind our viewers that the national press club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists. we fight for a free press worldwide and for more information about the club, go to our website, that's press.org and to donate to our nonprofit journalism institute, go to the website press.org/institute. i'd also like to remind you about some upcoming programs. on monday, september 14th, we will have a live press conference from space. astronaut scott kelly will answer questions via video link from the international space station while astronauts mark kelly and terry verts take questions in the press room ball room at 9:00 a.m. september 21st, big 12 commissioner will discuss college athletics. and jane choo will discuss new initiatives at a breakfast on september 28th. i would now like to present our
speaker with the most cherished national press club mug. >> thank you very much. honor to have that. thank you. >> that's suitable for travel to iowa, new hampshire -- >> i'll use it we will. >> warm drinks taste excellent in that no matter where you are. >> i hear it gets cold in iowa and new hampshire. glad to have it. >> we're down to a few final questions. if you win the nomination, i think it's safe to say you would not consider donald trump as your running mate. >> i hope i made that abundantly clear. >> who among the other candidates might you consider as a running mate? >> let me tell you the kind of person i would look for in a running made. too often i think these are made based on political considerations. i think that's nonsense. folks say you have to look for balance or geography or electoral votes. nonsense president the most important thing is can this person do the job? on the first day, god forbid if they're called in to take over and be president, are they up to that task? that's the most important qualification, period. secondly, i'm looking for
someone who shares my conservative beliefs. someone who understands we need to shrink the size of government, fight for religious liberty, we need to grow our american economy, not the government economy. somebody who understands we have to solve this immigration crisis, secure the border. somebody who understands we have to repeal obamacare. somebody who understands we have to make america -- rescue the idea of america. make america great again. we do have to make america great again, but we have to rescue the idea that it's slipping away in front of us. for me it's not about balance, not about electoral votes, geography or political considerations. it's is this person qualified? secondly, do they share my conservative beliefs? too often, we win elections and then we don't govern the way we -- the next president will be in a position to decide whether we take -- we seize this opportunity to rescue america. rescue the idea of america slipping away.
let's not rely on a narcissist who only believes in himself. that's not the path to rescuing our country. >> governor, we're out of time. could we give a round of aplus to governor jindal for coming. >> thank you. i want to thank the national press club for being such a gracious host. thank you for hosting us. >> i would also like to thank our national press club staff, including the journalism institute and broadcast center for organizing today's event. i also want to remind you that if you would like a copy of today's program or to learn more about the club g to that website, press.org. thank you very much. we are adjourned.
during her weekly briefing today, house minority leader nancy pelosi called for a morrow bust to the syrian refugee crisis. the hill writing today the house minority leader said the 5,000 refugee figure is inadequate and called on policy makers to launch talks about a more appropriate response. she noted that the united states accepted tens of thousands of refugees fleeing asia in the wake of the vietnam war. quote, when the u.s. took the lead on that crisis, other countries follow suit.
we see germany taking the lead on this. i hope other countries will follow suit and that we will do something more substantial. she didn't suggest what higher figure would be appropriate. you can see the entire article at thehill.com. you can watch the entire briefing. we had that on c-span today and that of house speaker john boehner from earlier today. all of that available on our website, c-span.org. both house and senate are focused on the iran nuclear agreement today in the upper screen. you can see the house debate taking place. that will go on today and tomorrow. members deliberating on three resolutions and bills. one that says the 60-day approval period has not started since president obama hasn't informed congress of any side deals in the agreement. another seeking a straight-up vote on approval of the agreement. and a third bill would prevent the lifting of sanctions against iran. until president obama is out of office. and you can see live coverage of the house taking place on our
companion network c-span right now. in the bottom left on your screen, the senate as lawmakers continue working on that resolution of disapproval regarding the iran nuclear deal. democrats and republicans are alternating times for debating. it's one-hour blocks of time. a procedural vote now expected in just over two hours at 3:45 eastern. you can watch live coverage of that debate taking place on our companion network c-span2. and more now on the upcoming house votes on the iran bill happening today and tomorrow. we spoke with a recorder this morning -- actually, it took place earlier today. a capitol hill reporter on the iran agreement. >> as the u.s. house begins debate on the iran nuclear agreement, we're joined by eric who covers capitol hill for bloomberg news. a change for the house. they had planned to take up a dissolution resolution on
thursday. what happened to make them go in a completely different direction? >> it's a funny thing. basically what happened going into this week speaker bonier and other top leaders decided to hold a resolution under the cork/cardin bill signed into law by president obama requiring congressional vote on iran nuclear deal within 60 days of its submission to congress. along the way, mike pompao with a objection saying obama never officially started the clock because he never submitted what are known as secretive side deals with the international atomic energy agency. for the monitoring of iran. going into yesterday's conference meeting, leaders on the house side found they didn't have enough republican votes to pass a rule considering the
disapproval resolution. they had to redraw their plans. now they're voting on three separate measures instead. >> seven hours of debate in total. as you mentioned, leading off with the mike pompeo resolution. his tweet, i'm leading with lee zeldin calling on the president to release the full deal. speaker bonier's press conference was asked about that. that option is on the table. members feel obama has not complied with the legal requirements of corker/cardin and therefore they can say the administration is sort of illegally going forward with the iran deal. members tell me that this also helps them politically because they cannot only say the deal was bad but obama decided to implement it illegally. to further blame the president
for any consequences that come out of the iran nuclear agreement. some members felt having a vote on disapproval, and failing to disapprove it, which was going to be the outcome since obama had enough votes from house democrats and senate democrats to sustain a veto would be, quote, tacid approval. they just felt allowing -- you know, going forward instead with this pompeo resolution on the illegality of obama's actions and a separate resolution after approval, destined to fail, will allow them to preserve the option to bring up a disapproval resolution later, perhaps when they have a greater chance of getting that through, perhaps because of iran's own actions. >> speaker bonier indicated that at his press conference, keeping that option of a disapproval resolution. to be clear, two hours of debate on approvaling the iran nuclear deal but he's holding that aside. is that also in consideration of -- on a slight chance the senate itself may pass their disapproval resolution? >> yes, that's a possibility.
as we'll see, you know, it's likely that the senate will have a cloture vote and not be able to actually hold a final vote. a filibuster will be sustained in the senate. therefore, you know, this could come up again in the future. i think maybe the lobbyists who are against the iran deal feel events may play out in such a way israel may look more vulnerable, iran may look more nefarious and perhaps they can bring this up again, especially if there's some sort of legal resolution that says obama never got that 60-day clock started, in fact. >> the third and final piece of this puzzle is the resolution that would say -- that would prevent the president from lifting any of those economic sanctions against iran. but doesn't part of the deal call for ending some of those sanctions? >> it does. this is another way of putting house democrats, in particular, in a really tough spot. these votes are going to happen
on september 11th. and that -- implications of that are not lost on anyone as a vote to approve a deal with iran and a vote to reject a resolution related to iran sanctions. historically iran sanctions legislation sails through this body with a huge bipartisan majority. nancy pelosi, the democratic leader just sent out a letter, advising her members to vote against the sanctions measure brought by peter roscum. it's a messaging bill that could have consequences in next year's elections for sure. >> more broadly, what does this action by the house house republican freedom caucus and house conservatives as well, what does this portend or does it for any other items on the agenda in the fall? >> that's a good question. a few legislative days before the end of the fiscal year government shutdown looms.
