They are not sitting there thinking they will get to do what they want to do. I invite you to talk to the Intel Community about that, they will document it they see themselves losing for their activities. Theres nothing here to prevent us from pushing back the irgj and others Going Forward. Congress and others were all free to Work Together to build the pushback against the destabilizing activities. Let me ask you a question, was iran stripped of that and us coming in with a whole new set of security arrangements and push back . I think the answer to that is crystal clear. You asked the question of what happens with respect to year 15. Folks, according to the modified code please focus on what happens. Theres not a breakoff at the end of 15 years and they are remarkable constraints specifically the comprehensive safeguards agreement they have to negotiate with the iaea that goes on forover provides the aiea with the obligation to insure the material is not diverted to Nuclear Weapons and all nonNuclear Weapons states party have to bring it into agreement, and that requires iran to maintain detailed Accounting Records on all material subject to the safeguards operating records and all facilities subject to the safeguards, and all public facilities in their program are subject to the safeguards, and it provides for a range of iaea inspections, including verifying the location and the identity and quantity and composition of all Nuclear Materials subject to the safeguards and the design of nuclear facilities, and it requires the board of governors to take action without delay. Thats a quote in a situation where its essential and urgent and provides consequences for a finding of noncompliance. Thats just on the side of the declared facilities. Theres a whole set of requirements for access and inspection and accountability on the undeclared facilities. Congressman, they are forever under enormous constraints here with respect to inspections and accountability. They have to provide accountability for all the Nuclear Research and Development Activities not involving Nuclear Material and manufacturing the production of technology, and construction of hot cells and useable for plutonium separation, and Uranium Mines and concentration camps and Nuclear Waste and all kinds of things. May i suggest this mr. Secretary, we can respond for the record mr. Secretary to the ranking members questions but if we can go the time has expired here and we will just get for the record. Thank you very much mr. Chairman. Last week the Los Angeles Times reported the irans foreign minister told the parliament under the deal iran can deny access to military sites and the defense minister also stated that he would not allow International Inspectors to enter irans military cites and yet president obama said the organization responsible for the inspections will have access where necessary when necessary, end quote. Can the iaea really have access to all and any military sites suspected and do they have the power to access the sites, and dismantling irans infrastructure used to be the administrations goal. The administration repeatedly told us that it would focus that sanctions only on the Nuclear Portfolio but in the deal we have over 60 pages of individuals, Companies Vessels that will be delisted, specifically mentioned. Many of these sanctions are not Nuclear Related. The administration has always stated that all provisions within this agreement has to be agreed upon by all parties which includes the eu to lift san shbg r sanctions. What do you think to the family of the wounded and killed due to saul moneys actions in iraq, and the u. S. Agreed that the Group Responsible for countless deaths will be getting billions to support their accounts of terror throughout europe. Im glad its only 50 billion. I feel better already. Secretary kerry, you will be in cuba soon. I remain extremely worried about allowing cuba a license to open here in d. C. Every cuban official socalled diplomat that wants to come to washington and will we reject any cuban official that wished to be posted in d. C. If our Law Enforcement officials have information related to their espionage apparatus . Finally, secretary kerry when announcing the deal president obama said quote we will continue our unprecedented efforts to strengthen israels security, and will you guarantee the u. S. Will veto any measure at the u. N. Security council on palestinian state hood that calls for anything except a twostate solution between israel and the palestinians and nothing else . So madam chair let me come back to you on the record on a bunch of those because, again its more than we have time to answer but we will answer them all. I want earnie and jack to get in here on two things the money and highly enriched uranium. Theres a confusion of the dismantling of the Nuclear Weapons program versus the Nuclear Program. It was never the goal by this administration, not even the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration in 2008 mr. Secretary, with all due respect i want to be very clear that we are achieving what we set out to do which is dismantling their capacity to make a Nuclear Weapon. With respect to the military sites, yes we will have access. We will have access to the military sites . If they dont provide that they will be in material breach of the agreement and the sanctions will snap back. We consult with iran before we get access . Theres a procedure in place but it doesnt rely on iran or russia or china saying yes. So iran is wrong when they say we wont have access to military sites . No they are taking care of a domestic constituency in the way they feel they need to thank you. What they say is not