Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20240622

A different vision. Strength, in his view, included powerful armed forces and a willingness to stand up for our values around the world. But he rejected the prevailing attitude among some foreignpolicy circles that equated security with a perpetual war footing. Instead, he promised strong, principled, American Leadership on behalf of what he called a practical and attainable peace. Ce based a gradual evolution in human institutions, on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements. Such wisdom would help guide our ship of state through some of the most perilous moments in human history. With kennedy at the helm, the cuban missile crisis was resolved peacefully. Under democratic and republican president s, new agreements were forged. A nonproliferation treaty that prohibited nations acquiring Nuclear Weapons, while allowing them to access Peaceful Nuclear energy. The salt and start treaties that bound the United States and the soviet union to cooperation on arms control. Not every conflict was averted. But the world avoided nuclear catastrophe. And we created the time and the space to win the cold war without firing a shot at the soviets. The agreement now reached between the International Community and the Islamic Republic of iran builds on this tradition of strong, principled diplomacy. After two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. It cuts off all of irans pathways to a bomb. It contains the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated to monitor a Nuclear Program. As was true in previous treaties, it does not resolve all problems. It certainly doesnt resolve all of our problems with iran. It doesnt ensure a warming between our two countries. But it achieves one of our most critical security objectives. As such, it is a very good deal. Today, i want to speak to you about this deal, and the most consequential foreignpolicy debate that our country has had since the invasion of iraq. As congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough or instead blocks it over the objection of the vast majority of the world. Between now and the congressional vote in september, you are going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. And if the rhetoric in these ads and the accompanying commentary sounds familiar, it should. For many of the same people who argued for the war in iraq are now making the case against the iran nuclear deal. Now when i ran for president eight years ago as a candidate who opposed the decision to go to war in iraq, i said that america did not just have to end that war. We had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place. It was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy. A mindset that put a premium on unilateral u. S. Action over the painstaking work of Building International consensus. A mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported. Leaders did not level with the American People about the costs of war, insisting that we could easily impose our will on a part of the world with a profoundly different culture and history. And of course, those calling for war labeled themselves strong and decisive while dismissing those who disagreed as weak. Even appeasers have a malevolent adversary. More than a decade later, we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade iraq. Our troops achieved every mission they were given. But thousands of lives were lost. Tens of thousands wounded. That doesnt count the lives lost among iraqis. Nearly a trillion dollars was spent. Today, iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al qaeda in iraq has now evolved into isis. And ironically, the single greatest beneficiary in the region of that war was the Islamic Republic of iran. Which sought strategic position strengthened by the removal of its longstanding enemy, saddam hussein. I raise this recent history because, now more than ever, we need Clear Thinking in our foreignpolicy. And i raise this history because it bears directly on how we respond directly to the iran Nuclear Program. That program has been around for decades, dating back to the shahs efforts, with u. S. Support, in the 1960s and 1970s to develop nuclear power. The theocracy that overthrew the ah took place in the 1980s. Irans Nuclear Program advanced steadily through the 1990s, despite unilateral u. S. Sanctions. When the Bush Administration took office, iran had no centrifuges. The machines necessary to produce material for a bomb. But despite repeated warnings from the United States government, by the time i took office, iran had installed several thousand centrifuges and showed no inclination to slow, much less halt, its program. Among u. S. Policymakers, there has never been disagreement on the danger posed by an Iranian Nuclear bomb. Democrats and republicans alike have recognized that it would spark an arms race in the worlds most unstable region and turn every crisis into a potential nuclear showdown. It would embolden terrorist groups like hezbollah and oppose an unacceptable risk to israel, which iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to destroy. More broadly, it could unravel the global commitment to nonproliferation that the world has done so much to defend. The question then is not whether to prevent iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon, but how. Even before taking office, i made clear that iran would not be allowed to acquire a Nuclear Weapon on my watch. And it has been my policy throughout my presidency to keep all options, including possible military options, on the table to achieve that objective. But i have also made clear my preference for a peaceful, diplomatic resolution of the issue. Not just because of the costs of war, but also because a negotiated agreement offered a more effective, verifiable, and durable resolution. And so in 2009 we let the iranians know that a diplomatic path was available. Iran failed to take that path. And our Intelligence Committee exposed the existence of a covert nuclear facility. Now some have argued that irans intransigence show the futility showed the futility of negotiations. In fact, it was our very willingness to negotiate that helped rally the world to our cause, and secured International Participation in an unprecedented framework of commercial and financial sanctions. Keep in mind, unilateral u. S. Sanctions against iran have been in place for decades but had failed to pressure iran to the negotiating table. What made our new approach more effective was our ability to draw upon United Nations resolutions with voluntary agreements from nations like china and india, japan and south korea, to reduce their purchases of iranian oil, as well as the imposition by our european allies of a total oil embargo. Winning this global buyin was not easy. I know, i was there. [laughter] pres. A mea me c dollars in trade because of their decision to cooperate. But we were able to convince them that, absent a diplomatic resolution, the result could be war with major disruptions to the global economy, and even greater instability in the middle east. In other words, it was diplomacy, hard, painstaking diplomacy, not saber rattling, not tough talk, that ratcheted up the pressure on iran. With the world now unified beside us, irans economy contracted severely and remains about 20 smaller today than it would have otherwise been. No doubt this hardship played a role in irans 2013 elections, when the iranian people elected a new government, the promise to improve the economy through engagement with the world. A window had cracked open. Iran came back to the nuclear talks. And after a series of negotiations, iran agreed with the International Community to an interim deal, a deal that rolled back irans stockpile of near 20 enriched uranium and froze the process. Progress of its programs so that the United States, china, russia, united kingdom, germany, france, and the European Union could negotiate a conference of deal comprehensive without the fear that iran might be stalling for time. Let me pause here just to remind that when the interim deal was announced, critics, the same critics we are hearing from now, called it a historic mistake. They insisted iran would ignore its obligations. They warned the sanctions would unravel. They warned that iran would receive a windfall to support terrorism. The critics were wrong. The progress of irans Nuclear Program was halted for the first time in a decade. Its stockpile of dangerous materials was reduced. The deployment of its advanced centrifuges was stopped. Inspections did increase. There was no flood of money into iran. And the architecture of the International Sanctions remained in place. In fact, the interim deal worked so well that the same people who criticized it so fiercely now cite it as an excuse not to support the broader accord. Think about that. What was once proclaimed as a historic mistake is now held up as a success and a reason to not sign the comprehensive deal. So keep that in mind when you assess the credibility of the arguments being made against diplomacy today. Despite the criticism, we moved ahead to negotiate a more lasting, comprehensive deal. Our diplomats led by secretary of state john kerry kept our coalition united. Our nuclear experts, including one of the best in the world, secretary of engineering