Transcripts For CSPAN Washington This Week 20240622

Action against iran particularly in light of additional resources, can we do that and can Congress Work with the administration to strengthen those tools without violating the jcpla . I want to know how the administration is updating its Regional Strategies against the various iranian activities and how we are going to work with our partners to build up their capacities to counter iran especially israel. The chairman mentioned the lifting of the International Arms embargo. That is a great concern. How will it impact the arms race in that region of the world . These are questions that we need to get the best information we can in making our decisions. And lastly, let me mention this because i think it is critically important. What are our options if United States walks away . How will we be perceived internationally . Will we be able to maintain effective enforcement of sanctions with our International Partners and will iran come back to a negotiating table with a country that has walked away from an agreement . These are questions that we need to understand. We need to know that the options are right now to go forward or not and what are the options, or to the consequences if we dont go forward . Mr. Chairman, we have a full plate and a look for to hearing from our witnesses and i hope that the members of this committee will use the information that we get today to debate the issue, take the time we have come and do what is right for the American People and ultimately make the decision that we think is best to prevent iran from becoming a Nuclear Weapon power. Mr. Corker thank you, senator cardin. I appreciate so much the work we had done together and the entire committee. With that, i know eyewitnesses here today need no introduction. They are well known not only here, around the world, in spite of our policy differences. I think each of us deeply appreciate there may not be policy differences in some cases, but we we deeply appreciate the tremendous effort that you put out on behalf of our country. We thank you for being here today. We thank you for being thank you for the willing to be here today. And with that, i would like to introduce collectively secretary john kerry, who has served with us secretary ernest moniz who has been incredibly helpful to all of us, and some of that i think we all appreciate deeply. Secretary lew who served in multiple positions here, has certainly been affirmed by this committee several times. Thank you all for your Great Service to our nation. In spite of some of the concerns we have here today. I think you all understand the drill. Take five minutes or so to explain, as i have looked at your testimony, i know it is very brief. Just toward people in advance, im going to do for my questions immediately thereafter and use my time to interject as things move along. With that, secretary kerry. Secretary kerry well, thank you, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member cardin. We really do appreciate the chance to discuss with you the comprehensive plan that we and our p5 1 partners have developed with iran regarding the future of its Nuclear Program. I let be emphasized everybody here, this is not just the United States of america. These are other Nuclear Powers. France, britain, russia, china. They have a pretty good understanding of this field and of the challenges. And i appreciate the way in which they and germany, which was the plus one, all came together, all could to be did all were part of this debate. So youre not just looking at what this table negotiated, you are looking at what the International Community, the p5 1 under the offices of the United Nations negotiated. And they are not down. They are experts, everyone one of them, and Nuclear Technology and ratification and verification. Smart people who spent a lifetime at this. In the have signed off on this agreement. And im joined by two cabinet secretaries whose help was absolutely valuable in reaching this deal and i think all of you for the role that congress played. I was privileged to be the chairman of this committee we passed the iran sanctions effort. And we all remember the debate we passed it unanimously, and it played a very significant role in bringing iran to the table and helping to make it clear that we needed to bring about a serious and productive negotiation with iran. From the day that those talks began, we were Crystal Clear that we would not accept anything less than a good deal. And we defined it. Up front. A deal that closed off the pathways to a bomb. The uranium pathways, the plutonium pathways, and the covert pathway. So we set our standards and we believe we have achieved to those standards. After almost two years of very intensive talks, the facts are really Crystal Clear. That the plan that was announced last week in vienna is, in fact, a deal that doesnt shut off those pathways. And provides us with guarantees through the lifetime of the ntp and the participation of a man that we will know what they are doing of iran that we will know what they are doing. The chairman said some phrase of, unless we give iran what they want. [laughter] folks, they already have what they want. They got it 10 years ago or more. They already have conquered the fuel cycle. When we begin our negotiations iran had enough material for 10 to 12 bonds. Bombs. They had 19,000 centrifuges. Up from the 163 they had back in 2003 when the Prior Administration was engaged with them on this very topic. So this is not a question of giving them what they want, it is a question of how do hold their program back . How do you dismantle their Weapons Program . Not their whole program. Lets understand what was really on the table here. We set out to dismantle their ability to be able to build a Nuclear Weapon. And we have achieved that. Nobody has ever talk about actually dismantling their entire program because when that was being talked about, thats when they went from 163 centrifuges to 19,000. Everybody here knows what the options are for actually stopping that. It was called military action. Because they are not good to stop it otherwise. They have already proven that. They have proven that during all those years. So, under this terms of this agreement, iran has agreed now to remove 90 of its stockpile voluntarily destroyed 98 of their stockpile of your aged uranium. They are going to dismantle two thirds of their installed centrifuges and they are going to take out the existing core of an existing heavywater reactor and fill it with concrete. Iran has agreed to refrain from producing or acquiring highly enriched uranium and weapons grade plutonium for at least 15 years. And if they began to do that ernest muniz will tell you, we will know it immediately. Iran has also agreed to accept the Additional Protocol, and the Additional Protocol is an outgrowth of the failure of the north korea experience, which put in additional Access Requirements precisely so that we do know what iran is doing. And they have to ratify it before the uns sanctions un sanctions are lifted at the end of this process. They have agreed to live by it from day one. They are going to live by the Additional Protocol. In addition, there are additional transparency measures. We can go into in the course of this hearing. Now, if iran fails to comply, we will know it. And we will know it quickly and we will be able to respond accordingly. By reinstituting sanctions, all the way up to the most forceful options we have today, none of them are off the table at any point in time. So many of the measures that are in this agreement are therefore not just for 10 years, not just for 15 years, not just for 20 years, not just for 25 years, of which there are measures for each of those periods of time but they are forever as long as iran is within the npt. By the way, north korea has pulled out of the npt. Iran has not pulled out of the npt. Remember two years ago when our negotiations began, we were facing in iran that was enriching uranium in a facility that was secret and buried underground. And they were never the stockpiling enriched uranium and had installed nearly 20,000 centrifuges. They were building a heavy water reactor that could build weapons grade plutonium. And experts assessed that the breakout time that as a result the interval required to rush to be able to produce enough material for one Nuclear Weapon was about two to three months. If this deal is rejected, we return immediately to this reality. Except that the diplomatic support that we have built with all these other countries, that we have accumulated, or to secure would disappear overnight. Let me underscore the alternative to the deal we have reached is not what i have seen on some ads on tv suggesting disingenuously. It is not a, quote, better deal. Some sort of unicorn arrangement involving irans complete capitulation. That is a fantasy, plain and simple. And our own Intelligence Community will tell you that. Every Single Department of our Intelligence Community will reinforce that to you. The choice we face is between in agreement that will ensure Irans Nuclear program is limited, regular sleep scrutinized, and wholly peaceful rigorously scrutinized and wholly peaceful, or no deal at all. That is the choice. There are 189 nations who live by the npt. Five of them are, as we know, the main Nuclear Powers of the u. S. Un. 184 of them are not nuclear in power. But they live by it. And we have lived by what the iaea does with respect to ensuring the a surety of all those with hundred 84 nations. Including 12 that enrich. If the u. S. Congress moves to unilaterally reject what was agreed to in vienna, the result will be the United States of america walking away from everyone of the restrictions that we have achieved. And a great big green light for iran to double the pace of its uranium enrichment, proceed full speed ahead with a heavywater reactor, install new and more efficient centrifuges, and do it all without the unprecedented inspection and transparency measures that we have secured. Everything that we have prevented will then start taking place. And all the voluntary rollbacks of their programs will be undone. Moreover, if the u. S. After laboriously negotiating this multilateral agreement with five other partners were to walk way from those partners, we are on her own. Our partners will not walk away with us, instead they will walk way from the tough bilateral sanctions regime they have helped to put in place. And we will have squandered the best chance we had to solve this problem through peaceful means. Make no mistake, president obama has made it Crystal Clear that we will never accept a Nuclear Armed iran. He is the only president who has developed a weapon guaranteed of attaining that. But the fact is that iran now has we all dont like it, but whether we like it or not, iran has developed experience with a nuclear fuel cycle. They have developed the ability to produce the material for a bob. Bomb. And we cannot on that knowledge away. Cannot bomb that knowledge away, nor can we sanction the knowledge away. Remember, sanctions do not stop Irans Nuclear program from growing steadily. By the way, they didnt choose to produce them. Unlike north korea, they created a Nuclear Weapon and exploded one and pulled out of the npt iran has done none of that. The vienna plan will provide a stronger, more comprehensive more lasting