as important as what they do. I will remind the members, we have five members. Ask the question and give enough time for a response. Mr. Chairman what we are going to do is have a response for the record. We are going to go to mr. Brad sherman of california. We have to remember that this is not a binding deal. This is not a treaty. This is not binding on iran. This is not binding on the United States. Its not even an executive legislative agreement and these question here are not even asking for congress to approve the deal. I think they would appreciate it if we didnt pass a formal resolution of disapproval. It might be at most morally binding on this administration. So what may be important for us is to look to see whether its a good deal in the next couple of years, because i think the administration plans to follow it unless we prohibit that, and also try to see whether we will have congresss and administrations in the future that will take the action necessitated by our national interest. The deal may be opposed because thats the best thing they can do for congress to support the deal or maybe they genuinely oppose it. I want to focus on your remarks, secretary kerry about dealing with irans nonnuclear behavior. You say we will be in a stronger position to deal with that. Assad is killing 500 people a month at least and the blood is on the hands of the men intphin tehran. You are not going to be able to persuade them to change just by charm, you will need to threaten them with new sanctions unless they change their behavior. We have seen sanctions cause iran to change behavior even on very important things to iran. I am not asking you whether you think new sanctions are a good or bad idea and whether europe will follow or not but i will only focus on what is legal under this agreement. You were asked about this in the senate and you said we will not violate the agreement if we use our authorities to impose sanctions on iran for terrorism human rights, missiles or other nonnuclear reasons, and then the provision in paragraph 26 that commits the United States to refrain from reintroducing or reimposing the sanctions specificed, which are the best sanctions we have got, although we could probably come up with new ones if you tell us the old ones are forbidden. So you were also asked if we reempose sanctions on the central bank of iran, would that violate the agreement and you said no. But i would like you to clarify. Is congress and the United States free under this agreement to adopt new sanctions legislation that will remain in force as long as iran holds our hostages and supports assad . Were free to adopt additional sanctions as long as they are not a phoney excuse for just taking the whole pot of the past once and putting them back. Secretary kerry, its my time and i have a lot of other questions. Now p. We have got a number of entities listed on the for their Nuclear Activities that deserve to be listed for their terrorists activities, its just you have not had time to put them on that second list. Will you be putting entities that are on the list of sanctions for their terrorists for their Nuclear Activity on the terrorists list if they deserve it and can you get that job done before this agreement becomes effective . We have terrorists sanctions right now. We are free to add and we are free to add we added some 60 entities during the course of these negotiations. Let me get to one other question. You strongly do not want us to override a president ial veto but if we do that triggers certain american laws. I would like to give you an opportunity, you know, you dont want us to do it and you think its terrible policy and you think the rest of the world would be against us, but lets say congress doesnt take you advice and we override a veto and the law that is triggered then imposes certain sanctions. Will you follow the law even though you think it violates this agreement clearly and if you think its absolute terrible policy . I cant begin to answer that at this point with only the president determining what the circumstances are. You are not committed to following the law . No i am not going to deal with a hypothetical. Thats all. Were out of time. Were going to have to go to mr. Chris smith of new jersey. For the record mr. Chairman on the Financial Issues and sanction issues theres a lot of responses to answer and we could answer. Theres articles written by the assistant secretary of state back in 2003 make it clear that north korea is kau lab rating with iran. What happens if north korea conveys Nuclear Weapons to iran and other capabilities they have at their disposal . The issue of the arms race is real and this incentfies saudi arabia and egypt to acquire a bomb and the middle east becomes more of a powder keg. And the hostages, when are they going to be free . You said if they break out they have to design the bomb. Iran has been stonewalling the iae on this point for years, and inspectors have been denied to the military site where its believed raup tested detonators for Nuclear Warheads and iran has refused inspectors access to the site for years in 2013 or even images showing bull dozing of buildings and removing roads. Is the iaea being pressured to not accept full access . And yesterday at the t. I. P. Report release you spoke eloquently and boldly about combating modernday slavery and while the report is accurate, i am concerned that the designations for several countries missed the mark and a number of countries got absolutely unmerited upgrades including malaysia and cuba. I went back and read the reports and in china there were 35 convictions of trafficking and thats a watch list country now, and cuba, 13 convictions for