bonier alluded in piz press conference to the difficulty he has in controlling his caucus and maintaining his position. they have not yet come up with a plan to keep the government funded because of conservative desires to defund planned parenthood, an abortion provider. currently there are -- the government doesn't directly fund abortions but does provide planned parenthood with funding for other health services. a good number of house freedom caucus members belief this is a good time to stop sending any money whatsoever to planned parenthood in the wake of videos they say shows planned parenthood selling fetal tissue. this issue is not resolved. again, i think it's a shot across the bow, to leaders from the house freedom caucus, we're here, you need us to pass rules, so you have to listen to us. >> covering ooit iran debate,
covering congress for bloomberg news. he's also on twitter @elwa. is son. >> the first vote in the house expected to happen at 1:50 p.m. eastern. a discussion on the iran nuclear agreement as the house armed services committee looks at the deal's impact on missile defense and nonproliferation. that's coming up in 20 minutes, at 2:00 p.m. eastern time. we'll have it for you here on c-span3. up until that hearing gets under way, we'll show you a portion of today's "washington journal" on the iran deal, also the pope's address to congress and the debate over lifting the 40-year-old oil export ban. >> thank you, sir, for being here once again to talk to our viewers. >> thank you so much. it's a pleasure seeing you again, greta. hope you had a good summer. >> yes, yes. you as well. now we're back to business here. capitol hill very busy.
the iran nuclear deal. what's your stance on that right now? >> i'm almost ready to make a decision. i went through the classified documents a couple days ago. i'm still talking to the folks who are calling and i've seen people in person. i'll make a decision later today or first thing in the morning. >> what will make you say yes you approve of what administration has done or, no, you disapprove? >> first of all, keep in mind the administration is only part. there were other world powers involved. the u.n. -- security council did approve this 15-0. i guess one of the main things i'm getting at is this. is there a better alternative? i'll still waiting for folks to tell me, what is the alternative? i was in europe with the appropriation committee. we did talk to some foreign leaders up there. and when we were there, they were already talking about sending economic delegations over there so the question is,
can we get the group again, the -- germany, france, england, china, russia, back again, or is it just the u.s.? can we get a better deal and that's what we're looking at. >> those countries say, no, they would not go back to the negotiating table. >> that's right. again, i want to give everybody the benefit of the doubt. it's a very passionate situation. i've been listening to different folks. as members of appropriations, i always look at what sort of assistance we give to countries and i have to say from 2009 to now, of all the finance, military we've given military help we've given the world, more than half has gone to israel. more than half. about $20.5 billion since 2009. and if you look at the iron dome, that's in addition to $3 billion.
and i think president obama through congress is going to do a $1.9 million munitions agreement. plus we're in the process of doing a ten-year agreement on the finance, so there's -- you know, as a member of the appropriations, i always look at what sort of assistance we give countries. over half of the military finance we've given to the whole world, over half has gone to israel. so, they're a very good ally, and we want to be supportive. >> do you believe them because of that, israel is guarded, it's safe? iran does not pose a threat to them because they can't defend themselves? >> no. as a member of appropriations, i look at where we've provided assistance and we've gone more than half of what we can do the world. are we going to do more? i will tell you when we do this ten-year agreement, they'll be probably an increase of what we do. we've got to continue working with israel. we've got to look at making sure that it's not only israel but also the area -- our allies that
we also work with them because iran -- remember, the deal deals only with the nuclear part of it. the other tourism and other things, we have to make sure we understand that we don't lift those sanctions. we're only talking about part of it. we've got to make sure that we continue making sure that iran doesn't do what they've been doing. is it one base? is this agreement based on trust? i don't think none of us are naive to say we are. we know what they've been saying. you have the government and then the people of iran. but the government of the people of iran, we know that they are not our best friends out there. so, it's one of those things we have to look at. the other thing is, is that i look at, what about the military part of it? even some of our military folks have said that, you know, even with the military strike f we go that direction and we want to take a hawkish position, it will
do certain damage. but then again, we've got to look at that again. it doesn't eliminate it, but, again, we got to look at what's available out there right now. >> this is what donald trump had to say yesterday when he was up on capitol hill for -- >> i heard him. >> -- opposition rally. let's show it. >> never, ever, ever in my life have i seen any transactions so incompetently negotiated as our deal with iran. and i mean never. now, ted and everybody else have gone through all of the details and we can talk about the 24 days, which is ridiculous. we can talk about the $150 billion, which, by the way, they get even if the deal isn't approved. they get it just for going to the table. we can talk about the fact that we have four wonderful people over there. and, frankly, they're never going to come back with this
group. i will say this, if i win the presidency, i guarantee you that those four prisoners are back in our country before i ever take office. i guarantee that.office. i guarantee that. >> congressman, do you agree with donald trump? >> no, i don't. keep in mind when this deal was negotiated with other world powers and, you know, i met the secretary of energy our u.s. secretary of energy i think he's a pretty smart guy. i've talked to countries that were involved with these negotiations. he also did say that if he became president that he would not tear up the deal. he said another time that he would not tear it down, he'll just make sure that we enforce it. and that's the oversight that congress actually also plays if this deal goes through. >> let's hear from christine who's up first in illinois, an
independent. hello, christine, you're on the air with congressman cuerer. >> good morning. i don't understand why we would make deals with a country with such horrible human rights violations. i don't know how people could forget that video last year with the young people who were dancing to pharrell's "happy." and then, oh, they're just going to whip them. they're not going to -- i don't understand why when we get into bed with china and these horrible countries, ut just denigrates our whole society. and i don't trust them. and i think we're foolish to think that they're not going to lie to us, like they have in the past. and i'm really sorry we didn't get the four hostages back. that i don't understand. i really don't. that should have been number one goal. >> congressman. >> well, i think the number one goal was to deal with the nuclear issue. we have to keep in mind that
right now iran is about two months away from having a nuclear weapon. no ifs, no butts, they're a threshold state right now. number one. number two, what are we looking at? one is the nuclear, making sure they don't get a nuclear weapon. they're two months away. and the other part is of course the actions that they've taken with terrorism. here we're only dealing with a nuclear part. we're not dealing with the rest. the other sanctions and whatever we need to do to go after iran, that's another thing. i think when ronald reagan got in agreement with the russians, you know, he said the same thing. we don't trust them, but we need to verify. the same thing is i don't think anybody is naive to believe we trust the iranians. but at the same time even if we have let's say this deal does go through, not only do we have inspectors there -- and i've sat down personally with the international atomic energy
agency folks, number one. but at the same time we still have our intelligence and other countries have their intelligence. and i've seen the classified documents on this. so, you know, plus not only do we have inspectors there, but we still have our technology, our military technology, our surveillance, our satellites. everything else is still available. we don't take that away. also with the russians we limit some of our military options. and this one we don't limit any of our military actions at all. >> next we go to d.c., independent caller. good morning to you. >> caller: good morning. >> you're on the air. >> caller: okay. i think obama is the most realistic of all our presidents. because he realized that these countries are sovereign countries. and when they negotiate, they're going to try to get the best
deal. we cannot bully everybody like donald trump says and get them to agree to what we want. israel is never ever going to agree with anything we do towards iran. they want iran humiliated. and unless that happens, they're not going to be satisfied. also, we provide israel with all the military deterrent. and these congressmen they go over, and senators, and they talk to israel. and they never talk about israel's treatment of the palestinian. and nobody is thinking about these poor palestinians whose homes are being demolished. they need to be refugees here too, just like the syrians. >> okay. congressman, what do you think? >> well, you know, she does make
some points about the extreme sectors of israel and how they treated even the prime minister has come out on that. she does make some good points about this. but the other point she makes is remember we're all countries and we have to look at our best national security interests. we did that as a country. europe, germany, france, england, china, russia, everybody went into this european union went in to protect our national interests. and, again, those who think that we have to look at and as we look at this going back to your original question, or your point is is your best alternative i've seen those commercials reject the old, come back and get a better deal. i've talked to some of those folks and they say they're not coming back to the table. so what do we do? again, i got a couple more people i want to talk to in person and by phone. and we'll have a vote tomorrow.