energy, ernie moniz, work tirelessly on a technical details. In july, we reached a comprehensive plan of action that met our objectives. Under its terms, iran is never allowed to build a Nuclear Weapon. The agreement strictly defines the manner in which its Nuclear Program can proceed, ensuring that all pathways to a bomb are cut off. Here is how. Under this deal, iran cannot acquire the plutonium needed for a bomb. The core of its heavy water reactor in iraq will be replaced with one that will not produce plutonium for a weapon. The spent fuel from that reactor will be shipped out of the country and iran will not build any new heavywater reactors for at least 15 years. Iran will also not be able to acquire the enriched uranium that could be used for bomb. For a bomb. As soon as this deal is implemented, iran will remove two thirds of its centrifuges. For the next decade, iran will not enrich uranium with its more advanced centrifuges. Iran will not enrich uranium at the previously undisclosed facility that is deep underground for at least 15 years. Iran will get rid of 98 of its stockpile of enriched uranium, which is currently enough for up to 10 nuclear bombs, for the next 15 years. Even after those 15 years have passed, iran will never have the right to use a peaceful program as cover to pursue a weapon. And in fact, this deal shuts off the type of covert path iran pursued in the past. There will be 24 7 monitoring of Irans Nuclear facilities. For decades, inspectors will have access to the entire Nuclear Supply chain. Understand why this is so important, for iran to cheat, it has to build a lot more than just one building or covert facility. It would need a secret source for every single aspect of its program. No nation in history has been able to pull off such subterfuge when subjected to such rigorous inspections. And under the terms of the deal, inspectors will have the permanent ability to inspect any suspicious sites in iran. Finally, iran has powerful incentives to keep its commitments. Before getting sanctions relief, iran has to take significant, concrete steps, like removing centrifuges and getting rid of its stockpiles. If iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place. We wont need the support of other members of the Human Security council you in Security Council, america can trigger snap back on our own. However, if iran abides by the deal and its economy begins to reintegrate with the world, the incentives to avoid snapback will only grow. So this deal is not just the best choice among alternatives. This is the strongest, nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated. And because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli Government, has expressed support. The United Nations Security Council has unanimously supported it. The majority of arms control and nonproliferation experts support it. Over 100 former ambassadors who served under republican and democratic president s support it. Ive had to make a lot of tough calls as president , but whether or not this deal is good for American Security is not one of those calls. Its not even close. Unfortunately, we are living through a time in american politics where every Foreign Policy decision is viewed through a partisan prism, evaluated by headlinegrabbing soundbites. And so, before the ink was even dry on the deal, before commerce before Congress Even read it, a majority of republicans declared their virulent opposition. Lobbyists and pundits were suddenly transformed into armchair nuclear scientists, disputing the testimony of experts like dr. Moniz. Challenging his findings. Sometimesultiple, and contradicting arguments about why congress should reject this deal. But if you repeat these arguments long enough, they can get some traction. So let me address just a few of the arguments made so far in opposition to this deal. First, there are those who say that the inspections are not Strong Enough because inspectors cannot go anywhere in iran at any time with no notice. Heres the truth. Inspectors will be allowed daily access to irans key nuclear sites. If there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious, undeclared site anywhere in iran, inspectors will get that access, even if iran objects. In fact, it can be with as little as 24 hours notice. And while the process for resolving a dispute about access 24 days, once we see a site that is suspicious, we will be watching it continuously until inspectors get in. By the way, Nuclear Material isnt something you hide in the closet. [laughter] it can leave a trace for years. The bottom line is, if iran cheats, we can catch them and we will. Second, there are those who argue that the deal isnt Strong Enough because some of the limitations on irans civilian Nuclear Programs expire in 15 years. Let me repeat. The prohibition on iran having a Nuclear Weapon is permanent. The ban on weaponsrelated research is permanent. Inspections are permanent. It is true that some of the limitations regarding irans peaceful program last only 15 years. But that is how arms control agreements work. The first salt treaty with the soviet union lasted five years. The first start treaty lasted 15 years. And in our current situation, if 15 or 20 years from now iran tries to build a bomb, this deal ensures that the United States will have better tools to detect it, and the same options available to stop a Weapons Program as we have today, including if necessary military options. On the other hand, without this deal, the scenarios the critics warn about happening in 15 years could happen six months from now. By killing this deal, congress would not merely pave irans pathway to a bomb. It would accelerate it. Third, a number of critics say the deal isnt worth it because iran will get billions of dollars in sanctions relief. Now lets be clear. The International Sanctions were put in place to get iran to agree to constraints on its program. Thats the point of sanctions. Any negotiated agreement with iran would involve sanctions relief. So an argument against sanctions relief is effectively an argument against any diplomatic resolution of this issue. It is true that, if iran lives up to its commitments, it will gain access to roughly 56 billion of its own money, money frozen overseas by other countries. But the notion that this will be a game changer, with all this money funneled into irans pernicious activities, misses the reality of irans current situation. Partly because of our sanctions, the iranian government has over in urgentillion requirements from funding pensions and salaries to paying for crumbling infrastructure. Irans leaders have raised expectations of their people that sanctions relief will improve their lives. Even a repressive regime like irans cannot completely ignore those expectations. And thats why our best Analysts Expect the bulk of this revenue to go into spending that improves the economy and benefits the lives of the iranian people. Now this is not to say the sanctions relief will provide no benefit to irans military. Lets stipulate that some of that money will flow to activities that we object to. We have no illusions about the iranian government or the significance of the revolutionary guard and the quds force. Iran supports terrorist organizations like hezbollah. It supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and interests of our allies, including proxy groups who killed our troops in iraq. They try to destabilize our gulf partners. But iran has been engaged in these activities for decades. They engaged in them before sanctions and while sanctions were in place. In fact, iran engaged in these sanctions in the middle of the iraniraq war, a war that cost them nearly a million lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. The truth is that iran has always found a way to fund these efforts. Whatever benefit iran may claim from sanctions relief pales in comparison to the danger it could pose with a Nuclear Weapon. Moreover, there is no scenario where sanctions relief turns iran into the regions dominant power. Irans Defense Budget is eight times smaller than the combined budget of our gulf allies. Their conventional capabilities will never compare to israels. And our commitment to israels military edge helps to guarantee that. Over the last several years iran has had to spend billions of dollars to support its only ally in the arab world, bashar alassad. Even if you has lost control of huge chunks of his country. Lost control of huge chunks of his country. And iran, like the rest of the region, is being forced to respond to the threat of isil in iraq. So, contrary to the alarmists who claim iran is on the brink of taking over the middle east or even the world, iran will remain a Regional Power with its own set of challenges. The ruling regime is dangerous and it is repressive. We will continue to have sanctions in place on irans support for terrorism and violation of human rights. We will continue to insist upon the release of americans detained unjustly. We will have a lot of differences with the Iranian Regime. But if we are serious about confronting irans destabilizing activities, it is hard to imagine a worse approach than blocking this deal. Instead, we need to check the behavior that we are concerned about directly, by helping our allies in the region strengthen their own capabilities to