sex trafficking and if the narrative gets it right, none for labor trafficking, and they say it does not exist which is nuts, and a year ago there were ten conventions, and thailand by contrast had 151 convictions and they are still tier 3, and malaysia had three convictions for sex and labor trafficking a decrease of nine from last year and they were tier 3. Did the narratives get it right . The designations miss it by a mile. I would be happy to sit down with you and talk that through. Since time is so precious here i want to stay on iran and i want my colleague to be able to address a couple key issues. Mr. Chairman, if i could respond to a couple issues that have been raised. Congressman this is my time. I would really like to know mr. Smith, well get answers here to everything. Lets let on the question of the flow of money to iran there have been a range of estimates of why the money is locked up and its locked up because the International Partners worked with us to take irans money and not let iran get it. The highest number that we see, theres 115 billion that is available. In reality 58 to 59 billion is unavailable, and roughly 20 billion is tied up in contracts like china and the balance is nonperforming loans. I am not going to say 56 billion is not a lot of money but its not 150 billion and it cannot be all used because they need foreign reserves for the economy, and if you look at the economy for the use of the money, we see at least 500 billion of demands for that 50 billion, so any kind of allocation of that resources and they managed with sanctions in place to put several million a year towards maligned purposes, and the order of magnitude is way, way smaller and its in line with the kinds of spending they have been doing anyway. You compare that to to an iran with the Nuclear Weapon and the bigger threat is iran with a Nuclear Weapon having the same kinds of objectives. Sul money is not delisted. There are few entities whose identity has changed over time and whose leadership has changed over time and privately we are happy to go through the individual cases but we kept in place our sanctions regime on trpl terrorism. We have three answers you need to answer for the congressman from new jersey. Congressman the greatest incentive for an arms race in the region or egypt or saudi arabia or one of the other countries to try and get a bomb is to be if this agreement is rejected and the reason will be iran will go back to enriching and we will not have inspection or incite, and they will say, oh, my god, now they are going for a bomb and now we have a reason to have to get one. They have, in fact, told us these countries, they are not going to chase a bomb provideing the implementation of the agreement continues and providing we are working with them on the other push back issues, and there will be access as appropriate under the agreement between the iaea and iran and that is an agreement which is normally entered into con tpau thats the problem. Americans held captive conveys a bomb to iran and what happens there . I believe i heard you say, congressman, that iran set off a Nuclear Explosive and that is incorrect. I didnt say that. Really . At least get that right. On the americans being held captive, and what happens under the agreement . My last conversation with Prime Minister sau reef and the brother of the government was about the people being held and we are in direct conversations. Thats all i am going to say here today and i hope they will be returned to be with their families. North korea and obama and they convey bombs to them what . If north korea were to provide Nuclear Weapons to iran, what happens . They cant do that. Iran and north korea would be in gross violation they tonight seem to care. We have the senator from new jersey. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here. There are deep divisions in iran evidenced by the comments made by the hardliners and the Prime Minister and the foreign minister and the supreme leader. There are these decisions likely to resurface and what are the consequences of these divisions for the implementation . I keep reading they are going back and forth and i am concerned we get an agreement so congressman, thats a very, very good question and appropriate in understanding that dynamic here. We saw the exact same divisions of things that were being said regarding the interim agreement, if you recall. What we learned, its not as important as what they say but what they do, and make sure their actions are held accountable. Every aspect of the interim agreement has been lived up to, not withstanding denials that came out publicly from certain politicians or leaders and we have seen the same thing here, there was a red line and wouldnt be able to do it and etc. , but the agreement is the agreement. Thats why we have been so clear. Mr. Chairman, nothing in this agreement is based on trust. Nothing is based on an expectation of some change of behavior. This agreement is 100 and whatever pages nine pages because its specific with its annexes in declaring what is expected of whom and when, and that precision is what gives us confidence that would be able to hold them accountable. Thank you. Secretary, you said its only 56 billion for them to really thats accessible. Accessible. But really, they dont need a lot of money for some of these groups to start it up again. They dont need billions. They cant absorb billions, some of these groups, and theres a lot of money to start problems. They are finding the relatively small sums of money that it takes terrible acts and support of terrorism so they are doing that now with the sanctions in place. What i am saying, i dont think you are going