means of limiting Irans Nuclear program than any alternative that has been spoken of. And to those who are thinking about opposing the deal because of what might happen in 15 or 16 or 20 years, remember, if we walk away, the year 15 or 16 or 20 starts tomorrow. And without any of the longterm verifications or transparency safeguards that we are put in place. Over the past week, i have spoken at length about what exactly this deal is. I also want to make clear what this deal was never intended to be. First of all, as the chief negotiator, i can tell you i never uttered the words anywhere anytime nor was it ever part of the discussion we had with the iranians. This plan was designed to address the Nuclear Issue. The Nuclear Issue alone because we knew that if we got caught up with all the other issues, we would never get where we needed to to stop the Nuclear Program. It would be staying there forever, negotiating one aspect or another. And the highest party of president obama was to make sure that iran could get a Nuclear Weapon. Couldnt get a Nuclear Weapon. So we were disappointed that. We didnt set out, even though we dont like it and i have extensive plans that i will layout to you if you want them about how we are going to push back against irans other activities. Against terrorism support, its contributions to secretary violence and other things. All of those are unacceptable. They are is unacceptable to us as they are to you. But i have news for you. Pushing back against in iran with a Nuclear Weapon is very different from pushing back against in iran without one. And we are guaranteeing they would have one. So, we are working very closely with the gulf states. Just today in saudi arabia, carter was there yesterday, the foreign minister said that Irans Nuclear deal appears to have all the provisions necessary to curtail irans ability to obtain a Nuclear Weapon. That is saudi arabia. The varieties are supportive. Emirates are supportive. So i would suggest that we are going to continue to press iran for information about the missing american, about the Immediate Release of americans who have been unjustly held, and there isnt a challenge in the entire region that we would push back against if iran is involved in it, but i will tell you none of those challenges will be enhanced if iran gets a Nuclear Weapon. So the outcome cannot begin to buy sanctions alone. I wish it could. But it cant be. And by the way, it also cant be guaranteed by military action alone. Our own military tells us that. The only viable option here is a comprehensive diplomatic resolution of the type that was reached in vienna. And that deal, we believe that we will show it to you today and in the days ahead, will make our country and our allies safer. It will ensure that Irans Nuclear Program Remains under intense scrutiny for ever and we will know what they are doing. And it will ensure that the World Community is united in ensuring Irans Nuclear activities will remain wholly peaceful, even as he also stay united and pushing back against its other activities in the region, which we object to. We believe this is a good deal for the world. A good deal for america. A good deal for allies and friends in the region. And we think it does deserve your support. Mr. Corker thank you. Secretary moniz . Secretary moniz thank you, mr. Chairman. I do appreciate the opportunity to come here to discuss the agreement. The agreement prevents iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon, provide strong verification measures that give us time to respond if iran chose to violate the terms, and fundamentally takes note of our options off the table. I want to stress that americas leading Nuclear Experts and our National Laboratories were involved throughout these negotiations. Our god, los alamos, oak ridge the pacific northwest, savannah river, all played important roles. These Nuclear Experts were essential to evaluating and developing technical proposals and support of the u. S. Delegation. As a result of their work, im confident that the technical underpinnings of this deal are solid and the department of energy stands ready to assist in the implementation. The deal leaves the president objectives president s objectives. The jcpoa would extend for at least 10 years, the time that it would take iran to produce just material for a Nuclear Explosive. The deal addresses the uranium enrichment, plutonium, and covert pathways to a Nuclear Weapon. The parameters, as the making member mentioned, are maintained and in fact strengthened, not weakened, but strengthened in the final agreement. This means restricting the number, type, and location of centrifuges, dialing back the r6d program r d program reducing irans stockpile, and prohibiting introduction of any material. Excess infrastructure is also removed. All these reasons taken together establish the one your breakout timeline for accumulating highly enriched uranium. And something that we have not stressed, but i do want to add at the end of these 10 years iran will have far fewer than 19,000 centrifuges because they knowledge the breakage rate, if you would like. They will not have a large replacement capacity because of the agreements. In addition, iran will have no source of weapons grade plutonium. The reactor is transformed under International Oversight and participation to produce far less plutonium that the current design, no weapons grade plutonium in normal operation and essentially immediate recognition if they try to deviate from that from that practice; furthermore, all of the plutonium bearing fuel from that reactor goes out of the country for life. The life of the reactor. This deal goes beyond the parameters in a number of ways. One area is that iran will not engage in several activities that could contribute to the development of a Nuclear Explosive device, including multiple point explosive systems. And neutron special the tide sources. These commitments are indefinite. And ive read will not pursue plutonium or uranium or uranium alloy metallurgy. Because iran will not engage in it kept these be there to use weapons grade material for the explosives device, an additional period should be added to our stated breakout timeline. To be clear, the deal is not built on trust. It is pretty hardnosed hardnosed requirements and ensure inspections transparency, and verification. Irish are you, this is not what iran wanted. It is a substantial dallying back of their program. To preclude cheating International Inspectors will be given unprecedented access to all of irans declared nuclear facilities. I guess we could make it exception if there was a military occupation, but that is not the case here. And any other types of concern. As well as the entire Nuclear Supply chain from the uranium supply, the centrifuge manufacturing and operations, it gives access to the radio supply chain with a 25 year commitment. The uranium supply chain with a 25 year commitment. And we still have the Additional Protocols in place to monitor Irans Nuclear activities, but another thing we have also and as their adherence to modified code 3. 1, which means that they must notify the iaea even before they Start Building any nuclear facility. This eliminates kind of a loophole where one could do something covertly and then say you know oops, we were planning to notify before we brought in Nuclear Material. They must do this now in the planning stage so it is another thing we have been 25 years. The iaea will be permitted to use advanced technologies, and this was nailed down including things like realtime enrichment monitoring, which i might say is a Technology Developed by our laboratories. In this case, i oak ridge. By oak ridge. If the International Community suspects iran is cheating, they can request access to any specific location. I would say that i would like a secretary kerry, i did say the words anytime anywhere and im very pleased that yesterday a member of your caucus acknowledged, however, that the full measure was anytime anywhere in the sense of a welldefined process with a welldefined and time. 3nd time end time. In fact, the iaea can request access to any suspicious location with 24 hours notice under the Additional Protocol, which iran will implement. The deal has not changed that baseline. The deal is if there is then the agreement is not reached, then when the iaea request access this 20 were our day clock will start. And this is a new tool a finite time for resolving disputes within what we think is a short. Of time a short period of time. We will then be able to have to implement a detect microscopic traces of Nuclear Materials, even after the thames are made to remove the evidence after the attempts are made to remove the evidence of materials. Irans history provides a good example. In 2003, the iaea requested access to a suspicious facility. It was denied. Negotiations dragged on for six months, but even after that long delay, environmental samples revealed Nuclear Activity even though iran had made a substantial effort to remove and cover up the evidence. And we have in addition conducted our own experiments to verify the ability to detect very, very small traces of uranium. The agreement will be implemented in phases. As has been said already. Some 10 years, 15 years, 20, 25 years, and then as i have already described, the key transparency measures that state be on 25 years, as long as iran is in the npt. And if they are not in the npt every alarm bells would go off all over the place and appropriate actions would be taken. In closing, i just want to acknowledge the work of the negotiating team, led by my colleague, secretary kerry. The u. S. Agency the u. S. Multi Agency Delegation worked together seamlessly and the eu displayed remarkable cohesion throughout this way complex endeavor. The continued collaboration and Cooperation Among the leading nations, in particular the p5 of the u. N. Security council, is really crucial in assuring iran complies so as to avoid the be a position of a Major International sanctions regime and probably other responses as well. I just want to say again the deal is based on science and analysis because of its deep grounding an exhaustive Technical Analysis carried out largely by our scientists and engineers. Im confident this is a good deal for america for our allies, and for our global security. Just to respond to the Ranking Members criteria members criterion with rather than without this agreement. Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here. Mr. Corker thank you very much. Secretary lew. Secretary lew thank you for the opportunity to speak today. A foreignpolicy decision of the significant deserves thorough review. I confident that a fair and full debate on the merits make it clear this deal will strengthen our National Security and that of our allies. The powerful array of u. S. And International Sanctions on iran constitutes the most effective sanctions regime in history. These measures have clearly demonstrated to irans leaders the cost of flouting international law, cutting them off from the worlds market and crippling their economy. Today, the iranian economy is about 20 smaller than it would have been had it remained on a pre2012 growth project. And with bipartisan support in congress and of this committee. Together, we established a web of farreaching u. S. And International Sanctions that ultimately persuaded irans leadership after years of entrenched in entrenching to come back to the table. International consensus and cooperation to achieve this is vital. The worlds major powers have been and remain united in preventing a Nuclear Armed iran. That unity of purpose produced four top Council Resolutions and National Level sanctions and many countries and assured adherence to u. S. Actions by countries around the world. The point of the sanctions was to change Irans Nuclear behavior. While holding up the prospect of release if the worlds concerns were addressed. Accordingly, once the iaea verifies that iran has completed key steps to roll back its Nuclear Program and extend its breakup time to at least one year, sanctions relief would come in to effect. There is no signing bonus. To be clear, there will be no immediate changes to u. N. , eu, or u. S. Sanctions. Only if iran fails the necessary nuclear conditions will the u. S. Begin suspending Nuclear Related secondary sanctions on a phased basis. Sanctions that target the country parties do business with iran. Of course, we must guard against the possibility that iran does not hold it said the deal. That is why if iran violate its commitments which we have suspended the sanctions, we will be able to probably snap back both u. S. And hewitt sanctions. Both snapback able to promptly snapback both u. S. And eu and sanctions. Even as we phase in Nuclear Related sanctions relief, we will maintain significant sanctions that fall outside the scope of a nuclear deal including our primary u. S. Trade embargo. With very limited exceptions iran will continue to be denied access to the Worlds Largest markets and we will maintain powerful sanctions its backing of the assad regime, its missile program, and its human rights abuses at home. Just this week, the treasury shank didnt sanctioned leaders and we will not be relieving sanctions on irans revolutionary guard corps or any other subsidiaries or senior officials. Some argue that sanctions relief is premature until iran seizes these activities. I understand the concern. But irans ties to terrorist groups are exactly why we must keep it from ever obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. The combination of those two threads would raise a nightmare scenario. A Nuclear Armed iran would be far more menacing. If we cannot solve both concerns at once, we need to adjust them in turn. Jcpoa will address the nuclear danger, freeing us and our allies to a check irans activities more frequently. Walking away from this deal with leave the worlds leading sponsor of terrorism with a decreasing Nuclear Breakout time. We must understand what sanctions relief will really mean to iran. Irans 100 billion in restricted foreign reserves, which many fear will be directed for nefarious purposes constitute the countrys longterm savings. We estimate that after sanctions relief, iran will only be able to freely access around half of these reserves or about 50 billion. That is because over 20 billion is committed to projects with china where i cannot be spent, and tens of billions in additional funds are not performing loads to advance energy and banking sector. Iran cannot simply spend the usable resources as they will likely be needed to meet International Payment obligations such as financing for import and external debt. Moreover president the president was elected on a platform of revitalization. He faces over half 1 trillion in pressing investment requirements and government obligations. Iran is in a massive economical, from which it will take years to climb out. Meanwhile, we will aggressively target any attempt by iran to finance terrorists or somewhat. Support militant proxies. Backing away from this deal to escalate the economic pressure and try to obtain a broader capitulation from iran would be a mistake. Even if one believed that extending sanctions pressure was a better course than resolving the threat of Irans Nuclear program, that choice is not available. Our partners agreed to impose costly sanctions on iran for one reason to put a stop to its illicit Nuclear Program. If we change our terms now insist that these countries not escalate though sanctions, they would balk and we would be left with neither a nuclear deal no effective sanctions. So it is unrealistic to think that additional sanctions pressure would force iran to totally capitulate. And it is impractical to believe we could impose such pressure after turning down a deal our partners believe is a good one. The joint comprehensive plan of action is a strong deal with phase relief only after iran fills its commitments to roll back its Nuclear Program and a powerful snapback built in later if they break the deal. Its terms achieve the objectives that were meant to achieve, blocking irans path to a nuclear bomb. That is an overriding National Security priority and it should not be put at risk, not with the prospects of an unconstrained Nuclear Iranian program presents such a threat to america and the world. Thank you. Mr. Corker thank you all very much. Mr. Cardin once again, thank you for your testimony. It has been stated many times that the United States maintains its ability to impose sanctions relative to support of terrorism, human rights violations, and Ballistic Missile issues. And i have read the jcpoa and there are several paragraphs like it may concern. Let me just read one paragraph 29, where the parties will refrain from any policies specifically intended to directly or adversely affect normalization of trade and economic relations with iran. Secretary lew i just want to get your assurance that we have full ability to use the tools of sanctions against iran for its support of terrorism, human rights, and ballistic not nuclear type of activities which include congressional action that Congress Might want to take. Secretary lew it was a matter of extensive discussion in the negotiations. We made clear in the negotiations that we retained the ability and we were going to give it plays sanctions on terrorism and regional destabilization, im human rights violations. In fact, we are not lifting sanctions that are based on those authorities and we are not designating entities that were designated for those reasons. We also have made clear we reserve the right to put additional sanctions in place to address concerns about terrorism, human rights mr. Cardin when you say we, and includes a congress of the United States . Secretary lew congress has authorities in these areas. I know there is currently legislation pending regarding hezbollah and we would work with you i legislation. The thing that we cant do is we cant just put ray beckett plays everything that was part of the Nuclear Sanctions and put a new label on it. We have reserved our right to put sanctions in place that address those continuing activities. Mr. Cardin the iran sanctions act expires at the end of 2016. We will still be in the jcpao eri period of time where it is a viable hedge against irans cheating. Congress may well want to extend that law so that that power is available immediately if iran were to violate the agreement. Is that permitted under the jcpoa . Secretary lew if it is an expiration, it is one thing. If it does well in advance, it is another. I think coming out of the box right now is quite different from what you do with a bit expires from when it expires. Mr. Cardin the question is, why would that be . But we will get to that. The 24 days that you referred to, and appreciate your explanation, but there are three types of activities that could take place in violation by iran. They could be directly using Nuclear Material that is in violation, and you have are the address that issue. But it could involve weaponization or it could involve research not using Nuclear Material. With the 24 hour 24 day delay in those cases come from is our ability to determine whether iran is in compliance with the agreement . Secretary moniz senator cardin, again, looking at the material we have addressed it and it is quite secure. Clearly, when it goes into weaponization activities, even though there is a spectrum. For example, working with uranium metal is something that would still involve Nuclear Material. And i think we would have very, very strong tools there. We go to some other activities, without getting into too many specifics, they will still there will still be a variety of signatures. For example, my second priority would be explosively driven neutron sources. And i think that there are certainly tell tell signs that i think we would have access to or the iaea inspectors would have access to. Clearly, as one gets into other areas, such as computer modeling, that is a very giving kind of detection challenge. And in all of these areas, all of these cases, to go to undeclared sites, we are going to rely upon our intelligence capabilities, those of our partners, to be able to point the iaea to suspicious activities. But there are not nuclear signatures. Mr. Cardin thank you. Secretary kerry, i would like you to elaborate a little bit more on irans enrichment towards a Nuclear Weapon. I understand they still have obligations under the nonproliferation treaty. They still have obligations with the Additional Protocols under the ntp but could you tell us how much lead time we have, with the breakout looks like here . And what assurances do we have that we will be able to detect and take action before and ran becomes a Nuclear Weapons iran becomes a Nuclear Weapons state after 15 years . Secretary kerry well, first of all, senator throughout the entire life of the agreement the Additional Protocol provides for the right of access. That is where the 24 hour notice for access comes from. And have to respond to it. So if we had any intelligence regarding suspicious activity or is his wishes sites, among many for suspicious or suspicious site, we would then be able to put the ask to them and they have to respond to that. And if they dont respond to that, then we have the ability to convene, to vote, to put back in place sanctions or to take other actions if we deem that appropriate. But after mr. Cardin after the 15 years . Secretary kerry yes, but let me just fill out for you we also have a 20 or component which allows dust televised tracking other centrifuge production. And we have a 25 year remarkable insight, which is a access and monitoring tracking of their life of the uranium cycle. So from the mining, the bills mills, the yellowcake production, the gasification the centrifuge, out into the waste. The iaea will have the ability to upper ability monitor that every step of the way. So if we have x amount of raw uranium coming in and then some is diverted somewhere and we dont take going into the place it next has to go to, we are going to have extraordinary insight into this. In addition to that, under the Additional Protocol and under the iaea process for civil Nuclear Programs, all of the facilities are declared because it is a civil the killer program. As such, there is literally 24 7 visitation in those sites. They are not even request sort of situations. It is only for the undeclared facility, for which you have a suspicion, that had to go through the other process. But we will have amazing insight because they are going to live by the ntp and that is what we have to make sure they are doing. So we have daytoday insight into that. I might add two other colleagues that under the interim agreement, which by the way a