counter a cyber attack or a Ballistic Missile, by improving the introduction of weapons shipments that go to groups like hezbollah, by training our allies special forces so they can more effectively respond to situations like yemen. All these capabilities will make a difference. We will be in a stronger position to implement them with this deal. And by the way, such a strategy also helps us effectively confront the immediate and lethal threat posed by isil. Now the final criticism, the sort of catchall that you may hear, is the notion that there is a better deal to be had. We should get a better deal. That is repeated over and over again. Its a bad deal. We need a better deal. [laughter] one that relies on vague promises of toughness and, more recently, the argument that we can apply a broader and indefinite set of sanctions to squeeze the Iranian Regime harder. Those making this argument are either ignorant of Iranian Society or just not being straight with the American People. Sanctions alone are not going to force iran to completely dismantle its nuclear infrastructure, even aspects consistent with these programs. That is what the critics are calling a better deal. Neither of the iranian government or the Iranian Opposition or the iranian people would agree to what they would view as a total surrender of their sovereignty. Moreover, our closest allies in europe or in asia, much less china or russia, certainly are not going to agree to enforce existing sanctions for another 5, 10, 15 years, according to the dictates of the u. S. Congress, because their willingness to support sanctions in the first place was based on iran ending its pursuit of Nuclear Weapons. It was not based on the belief that they cannot have Peaceful Nuclear power. It certainly wasnt based on a desire for regime change in iran. As a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy. Instead of strengthening our position, as some have suggested, congresss rejection would almost surely result in multilateral sanctions unraveling. If, as has also been suggested, we try to maintain unilateral sanctions, beef them up, we would be standing alone. We cannot dictate the foreign, economic, and Energy Policies of every major power in the world. In order to even try do that, we would have to sanction, for example, some of the world upon largest banks. We would have to cut off countries like china from the American Financial system, and since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy and raise questions internationally about the dollars role as a reserve currency. That is part of the reason why many of the previous unilateral sanctions were waived. What is more likely to happen should congress reject this deal is that iran would end up with some form of sanctions relief without having to accept any of the restraints required by this deal. Walk away from this agreement, and you will get a better deal, for iran. [applause] because sanctions will produce the results critics want, we have to be honest. Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any u. S. Administration that is absolutely committed to preventing iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon with one option, another war in the middle east. I say this not to be provocative. I am stating a fact. Without this deal, iran will be in a position, however tough our rhetoric may be, to steadily advance its capabilities, its breakout time, which is already fairly small, could shrink to near zero. Does anyone really doubt that the same voices now raised against this deal will be demanding that whoever is president bomb those Nuclear Facilities . As someone who does firmly believe that iran must not get a Nuclear Weapon and has wrestled with this issue since the beginning of my presidency, i can tell you that alternatives to military actions will have been exhausted once we reject a hardwon diplomatic solution that the world almost unanimously supports. So lets not mince words. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon. Here is the irony. As i said before, military action would be far less effective than this deal in preventing iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. That is not just my supposition, every estimate, including those from israeli analysts, suggests that military action would only set back irans program by a few years at best, which is a fraction of the limitations imposed by this deal. It would likely guarantee that inspectors are kicked out of iran. It is probable that it would drive irans program deeper underground. It would certainly destroy the International Unity that we spent so many years building. Now, there are some opponents, i have to give them credit. There are opponents of this deal who accept the choice of war. In fact, they argue that surgical strikes against irans facilities will be quick and painless. If we have learned anything from the last decade, it is that wars in general and wars in the middle east in particular are anything but simple. [applause] the only certainty in war is human suffering, uncertain costs, unintended consequences. We can also be sure that the americans who bear the heaviest burden are less than 1 of us, the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform, and not those of us who send them to war. As commander in chief, i have not shied away from using force when necessary. I have ordered tens of thousands of Young Americans in the combat. I have set by their bedside sometimes when they come home. I have ordered military action in seven countries. There are times when force is necessary, and if iran does not abide by this deal, its possible that we dont have an alternative. How can we in good conscience justify war before we tested a diplomatic agreement that achieves our objectives, that has been agreed to by iran, that is supported by the rest of the world, and that preserves our options if the deal falls short. How can we justify that to our troops . How could we justify that to the world . Or to future generations . In the end, that should be a lesson that we have learned from over a decade of war. On the front end, ask tough questions, subject our own assumptions to evidence and analysis, resist the conventional wisdom and the drumbeat of war. Worry less about being labeled weak. Worry more about getting it right. I recognize that resulting to force may be tempting in the face of rhetoric and the behavior that imitates from parts of iran. It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously. But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to talk. Or even provocations that can be addressed short of war. Just because iranian hardliners chant, death to america it does not mean that thats what all iranians believe. [applause] in fact, it is those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It is those hardliners chanting death to america who have been opposed to the deal. They are making common cause with the republican caucus. [applause] [laughter] the majority the iranian people have powerful incentives to urge their government and a different, less provocative, direction. Incentives that are strengthened by this deal. We should offer them that chance. We should give them that opportunity. It is not guaranteed to succeed, but if they take it, that would be good for iran, the United States. It would be good for a region that has known too much conflict. It would be good for the world. If iran does not move in that direction, if iran violates this deal, we will have ample ability to respond. You know, the agreements pursued by kennedy and reagan with the soviet union those treaties involved america accepting significant constraints on our arsenal. As such, they were riskier. Disagreement involves no such constraints. The budget of the United States is more than 600 billion irans is about 15 billion. Our military is the ultimate backstop to any agreement we make. I have stated that iran will never be allowed to obtain a Nuclear Weapon. I have done what is necessary to make sure our military options are real. I have no doubt that any president who follows me will take the same position. So, let me sum up here. When we carefully examine the arguments against this deal, none of them stand up to scrutiny. That may be why the rhetoric on the other side is so strident. I suppose some of it can be ascribed to kneejerk partisanship that has become all too familiar, rhetoric that renders every decision made a disaster, a surrender, aiding terrorists, endangering freedom. On the other hand, i do think it is important to acknowledge another more understandable motivation behind the opposition to this deal, or at least skepticism to this deal. That is a sincere affinity for our friend and ally israel, and affinity that, as somebody who has been a stalwart friend to israel throughout my career, i deeply share. When the Israeli Government is opposed to something, people in the United States take notice. They should. No one can blame israelis for having a deep skepticism about any dealings with the government like iran, which includes leaders who deny the holocaust, embraced an ideology of antisemitism, facilitated the flow of rockets that are arrayed , or pointedorders at tel aviv. In such a dangerous neighborhood, israel has to be vigilant, and it rightly insists that it cannot depend on any other country, even its great