to see the shape of that support change, though there will be some more Resources Available and it will be on the marchin and along the lines of what they are already doing and that puts the burden on us and our allies in the region to shut down the flow of money and the flow of material to align forces and what we discussed with the gulf allies when we met with them at camp david was to how to work more effectively together to shut down the flows of money and things happening today with the sanctions in place. The problem exists today with or without an agreement. The challenge on the money that is irans money locked up overseas is its not in the United States, and a lot of the money is in china and india and other places. The p5 plus one agreement, if its rejected i dont think we can rely on the other countries keeping the money locked up so you could end up iran getting access to the money without the agreement, and we have to keep it in perspective and we made the commitment to continue designating like we did last week, and we will to do that, and we have sacknctions in place, and thats not a reason to not have an agreement to keep them from getting a Nuclear Weapon. What they have been doing over the years so i think that our objective here was to make sure they cant have a Nuclear Weapon and secondly, to work with our allies and friends in the region to do a greater job, a much better job of pushing back against those activities. I will be going at the end of the week meeting with the gulf states and we are laying out within the very specific steps with regard to the pushback and what we can engage in for security and bushback for the activities you are talking about, and its hard to put them all in a pot at one time, and first step Nuclear Weapon and the next step we have time to push for changes if we want. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you, mr. Angle about the leadership. Let me note that while you are receiving quite a grueling today, let us note we appreciate the hard work that you are making and you are looking to make it a more Peaceful World, but some of us realize that in the past we have seen people are very sincere in seeking peace and creating a unfortunately, setting things off in a direction of led to war and more refreshen and did not create a more Peaceful World. One of the efforts i noted when i was part of this is how Reagan Ronald reagan succeeded in ending the cold war and during that time period we reached weapons agreements with the soviet union, and let me note while we were making those agreements with the soviet union to put a lid on Nuclear Weapons in europe and etc. , we ratcheted up our support for the democratic elements in various parts of the world whether it was in the soviet union or nicaragua or afghanistan we were increasing our efforts to support those people. We also denied them hard currency, much less had any agreement that would have bolstered the soviet economy. Because we had that approach the soviet union fell apart and in the long run thats what made them a Peaceful World, the elimination of that regime, and i am afraid this treaty you are talking about today and you are promoting will do the opposite of what we saw that succeeded and that is that it will empower them instead of making them more a peace regime. Empowering them will create more chaos and the likelihood of war because they are the main proponents of terrorism and they have hate hatred for the west. We have been aware of the refreshen and the brutal retreatment of people with iran and like the mek who are suffering and you noted this in the past yourself, the brutality that these people that oppose the regime have had to face. Did you confer in any way with the democratic elements in iran or these other people who are struggling for a free iran and how this agreement will affect their longterm goal for a democratic iran and thus a more Peaceful World . As you know, this was a Nuclear Negotiation but i have on many occasions and met with and had discussions with folks representing different interests and as spapirations within iran. You have to make a hard judgment about where iran is. President hu your answer is no, you did not confer no, thats not what i said. I said i had plenty but you are conferring with their oppressors instead. I didnt say that at all. In the money, the fact is, part of the effort that worked under reagan was supporting the democratic element and undermining the economy of the soviet union. In the long run what will bring peace to this part of the world is not for us to have shortterm arms deals with the regimes and the other people that hate the west and are supporting terrorism but try to support the elements in those societies that want peace with the west and arent preparing some sort of holy war against us. I am sorry, mr. Secretary i appreciate your sincerity and what you guys are trying to do, but i believe this treaty will empower the mullahs and make power more likely. I find my friend from california, i find his words ironic, because Ronald Reagan was nothing if not a prag ma tis and was quite capable of compartmentalizing relationships for the greater good. Its exactly what is in front of us today. Something is overriding. Nuclear capability in the region. Shall we deal with it or not . Samuel taylor described fiction of the willing suspension of disbelief. I must say i find a lot of fiction involved, the willing suspension of disbelief in some of the criticism of this agreement. Its not perfect. It will hurt israel. It will give them a Nuclear Capability some day. It doesnt do enough and it doesnt deal with horrendous behavior. Who said it would . And heres the bottom