number of people called a historic mistake and a tragedy and you heard all the same rhetoric you are hearing now though see people asked for us to keep that in pace place two years later because it has worked and iran has lived up to every component of that over the course of the last years. They have reduced the 20 uranium, they undid iraq, and so on and so forth. So we will have this level of insight, which i think is not being examined enough and understood enough. Nothing ends in 15 years. Simply the size of the stockpile limitation ends and the enrichment, they can enrich further, but we will have insight into that enrichment. A civilian Nuclear Program requires enrichment at approximately 5 or so. If you start to enrich higher, up around the 20 , you are talking about the Research Reactor or a few other things, but there is no rationale whatsoever for enrichment about that. And we would have insight into that Enrichment Program and would instantly know if they are beginning to go somewhere else. Red flags go off everywhere and would be all over it and able to respond. We were have months to respond, to be honest with you actually would have months to respond, to be honest with you. I think ernie can speak to the full breath of the scrutiny. Mr. Turner, may i ask one note because it is chairman may i ask one note because it is a little bit going to the uranium supply chain safeguards, i just want to add that this is something that the iaea really was to have much more broadly, so this would actually be a first in moving towards safeguards. There are some other firsts which unfortunately we cannot talk about due to other procedures. I would say to mr. Secretary, yes, people have said that they would rather keep it in place rather than look to something worse. That doesnt mean people particularly like in the first place. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator cardin, who i had the highest respect for, made a statement which i really agree with and that is that we need to leave emotion out of this. And i couldnt agree with you more. This should be done in a very nonemotional way, but that doesnt mean we have to leave [indiscernible] with all due respect. We have gone from the much of no deal is better than a bad deal. And i have heard everybody say that. And now we have gotten to the point where, well, you have to accept this else that is war. The mantra has changed dramatically. And all i can say is after reviewing this, even in a cursory fashion, anyone who believes this is a good deal really joins the ranks of the most naive people on the face of the earth. When you are dealing with the people that we are dealing with here, with a history they have of cheating and everything else, anyone who can say this is a good deal i know the justification is, well, it is not perfect. Well, the wordperfect should not even be used in a sentence with this agreement. One of the most disappointing things, and i join the chairman in this, as we have been told we have no choice in this. There is no choice in this because we have gone from the position where we started were had iran isolated and they were viewed on the world stage as a pariah. If we dont go along with this we are told, the other negotiators are going to go along with this in the United States will be isolated on this issue and we will be the prior on the national stage. Pariah on the national stage. Think about where these negotiations have taken us, from a situation where we had iran exactly where we wanted them to now if we dont go along with this, then we are going to be the isolated and pariah character on a national stage. Well, look the other thing that was so important is verification. We have to have verification. Everybody said, this is the number one thing. Well, everyone here knows that there is a site called and it was the sight of these negotiations. And it was designed and i heard the secretary say that we are going to sure the going to ensure their negotiations intentions were peaceful. It was designed and operated as an explosive testing plays where the desired a detonation trigger for a Nuclear Weapon. It stays in place. Does that sound like it is for peaceful purposes . Retire the worst thing. What you guys agreed to was we cannot even take samples there. Iaea cant take samples there. They are going to be able to test themselves. Even the nfl wouldnt go along with this. How in the world can you have a nation like iran doing their own testing . I know secretary muniz who, by the way, i think is one of the brightest guys i know, said dont wear, we will be able to watch it on tv. I we going to trust iran to do this . This is a good deal . This is what we were told we are going to get what were told dont worry, we are going to be watching over their shoulder and we are going to put in place verifications that are absolutely bulletproof . We are going to trust iran to do their own testing . This is this is absolutely ludicrous. The one thing that bothers me incredibly about this is the billions of dollars that iran is going to get. We have been briefed on the fact that while they have been in this horrible Financial Condition and we have gotten them to a horrible Financial Condition, one of their National Priorities has been to support terrorism. They have supported hezbollah hamas with financial aid, with military aid, with every kind of aid there is. Everything were trying to do in the world has their fingerprints on it trying to do us in. So, these billions of dollars are going to be put back in their hands within, im told about nine months. And again we were told yesterday, it doesnt matter what we do. Congress, go ahead and do your little thing, it doesnt matter. Because we dont have control over this money. Actually, it is the other people who were sitting at the table that have control over the money. And no matter what we do, they are going to release the billions of dollars. I have to tell you, this is a very heavy lift when you sleep at night and you say, well, im going to vote to release 50 going dollars started at 100 going dollars, and i havent had 50 going dollars, whatever it is, knowing knowing that a portion of that money is going to be directly transferred to people who are going to be trying to kill americans and who are trying to kill innocent people and and and are trying to kill our allies. To say this is to be able to walk away from this and say that this is a good deal is ludicrous. With all due respect. You guys have been bamboozled and the American People are going to pay for that. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Corker senator boxer. Secretary kerry can we respond at all to any of that . [laughter] mr. Risch my time is up, mr. Chairman. Secretary kerry well, isnt there time built in for answers . Mr. Corker i am more than glad for you to take a moment to answer i want to make sure this gets a full and fair hearing. Secretary kerry let me start with the beginning here. The comment is made, what was it, naive if you think this is a good deal. This is a nautical from the Washington Post, how the ibm deal is good for israel according to a israelis who know what theyre talking about. [laughter] secretary kerry i urge you to read it. It says here, a host of prominent members of the countrys security established have come out in support. In an interview this week, the former head of israels top Domestic Security Agency suggested israels politicians are playing with fears in a fearful society. He praised the agreement as a useful measure to curb the iranian threat. I dont think he is naive. He praised he the former chief of israels spies agency hailed obamas victory. Look, folks, senator you said have been exact we were we wanted them. 19,000 centrifuges . On the missile material for 10 to 12 bombs . Is that where we wanted them . What was the purpose of the sanctions . Mr. Risch to dismantle their secretary kerry let me finish. Our goal was to bring the two negotiations. So we have negotiated. And our i guarantee you for the first 15 years, you have unbelievable restraints that make it even possible to think about making a bomb. At the end of 15 years, you have every option that you have today. Your decision is whether or not you with this 50 be is to be right now. Or take the 15 years and whether and figure out whether or not this will work. I dont know what you mean by, we had the right where we wanted them to do what and that we want to them. To what end . Mr. Corker i do want to say that i think iran has done a masterful job in giving you a talking point with the 19,000 centrifuges, 10 of which are operating, but we all know they are antiques. They are antiques. And so, we all talk about the number of centrifuges, but this deal lays out their ability to continue research and development on the ir 2bs. Secretary kerry for a peaceful program mr. Corker let me finish. I let you talk. They said it is their future. You know the ir1 is an antique. It operates 60 it operates slow. They want to get rid of those. So they did a masterful job in getting the west in other countries to focus over here on something that is of no use to them. While they are able to draft an agreement that allows them a pathway to continue sophisticated development on something that they can put in a covert facility and enrich and level at levels and pays they can ever imagine. I must say that every element of the r d program is rolled back in time. The fact is they write now have very they are very active in all these areas and it is significantly delayed. So that is a fact. And it is a fact that is why the president said in your 13, there is zero breakout. But, sir, it is an incorrect characterization. I apologize for saying that in year eight, they are in industrial activity. It is a small cascade that they can start to do, years after their current plans. Mr. Corker and many people thought it was going to take them that long to even have the capacity to do that. So as i mentioned, have been brilliant. Are you ready for me . Ok. Colleagues, put me down as some of the things that i ran is a bad and dangerous actor. And i dont think there is one person involved that doesnt believe that. And so, that is why i believe we need to curb their nuclear ambitions. I think it is essential. And i dont think the American People want another war and i know some disagree with this i think that at the end of the day, that is really the option. Which everyone tiptoes around. Now, you know, i support the right of my colleagues to say anything they want. But you have sat there and you have heard two of my colleagues go after you with words that im going to repeat. You were fleeced, one said. The other said, you have been bamboozled. So putting aside the fact that i think that is disrespectful and insulting, that is their right to do. There are other ways to expect express disagreement, but that goes to your core as a human being. And your intelligence. And i think you are highly intelligent. So let me ask you, and if you could just answer yes or no, i know it is hard for you secretary kerry, to do so because we are senators and it is that our way, but then i can get through the rest of my list. So, my colleagues think that you were fleeced, that you are babbled, that means everybody was fleeced and bamboozled. Everybody. Almost everybody in the world. So i want to ask you does the united kingdom, our strong ally, support this accord . Secretary kerry yes. Ms. Boxer does australia, one of our strongest allies, support this accord . Secretary kerry yes. Ms. Boxer does germany support this accord . Secretary kerry yes. Ms. Boxer does france support this accord . Secretary kerry yes. Ms. Boxer does new zealand support this accorded . Secretary kerry i have not seen oh, you mean in the vote. Yes. Ms. Boxer either by voice support or a vote. Did jordan voice it support . Secretary kerry yes. Ms. Boxer did spain, denied year, did the committee . Secretary kerry yes. Ms. Boxer you get the drift. If you are bamboozled, the world has been bamboozled. That is ridiculous. And it is unfair. And it is wrong. You can disagree for sure with aspects of this agreement, but now i have the agreement right here and i have read it, and one thing i was surprised as i sat down to read it, i thought, will i be able to understand this document . It is very understandable. I would like to cite a couple of things in here. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will you run ever seek develop, or acquire any Nuclear Weapons. That is one phrase. Another one is this one is number 16. Iran will not engage in activities, including at the r d level, that could contribute to the development of a Nuclear Explosive device, including uranium or plutonium, and that is in this accord. One of the things i want to do is send out a message to iran, not to the people of iran who i think are really good people, but to those folks there that are so dangerous, and that is, you said it real clearly. If you do not live up to it, i guarantee you the consequences will not be pretty. And i think that is an Important Message that has to go out because they signed it, and they said it, and the whole world is watching them. Secretary kerry, i authored the u. S. Israelstrategic attacked. So proud of that, and president obama signed both of those. It means that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our closest ally and we know israel does not like this agreement. I am very glad you read those comments because the truth is, there is division. It is quiet, but there are some who think this is the way to go. So i would hope, as someone who has stood i was going to say tall stood so tall for this relationship with israel, at the end of the day, i think this relationship is going to be even more strengthened. I want to get your view on that because i know that ash carter went to israel. Do you have anything to report about that meeting . Sec. Kerry secretary carter went with the intention of laying out and beginning a dialogue in great detail, which he did, with the defense minister on israel. They had i think almost a days long meeting in which they discussed the many ways in which we are prepared to work with israel understanding obviously understanding the very dangerous dynamics of the region right now. And secretary carter in fact it up to review with them what the threat is currently from isil and so forth. These are all things we are prepared to push back on in any number of ways, and we also believe theres the potential of a kind of new alignment in the region. I would be going to speak with all the gcc members and a couple of days to talk about the ways in which the gulf can come together with israel and others, and really a new alignment. Sen. Boxer i want to press you on that because we were reading about saudi arabias words today in the press. I have not had time to check it out and i want to ask you, do you believe the saudis are supportive now despite the fact that they view iran as a regional adversary . Sec. Kerry i believe they will be supportive, and i met with the foreign minister just a few days ago. He indicated they were prepared to support it if certain things are going to happen. I anticipate that. And senator, im sorry to divert, i just wanted to mention , i forgot to quote because i do not want to be the person saying the choicest military or otherwise. Aside also said anyone who followed events in iran in recent decades as to admit truthfully that he never believed iran whatever just touched agree to discuss these issues, let alone agreed to the measures imposed on them by the world powers. The alternative would be military strikes, which would plunge the region into deeper insecurity and would likely not be successful. We are not alone in describing what choice there is here. I think, senator, there is a real potential to have a change in the middle east. Theres also potential to have a confrontation. This does not and the possibility of a confrontation with iran, depending on the choices that they make. Sen. Boxer would you just think Wendy Sherman for me personally for her work . Donald trump said, why dont you bring women into this negotiation, it would be most much better. She is fantastic. Sec. Kerry she is absolutely spectacular, she did an extraordinary job. We would not be where we were where we are without wendy. At incredible team, all across the government of the United States. Experts, whose life is spent analyzing iran, analyzing Nuclear Proliferation who came from the energy department, the Intelligence Community, from the state department and elsewhere all who Work Together and believe me, they are a savvy group of people. Nobody cold any wool over their eyes. Thank you. Senator rubio. Sen rubio the administration has publicly stated that you expect this deal will be rejected majorities in both houses of congress. You said that while winning approval of congress would be nice, your goal was basically to convince enough democrats to support the deal so you could avoid a veto. As far as the administration is concerned, this is a done deal, but i think it is important for the world to understand, this is a deal whose survival is not guaranteed the on the turn of the current president. By the way, i personally hope the next president is someone who will return the National Security waiver and reimpose the sanctions that were passed by congress, because the steel is fundamentally and irreparably flawed. I believe it weakens our National Security and makes the world a more dangerous place. Throughout this process, the administration, in my opinion, has repeatedly capitulated. It begins by allowing a perception to be created that we were pressing for anywhere anytime inspections, and now denying that was ever part of the process. I undertook i understand the concerns about the terms but we were pressing for anywhere anytime extensions, such inspections. I think the snapback sanctions are also hollow. Iran will test an exploit over and over again. They know that once the International Sanctions are gone, they will be impossible to snapback. As iranian counterpart misters a reef has bragged, it would be possible impossible to reconstruct it. He also bragged that incremental violations of the agreement would not be prosecuted. No matter what happens, iran will keep the more than billion dollars it is going to receive upfront basically as a signing bonus. They will be able to develop longdistance missiles. All these promises they are making about never pursuing weapons, they are all revealed as lies when they are developing a longrange rocket capable of reaching this room one day. Theres only one reason for making those, to put a Nuclear Armed on board. To a regime that, according to the director of national intelligence, directly threatens the interest of the United States and our allies. Nothing in the deal holds a run to account on the human rights. They are being rewarded for its atrocious human rights record. I know that you said, you brought up the american hostages in every negotiation, and i think we all thank you for that. For the families of americans missing or detained in iran, this deal has brought no new information regarding their loved ones whereabouts. This does nothing for Washington Post reporter jason whose brother ali is in the room with us tonight. You negotiated with an iranian official who lied to the world by saying, we do not jail people for their opinions. This deal does nothing for a marine corps sergeant who dictated a letter from prison saying secretary kerry sits politely with iranians, offering large economic concessions to save them from economic meltdown. It does nothing for a pastor whose only crime was practicing his religion. The only field it does anything for her the reigning officials who hate israel and seek to wipe the jewish state and its people from the planet, who want to spread mayhem throughout the middle east and continue to help us odd slaughter the military assad slaughter the military. I do not fall you for trying to engage in diplomacy. I do for the president for striking a terrible deal with iran. I hope enough of my democratic colleagues can be even if this narrowly the iranian world should know this is your deal with iran, yours and this administration. The next president is under no moral or legal obligation to live up to it. Members of this congress do not support this deal and the deal will go away on the day the president obama leads office. If you are accompanied, go into iran and by a manufacturing facility and the next president of the United States lifts the National Security waiver or iran violates the deal, do the sanctions apply against that facility moving forward . If a company goes into iran now after this deal, built a manufacturing facility of any kind, and then iran violates the deal and the sanctions kick back in, will that facility be able to continue to operate without facing sanctions . Senator, if a company acts to go in and do business, that is ok. If the sanctions not that, they would not be able to continue doing things in violation. Sen rubio it is important for companies everywhere to know that whatever investment they make any run, they are risking it. They are betting on the hope that iran never violates the deal and that the next president of the United States does not impose u. S. Congressional sanctions, of which they would become a sanctioned entity. I have one more specific question. There is a section titled nuclear security. It states that those who negotiated are planning to cooperate with the ron with iran. It reads cooperation through training and workshops to strengthen hereons ability irans ability to protect against sabotage. Heres my question if israel decides it does not like this deal and it wants to sabotage and iranian Nuclear Program or facility, does this deal that we have just signed obligate us to help iran defended self against israeli sabotage, or for that matter the sabotage of any other country . Sec. Kerry i believe i believe that refers to things like physical safety and safeguards. All our allies and friends made it in place. Sen rubio i guess that is my point. If israel conducts an airstrike against a physical facility, does this deal require us to help iran protect and respond to that threat . Sec. Lew no. Sec. Kerry the purpose of that is to be able to have longerterm guarantees as we enter a world that with cyber warfare, is increasingly concerned for everybody, that if you are going to have a nuclear capacity, you clearly want to be able to make sure that those are adequately protected. I can assure you, coordinate in every possible way with israel with respect to their concerns. Sen rubio so israel conduct a cyber attack. We obligated to help them . Sec. Kerry no, and i can assure you we will be coordinating very closely with