friend the United States, for its own security. So we have to take seriously concerns in israel. But the fact is that partly due to American Military and intelligence assistance, which my administration has provided at unprecedented levels, israel can defend it self against any conventional danger, whether from iran directly or from its proxies. On the other hand, a Nuclear Weapon changes that equation. That is why this deal ultimately must be judged by what it achieves on the central goal of preventing iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. This deal does exactly that. I say this as someone who has done more than any other president to strengthen israels security. I have made it clear that we are prepared to discuss how we can deepen that cooperation even further. Already we have held talks on israel with concluding another tenyear plan for u. S. Security assistance to israel. We can enhance, support, areas like interdiction all to help meet israels security needs, and to provide a hedge against any additional activities that iran may engage in as a consequence of sanctions relief. But i have also listened to the Israeli Security establishment, which warned of the danger posed by a Nuclear Armed iran, for decades. In fact, they help to develop many of the ideas that ultimately led to this deal. So to friends of israel, and to the israeli people, i say this, a Nuclear Armed iran is far more dangerous to israel, to america, and to the world, than an iran that benefits from sanctions relief. I recognize that Prime Minister netanyahu disagrees, disagree strongly. I do not doubt his sincerity. I believe he is wrong. I believe the facts support this deal. I believe they are in americas interest and israels interest, and as president of the United States, it would be an obligation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally. I do not believe that would be the right thing to do for the United States. I do not leave it would be the right thing to do for israel. [applause] over the last couple of weeks, i have repeatedly challenged anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, plausible, alternative. I have yet to hear one. What i have heard instead are the same types of arguments that we have heard in the runup to the iraq war. Iran cannot be dealt with diplomatically. We can take military strikes without significant consequences. We shouldnt worry about what the rest of the world rings, because once we act, everyone will fall in line. Tougher talk, more military threats, will force iran into submission. We can get a better deal. I know it is easy to play on peoples fears. To magnify threats, to compare diplomacy to munich, but none of these arguments hold up. They did not back in 2002 and 2003. They should not now. [applause] the same mindset come in many cases offered by the same people, who seem to have no compunction with being repeatedly wrong [laughter] led to a war that strengthen iran than anything we have done in the decade before or since. It is a mindset out of step with the tradition of american foreignpolicy, where we exhaust diplomacy before war and debate matters of war and peace in the cold light of truth. Peace is not the absence of conflict, president reagan once said. He it is the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means. President kennedy warned americans not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than the exchange of threats. It is time to apply such wisdom. The deal before us does not bet on iran changing. It doesnt require trust. It verifies. It requires. Iran to forsake a Nuclear Weapon. Just as we struck agreements with the soviet union at a time when they were threatening our allies, arming proxies against us, proclaiming their commitment to destroy our way of life, and had Nuclear Weapons pointed at all of our major cities, a genuine existential threat. You know, we live in a complicated world, a world in which the forces unleashed by human innovation are creating opportunities for our children that were unimaginable for most of human history. It is also a world of persistent threats, a world in which massive violence and cruelty is all too common, and human innovation risk the destruction of all we hold dear. In this world, the United States of america remains the most powerful nation on earth, and i believe that we will remain such for decades to come. But we are one nation among many. What separates us from the empires of old, what has made us exceptional, is not the mere fact of our military might. Since world war ii, the deadliest war in human history, we have used our power to try to bind nations together in a system of international law. We have led an evolution of those human institutions that president kennedy spoke about. To prevent the spread of deadly weapons, to uphold peace and security and promote human progress. We now have the opportunity to build on the progress. We built a coalition and held it together through sanctions and negotiations, and now we have before us a solution that prevents iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon without resorting to war. As americans, we should be proud of this achievement. As members of congress reflect on the pending decision, i urge them to set aside political concerns, shut out the noise, consider the stakes involved with the vote that you will cast. If Congress Kills that deal, we will lose more than constraints on irans Nuclear Program or the sections we have painstakingly built, we will have lost something precious, americas credibility as a leader of the pharmacy, americas credibility as the anchor of the international system. A americas credibility as leader of diplomacy. John f. Kennedy cautioned more than 50 years ago at this university that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war. It is so very important. It is surely the pursuit of peace that is most needed in this world full of strife. Contact your representatives in congress. Remind them of who we are. Remind them of what is best in us and what we stand for. So we can leave behind a world that is more secure and more peaceful for our children. Thank you very much. [applause] on the next washington journal, tom manger on the recent rise in Violent Crime in cities. He is president of the major cities chief association. Carol rosenberg on the weight is latest white house moves to shut down guantanamo. Join our conversation. Washington journal is live each morning at 7 00 a. M. Eastern. A,sunday night on q and kevin or talks about the towards Financial Issues and his job overseeing the largest municipal encrypts he bankruptcy in u. S. History. If detroit had taken that 1. 5 billion it borrowed in 2006 and if it had invested it in an index fund, the stock market is not trading 18,000. That only without tripled their aney, they could have gotten 13th check at the end of the year. Itcould have fixed itself there had been some sober management Going Forward will start. Problemsesolve these but it takes a lot of effort. Cspans qight on and a. Wednesday, state Department Officials testified at a Senate Hearing about financial sanctions against the iranian government, which would be lifted under the agreement negotiated by the white house. Witnesses discussed how the end of sanctions would affect other policy issues. This is three hours. The committee will come to order. We have a very important hearing today. I will start the hearing off by recognizing the senator. Do you want to ask it now . You want to wait . Ok. If that satisfies you, it satisfies me. Much has changed since the Committee Held its hearing on iran. Since then, there has been a Nuclear Agreement after numerous delays. Many serious concerns have been raised regarding this deal, whether it would actually prevent iran from continuing honest dangerous path to a Nuclear Weapon. Although a new till has enraged deal has been reached, a fundamental problem remains. They remain the world leading state sponsor of terrorism. To theins a serious risk National Security interest of the u. S. And a constant threat to the survival of israel and despite these concerns, it will remain a country with the capability to enrich uranium. I believe it is critical that congress conduct a thorough review of the agreement required by the iran Nuclear Agreement. The Banking Committee will focus specifically on analyzing the sanctions relief provided in the Nuclear Agreement and the implications of taking such actions. Agreement Congress Must consider carefully the repercussions of lifting those sanctions on our National Security and economic interest. In recent weeks, many of my expressed have skepticism over several aspects of the agreement. , the relief provided under this deal would allow us to rejoin the international it to rejoin International Economic system. Over time, this would give iran the financial means to increase its support of terrorism and regional destabilization. The mechanism for reimposing the sanctions should iran not effective except in the most extreme cases of violations. Ans view it as a run ir license to cheat. Financial sanctions have become a critical tool of u. S. Foreign policy and they are an important part of this committees jurisdiction. This committee was instrumental the sanctions. I believe it is essential for he was sections law and policy to continue to meet any new