line. Valid those criticisms may be and imperfections we can find by the score. Whats your program . You know what i have heard in a series of here hearings here lets go back to p5 plus one and say lets start over. That was one of the most monumental naive statements for sure. Lets stick to the facts. No, the willing suspension of disbelief is at work. Its alive and well here. Including the issue of the threat to israel. Walking away from this agreement, you need to take responsibility for the consequences of israel whether you are netanyahu or a member of congress, and you have to weigh it carefully. What risks am i willing to take before i make that vote on behalf of our country and our allies like israel . I think its an extraordinary job you have done and i would like to give you the opportunity to talk about two problems, and you, too secretary, and if we walk away from this agreement what is likely to happen and secretary moniz the 24day problem, thats not the robust kind of inspection we hoped for. I will be quick because i want earnie to get in here. Its not speculation, its clear. If Congress Rejects this, iran goes back to its enrichment and the ayatollah will not come back to the table. Anybody that makes that judgment has not talked to the Intel Community. There is no way given his feelings already about the west and his mistrust of us and his reluctance to have engaged in this discussion that he will reenter if we reject this and moreover the sanctions regime falls apart and the folks we relied on to provide a united front and we will have set our folks back, folks. I dont know how i would go out to another country if that happens and said you ought to negotiate with us or you ought to talk to us about any issue whatever it is with the reliance that we could actually deliver, because they will sit there and say, well, you have 535 secretaries of state in the United States we dont know who we are negotiating with and whatever deal we make is at risk of being overturned and thats not the relationship that has been between the executive and the congress. Iran will say were free, and we can go about back to our program. What i said about earlier about bringing year 15 to today or year 20 or whatever and they will take their 19,000 centrifuges and can enrich. For my five months at the negotiating table i doubt our p5 plus one partners would be interests in going back to the table. The 24 days is a new tool in the sense there has never been any limit at all. So the key is in getting enough of a compressed process where we feel confident in being able to detect any use of Nuclear Materials, number one, over the time period, and in the classified environment we could provide more evidence than i already discussed today. Thank you, mr. Secretary. The congressman from ohio. Thank you. The president specifically called isis famously the jv team, and that clearly was not true. This administration cited yemen as the model approach to u. S. Counterterrorism, and that was shortly before yemens near collapse into chaos, so that was not true either. President obama declared al qaeda to be decimated on the run and broken apart and on their heels and weak, and those are all quotes, by the way and that may be Wishful Thinking but it certainly wasnt true and isnt true. Why should the American People trust the administration now on this deal . Were not asking them to trust but look at the deal and look at the components. Like i said, nothing in this deal is built on trust. Nothing. Its on very specific steps that have to be taken. For instance, iran gets zero relief from the sanctions until iran has implemented the oneyear breakout time by destroying the clan diaw and undoing the electrical and piping and they have to do as you know i have limited time. I will move on. When you say its not depending on trust and that strains credibility, and there has to be trust in a deal. You said, i quote, this is a term that honestly i never heard in the four years that we were negotiating, now, in fact in april of this year deputy secretary rhodes said the anatomic Energy Agency would have immediate access, immediate access, to any site the agency wants to inspect. Immediate access sure sounds like anytime to me. Also in april Energy Secretary moniz, the gentleman sitting next to you there, he said, and i quote, we expect to have anywhere anytime access to places that are suspected of outofbounds activities unquote. Theres that anywhere anytime once again. So again why should the American People trust what they are being told by this administration about this deal . May i say, my quotes have not been anytime anywhere in the sense of a welldefined process scale and thats what we have. That really clears things up mr. Secretary. Thank you. Go ahead mr. Secretary. We never had a discussion in the context of these negotiation negotiations that talked about anywhere anytime. Nowhere on the planet earth does any country anywhere under the mpt have anything called anywhere anytime. What we have is called managed access and its a process by which we get in. This proper days please, let me answer. 