>> let me ask you about another news headline this morning, the washington times this morning with the headline, less than half of the mexican border is secure. this is something the house government oversight committee learned yesterday from the labor union chief of border patrols agents labor patrol union. you don't sit on the committee anymore but you said you were there. what did you learn? what's going on? >> well, it was interesting. the chairman's a good friend of mine. we talked. there were a couple issues that originally were supposed to be brought up. and they were different issues. one, his question was should we close some of the consulates in mexico? two, what is the construction cost for consulates and embassi embassies? and the other thing that he also brought up was that danger pay. one is i told him i agree with him on construction costs because i've seen some of those
construction costs and as a member of the appropriations i think they're a little expensive. sometimes i think companies charge the federal government a certain amount of money just because we're the federal government. that's wrong. i understand they talk about security and cause but not in the amount of money i've seen. >> construction of what? >> embassies and consulates. if you look at some of the costs they're very high. i agree we do need to look at those costs. the second thing is about closing consulates, across my hometown and other places, it just doesn't make sense. for example, every day there's 1 $1.3 billion of trade between the u.s. and mexico. my hometown laredo carries about 40% of all the trade between the u.s. and mexico there are 6 million american jobs in the u.s. because of the trade we have with mexico. and just to give you an idea through my hometown why mexico is a very important part of our relationships, if you look at 12,000 traders across the day,
if you look at how much it carries. if you put all those 18 wheelers that cross through laredo in one year, it will go around the world twice. that shows you how much trade that we have. finally, the last point i want to make on issues like this because i do want to talk about security, is this. if an import comes in from china, it will have about a 4% american parts in it. if an import comes in from canada our number one trading partner, it will have 25% american parts. but import comes in from mexico, it will have a 40% american products. so it shows how our economies are so interrelated. so what we talk about security, and i live on the border. remember, i don't just go in for an afternoon or a day, whatever the case be. i live there. my family lives there. i drink the water. i breathe the air. you know, have things got better? yes. do they still need more work? yes. but i will tell you this, greta,
if you look at the murder rates using fbi stats, murder, rape, assaults, the murder rate in laredo last year was 1.5 murders per 100,000. if you look at washington, d.c. where we're at right now, the murder rate per 100,000 is 15.9 murders, almost 16 murders per 100,000. we've seen a spike here lately so it might be a little higher now. so it's safe for there. so the border crime rate is lower than the national crime rate using fbi stats on this. >> the article though says that one out of every five illegal immigrant caught on this area of the border that's not secure has a criminal record. >> yes. again, i believe in immigration reform, but i'll be the first one to say that we need to, that we need to deport and get out anybody with a criminal record. there are people that come in because they're trying to get a
job. and we need a guest worker plan that's efficient and sensible. a fence is a 14th century solution to a 21st century problem that we have. and the other part is if we are able to, you know, the people that want to come work under guest worker plan, that's one thing. if somebody has a record, then i think we need to deport those as soon as we can. >> all right. let's go back to calls. kathy's waiting in montgomery, texas. a republican. hi, kathy. >> caller: yes, good morning. okay, this is crazy. our government can't secure our own borders. how in the world are you going to monitor iran? honestly, you cannot trust these people. this government has never ever -- the iranian government, never has ever done what they are supposed to do. obama has set a dangerous precedent. and you guys are allowing this to happen. sir, our america's in trouble. and you're helping. you're helping obama cause chaos
throughout the middle east and our country. look at europe. and we can't take these people by the way. we have enough problems of our own. by the way, sir, you have got to vote no. the texans do not, do not, want this iran deal. you must say no. thank you. >> thank you so much. it's always good to hear from, i think she's montgomery, texas. always good to hear from somebody from montgomery, texas. very familiar with your area. again, this is not a partisan issue. we got to decide this not on emotion, not on emotion but on what facts are. and the decision that i'll be making on this tomorrow will be based on facts. i understand people are very passionate. as i mentioned just even on the we provided to israel and i think i voted with israel probably 100% since i've been here with congress. and again as a member of the appropriations i always look at how much money we provide. you know, if we talk about she
mentioned two things. mentioned the numbers of billions of dollars we provided israel over half of everything we provide in military finance goes to one country, israel. every year we provide over $3.1 billion of assistance to israel. but if you look at securing and working with the -- our neighbors to the south and i mentioned how important they are to our trade. before we did the assistance to help fight the drug cartels in mexico, we were given mexico our number three trading partner $36 million. she mentioned about immigration. let me tell you, there's a story about this officer, immigration person, complaining about people coming into texas. and they wrote a letter to the central government said, hey, those people came over, they're taking our lands, we need to kick them out. it was interesting that that was
written in 1836 in spanish by the mexicans who were in control of texas. they were complaining about americans crossing the red river, not the rio grande -- >> and we'll leave this washington journal segment at this point to go live now to capitol hill. we'll take you to a hearing now on the implications of the iran agreement on missile development and nonproliferations. house armed services committee holding this hearing about to get under way live here on c-span3.