israel. Sen rubio that is not how i read this. Sec. Kerry i do not see any way possible that we would be in conflict with israel with respect to what we might want to do their. We just have to wait to to that point. I do think senator, i listened to a long list of your objections here about it. But there is no alternative that you or anybody else has proposed sen rubio i sure have secretary kerry. Sec. Kerry and im confident that the next president of the United States will have enough common sense that if it is being implemented, they will not arbitrarily and it. End it. I cannot see Somebody Just arbitrarily deciding, lets go back to where we were, where they are completely free to do whatever they want, without any inspections, without any input without any restraints, without any insight. I do not think any president would do that. Sen rubio in the status quo they are already in violation. They are in violation of existing mandates, including things they have signed onto in the past. Sec. Kerry and this deal brings them back into compliance. That is the purpose of this deal. If they do not live up to it every option we have is on the table so we do not lose everything. The way we lose this by rejecting the deal, because then you have no restraint. You have no sanctions. You have no insight. You have no inspections. You have no reduction of their stockpile. If you want to just conveniently forget the fact that they had enough material to build tend to 12 lawns 10 to 12 bombs, that is a threat to israel. If you go back to any alternative, confrontation. Nobody has a plan that is articulated that is reasonable as to how you were going to strengthen this, do something more, when the Supreme Leader of iran and the president of iran believe they have signed an agreement with the world. And the rest of the world thinks it is a good agreement. If you think the ayatollah is going to come back and negotiate again with an american, that is fantasy. You are never going to see that, because we will have proven were not trustworthy. We have 535 secretaries of state. That is going to undo a whole bunch of efforts and things that matter to people in the world. That is what is at stake here. Thank you. Just to ensure that i have appropriately addressed the situation, i want to refrain and say we have been fleeced, and not make that directed at an individual. I do want to say one of the ways we brought them into compliance is that we have agreed to let them do what they are doing, and actually agreed to let them do it on an industrialized basis. I will have to say, that is how we brought them into compliance. Sec. Kerry this is a very important point, because we are not alone in this. The Bush Administration proposed the exact same thing. This is not something that president obama just sort of dreamed up and thought was a good idea engine 12, 2008 president bush through Condoleezza Rice who signed the memorandum with the p5 plus one said that in return for iran doing things with their Nuclear Program, here is what we were ready to do, recognize their right to Nuclear Energy for peaceful purposes. That is all we are doing. Treat their Nuclear Program in the same way as that, once International Confidence in the peaceful nature is restored. Provide technical and Financial Assistance for peaceful Nuclear Energy, including stateoftheart power reactor. Improve relations with iran and support them in playing an important and constructive role in international affairs. Work with iran and others in region in the region on developing confidence. Reaffirmation of the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force. Cooperation with afghanistan steps toward normalization of trade, energy partnership, Civil Aviation corporation. All of that was offered by president george w. Bush june 12 2008, but it did not happen. You are sort of filibustering here. The one element you left out that they did not agree to sec. Kerry stopping the enriching. Senator menendez. Sen. Menendez i think that no one would want to be applauding you more than i, who has been following you around since my days in the House International committee nearly 20 years ago. And one of the authors of the sanctions regime that are recognize to bring iran to the negotiating table. However, i am concerned that the deal in shrines for iran and in fact commits the International Community over time to assisting iran in developing an industrial scale Nuclear Program complete with industrial scale enrichment. And while i understand the program is going to be subject to irans npt obligations i think it fails to appreciate their history of deception in its Nuclear Program, and its violations of the npt. It will, in the long run i think, to get harder to demonstrate that you runs program irans program is not being used for a peaceful purpose because they will have legitimate reasons to have advanced centrifuges and an Enrichment Program. We will have to demonstrate that its intention is dual use, and not justified by its Industrial Nuclear power program. That is a much more difficult burden. Mr. Secretary, you have always been skeptical about sanctions. You sort of embrace them today but when you are chairman of this committee, in a hearing on sanctions legislation that i was offering, when the administration was vigorously arguing against it, your comment was, to Wendy Sherman and david so what you are really saying is this is a very blunt instrument which risks adverse ask action as opposed to a calculated effort. In that hearing, i remember had to come back because i did not expect that even the question of the amendment was going to come up. They were there trying to excoriate the effort. It passed 990 and then subsequently was embraced the administration of the reason why iran has come back to the negotiating table. So let me ask, under the sanctions heading of the agreement, paragraph 26 says and i quote the United States Administration Acting consistent with the respective roles of the president and the congress, will refrain from reintroducing or reimposing sanctions specified in annex two basically the sanctions this committee passed, that it has ceased applying. Secretary lou, i read that that we cannot reintroduce or reimpose the existing sanctions that Congress Passed into law, is that right . Sec. Lew senator, we have been very clear that we retain our right and we will if we need to, reimpose sanctions for reasons that are not nuclear, if they live with the Nuclear Agreement and violate other a snap back provisions of the sanctions are to be an effective deterrent, as the administration has suggested, of iranians breaking the agreement, will the administration agreed to support the reauthorization of the existing sanctions that passed the senate and which expire next year, yes or no . Sec. Lew let me be clear, the sanctions that are being lifted if iran complies, if they comply, we said we would not reimpose Nuclear Sanctions if they live with a Nuclear Agreement. I know, but my point is this, have got to snap back to something so if you are not snapping back let me finish, mr. Secretary. Do not eat up my time. With all due respect. If in fact the sanctions which exist that you all heralded and said brought iran to the table expire next year, 2016, and we do not reauthorize it, there is nothing, at least in the context to snap back to. Why wont you simply say that the administration supports under all the same provisions, including the president s waivers, the reauthorization of those sanctions so that the iranians know if they violate that the snapback will also include snapback to what the Congress Passed question mark past . Sec. Lew what i said was that the sanctions remain in effect. If iran complies, we will lift sanctions, and it is premature to talk about extending a law it expires next year. Their obligations go out at least eight years before the ratification of the Additional Protocol and that only takes place if Congress Lifts the sanctions so i do not understand how we ultimately have a credible belief that snapback means something if in fact you are not going to have the ability to have the sanctions in place. Let me ask you this to the secretary is the president going to make a clear and unequivocal statement not that all options are on the table against iran does not believe that that is a credible military threat. That under no circumstances will iran be permitted to acquire a Nuclear Weapon. Secretary kerry . Did you question question mark did you hear my question . Sec. Kerry i apologize. Is president obama willing to make a clear and unequivocal statement that not all options are on the table, because iran does not believe there is a credible military threat, that they under no circumstances will be permitted to acquire a Nuclear Weapon . Sec. Kerry absolutely, he has said that. He has said all options are on the table. Sec. Kerry he has said under no circumstances will they be allowed to get a Nuclear Weapon and i think ash carter reiterated publicly very specifically. I have limited time. You have been with the iranians two years and i have seven minutes. Mr. Secretary, im seriously concerned about the lifting of the arms embargo that creeps its way into this deal. As i read the Security Council resolution on page 119 the ban on e romney has in fact been lifted. The new Security Council has been quite clear. Iran is not prohibited from carrying out Ballistic Missile work. It says they are called upon not to undertake such activity. Previously inSecurity Council resolution 1929, the council used mandatory language where it said iran shall not undertake any activity related to Ballistic Missiles capable of carrying Nuclear Weapons. Why would we accept inferior language . We often call upon a lot of countries to do or stop certain actions in the u. N. , but that does not have the force of shall not which has consequences if you do. Is the run is iran banned from ballistic work for the next eight years . No. Sec. Kerry do you want to answer . That is not accurate. The exact language that is in the embargo is in the agreement with respect to launches. That is under article 25 of the u. N. That is exactly where it is today in the language. But in addition to that, iran did not want it and we insisted on it, they are restrained from any sharing of Missile Technology, purchase of Missile Technology exchange of Missile Technology, work on missiles. They cannot do that under article 41, which is Chapter Seven and mandatory. It does have the language shall. I am reading too from the Security Council resolution that was adopted codifying the agreement. And that Security Council Resolution Says that iran mr. Secretary, i am reading you explicit language. Iran is called upon not to undertake that. Sec. Kerry correct. Senator, that is exactly what it is today. That is the same language as is in the embargo now, we transferred it to this. Not the same language as Security Council resolution 1929. I do not know why you would not need the were not just keep the same language. Final question. The whole purpose of understanding the military dimensions of what happened is not for iranians to declare culpability, but to understand how far they got along in their weaponization efforts. General hayden said we have estimates but they are just that. Is it true that the iranians are going to be able to take the example that they said . Because chain of custody Means