24 days is an outside for 24 years or longer 2400 years they would not be able to hide the remanence of the Nuclear Material, and ernie moniz will tell you that. I only have five minutes. If this is such a good deal why is israel so opposed to it . Well first of all, i understand when you say israel. There are people in israel who support it. The Prime Minister, okay he is the representative, like president obama is the representative of our country on these types of things you will agree president obama always talks for everybody in the country. He is sure speaking for us in this agreement and he seems bound and determined to go forward with this thing whether the people elected by the American People are for it or not. As i said earlier, we fully understand every israeli has concerns and fears and there are concerns about the region they live in, about the nature of the rhetoric that is used, death to israel and death to america. Everybody is concerned which is why this is not based on some element of a dream they are going to change or some element of trust. But, i will tell you there are people in israel who you are going to name a couple people. The Prime Minister is against it and i am almost out of time. This is one of the main reasons as a representative of the American People i am concerned because israel could be directly affected but with the icbms and the technology that could be coming the whole excuse me. We have to do to mr. Ted deutsch of florida. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the witnesses for being here, and mr. Secretary kerry thank you as well for continuing to raise the polite and that of three other americans as well, and i agree its time for them to come home. I want to talk specifically about pmd if we dont discuss that its impossible for us to believe the iaea can go forward. The Nuclear Related activities set forth in order for there to be sanctions relief, they leave out the most important point which is the one that the iaea has to have final resolution of pmd. I have two questions. The first question is, will we have access will the iaea have access to per cheng. Am i right, the satisfaction of pmd will not be a prerequisite to irans getting sanctions relief . It is. It is a prerequisite. If they have not complied and lived up to the dates in the program, august and october, they will not get relief. Mr. Secretary i acknowledge that. By october 15th they have to have activities where they need to set out what they are going to do but its december 15th by which the director and the board of governors will assess whether they complied and thats not they will be in breach. I understand. I would just point out its specifically omitted in the list of past and present concerns. Its not a requirement. The outcome, if you are talking about the outcome, its not dependant on the outcome because the outcome we have no way of knowing which way thats the issue mr. Secretary. No its whether they comply or not. We know what they were doing. We have drawn our conclusion about 2003. We know they were engaged in trying to make a weapon. Its not the you are saying that if they comply with the iaea and the iaea ultimately concludes that they have not they are not satisfied on pmd because they dont have access or didnt get access to the sites they are not in compliance. That would be a breach. We would not do sanctions relief. They know that. I respectfully suggest its not at all clear in the agreement. We can talk about that, but i would like to move on to the issue of specifically the sanctions. This has been brought up by a number of my colleagues. The annex to the lists, lots and lots of individuals and entities getting sanctions relief under the deal and many of them are involved in not just proliferation activities but also involved in terrorism, support for terrorism and human rights and they went on the list because it was easier to get the european allies to go along with the proliferation sanctions. Secretary lew i appreciate that we will continue to sanction hezbollah, but will be be able to and are we going through the process of scouring the list for banks and shipping lines to reimpose sanctions we have not listed for relief many entities. I understand. I am asking about this list. There are institutions that were designated for their acts of terrorism that have not been relieved. Mr. Secretary i understand that. I have a very specific question. Will we be under this agreement to reimpose sanctions on all of these entities if we find we have retained all rights to designate including everybody listed here. What we cannot do and this is what secretary kerry was saying a few minutes ago we cant put in place the Nuclear Sanctions we have given up no ability to target i hope we are going through the list and scouring it right now. I have a few seconds left. I would just i just ask for some acknowledgment when we say iran is engaged in all of these terrible activities now and it doesnt cost much money, and it has been reported that 200 million a year is the amount they use to fund hezbollah. So if only 1 billion of the 56 were to go to hezbollah we would double the amount of support for five years at which time the arms embargo comes off and they are considerably more dangerous. We have to acknowledge congressman, we can put the arms there are plenty of opportunities to deal with the arms. Theres a resolution preventing them from sending weapons to iraq at this time we have to go to joe wilson of south carolina. Thank you. Thank you for hosting this hearing and i appreciate the panel being here today. Secretary kerry i share the concerns of an op ed by david hoar wits of the time of israel where he says the nuke deal is a catastrophe for the western world. We need this as a response for the American People so as we vote in september the American People will know as you stated a few minutes ago, the correct facts. One, was the Iranian Regime required to disclose the previous military dimensions of its military Nuclear Program to in order to insure inspections of all relevant facilities . No. Two, have been been made to halt the enrichment facility. Have they been required to shut down the plutonium production plant . No. Four has the Iranian Regime been able to shut down the even richment