security challenges resented. Gosh present presented. We will hear from the administrations lead negotiator of the agreement. Following this, the committee will receive testimony from a panel of experts who have studied the agreement extensively, including officials from the previous administration. Brown do i. Thank you. We will hear from quadra four witnesses. This process that began in the Bush Administration was willing to engage diplomatically. Administration laid the foundation for what became the. Ran agreement sanctions relief in return for strict limits on the Nuclear Program. The National Security advisor son of memorandum that said that in return for a run and i keep think to limit its Nuclear Program, the u. S. Is ready to do a number of things. Provide technical and financial late for you so Nuclear Energy and to work with a run on confidence Building Measures to normalize trade and allow for Civil Aviation cooperation. This should sound familiar because it was the early outline of the agreement completed. That is why i have been so disappointed in the politicized nature of the debate on this agreement so far, including from colleagues coming out in opposition to the agreement within hours of its release even longh it is over 100 pages and very dense and complicated. This is one of the most significant National Security issues congress will face in this generation. Book ivemportant ever cast in Foreign Policy. Importantly are more than my vote against the iraq war. This should not be soccer as part of an attack and political ad wars. Congress should be giving this the serious debate it deserves. Iran violates the human rights of its people. That is what policymakers agreed to separate and agree on this issue. Ran with a Nuclear Weapon would be especially dangerous to us, israel, and the region. Has deceived the west, verification is key. You must understand how verification will work. There is a number of questions in conducting inspections. Will our intelligence capabilities be able to detect cheating . Will be breakout time extended for the next 10 years . Will we have time to respond religiously politically and militarily if they make a break for a weapon . What actually happens if Congress Rejects the deal . How would we maintain effective enforcement of our sanctions without the support of our allies whose ambassadors made clear to a large group of us yesterday that we would be isolated. What happens if a country like china dodges our sanctions by establishing thanks with no correspondent relationship in the u. S. . What would a rejection in congress due to the credibility of the u. S. . We need answers to these questions and others will step over the years, i have joined many of my colleagues in supporting round after round of tough unilateral sanctions, which clearly brought them to the table and helped secure this agreement. We have a historic responsibility to assess the consequences without any partisan attacks to assess the consequences of this agreement. While some of us made it from tactics, it is clear we should the same goals. Thank you. On our first panel, we will hear from wendy sherman. She is the under secretary for political affairs. Bash at exhibit adam szubin. Ambassador sherman, proceed as you wish. Taelor for this opportunity to discuss a plan of action the u. S. And our International Partners recently concluded. To reserve as much time as possible, i will only highlight a few key points. I blocking each of the potential pathways to the materials acquired for avon, the deal ransved insurers i Nuclear Program bully peaceful over the longterm. They must remove two thirds of its installed centrifuges, reduce the stockpile of uranium , and cap far below the danger point. Facility will be rebuilt so it cannot produce weapons grade plutonium. Meanwhile, fuel from the reactor will be shipped from the country. I emphasize this deal is based on verification, not trust. Before obtaining any relief from n mustic sanctions, ira meet its commitments. If there are suspicious, undeclared sites, no sites will be off limits. But they fail to meet the responsibilities, we can ensure the sanctions snap back into place and no country can stop that. If they try to break out of the deal, the world will have more compared to two months, to respond before they can have enough material for a bomb. At that point, all of the potential options we have today would remain on the table but we would also have the moral authority and International Support that comes from having exhausted all peaceful alternatives. This is also a longterm deal. Some provisions of the in fact in effect for 10 years. Some indefinitely. Iran ise treaty, permanently prohibited from pursuing a Nuclear Weapons. Enhanced by the Additional Protocol as a result of the joint conference limit action. The bottom line is this deal does what it into did intended to do. An iran and what you continue matt enriching plutonium at 20 . Agreed to will shrink those numbers dramatically, ensure facilities can only use for peaceful purposes, and put the program under a microscope. Some have expressed concerns about what might happen 15 years from now but without this your 15 would begin today. And if the u. S. Walks away from oa, we will be left alone. That would be the worst of all worlds. Everything you have tried to prevent could occur. He would not have enhanced transparency required under the every momenttinize of the program. Behavior, the u. S. Is under no illusions. This agreement is not based on the expectation it would reform the Iranian Regime. That is why we made clear we will continue our unprecedented levels of Security Cooperation with israel as secretary confirmed earlier this week. We will work closely with the gulf states to push back against iranian influence. We will continue to take actions to prevent terrorists. We will keep in place all of our own sanctions related to human rights and Ballistic Missiles and we will continue to insist on the release of u. S. Citizens unjustly detained and for information on the whereabouts of robert levinson. Eastl know the middle today is undergoing severe stress due to violent extremism rivalries but everyone of those problems would were allowed to have a Nuclear Weapon. That is why the agreement is so important. Not of us can accept a Nuclear Armed iran. Some have said if we can on sanctions, we can force iran to limit the program but quite frankly, that is a fantasy. The purpose of sanctions is to an to the bargaining table. Over 90 countries have issued public statements in support of the deal. That includes all of the countries involved in these negotiations. Every one of these countries has made tough choices to keep the sanctions regime in place. E need their support it is important remember we tried for many years to get here. We worked on this on a bipartisan basis. President obama and this committee pushed for a stronger multilateral sanctions to keep the door open. Ran to payons forced i a high price but was not enough to make them change course. Tech requires this diplomatic initiative. Congress played a crucial role in getting us to this point. Sanctions achieved their goal. Now congress has a chance to affirm a deal that will make our country and allies safer, a deal that will keep the program under intense good to me, that will ensure the International Community remains united in demanding Irans Nuclear activities must be peaceful. It is a good deal for america, israel, the world, and i say to you it deserves your support. Szubin thank you. Thank you for inviting me before you. The global sanctions Coalition Built and led by the United States with broad bipartisan support in Congress Gave us the leverage to secure unprecedented Nuclear Concessions from iran. The purpose of imposing these sanctions was to build the leverage that could be used to fession on the nuclear fire. Our three goals were to close path to a Nuclear Weapon, ensure the access to know if they were cheating, and preserve the leverage to hold on to their commitments. Jcpoa reserves these purposes. On the sanctions aside, i would love to touch briefly on points that have been much debate. The scope of relief, these that that provisions, the campaign on se limb to combat iran support to terrorism, and our remaining leverage in the event the u. S. Walks away from this deal. First, we should be clear in describing what sanctions relief will and will not meet to iran. If they complete the nuclear the u. S. Will lift our Nuclear Related secondary sanctions. The primary sanctions. The inplace with respect to iran. Iran will be denied access to the world important market. With a verys list extensive. Were not leaving sanctions against the revolutionary god or any other corps senior officials. Under this deal, more than 225 individuals linked to a run will iran will remain designated. There has been much discussion of the Iranian Foreign reserves to be released from foreign restricted accounts. Ran the phils its nuclear commitments, they will receive 50 billion. With that, 50 billion, iran will need to address an economic whole. Hole. Snapback, if iran does not hold up their set of the bargain, we can probably snapback provisions. This can be done in a manner of days. We have the discretion to impose everything. Inary on or off scott back snapback would not serve us well. There