Nothing if at the beginning is what you are given is derived by the perpetrator. Sec. Kerry as you know, that is a classified component of this supposed to be discussed in a classified session. We are perfectly prepared to fully brief you in a classified session. Secretary moniz has had his Team Red Team that effort and he has made some additional addons to where we are but it is part of the confidential agreement between the iaea and iran. The iaea says they are satisfied that they will be able to do this in a way that does not compromise their needs and adequately gets the answers they need. Sec. Menendez my time is up. If that is true, that would be the equivalent of the fox guarding the chicken coop. Sec. Kerry im not confirming what is happening, i am just saying that the iaea has the ability to get the answers that they need. And secretary monis can speak quickly to that for a moment if he may. Do you want to say anything . Sec. Moniz as secretary kerry said, this is a roadmap worked out between the iaea and iran. We do not have the documents as is customary confidential between the country and the agency. But clearly, they have they know that they must have and be able to articulate a process with integrity in terms of making the measurements and being able to analyze them through their own laboratories and the network of laboratories, including u. S. Laboratories, that do the analysis of these kinds of samples. Sec. Lew let me just say, you need to go have that meeting. It will take about five seconds, ok . You need to go down in neat with secretary moniz and get that answer. I will also add that we, as a nation, do not even have a copy. Senator cardin and i have asked for this. We dont even have a copy. Of the agreement you understand this quickly and five seconds. But we dont even have a copy of the agreement to ascertain on behalf of the American People whether they iaea process which, again, you should look into this part of it has any integrity. So it is very disappointing. This is a very important point. The documents in question are kept confidential between iran and iaea. It is part of the jcp away jcpoa. If we can get eyes on that document, it may answer some of our questions. Secretary moniz has reached these kinds of conclusions. I think transparency will help us all better understand that i would just hope that in a confidential setting, they were been opportunity to review those documents. Sen. Johnson how can that be confidential and why would that be classified . I can see iaea having those confidential agreements with normal powers. Iran is not a normal nation. Largest state sponsor of terror, and we rushed to the United Nations, had this deal approved, and we dont even understand how the samples are going to be collected. And the chain of custody, it is unbelievable. Secretary kerry, i have heard this deal described as historic. I will not use bidens full terminology but this is a big deal, correct . This is a big deal, right . Sec. Kerry this is an important agreement. Sen. Johnson during our limited debate on the review act, i offered a couple of amendments and tried to offer a third. If it should rise to that level where two thirds of the senate should affirmatively approved such a big, historic deal. That, unfortunately, that amendment failed. I never got a vote on my next step in the process, deeming this a congressional executive agreement where both chambers ought to be involved. Would have to affirmatively prove this with just a simple majority vote. The third amendment i try to offer reflected but we actually ended up getting in this convoluted process of voter disapproval, which would have been a congressional executive agreement with a low threshold approval of only 34 votes. Now the parliamentarian very appropriately said, that is out of order, that is unconstitutional. Yet that is all we have heard my question is, if you are so confident that this is a great deal, why wouldnt have you been supportive of allowing the American People to be involved in the decision through their elected representatives as to whether or not that was by just allowing both chambers to have a simple vote of approval rather than this convoluted process which, lets face it you are quite confident that you are going to win this. Convince me that this what we are going through is not just a big charade. Please tell me why wasnt this administration, if you are so confident it is such a great deal, why didnt you allow this body, this congress to at least affirmatively vote to approve this deal . Sec. Kerry it wasnt my decision. Sen. Johnson the administration certainly did not offer any kind of support for a more robust review process and you have certainly circumvented this congress by undermining our review process by having Security Councils approved this, is that true . Sec. Kerry on the contrary, and this is a long time process over several centuries of executive of political agreements between countries. Sen. Johnson so this is more than political agreement i want to go on. Secretary moniz, if iran wants a peaceful Nuclear Program there is no reason for them to have to enrich uranium, is there . Sec. Moniz clearly, there is uranium available on the international market. But it is also the case that many countries support their Nuclear Program within regiment. Sen. Johnson if they wanted a peaceful program, there is no need for them to enrich uranium. In the past when for example, when south africa and libya gave up their Nuclear Programs to be welcomed into the world of nations in a more normal fashion, they completely give up enrichment. We dismantled that. That is what we demanded correct . Sec. Moniz i believe that is the case, especially with south africa, because they had a Weapons Program that was dismantled. If i may add, by the way, the documents of the iaea and south africa in a full Nuclear Weapons dismantlement program remain confidential. Sen. Johnson are you familiar with the emp commissions 2008 report . Sec. Moniz no, i am not. Sen. Johnson do you know what emp is . Electromagnetic poles. Sec. Moniz i am not, sir. I apologize. Sen. Johnson i will send you a number of questions because the recommendations were from the department of Homeland Security for the department of energy. Are you familiar with dr. Richard garwin . Sec. Moniz everybody is. Sen. Johnson he testified before our committee yesterday in combination with the former cia director about the threat of emp. One of the reasons i held that hearing is nobody knows how this is going to gain out but the inevitable conclusion of this deal is that eventually iran will have a Nuclear Weapon. Plus, they already have Ballistic Missile technology. Are you aware of the fact that iran has launched emp attacks . Sec. Moniz no, i am not. Sen. Johnson they have done that according to dr. Peter vincent pry. An emp attack would be conducted by somebody like north korea or iran and can be conducted from a ship using a scud missile and the fact that you, as the secretary of the department of energy, are not even aware of the 15 recommendations, things like evaluating quick fixes in the event of an emp attack. The fact that Richard Gartman garwin said literally for 20 million we could protect 700 critical transformers that could help us recover from Something Like that, i am highly concerned. As the secretary of energy, not even aware of these recommendations that were made public in 2008, seven years later, in testimony before our committee, we have done nothing, virtually nothing to address these 15 recommendations by the commission. Sec. Moniz first of all, i do not know that report. Clearly, many of them must apply to dhs and the dod. On the transformer question, if you look at our Energy Review published in april, we identify emp as a risk to transformers and we are beginning to work up a response. Sen. Johnson seven years later, we have done virtually nothing to protect ourselves. In light of this deal, my point being, we will provide a number of questions on the record. My final comment is, we have heard 50 billion to 104 billion. In our terms, it does not seem like that much, but it is 13 of irans economy. If the American Economy had an interjection of 13 of our economy, that would be 2. 4 trillion. This is not chump change. We have already seen what kind of actor iran is on the world stage. Basically what this deal does is interject tens of billions 13 up front of irans economy into statefunded terrorism and when senator ruiz said we have them where we want them, i agree. We did not want them with centrifuges. But this deal puts them any far better position this strengthens , their hands. From this is standpoint, i am concerned. Can i respond to the point about iranian assets . Lets be clear of what those assets are. It is not money we are giving to iran. It is even rons irans money that was sitting locked up because of international Nuclear Sanctions that were designed to bring them to the table to negotiate an agreement. Sec. Lew all that we have gone through is to analyze what that is, it is not us giving them money. If there is a Nuclear Agreement that meets the criteria that the sanctions were designed to achieve, and that was the reason they were locked up. There are competing demands for that whatever it is we think it is about 50 billion. There is at least 500 billion of domestic demand. They cannot possibly scratch the surface of that need so we have never said there would be a penny going to malign purposes but it would not exaggerate how much that is going to change. The assessment that we have that the Intelligence Community has is that able not be a change in direction, that it will be on the margin, not the kind of increase that you are describing. Before moving to senator sheehan. We have not listed our sanctions on the rgc which is the entity which carries out all of the terrorism on behalf of iran. What we uniquely did was we lifted sanctions and all their Financial Institutions. They are going to be the number one beneficiary of the sanctions lifting. We didnt lift sanctions on them, it is like not lifting sanctions on a Holding Company but we lifted sanctions on the , entity that receives the money that through the economic growth, that shipment of oil and all of the things they do to empower them on top this is almost chump change compared to what will happen over this next decade and so i would like to say that. Could i just respond . We are not lifting sanctions on a bank that was sanctioned for reasons related to terrorism. We have retained the ability many other banking entities that they have those entities, if they violate the terms of our sanctions and our regime tensions on terrorism could be anxious and we have not said that any of those decisions are protected and in terms of the snapback the point that senator menendez concluded is not correct. We have tools with or without sanctions to snap back sanctions through the ndss sanctions on oil and Financial Institutions. I would just like to move to senator sheehan by saying they disagree with that. Great britain disagrees with that, germany disagrees, france disagrees. I talked to you about this last night. The tool that we have through the nuclear file are not available to be applied. Senator menendez try to pursue that. The other countries disagree. Most of the most accurate assessment of the deal from what i have been able to rate has been coming from