facility regime been required to halt its Ongoing Missile Development . No. Six, has the Iranian Regime been required to halt research and development of the faster centrifuges which will enable it to break out a bomb far more rapidly than is currently the case . No. Seven, has the Iranian Regime been required to submits to anywhere anytime inspections of any and all facilities suspected of engaging in rogue nuclearrelated activity . No. Eight, has the International Community established procedures setting out how it will respond to difrtferent classes of violations to insure the community can react with sufficient speed efficiency to prevent the break out of a bomb . No. Has the Iranian Regime been required to halt the test army in lebanon . No. Tens, has the Iranian Regime been made to surrender for trial for the alleged involvement in the bombing by hezbollah suicide bomber of the amia Jewish Community center in buenos aires, argentina in 1994 resulting in the deaths of 84 people . No. 11 has the Iranian Regime undertaken to close its 80 estimated Cultural Centers in south america from which it allegedly fosters terrorist networks . No. 12, has the iranian leadership agreed to stopping hatred among its people against israel and the United States and stop its relentless calls for the a annihilation of israel . No. Has it halted the production of three a day, the highest rate in 20 years . No. 14, does the nuclear deal shatter the painstakingly construct ed constructed regime that forced them to the table . Yes, 15, will the deal usher in a new era of global commercial interaction with iran reviving the community and releasing resources iran will use to bolster its military forces and terrorist networks . Yes. 16 does the nuclear deal further cement irans repressive regime in power . Yes. Im going to be submitting these for the record. I look forward to receiving them during the next month. In the meantime the American People need to know theres bipartisan opposition to this deal. I was really grateful two weeks ago. We had senator Joe Lieberman here, who addressed my concern and that is that the secretary of state designate iran a state sponsor of terrorism over 30 years ago in response to the hundreds of marines who were killed at the marine marebarracks. I asked senator lieberman, has there been a change in course. His quote, directly this iranian government, the Islamic Republic of iran has the blood of a lot of americans on its hands. Marines alt ss at the barracks ipbeirut, and i would go on. Incidentally, hundreds of american soldiers were killed in iraq by shia militias that were trained in iran by the irgc. So your question is a good one. Has the government changed . Theres no evidence of change. Mr. Secretary has there been evidence of change . Yes. In that the president of iran sent his foreign minister to negotiate an agreement to which i could pose you a lot of questions that i can give you an answer to that are yes, too. Does iran have to give up two thirds of its centrifuges . Yes. Mr. Secretary those are words if the gentleman if the gentleman will suspend your time has expired. Yes. I have suggested to the members, ask the questions and leave time for response. Were going to Brian Higgens of new york. Thank you mr. Chairman. The snapback provisions in this agreement are real and powerful. And i think are born out of a deep distrust of iran. Snapback provisions as i understand them, allows for any of the six powers to the deal to flag what it considers a violation. That concern would be submitted to dispute resolution panel. If those concerns remain unresolved, sanctions would resume or snap back after 30 days, preventing a resumption of sanctions would require a vote of the Security Council from which the United States and its western allies would have veto power. Its unprecedented, and i think very very powerful and speaks volumes to this deal. Under this deal iuranium would be cut by 98 . A level of enrichment for what remains is 3. 67 a long way from the 90 enrichment it would need to occur to achieve a weaponsgrade material. Centrifuges would be reduced from 19,000 to a little over 6,100 for ten years. There would be no enrichment and only centrifuges permitted for use would be older firstgeneration centrifuges. Plutonium, the iraq facility will be reconstituted so it cant make weaponsgrade material. Materials that do exist there today would be sent out of the country entirely. Number four iran may try to build a Nuclear Weapon in secret. Mr. Secretary of energy, i would ask you through robust monitoring and verification and inspections, the deal would allow inspectors access to inspect any suspicious sites. I heard critics of this plan say, well thats why because of the 24day period, its like a Police Officer calling a drug dealer to say that were going to raid your apartment in 24 days, so they can clear all the evidence. Would you speak to that, within the context of physics and talk about the half life of both uranium and plutonium . Ill start with the last question, if i may. First of all technically, on the half life, the half life of the uranium isotope is roughly the age of the earth which is why it still exists in the earth. That of the uranium 235 which is the isotope that you would want to enrich for a Nuclear Weapon, is somewhat shorter and therefore is more rare in nature. However, the issue of the, first of all the analog to putting the drugs down the toilet is not very applicable to the use of Nuclear Materials, and as i have said, in both unclassified and classified regimes we have extraordinarily sensitive ways of finding minuscule amounts that are left over from using Nuclear Materials, whether its