is no grandfather clause. Till provision gives signed contracts special status. As we neutralize the most acute threat, we need to be aggressive in countering the array of other malign activities. This deal in no way limits our ability to do so. And means we will sustain intensify our use of sanctions rans backing for terrorist groups. Oprahs rts to oppress those standing up for human rights. Under the interim deal while negotiations were ongoing, we took action against more than 100 targets. To combat the proxies, interdict funds come i will be focused intensively on this issue. Myally, let me provide perspective on the implications of walking away. The sanctions regime generated much of the force because the agreed onjor powers ansgoal of ending ir nuclear threat. It would be a mistake for the u. S. To back away from this consensus on the notion we could escalate the pressure and obtain a broader stipulation. U. S. Sanctions are extremely powerful. I have seen that firsthand. They are not allpowerful. Get the u. S. Were to walk away and ask our partners to continue locking up the reserves, the coalition we assembled wood d fray. Woul it is difficult to see how less leverage would help us obtain a much better deal. ,nstead, enforcing this deal securing the farreaching Nuclear Concessions, will capitalize on our economic access tod deny iran a weapons capability, you have my commitment that the team will continue to pursue smart and aggressive ransions to address i remaining malign activities. Korker a white thank you very much. I could not agree more that this should not be a partisan effort. I met with senator reid on monday to talk the bit about how this debate will take place in september and i can say to all ofmy colleagues, regardless how people vote on this, you will not hear me making comments either way. Important vote. But we have tried to do is make sure people fully understand the ramifications so i could not agree more. I do want to say one of the details you left out in your letter regarding the bush agreement is they were not going to agree to enrichment. Rubicon thatis the has been passed is that we have three state sponsors of terror that we left. With this agreement what this agreement does is codifies with our approval the industrialization of their Nuclear Program. That is a fact. I want to say that senator donnelly, schumer, menendez all know that i have been very open to supporting an agreement. I had one of the few conversations i ever had with secretary kerry. It was interesting. I was standing in my driveway. I emphasize the importance of these last pieces. Im talking about the inspections, i am talking about the previous military mentions. And how important that was not just from a standpoint of what it said but the indication to us that we were really going to be tough and make this agreement stand. , my i got the documents temperature rose. When i saw we were lifting the in ban inan five years i was very troubled. I want to get the sanctions relief in perspective. Overall, it is about 100. Some of that money is tied up in deposits. 100irness, it is about million. There are economy is 406 billion. 100 billion would be like us getting 4 trillion. Just relative to our economy. They all said over the next 10 400 million 600 million. That would be like us getting 7. 6 trillion. Have ie question i was very discouraged with the final round. I worked with senator menendez to make sure the way this agreement worked, we got the documents in a way that was acceptable. Weekend on this review and we were to get all agreement. Entity we are counting on to do the inspection , we cannot get a copy of the agreement that lays out how we you should see what is doing today. Agreementeven see the relates to how we will deal with pmd. Ill sanctions relief occurs regardless of what they do with pmd. Sanctionsinus it, released liqueurs. Myth sherman, hawaii know why now will you not give us the documents that exist that are relative . Sherman thank you for your hard work on this deal and your attention to it. Let me answer your question but i want to come back to another point you made. He made this decision on his own because you made it a partisan invitation and he agreed to come. He did this on his own and i think it will be very useful. Indont have the documents the first instance. We dont have them to give you and the reason we dont have them is because they are confidential. The director general explained this to you and what that means. The ieea doesnt share them with anyone else so they dont want ans with anyone else. Im sure you will tell me they told you about them and they did. It was in the middle of the negotiations and they wanted to go over with some other experts the technical details. I did see the provisional documents, not the final documents, as did my experts. They will be a classified briefing this afternoon and i will go over in detail in a classified setting everything i know about these arrangements. We spent four days going over every detail would administration with the administration to make sure the documents we were asking for were once we could be delivered. Erman and you got every document we had. For the integrity of this deal, we dont have the agreement. Do you have any understandings as to whether there are ieeaations, whether the will have physical access to take samples themselves . Sherman i will because to discuss this on the classified setting. What iran must do is give to the iaea all of the access they believe is required for them to write their final report on the possible military dimensions of the program. The u. S. Has already made its own judgment about that. They made it may National Intelligence estimate and that estimate said publicly that we believe they did have military dimensions of until 2003. The u. S. Has already made his judgment and we stand by that judgment. What this deal is most focused on is where the program is and where it is headed and i quite agree getting access is important because it says something about access in the future. Establishing the credibility of aea is important to this so im glad the general is coming to see you. I would add one other point. That is that sanctions are absolutely crucial for having brought iran to the table but they never stopped the program. When Obama Administration began, there were 5000 centrifuges. Iran went toprograms ever. It is negotiations or other options that will do that. Closing,d just say in i didnt want to take this much time, i would say to every senator here, this is a big decision. But, wendy, and secretary kerry, every other country including iran knew that because we drafted this iran review act, regardless of what is being said , we were going to have the opportunity to weigh in. We were going to have the opportunity to weigh in. When people say it is this versus that, especially on these issues that we have been so concerned about, and when we saw that they were just punted on, weotiated away, issues that with great sincerity talked with the administration about, yet they were just punted on. We sent out a document to help everybody, it was nine pages long, and we asked the administration for red lines. We were able to get resources with staff and others to go through the agreement. I sent out a cliff notes to everybody. There was one question about whether the gold rush that we are all concerned about is going to a car, that is people going into iran immediately to sign contracts. We use the word grandfathered contracts. You used some interesting words. I guess the question i have, and it is still unanswered, and by the way our friends in britain, germany, france, and the eu have all told me that contracts are grandfathered. They backed off a little bit. By the way, there is confusion. I think iran views it the way we had it in this document. Billionomeone spends 1 on an oil facility and sanctions snapback, by the way, you realize in nine months, iran has the nuclear snapback. It shifts to them. If we put any sanctions in place, the agreement clearly states they can walk away. They have what is called a nuclear snapback. We have sanctions snapback. I guess the question is, if somebody enters in to a contract when these sank rinse when the sanctions are relieved, they respect than to be relieved in nine months regardless of what the report says, can that contract continue on . It was put in place during the free time. If sanctionsue on are put in place afterwards . Thats a gray area. I think its a detail. I realize this is not the biggest issue, but it does create concerns about people rushing in now to establish contracts. Senator, i dont think that is an unimportant issue. I think that is pretty central. If you are talking about snapback and the leverage we have, if companies could enter into and then have them be somehow protected against snapback, we would have a very weak snapback indeed. We were intent not to let that happen. What we have is very clear. Iran might want to put some grayness into the issue but they understand this as well. When sanctions are lifted, the business allowed by that lifting can occur. If sanctions are snapped back, any prospective transactions on a preexisting or new contract are sanctionable. It is that clear. Our friends in the u. K. , france, and germany understand that. If theres any doubt, i want to remove it