iran. And if iran violates it though sanctions can come back on nuclear. If they finally terrorism sanctions, we have the ability to sanction on other grounds so it is not a fair conclusion that institutions continue to engage funding terrorism or regional destabilization are and need from those kinds of sanctions traded it is just not correct. I stand by my assessment, as do the other countries who negotiated the deal with the actually, other countries went back i am just going to stop, we will get to senator sheehan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you to the negotiating team for the chum mend us effort that it took to get us to this point. Tremendous effort that it took to get us to this point. Before i ask my questions, i just want to say that i dont think it is to the benefit of this committee, this congress, or the American People for any of us to impugn the motives or the intellect of anybody involved in this discussion. I think people have strong views about how they feel and it is appropriate to express those views but to because somebody disagrees with you to suggest that their motives are not in the best interest of this country or that their intellect is questionable, i think does not advance the debate in a way that it should be advanced, so mr. Chairman, i appreciate you and the Ranking Member and hope that we will keep this debate in a civil discussion. I also wanted to point out for the record that everybody on this committee voted for the Iran Nuclear Review act of 2015. It was unanimous. So while i am sure all of us had concerns about everything, some of the provisions that were in it, it was voted for by the committee unanimously. To go to my questions, i want to follow up on the issues that were raised with respect to the possible military dimensions of the past Iranian Nuclear activities. Because that is an area where i certainly am not clear about how we can be confident that the iaea is going to be able to get the information that it needs to complete its investigation. Can you speak to that a little bit and talk about why you believe we are going to have the information that we need . Sec. Moniz the iaea is very strong, technically. I might add that every inspector since like 1980, has been trained at Los Alamos National laboratory. In terms of Nuclear Materials measurement techniques, etc. They have a very strong reputation, which, quite frankly, they need to guard to make sure they have a process with integrity. It is their responsibility there is nothing unusual here, there is no side agreement. This is the way it works. The iaea negotiates with the country. What we have achieved in the negotiations negotiations is to get iran to the table with them because without satisfying the requirements by october 15 to satisfy the agency, they there will not be any agreement going forward. That is clear. After years of stiffing them to use a technical term then what we have done is forced them to the table. They went to tehran not just the director general but the senior people who do safe guards etc. They came back and feel that they have a process with integrity. In this environment, i can only say and i will say flat out i have personally not seen those documents that gentleman referred to, i had something of an oral briefing with that, we have assembled a National Lab Team to think through the kinds of processes that we anticipate and to recommend steps that might mitigate any risk. But again, ultimately, we rely upon the iaea. They will make a report. The director general has committed to trying to get that out this year. This calendar year. And of course, that report is where one will see what the conclusions are and what the basis for their conclusions are. Can i get this to you somehow. This is the iaea board of governors roadmap. It is a letter we have submitted with all of the documents to you, but it lays out the agreement between iran and the iaea as to what they are going to do and when and how. Sen. Shaheen can we have it introduced for the record . Sec. Kerry i would like that very much. Sen. Shaheen can i ask either before or after that report is produced, will the Intelligence Community either here or in our other partner countries weigh in and assess whether they believe that that report reflects an accurate discussion of irans past activity . Sec. Moniz i would have to defer to the Intelligence Community for their reaction but i can assure you that our doe experts are going to be looking over this very carefully. Sen. Shaheen thank you. Secretary lew can you commit that there will be no sanctions relief until the ron has provided the iaea with this information . Sec. Lew absolutely. Until they have completed their obligations, we will not be relieving any u. S. Sanctions or International Sanctions. Sen. Shaheen i dont know who wants to respond to this but, at the time we began negotiations what was the best estimate of our Intelligence Community about the time for iran to break out with a Nuclear Weapon . Sec. Kerry the best estimate was 23 months. Sen. Shaheen was there an agreement among our intelligence agencies about that estimate . Sec. Kerry yes. There was a disagreement with a couple other countries, but there was not a disagreement in our intel community. Sen. Shaheen as we look at this agreement goes into effect, is there an estimate about how long it might take to get to a Nuclear Weapon at the end of this agreement if iran decides to pursue that option at the end of sec. Kerry the breakout time as it is used in this negotiation is a hybrid of the traditional understanding of breakout time. Breakout time and arms control has usually been referred to as the time it takes to get a weapon. We have been dealing only with the amount of time it takes to get enough fissile material to produce one weapon. You still have to produce the weapon and most people dont guesstimate there is a lot of time be on that. Beyond that. We have been operating with the big safety cushion here. We will have one year of breakout time for fissile material for one weapon for at least 10 years. Then it begins to tail down but not as a cliff, it tales down as we go through the next five years. And then we are indeed arriving at a point where iran has hopefully achieved normal status. I see hopefully because if they havent, the agreement has not worked in the sense that they violated it and we have gone back to snap back and have the sanctions back in place. Sen. Shaheen again, can you answer whether all of our intelligence agencies are agreed on that particular breakout period . Is there a difference of opinion . Sec. Kerry our Intelligence Community worked this very hard and it is a very precise formula which feeds in the most rapid possible rate by looking at the numbers the amount of enrichment, the capacity for enrichment all of the many, many factors that go into it makes a complicated formula. And everybody is in agreement as to where we are. Sec. Moniz it also includes capacity to rebuild the infrastructure that they are taking out. I might add that beyond the 15 years where there are severe constraints, in terms of visibility, i remind you that for 20 years, there is still the containment and surveillance activities for any centrifuge sensitive parts manufacturing. They will all be labeled tracked, etc. For 25 years the uranium transparency. It is like follow the uranium and the centrifuges. Sen. Shaheen my time has expired, thank you all. I might add the president was very clear the breakout. Sec. Moniz i dont agree with that characterization, mr. Chairman. Sen. Flake i hope you will take these questions in the spirit they are given, i am not looking to play gotcha at all. I commend you for the hard work that has been done. There is some disagreement here it seems with the text of the agreement as we read it. And the explanation that is given. Let me just cover a couple of these points. Number eight, on adoption day for the implementation plan, it says iran will inform the that effective on implementation day they will additionally supply , the protocol hand pending its ramification by the parliament, the Iranian Parliament and will fully implement the modified code 3. 1. We have talked about the agreement, although it is voluntary to live by the Additional Protocol. First, what is the timetable that is required for the parliament to address the Additional Protocol . Sec. Moniz they have to live by the Additional Protocol understood from the moment of adoption. Going forward, they have eight years within eight years to adopt it formally within but their material reach as of adoption day if they do not live by it. It is fully understood by everybody that would be a material breach. But there is no timetable where the parliament has to do it. Sec. Kerry they have to do it within the eight years. Within eight years . So that is the time period. Sec. Kerry which is before sanctions were lifted, see you have snapback capacity as a result. Understood. December 2011, the president signed into law the ndaa which included sanctions on Irans Central Bank. These sanctions penalized for and Financial Institutions who were doing business with Irans Central Bank. These sanctions will ultimately be suspended. Because of the jcpoa. What i am trying to understand according to the agreement, the u. S. Agreement with respect to the roles of the president and the congress will refrain from reintroducing or reimposing the sanctions specified in annex two that it has ceased to comply under the jpoa without prejudice to the process. This is what i think a lot of us are having a hard time reconciling. What would constitute reintroducing, reimposing sanctions specified existing sanctions . If, because iran didnt violate the nuclear part of the agreement but, for other reasons, committed terrorism abroad, abducted americans and we wanted to penalize him, we wanted to sanction them, could we impose sanctions on Irans Central Bank because that would mimic or be similar to what was done before but it would be in a different context, would that be allowed or whether that lead to some violation on our part of the agreement . Sec. Kerry im going to take a stab at this because we have been going around on it and i want to try, if i can, answer it does positively. Answer it does positively. First of all, we will not violate the jcpoa if we use our authority to impose sanctions on iran, terrorism, human rights, missiles, or any other nonnuclear reason. It does not provide iran from any nuclear relief. What we have committed to do is quite specific. Iran is fearful that having witnessed the hot desire within congress for more sanctions that even if we cut an agreement, you folks might just turn around the day after and say, too bad, we are coming back with all the same sanctions, and the president is in veto status. What they really wanted was a clarity that we are not going to reimpose the specific Nuclear Related sanctions provisions as specified and annexed to the jcpoa contingent on them abiding by the commitments of the agreements. So, it is really simply a clarification to them that we are not going to come back and just slap them on again. But that absolutely does not mean we are precluded from sanctioning iranian actors, sectors, or any actions if circumstances warrant. So all of our other sanction authorities remain in place. And iran only said, if you read what it says, that they would treat th