subcommittee meeting on stra teeji teejic forces to order. implications for missile defense and nonproliferation. we have testifying today a distinguished panel of witnesses. they are honorable frank cotts, administrator national nuclear security administration, the honorable robert suhurer. senior defense intelligence expert iran and the arabian peninsula, middle east, africa regional center defense intelligence agency. vice admiral james sering and director of missile defense agency and major shapiro. i want to note that subcommittee witness -- invited a witness from the state department to testify today. we were told in writing that he was unavailable -- he was available. he would be watching us even now
from his office since his schedule was open. however, he's not here today. i understand that senior officials of state department decided not to send him because the department isn't ready to discuss implementation. i think every member of this subcommittee should be angered by the disrespect and membership witnesses have been treated by the state department. moreover the entire congress as it prepares to vote on the iran agreement should be bothered that we are being asked and department won't discuss how it will be implemented. with that unpleasantness aside, i'll move to the joint hearing. in february 2014 under secretary of state wendy sherman, a lead negotiator of the iran agreement whose record reflects she also gave us the agreed framework with north korea that gave the kim family its nuclear weapons arsenal, stated in testimony before this house foreign affairs committee that, quote, it is true that in these first six months we've not shut down all of their production of any ballistic missile that could have anything to do with delivery of a nuclear weapon but
that is indeed something that has to be addressed as part of a comprehensive agreement, close quote. let me repeat, quote, but that indeed is something that has to be draez e addressed as part of a comprehensive agreement, close quote. we all know what has happened to iran, russia and china instead. in just july the president's senior military adviser, general martin dempsey, the chairman of joint chiefs of staff testified, quote, under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran related to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking, close quote. i want to repeat that. under no circumstances, is what he said. why is this important? as stated by your senior d.o.d. leadership the ban on technology for ballistic missiles was critical to meramerica's own security especially since iran's missiles would be dangerous weapons if ever equipped with biological, chemical or even
nuclear warheads. if we assume the iranians will honor the nuclear agreement, which we would be foolish to assume, we are paying no attention here to the chemical and biological weapons programs. just this weekend according to press reports 45 emirate soldiers fighting proxies in yemen were killed by a ballistic missile with a warhead. i'll read an excerpt from the most recent arms control compliance board on iran. based on available information, the united states cannot certify whether iran has met its chemical weapons production facility declaration obligations, destroyed its specialized chemical weapons equipment, transferred cw, chemical weapons, are retained and undeclared chemical weapons stockpile. the jcp -- is that jcpoa ignores this violation and provides iran more funding for chemical and biological weapons.
iran is also not in compliance with the biological weapons convention, the ballistic missiles it needs to deliver. also want to indicate my strong agreement with the letter sent by chairman thornbury and select committee on intelligence chairman devin nunez last week i will add to the record that this agreement appears to have already started the cascade of proliferation in the middle east. unfortunately i can't say much more in this environment. but i believe secretary kerry owes this body information before we vote. chairman thornbury and chairman asked for a response by this past tuesday and that's not been provided. as i sate stated before, concerning russia's violation. i've come to the same conclusion about this. i will cast my vote against the -- jcpoa, but i do not believe that the president will heed any call from this congress
about the legacy deal -- about this legacy deal for him. we have a constitutional law professor as a president who seems to be unfamiliar with the constitution's checks and balances. so we must all turn to cleaning up the mess that's being created and what is going to be required to fix it. i only hope generations to come will not pay too high a price for the mistake of this president and what he's doing now. before turning to the ranking member for opening statements he may make, i want to remind all my colleagues who attended this morning's classified session on iran's activities malign activities that was a highly classified briefing and details from this morning should not be discussed in this open session. we will adjourn to a closed briefing at the conclusion of this open hearing. and at that appropriate venue we can have discussion of those details. with that i turn to my friend and colleague from tennessee, mr. cooper, for any opening statement he may have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i too welcome the witnesses. i appreciate this opportunity to hear from them.
let me emphasize the word hear. this is called a hearing. it's not a press conference. we call it a hearing so that we can hear from the witnesses, which i look forward to doing. i would just urge the chairman and other colleagues who may come that we make this open portion as brief as possible so that we can get to the classified session because i think that will be also much more useful as well as less risky in terms of what people around the world may hear. this is the third briefing on iran today. and is the only one to have an open portion. so with that i would particularly urge my chairman and my colleagues to keep this open session as short as possible so that we can get to the classified session. thank you, mr. chairman. >> concur with that view. general, we'll start with you if you'll summaryize your opening statement. >> thank you, chairman rogers,
ranking member cooper, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the joint comprehensive -- the joint comprehensive plan of action, jcpoa reached between the p5+1, the european union and iran. let me state right up front the department of energy and the national nuclear security administration value your robust support and abiding support for our mission and for our people. in that regard i appreciate the opportunity to discuss a critical component of our overall mission, specifically our support to the international atomic energy agency, or the iaea. the iaea, as you know, has a special responsibility in monitoring and verifying the nuclear-related measures detailed in the jcpoa. i've provided a written statement and i respectfully request that it be submitted for the record. as secretary of energy moniz has said, the jcpoa prevents iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and it provides strong
verification measures that would give us ample time to respond if iran chooses to violate its terms. it is a very good deal for america, for our allies and for our global security. and i fully share his view and this view. the department of energy and nsa's nuclear experts, national laboratories and nuclear security sites were extensively involved throughout the negotiations, evaluating and developing technical proposals in support of the u.s. delegation. as a result of their work secretary moniz has said that he is confident that the technical underpinnings of the jcpoa are solid and that the department stands ready to assist the iaea in its implementation. let me take a moment to discuss as you requested the department's important work with the iaea on nuclear safeguards. safeguards are defined as the set of technical measures applied by the iaea to
independently and objectively verify that a state's nuclear material is accounted for and not diverted to other nuclear weapons or explosives. shaf guards also provide credible assurance of the absence of nuclear materials in activities. these technical measures include for example on-site inspection, nuclear material accountancacco design verification, tamper indicating tabs and seals, surveillance including the use of cameras and environmental sampling. doe and nsa have closely cooperated with the iaea's department of safeguards for many decades in developing and enhancing these measures. the full range of our involvement with the iaea is actually described in this recently just hot off the press brochure prepared by the nsa. and we have ample copies here for members and for staff if you choose to take one. our work with the iaea also
includes funding, training, technology transfers and expertise. in fact, since 1980 every new iaea inspector has had nuclear materials measurement training at the los alamos national laboratory. and every year the department hosts additional specialized training courses for iaea inspectors and analysts both here and abroad. our partnership with the iaea has also generated various technologies for use in safeguard systems. for example, the online enrichment monitor, is one example of the technology jointly developed by our national laboratories and the iaea. can continuously monitor the enrichment levels of uranium in gas form at a centrifuge enrichment plant. and for the first time as a result of the jcpoa, it will be used in iran.