today. Help if youwould could get the other parties, including china and russia, to agree that that is the case. We are getting very mixed it would just help us. At least from some people who may still be in the bubble. Ms. Sherman i think, senator corker, i spoke with the u. K. Ambassador to the United States this morning. I know he has talked with many of you. He shared with me an email that i believe he sent to your office about this. He said, i want to clarify the position on our ability to apply sanctions to iran for other activities and for snapback, and said that in fact he is committed and europe is committed to snapback and the eu retains the freedom and ability to apply sanctions for other forms of unacceptable activity. He also said to me on the phone that he absolutely understands, all european understands, and the deputy of the European Union Representative Office just had a meeting with all the services of the European Union to affirm this very fact that you questions. That companies have no grandfather clause whatsoever. Senator brown . Important thats we have a seriousness about this issue. That we have sanctions snapback, the iranians have as he said nuclear snapback, but the military option is always on the agreement thatl any party can pull that off, just to be clear. I appreciate senator corkers comments. I dont know the analogy of the discussion on 50 versus 100 plus. I want to get to that in a moment area a moment. I dont know that analogizing that is really a very compelling really gets us anywhere. I want to talk about sanctions. This is the jurisdiction of this committee. , secretaryimposed sherman, a paper Performance Model in the agreement. I would like you to discuss the steps iran will have to go through before receiving any new sanctions relief under the agreement on implementation day. Ms. Sherman sure. Iran has to uninstall two thirds of its centrifuge. It has to get its stockpile down to 12,0002,000 tons kilograms to 300. Theust take the core of reactor out and fill it with concrete so that it is rendered unusable. Allust set up with the iaea the verification processes. The iaea will have access to the declared facilities on a 24 7 basis. There will be Realtime Data transmission. There will be electronic seals so that if something is tampered will the aiea the iaea know about it in realtime. They will put in place surveillance centrifuge production, which means that the active parts of a centrifuge, iaea will have eyes on that production. For 25 years, the iaea will have eyes on uranium from when it comes out of the ground to its mailing, so they will not be able to diverged one ounce of uranium, one portion of uranium. We will always know where it goes. Iran would have to create an entire new supply chain covertly to get to a Nuclear Weapon. In addition to all of these measures, iran has to have taken all the steps the iaea requires 15, which isober around adoption day as opposed to implementation day. All of these things have to take place and all of these are detailed in annex five of the agreement. Before there is any sanctions relief whatsoever. At that point, all sanctions relief is a lifting, not a termination. Termination comes many years reachesr when the iaea a broader conclusion, which means they have no undeclared facilities and they can certify that their program is completely peaceful. , if youman mr. Szubin would describe what sanctions will remain in place that will help us manage, combat, eliminate as much as possible nefarious iranian activities and terrorism in the region, and within that answer, if you would talk about the 50 billion 100re, why it is 50 and not in terms of obligations, and second, if you would speak to 500 billion, i think you used the term hole in the iranian economy, what that means in terms of pressure on their government. I assume you are implying to meet some domestic needs as some of this money is available to the iranians. Mr. Szubin absolutely, senator. The sanctions regime that remains in place to combat iranian activities, not just their support for terrorist groups, but their support to the houthis and the ongoing violence in yemen, the assad regime in syria, that sanctions regime fully remains in place. It is not just the companies, the actors, and the generals, but an ongoing authority that we have, that the europeans maintain, and that many of our allies maintain to go after these actors. Mr. Brown you are confident that our allies stay with us on those sanctions, unlike suggestions we hear from ambassadors and others, particularly that china and russia wont be there with the broader sanctions in place now overall. Mr. Szubin one does need to distinguish. When it comes to irans regional activities, theres a coalition of countries that are working alongside us. Increasingly, we are seeing a lot of cooperation from the gulf countries, who are increasingly troubled by irans activities. I would note, you saw saudi arabia sanction a number of hezbollah leaders just a few months back and in doing so call out hezbollah the terrorist organization. The concern is very high. I dont want to mislead the committee. We have not been able to obtain un Security Council resolutions with respect to irans proxies in lebanon and i dont think we will see china and russia stepping up in the way that weve seen our allies in europe and israel and the gulf with respect to a lot of these regional interventions. Mr. Brown secretary sherman, the singular goal as weve discussed of p5 plus one negotiations is to ensure that iran did not obtain a Nuclear Weapon. Many of the opponents to this agreement have talked about the dollars that have been available, that will be available because of the lifting of sanctions. And what discord and terror that iran can sow in the region. Speak to the broader strategy outside of Nuclear Issues in the middle east, and sort of where this money goes and what the administration is doing to combat that. Ms. Sherman thank you very much, senator. We share the concerns that this committee has and the senate has and our country has about iran activities in the region. Not only will we have all the sanctions tools that secretary szubin laid out, but president obama has provided more Security Assistance to israel than any other president. Every president has built on the efforts of the previous president. Each president has increased that assistance. This president has also commissioned technology that allows us to take actions if we need to in iran in a way that no president has before and ensure that we have the options we need commissioned and deployed. Gccpresident had all of the , the gulf cooperation council, to a meeting at camp david to talk about how to develop security for the region. That has been followed up with a meeting that secretary kerry which then doha, gcc supported, believing that it in his that if it is fully implemented, it will bring more security to the region because iran will not be able to project power. We are focused very much on helping the gcc to better improve its capabilities, whether that is in special forces training, intelligence sharing, having the right armaments to deal with these regional efforts, and really work in coalition. I think we are all in common cause. This is quite critical and we will be following up on a daily basis to make sure these new strategies go forward. Finally, as you know, secretary of defense carter was recently in israel. We are ready whenever the Prime Minister of israel is ready to discuss further enhancements to security. Mr. Brown my last question. Mr. Szubin im sorry, mr. Senator on the 50 billion. The answer is, and we have a high degree of confidence in our figures, that it is about 50 billion. I can get into more detail in a classified setting. I think thats important to do. Thank you. Mr. Szubin the reason the 100 billion figure has been out there is that theres 100 billion of the central bank of irans foreign reserves that have been inaccessible to it. Some of that has been due to the sanctions that congress put in place. Some because it has already been obligated for other reasons. Some because it is gone. One can lift it off the books, but it is just not there. The funds that have been spent, the funds that are obligated and now in place as collateral, cant be recovered even when sanctions are lifted. What remains is about 50 billion that can come back to iran. With that, one needs to keep the perspective of the about 500 billion that iran needs to meet really fundamental needs. In terms of unpaid military pensions and salaries, infrastructure, their oil sector. A final point that i want to add mr. Brown how much of that half trillion dollars hole would be required for them to get their oil sector up and producing so they can bring the wealth into the country that we all worry about and they obviously aspire to . Mr. Szubin their oil minister has publicly estimated they require 160 billion to 200 billion just for the oil sector repairs alone. That is not the sake their oil sector into the future. That is to undo the damage that was done by the sanctions. Economy, weranian see about a sevenyear lag due to the sanctions, meaning upon sanctions relief, lets say the middle of next year, the Major Economic sanctions abroad are relieved, it will be seven years before iran comes back to where they ought to be today. It would take them that long . Mr. Szubin that wasnt a comment on the oil repairs. The oil repairs might happen in a shorter time. I would need to get back to you on that. What im saying is, if you look at their gdp curve, it has this radical break due to this International Sanctions effort. It only gets back in seven years to where it ought to have been today. The whole cannot be overstated. 