i am happy to provide additional information and respond to any questions you may have either in this open session or closing session. thank you, sir. >> thank you, general. mr. chair. >> chairman rogers, ranking member cooper and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on missile defense and the joint comprehensive plan of action, the jcpoa. i'm grateful for this committee's consistent attention to and continuing support of the critical mission of defending our homeland, our deployed forces, allies and partners. i too have submitted written testimony for the record so we'll keep opening remarks relatively brief. i would like to start by repeating what secretary carter noted. the jcpoa places no limitations on the department of defense, no restrictions on plans, programs, capabilities or what we can do with our friends and allies. for decades we have focused on and prioritized the totality of challenges that iran poses to our interests. the department has organized itself to deal with iran's ballistic missile capabilities
through our preparations, partnerships, forced posture and plans. i am happy to speak today about our missile defense policies, but as you had noted nonproliferation programs and sanction regimes fall outside of my portfolio. so i will have to defer those questions. as you've been briefed the jcpoa is a nuclear deal, not a ballistic missile deal. as such it does not obviate the need for ballistic missile defenses and does not change our programs or plans for continued cooperation on missile defense. iran has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the middle east. and today can strike targets throughout the region and into eastern europe. while iran has not yet developed an intercontinental ballistic missile, its progress on space launch vehicles provides iran the means to develop longer range missiles. there is no doubt in my mind that iran's ballistic missile activities continue to pose a risk to the united states and our allies and partners in europe, israel and the gulf. however, this is exactly why the united states has maintained a robust missile defense posture
throughout the region and why we have focused on missile defense cooperation with these same partners and allies. i also want to reaffirm that the u.s. homeland is kurntdly protected against potential limited attacks from iran should they deploy such a capability in the future. we continue to strengthen our homeland defense posture and invest in technologies which better enable us to address emerging threats in the next decade. including continued improvement to the ground based mid course defense system and the redesigned kill vehicle for the ground based intercepter. secondly, the administration continues to recognize the regional iranian ballistic missile threat and remains committed to strengthening regional missile defenses. as president obama stated in prague on april 5th, 2009, and i quote, iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat not just to the united states but to iran's neighbors and our allies. as long as the ballistic missile threat from iran persists, we will go forward with the missile defense system that is cost
effective and proven. in 2009 we went onto state that the european phased adaptive approach would have the ability to defend all of nato europe from iranian ballistic missiles, and that commitment remains. outside of nato we are working closely both operationally and nonballistic -- or counterer ballistic development with israel to address the iranian ballistic missile threat. we are currently co-developing this defense technology with israel on iron dome, david's sling and the arrow systems. since 2001 we have provided over $3 billion for missile defense to israel. as the secretary also recently noted with prime minister netanyahu and minister of defense, we are full speed ahead on addressing these issues in collaboration with our israeli counterparts. the department also continues to implement the deployment of missile defenses that are tailored to the security circumstances in the middle east with a number of gulf cooperation council states which i detail in my written
statement. during the secretary's recent discussions with the saudi minister of defense, we reiterated our commitment to working with gulf countries on missile defense specifically emphasizing the importance of collective bmd among the gcc countries, the importance of inner operaability. regardless of any deal the department will continue to improve our department of homeland capabilities against any potential ballistic iranian missile threat, maintain a posture throughout regions including the middle east and europe and will focus on increasing cooperation with those same partners and allies to deter against and respond to any potential iranian aggression. i look forward to answering your questions in this session or when necessary in the following closed session. thank you. >> i thank you. mr. almont, you're recognized for five minutes. >> good afternoon chairman rogers, ranking member cooper and members of the subcommittee. i thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony regarding the
jcpoa and implications for iran's missile defense and nonproliferation. iran continues to be a threat to regional stability as its regime's national interests often diverge with u.s. and regional ally security priorities in this dynamic and turbulent region. understanding tehran's support to terrorists and sub national arm groups as well as military capabilities and regional ambitions are a priority for analysts and collectors. for years to come we expect iran to be a difficult target. for iran its national security strategy remains to ensure the regime's survival, expand its regional influence and enhance tehran's military deterrence and regional superiority. continue to threaten u.s. strategic interests in the middle east. iran's overall defense strategy relies on a substantial inventory of feeder ballistic missiles capable of striking targets throughout the region. iran will continue to develop more sophisticated missiles and improving the range and accuracy of its current missile systems
irrespective of jcpoa implementation. iran public lly stated it inten to launch a space launch vehicle earlier this year. this vehicle would be capable of intercontinental ballistic missile ranges. economic growth could provide tehran more money for missile development, but infrastructure challenges remain. ballistic missile related sales and purchases will remain in place eight years following adoption day or until the iaea reaches its broader conclusion, whichever is sooner. after u.n. restrictions end, international and domestic tools such as the missile technology control regime, the proliferation security initiative and u.s. export controls will still apply. and the u.s. will retain its ability to impose missile-related sanctions under nonnuclear sanctions authorities including executive orders 12938 and 13382. in addition secondary sanctions will continue to attach to foreign financial institutions
and other persons that engage in transactions with iranian missile prol -- mr. chairman i thank you for the tunlt to discuss these important topics. i look forward to the subcommittee's discussions and the detailed discussion in the closed session. >> thank you. admiral ziering. >> thank you for the opportunity to be here today. and specifically address missile defense-related questions. i will save time and save my comments for the q and a period. thank you for the invitation. >> how do you like that, mr. cooper? >> good. >> i thought you'd like that. general, no pressure. >> very quick. thank you, chairman rogers, ranking member cooper and members of the subcommittee. i likewise appreciate the opportunity to address your questions regarding the military implications of the joint comprehensive plan of action. the joint staff will remain concerned with over all of iran's destabilizing activities within the region among which is
it's expanding ballistic missile technology that assistant secretary just underlined. to address these concerns we will preserve the military options at our disposal. we will likewise preserve our posture and engagements with long standing partners in the region to assure our mutual security. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. i will recognize myself first. general, jou heard my reference to the d.o.e. and state department letters that thornbury and nunez said. can you tell us anything on the status of a response? when we're going to get a response? >> mr. chairman, i understand that they're being actively worked within both departments as we speak. >> so no. general, stay with you just a minute. is it the so-called 123 agreement would position reprocessing technology by that
country? >> i believe that is correct. >> you would. is it correct that we've been seeking an agreement of saudi arabia for the same so-called gold standard type agreement? >> but that, sir, i think is something since it's an ongoing discussion that we ought to discuss in the closed session if i could defer to that. >> i will do that. mr. almont, i may get the same response from you be are you aware of any information concerning the uae or saudi arabia regarding their plans of iranian enrichment capability? >> i too would like to defer. >> all right. admiral shiring, are you aware of any discussions the deployment of phase three? >> no, sir, i'm not aware of any changes. >> great. >> mr. sheer, a you able to pledge without hesitation that the administration will make no changes whatsoever to the