50 billion coming back to them does not begin to meet the needs. 50 billion is not spending money. That is all of their freed foreign reserves. No country is going to exhaust its foreign reserves down to zero. Mr. Brown last question. Secretary sherman, many of us have raised concerns about the prospects of the u. N. Embargos in iran and conventional arms being lifted in five years and Ballistic Missiles in eight years. All of us would have preferred to retain these embargoes much longer. Briefly,if you will what specific legal authorities remain in place to combat irans arms. All, weman first of will still be able to rely on other u. N. Security Council Resolutions against the areas of concern. Houthis and shia militants in iraq, etc. All those remain in place. We will continue to work with over 100 countries around the world that have designed a Security Initiative to help limit exports and imports. This will play a Critical Role in that regard. In conjunction, we have unilateral, bilateral collaborative tools. We have ongoing sanctions in place as adam has pointed out. We have executive orders 12938 and 13882 which authorized u. S. Sanctions on foreign persons that contribute to the proliferation of missiles capable of delivering weapons. Koreasyriath proliferation act. And the lethal military equipment tensions of 2006 provision. They all impose u. S. Sanctions on individuals and entities. I would also say the u. N. Security Council Resolution that was recently passed does not let irans Ballistic Missiles program off the hook. The current prohibitions on the supply of Ballistic Missile related items, technology, and assistance will remain in place. States are still required to prevent transfers to iran of Ballistic Missile related items from their territory. They are still required to prevent provision to iran of Technical Assistance and other related services. They are still required to prevent transfer of Ballistic Missile items. They are still required i could go on. There are about 10 things. Yes, what we like them to go on forever . Of course. But we have kept them on far longer than either iran, russia, or china wanted them to stay on. We have kept them on under article 41, chapter seven, which means they are enforceable. We have other resolutions and tools unilaterally to make sure that we are that where arms are concerned and where missiles are concerned, we can move forward. Senator toomey. Toomey thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to go back to the issue raised by senator corker. Ms. Sherman, the Nuclear Review act of 2015 is clear, i think, that congress is supposed to receive all the documentation, the agreement, the annexes, the related materials. It says right in the beginning, the President Shall transmit to the appropriate committees and leadership the agreement as 1. Fined in subsection h it specifies that this agreement includes, and i quote the last part of this, any additional materials related thereto including annexes, appendices, Side Agreements, documents, guidance, understandings, and any related agreements. I think it is clear that is meant to be all encompassing. Yet we discover there is a secret Side Agreement between the iaea and iran. Strikes many of us as a very Important Information to have to evaluate whether or not future activities are in violation of this or not. Senator corker asked why you have not given us the document. You said, because we dont have the document. My question is, knowing this statute, knowing the intent of the statute and the letter of this law, why didnt you insist that this is essential to enforcement document be disclosed . Ms. Sherman senator, thank you for your question. We dont have the document and the senate has every single document that the United States government has. Secondly, the reason we did not insist is because we want to protect u. S. Confidentiality. Protocol. Safeguard the iaea protects our confidential understanding and our confidential arrangements between the United States and the iaea. I know you will say this is a different situation and i grant you that this is an International Understanding to try to stop iran from having a Nuclear Weapon. That is a different circumstance. In the development of where the iaea was going, they did come to us for Technical Expertise as they came to every member of the p5 plus one, and in a classified briefing, i will share with you everything i know about this. Im also grateful that the director general on his own cognizance is meeting with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in an informal setting , which is extremely unusual. Mr. Toomey did i understand you to say to senator corker that you did not see the final document . Ms. Sherman what i said was i was shown the documents that i believe to be the final documents. Senator, areabout, the modalities, the technical uses. Ties that the iaea and i will share with you this afternoon in a classified setting everything i know about that and i think it will give you great confidence that the iaea is doing what it needs to do. Mr. Toomey i look forward to that, but it is extremely disappointing to me. We are being asked to affirm an agreement, the enforcement of which depends in know paul smart in no small part on an important document that we are not allowed to see, and it is not clear to me that you have read the final document. Ms. Sherman i have seen the document. As we were going through the technical discussions with the iaea. What is important here, senator, ultimately what we are talking about here is the credibility of the International Atomic energy agency. Whether we believe they are is, they haveh it done a superb job on the joint plan of action which is the interim step. All of those reports, because we have had to report to congress on compliance, have come up here. They have done a fine job and i have trust and confidence in their ability. Mr. Toomey im glad you do, but i think thats a document we ought to have before us. Paragraph 36 grants to either party the opportunity to walk away from this agreement. Anybody can raise an objection about what the other side is doing. After the adjudication process that lasts about 35 days, if this is not resolved to the satisfaction of the participant, the complaining participant can walk away. Either side. So iran, for any reason iran deems sufficient, can walk away from this agreement. That would be after they have their 50 billion or 100 billion, whatever the figure is. Im concerned that this dynamic creates a very dangerous dynamic. Administratione will have a very hard time enforcing anything other than a massive violation. Former secretary of state schultz and kissinger wrote a widely read these where they suggested that most likely, if a violation occurs, it wouldnt be a clearcut event but rather the gradual accumulation of ambiguous evasions. Lets say we start to discover the gradual accumulation of ambitious evasions, which strikes me as plausible. If we were to take any measures at all, any Enforcement Mechanisms of any kind, iran could invoke paragraph 36, decide this is unacceptable, and walk away. Since this administration has told us many times that the alternative to this is war, and we had to make all of these concessions to get this agreement, why should we believe that in the face of the accumulation of these small but accumulating evasions, that the administration is going to risk iran walking away from the table . I suspect that is pretty likely. Ms. Sherman senator, i appreciate that you believe iran will have gotten enormous sanctions relief and they will be sitting in the drivers seat, but you seem to forget the other half of the equation. Iran will have reduced their centrifuges by two thirds. They will have eliminated 98 of their stockpile. They will have made the iraq reactor in operable. They will have allowed inspectors in their country to have 24 7 access to their facilities. Mr. Toomey 24 day access. Ms. Sherman no, for the declared facilities, the iaea has 24 7 access every day of the week, 365 days a if the iaea decides there is justification for them to go to a site the Additional Protocol allows them to give 24 hours notice to get into that site. If the country in this case iran says we think you should go to this site or we think you should have this document under the Additional Protocol they are allowed to suggest an alternative. However, under the Additional Protocol that debate about what they can do can go on for quite some time. So what this agreement did different than any other arms control agreement ever negotiated, we put a clock on that debate. We said it has to have access to that site. So we said you can debate with iran for two weeks. At the end of those two weeks the joint commission, which is made up of all of us, looks at that. If we believe on day one of the seven days we have to consider the situation, that they ought to give access, if five out of iaea f us believe the should have access