employment in romania and poland as a result of the jcpoa. >> currently our plan stands which as it always has is to make those deployments as you have discussed. >> great. mr. cooper, you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm so looking forward to the classified session. i thought i would do what i could to expedite our movement to 2337, but -- >> mr. lamborn, you're recognized. >> thank you. well, i do think this is an important issue that has public ramifications as well as secure ramifications that we can talk about in closed session. so i want to talk about some things here openly and in public that i'm curious about and the american people might be curious about. mr. sheer, you talked about that with the israelis and joint missile defense projects that things were, quote, we are full speed ahead. now, one thing that seems like a
disconnect to me is that when it comes to co-production of the arrow three and david sling, israel has requested that but we've made no response that i'm aware of. and the administration provided no budget, no money for it in its budget. can you address co-production of the arrow three and david sling? >> i will briefly, but then admiral sering has that budget under his control so i'll ask for details from him, but in fact my understanding is we continue to work together with the israelis to identify what we need to do in terms of production, co-production and what and how much money we work together with in terms of how much we transfer to the israelis as part of the mda budget and that that continues to go along based on secretary carter's recent visit to israel as had been planned. so i would ask the admiral if that's okay, sir, congressman,
to fill in the details on what that cooperation may look like. >> okay, but i may come back to you on this. >> sure. >> admiral. >> let me take that. there is ongoing dialogue and negotiations specifically on the david sling co-production agreement, which is very important for us and very important for israel. it is weeks away in terms of draft, probably months away in terms of final. but we had great success with the iron dome co-production agreement. i expect similar success with david sling. >> okay. thank you for that information. what about arrow three co-production? >> that would follow david sling, sir. we're focused on david sling today as that will be the next system fielded and operational. >> okay. all right. thank you for that. i appreciate it. and back to you, mr. sheer. the president requested approximately $155 for israeli missile defense in the fiscal year '16 budget request, but israel's actual needs were approximately $475 million. this seems like a 3-to-1
underfunding to me, only funding one-third of what appears to be the actual need. can you discuss that? >> i know that we worked very closely with the israelis to try to figure out what the best funding approach is for our support to their programs and the ones that we do co-production for. the president forwarded to the congress the figure you talked about. we've had i think over $3 billion of cooperation up to this point. we have approximately i think overall about half a billion dollars in the next fiscal year development plan for cooperation with israel. and i would say that that is a negotiation to go on between congress and the white house as what the final number looks like. >> okay. and changing subjects slightly. we've heard from the administration about missile defense -- gcc, however there
seem to be problems that are coming up. in an article called little progress made on integrated gcc missile shield, we see we haven't even been able to achieve agreement on a establishment of a command and control center or how it will be operated or even shared training capabilities and foreign disclosure. why is this not coming along better? >> i don't know the details of the negotiations on those, but what i do know is that based on the camp david summit we have re-energized this approach to ensuring that the gulf council countries are able to work more collaboratively together and with us. i think we've seen greater cooperation in terms of other operations. and my hope is certainly we will continue that greater collaboration. i know folks from my team and many others have been out to the
gulf recently to work on the results of the camp david summit. and we're continuing to follow through. the early warnings and indications piece is the first element of what we're trying to do. and work very closely across the regional and also missile defense agency to make sure that we can get over some of the problems that we may have seen in the past on this issue. >> okay. and then in my remaining little bit of time, admiral ziering, let me ask you a general question about the budget. if we have to resort to a continuing resolution for next year's defense, which the house has passed but the senate appears unable to pass, what would that do to missile defense in particular that's under your portfolio? >> sir, two items in particular. it would put pressure on the procurement accounts because that funding would be limited. and more specifically it would not enable me to begin poland
construction if it's tied up in the c.r. i view that as critically important we have those resources to release and the army has the ability to get under contract as soon as possible or later in the first part of 2016. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman. >> okay. thank you. recognize for five minutes. >> thank you. this will be a question for admiral sirling, if you could. does the iran deal change your assessment of the east coast missile defense site? >> no, sir. i can expand if you want me to. >> would you please? >> yes, sir. i've testified in front of this committee and others that there certainly is operational benefit to an east coast field and capacity benefit to an east coast field, but it's a matter of where does that fit in to the priorities given limited resources on our homeland defense system. >> and it would not be a
priority? >> sir, today in the budget is lower priority in making the gmd program more reliable and more complete in terms of the kill chain. >> okay. so you remain on the same path that it is a low priority and we ought to be spending our money elsewhere, for example on -- >> sir, we are focused on the improvements in the homeland defense program, not just in the gbi or kill vehicle itself, but in the radars that we're adding, radar we're adding in alaska and all the other improvements you and i have talked about. we are in this year's budget we are proposing and requesting a shift in directed energy funding in particular. >> a shift towards? >> towards more directed energy funding. >> directed towards directed energy? >> yes, sir. and we ask for everybody's -- all four committees' support with that as we feel imperative
to get on with that development. >> and if the legislation that we pass our appropriation would force the money into the east coast defense -- or the east coast missile defense site that would be money that might otherwise be used for directed energy? >> sir, it would come across multiple parts of the missile defense budget. it is not cheap. the cost estimate is $3 billion to $4 billion over a period of years. and frankly i don't have that in my budget control today. >> so the other things would be the higher priorities that would be suffering from missile defense if we were to proceed with the east coast site? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. no further questions. >> i thank the gentleman. chairman recognizes mr. kaufman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a point in clarification that i was kind of surprised, mr. almond, in your testimony you spoke about the lifting of the ban on ballistic missile
technology to iran. and you said that words to the effect whatever to the sooner referring to the iaea, did i hear you right that the iaea could make an assessment by whereby that ban could be lifted earlier? or did i hear you wrong? >> in fact, ipg this is -- i don't know this is necessarily an intelligence question. i hate to say this, but i think this is something that state could answer a little bit better about how the iaea could reach a broader conclusion. but essentially i think there's something in the agreement that allows them to make an agreement -- make -- draw a conclusion about iran's -- whether or not iran is in compliance with the terms of the jcpoa and that the clock changes in terms of the arms embargo. >> okay. i was not aware of that.
so what you're saying is under what circumstances were the iaea make that assessment that in fact they could be accelerated? in terms of lifting the ban on ballistic missile -- >> i don't think i'm qualified to answer that question. i think that's something -- >> is there somebody here that can answer that question? this is a pretty critical point. >> be happy to pursue in closed session. >> well, i'd like to know is there somebody that can answer that question that is here? this is a very critical point. >> i can pursue in closed session. >> okay. well, i don't understand, why would that be classified? >> we can take a look at what specifically is written in the jcpoa in terms of when the various dates, various
milestones take place. mr. almont is right. there is a provision within the jcpoa for adoption day occurring at eight years or when the iaea has made the broader conclusion. when that takes place, that's known as transition day, when that takes place, the u.n. security council can lift the restrictions -- its restrictions on ballistic missiles. and there's a whole series of other things which we can detail that would take place at transition day. >> can you point to where that is in the agreement? is this one of the side agreements? >> no, this is in the agreement itself. >> where is that in the agreement? >> it's in annex five, which is called the implementation plan. and it describes in some detail specifically what will happen. n on the copy i have it's the second page of annex five in the actual jcpoa, sir.
>> so is this any time within after this -- can you just tell me is it any time after this agreement is implemented that the iaea then can make that assessment? or is there a threshold in terms of a number of years after the implementation of the agreement that the iaea is free to make that assessment? >> well, the threshold is a list of a dozen specific things that iran has to satisfy in terms of the iraq heavy water research reactor, heavy water production plants, enrichment capability and so on, which it has to as i said it has to implement. and the iaea has to verify that it has in fact implemented each of those steps which are laid out in great detail in annex three of the jcpoa.
realistically that's going to take some time. but, no, in this specific thing it's at eight years or when that broader conclusion is reached by the iaea that iran has met its nuclear related measures as specified in the jcpoa. >> okay. i think the american people need to be woke up. certainly need to know about it. i think the american people need to be aware of that. i think that's very surprising. mr. almont, can you tell me about iran's biological and chemical weapons capabilities? and their ability to weaponize biological and chemical weapons? >> if we can wait to the closed session i can address that sir. >> that's amazing. mr. chairman, i yield back. i think everything is pretty much in closed session. really question the security classifications that are being used that might in fact be politically embarrassing.
anything political embarrassing seems to be classified. i yield back. >> well, as mr. almont stated, we could get some answers had the state department not refused to send a witness to this hearing. recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am deeply troubled by the obama administration's last-minute concessions to iran on lifting the conventional weapons and missile embargoes. in testimony to this committee the defense intelligence agency stated that, quote, iran's goal is to develop capabilities that will allow it to build missile deliverable nuclear weapons, unquote. lifting these bans makes no sense. iran's words and actions clearly show its desire in spite of the deal to build longer range and more sophisticated ballistic missiles and proliferate them throughout the region. in february iran conducted its fourth successful satellite
launch. this one a boarded two-stage safire booster. based on the shahob 3, iran's most advanced ballistic missile. iran's supposedly peaceful space program is simply a cover for long-range ballistic missile development. last week the head of iran's islamic revolutionary guard corps publicly announced plans to expand the range of iran's ballistic missiles. iran's president hasan rouhani declared last week that iran is, quote, not committed to the restrictions on its missile program, unquote. israel is iran's number one target. while the administration says it's doing everything possible to help protect israel, the budgetary record tells a different story. and mr. shooer you talked about this when you did your opening statement. i have two charts. could i get those up on the screen for everybody to see? and then we have handouts as
well. can we get those up on the screen? i was told we could get those up. is that a no, joy? okay. well, the chart's in front of you illustrate the administration's requested funding for israeli missile defense versus actual congressional appropriations. congress consistently appropriates funding much closer to israeli requirements. the first chart covers funding for all israeli missile defense programs. the president requested approximately $158 million for israeli missile defense in the fy-16 budget request, the house and senate defense appropriations bills both would appropriate israeli missile defense at over $338 million. so it's a comparison of $158 million to $338 million, a figure much closer to israel's
actual need. secretary kerry and the president like to tout the administration's support for israeli missile defense, yet year after year the president's budget request ends up much, much lower than congressional appropriations which are much closer to israel's needs. congress always appropriates much closer to what israel asks us for based on its national security requirements. mr. shir, can you explain this difference? >> congressman, we appropriate with a combination of understanding of what we've worked with the government of israel and also understanding the other requirements for missile defense money that goes to protection of u.s. homeland and articulation of u.s. systems and u.s. programs. and the president's recommendation then gets forwarded to congress. and then we implement the funding that is eventually agreed to by congress and signed off by the president. >> so when the president sends his budget request, it's now up
on the screen. i think everybody can see it. year after year the president's budget request is far below what israel asks for. and of course israel is very concerned because now there's this agreement with iran. and it's also far below what congress would like. is that going to change? >> you'll -- right now it obviously did not change for this year. i'm not willing -- i don't know the answer to follow on years. >> let's go to the next chart, please. i have particular interest in david sling as the co-author of david sling authorization act, the president requested approximately $225 million from fy '11 to fy '16 for david sling over the same time the government of israel with which this committee agreed the actual requirement was $770 million. the administration underfunded the requirement by one-third. mr. scher, can we expect this underfunding for david sling to continue under the iran deal?
is this what the administration means by support of israel? >> we will continue to look at how we can better cooperate on david sling, admiral mentioned this previously. i'm happy to encourage if there are any more details, but that is a newer program and hence the figures and viability of those figures changes as we look through. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> chair now recognize the gentleman from ohio for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gener general, i would like to talk to you about one-two-three agreements and nation who is have agreements with the united states that may or may not be at risk. i know that whenever we have an open session and closed session, there's always a sensitivity between the issue of what's opened and what's closed.
so i want to ask you a question about that line, all right? so if the uae, the united arab emirates, picked up the phone and called secretary kerry and said we affirm our requirements and our agreements with the united states and our 123 agreements and we will not pursue any uranium enrichment, we can discuss that openly, right? because it's just affirming an ongoing commitment that is there that we all know is public. >> yes. the 123 agreement with united arab emirates is public. >> but the affirmation of it, the fact the uae has no intention of re-evaluating it, that there's no discussion about pursuing uranium enrichment, there's no concern about the agreement as a result of the agreement with iran, if all that was affirming, you'd be able to
discuss that in this meeting, right? because it's all the status quo. >> you know, i don't really know the answer to that, congressman, because i'm having a little difficulty following the question. >> let me help you. >> i suspect it would depend on how that was communicated to the united states, if it was made public by a member state, what its intentions were, that would be something i would assume we could discuss if it was something passed on in confidential -- >> let me help you. there's also prohibitions against lying to congress. do you have any information that a nation such as united arab emirates has contacted the united states and indicated they intend to walk away from their 123 agreement obligations that restrict uranium enrichment? >> i have no knowledge of that. >> no one has informed you on -- from the administration or from any other agency that they have information of that? >> not me personally. >> you have had no discussions
with anyone that anyone has related to you of their awareness or information of a concern of 123 agreement and the united arab emirates and their issues with respect to uranium enrichment? >> to the best of my knowledge, no, i'm not aware. i have n been involved in any specific discussions on that subject. >> i'm troubled by your word specific. have you had unspecific discussions? >> congressman, i have not had any discussions or any special briefings on uae 123 agreement. i am aware of it because it is one of the 123 agreements that the united states has with other nations. and i have read a lot in the press and in other documents about that particular agreement, but not about the specific issue that you raise. >> okay. well, you would certainly understand our concern because as congress takes up the issue of the iranian agreement,
secretary kerry has made absolute statements to congress that there is no one in the middle east who will change the obligations with respect to nonproliferation or with respect to the uranium enrichment. and certainly if anyone had information that that was other than how the secretary of state has represented it, it should be known by decision-makers because they are not just voting on the issue of iran, they are voting on nuclear programs by iran and their neighbors. you can see why that would be a level of concern. >> i understand your point, congressman. >> excellent. we are going into closed session. and i know you have availed yourself. r of the issue of closed session. i'm very concerned about the issue of the -- as we look to
the iaea and the portions of the document that are secret. with the iaea's relationship and deals with iran concerning inspections. do you have information that you're going to be able to provide us in the closed session concerning the secret agreement that we've not seen? >> i'm willing to discuss what we know about that particular issue in the closed session. >> do you have details? >> i have information which we can discuss -- >> have you seen that agreement. >> i have not seen that agreement. >> that is consistent with everyone else but yet people are willing to vote yes for secret provisions that no one has seen and neither have you. i yield back. >> i think chairman, we can't get into the skiff for ten more minutes so i'm let mr. lamborn ask one more question and i'll ask one more. >> thank you chairman for allowing me to ask one more question. and i'll start with admiral
searing and general shep row. and my purpose isn't to put you on the spot, my purpose is to get your best judgment. because this is such an important issue that we're voting on. it's historic. were you -- either of you, consulted before the negotiators, whether it was the secretary or the president, agreed to drop the ballistic missile embargo on iran, as part of the jcpoa, were either of you consulted about that? >> nos. >> no, sir. >> and i guess that is what assumed. had you been, what concerns would you two have shared to whoever asked you. >> sir, i'll take that first. my -- my focus in missile defense against iran is unchanged by the agreement. we remain entirely focused on
their rapid escalation of capability and capacity over the last several years. and we made absolutely the right decision to focus on regional defense for that potential escalation. and i can tell you that my job is to be pessimistic, not optimist optimistic. and everything we do at the agency is planning for that capability to increase and that capacity to increase at the rate it has. and as far as i'm concerned, we -- and i've read the agreement, we remain focused on that very mission. >> okay. general. >> sir, i represent the chairman and as he has said on the hill before, this agreement addresses one point of friction with iran. >> excuse me? >> this agreement addressed one point of friction with iran, the nuclear arena, and that we must prepare pressure on the other malign activities. so as chairman rogers cited in the beginning, i agree with the
chairman that we must continue to keep pressure on these area of development of ballistic missiles. >> and i would just make a comment. it was a nuclear agreement, but we all of a sudden see arms embargo lifted and ballistic missile embargo lifted which are non-nuclear issues. there were enough concessions already but to add those on top of it, really staggers me. general, don't you have a concern about the ballistic missile embargo being lifted? >> again, i'll cite chairman dempsey's previous statements. in a perfect world, the embargo would remain. but as it is we remain concerned about this and we must keep pressure on this air. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> chairman will recognize mr. aguilar. >> thank you mr. chairman. general claudeson and vice
admiral, with respect to budget and allocations for missile defense, is it fair to say with sequestration technically kicking back in in nokt that would also effect the support that we could offer for missile defense for our allies, in addition to a continuing resolution that could also offer reduced support and aid. is that fair to say as well? >> well, sir, i don't deal with missile defense and the national nuclear security administration, and let me say since you have created an opportunity to do that, there are a number of very important programs under way within the department of energy and national nuclear security administration which apply to a safety nuclear arsenal and posturing ourselves for the future that would be severely effected by sequestration and budget caps and without any real relief from that. >> and sir, for missile defense, and i'll talk to your concerns on the cr, and what happened under the cr but me concern was
the potential impact on the no con for poland which gets to your point on exactly what are we doing with our allies and would it effect that and so the answer would be yes. and then for sequestration, i've testified in front of this committee and others that sequestration at the levels that are being considered would be catastrophic to what we've proposed with the improvements that must be made for homeland defense and the regional defense systems and the kill and radar would be at risk. and i testified before i view that as overmatching, if those improvements aren't made, our system could be overmatched by 2020. >> thank you, sir. thank you, mr. chairman, yield back. >> thank the gentlemen. chair is informed we have one more question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just one more addition. would you recommend that you do pick up the phone and call the
secretary of state and ask him if there is any additional information to provide to you that is inconsistent with your statements today. and if there is any information he needs to update you on. >> well i'll see if he'll take my call. i doubt if an undersect from the department of energy would get through on the first try. >> the effort, such you put such an admirable effort here. >> thank you for the suggestion, congressman. >> general shep row, representing obviously the joint staff, and admiral searing has said an answer on the east coast missile defense site of which i'm an advocate for that i don't -- criticize in any respect. and i think the admiral has articulated a need and desirableness for east coast missile defense site but has recognized the fiscal constraints which he is under and identified that as a problem for executing the east coast
missile defense site. but even though i'm an advocate for the east coast missile defense site i'm not the initiator of the defense site. we always here look to the experts, those in the military, as to what their needs are, when we, as the admiral has so greatly articulated, try to allocate resources. and general, perhaps you could give us an articulation on the issue of our response to north com. north com continues to include in its integrated party list the need for additional interceptor site, a third site in the united states of the homeland. we didn't make this up. we're just agreeing that there is the need, which i think admiral searing has recognized the need and the benefits of a third site. and in that, it is our attempt to try to respond to it in allocating resources. we're the ones who obviously
have to pick where those resources come from and we're not telling the admiral we're going to do this and you have to take it from your existing programs, it is something that we have to find the money for. could you articulate that north com has continued to integrate on the identified party list. that still sounds important, doesn't it. >> yes, sir, important, yes. but if you want to listen to the expert, you have to refer to the admiral because he is. >> admiral. >> mr. secretary, thank you. it has showed up in the priority list and i would just cite, sir, that it is a priority list. there are many other requirements on the list that we are addressing and we could go through that in detail in terms of funding allocation to north com and strat come prior to -- >> and i understand your prior answer of the allocation of resources and priorities. but i wanted your answer -- or actually either of your answers on the issue of need. since it is showing up in the integrated party list, it is a
need. could you describe the need. >> the need or the benefit is operational. and -- and capacity. >> and what would that be? >> it would allow -- it would allow more interceptors, which always better in terms of the war fighter and more decision space as both combatant commanders have testified to. >> explain decision space. >> in terms of a potential threat from iran and icbm and interceptor flyout time and future assessment capability. and i'll just leave it at that. >> well, i have to a -- i have a minute and a half so i would not leave it at that. and so the east coast is closer to alaska, than where the other missiles might come from. >> geographically. >> correct. >> and the issue. and th