enrichment or in an explosive environment to understand the Nuclear Weapons behavior. On that, were very, veer clear. In addition, we have other constraints on them, some of them forever, in terms of other parts of weaponization like nutron sources where we also have some interesting signatures should there be a suspicious activity. Secretary lew, you had dealt with the issue of the projected amount of money that would be available to iran once the sanctions are lifted. Irans currency has lost my understand is most of the money is most of that money is iranian money in foreign accounts. Frozen foreign accounts. In that iranians irans currency has lost about half its value over the past three years, was that factored into your estimate about the amount of money which will be available to iran once i was addressing the specific issue of their reserves that are tied up overseas because of sanctions. We have done enormous damage to their economy. It will take them years to get back to where they would have been if sanctions had not been put in place even if they got that money back. Theyre not looking at breaking out into a period of great growth. And i think the challenge here is, we have a pretty good understanding of what the pressures in iran are right now. We cant know with certainty what decisions theyll make. We know, for example, just to get their oil fields up and running properly would require an investment of 100 billion to 200 billion. I cant tell you how much of the 50 billion theyll apply to their oil fields, but you have to assume that one of the things theyre going to want to do is get their economy moving. So that money will quickly be used for a lot of purposes. I wish i could say that zero, not a nickel, would go to malign purposes, but even with the current sanctions regime, theyre finding the money to put into malign purposes. The question is do they do it with or without a Nuclear Weapon. Thank you. Secretary kerry, the countries that know iran the best fear this agreement the most. And the reasons why are that for the following reasons. It lacks the necessary verification. Measures to insure iran doesnt cheat. It lives the restrictions on their Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles which the ayatollah himself said they would mass produce. International sanctions on irans revolutionary guard corps, its terror arm, will be released, and the european sanctions. This deal could also in my judgment spark a Nuclear Arms Race in the middle east as the saudis told me when i recently visited there. As chairman of the Homeland Security committee what concerns me the most is that the deal frees up hundreds of billions of dollars to the leading state sponsor of terrorism. Susan rice the president S National Security adviser said, quote, we should expect some portion of the money will go to the Iranian Military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior we have seen in the region. Now, youre asking this congress to indorse an agreement that the president s own National Security adviser admits will spread terror in the region. Finally, irans Deputy Foreign minister confirmed we will provide weapons to whomever whenever we deem appropriate and buy weapons from wherever we can. Chairman royce and i sent a letter to you and the president of the United States asking you to submit this deal for consideration by the American People through their representatives, first, before this deal was submitted to the United Nations. Instead, you went around the congress and the American People submitted it to the United Nations and then china russia, and venezuela got a chance to vote on this and approve this agreement before we have had a chance to deliberate. My question is this. If the Congress Overrides the president s veto, what effect would that have on this deal . In other words would it kill the deal . Yes. We said that many times. Let me come back to your earlier comments. But, this is a very important point. Will the u. N. And eu sanctions be lifted . And that will relieve iran of these burdens . Or if we override the president s veto will it collapse the entire International Deal . The the sanctions rely on the International Communitys participation to be able to enforce them. Our sanctions alone did not do the job alone. It wasnt until we went out and worked with other countries diligently, china for instance in order to persuade them not to buy xamount of Oil Countries in the middle east would thought be trading underneath the table or otherwise. There were a lot of Different Things necessary to make these sanctions work. If the United States unilaterally through congressional decision pulls away from this deal, theyre not going to continue to apply those sanctions. They have no reason to. Theyre gone. They have already said theyre gone. And with respect to saudi arabia, there was an a. P. Article the other day when ash carter visited saudi arabia. Saudi arabias foreign minister said Irans Nuclear deal appears to have the provisions needed to curtail irans ability to obtain a Nuclear Weapon. I have heard otherwise but let me thats very important for us. Thats a very public comment. For us and the congress to understand if we override the president s veto, it will stop this. Thats is important for us. I have one more question. Its been debated by secretary lew and yourself that you did not approve the delisting of the kuds force commander, the iranian terror arm from the european sanctions list. Im looking at the agreement right here. Theyre taking off the list of the european list, which is an agreement that was approved by you that could force you they killed americans in iraq and afghanistan. What do i tell my gold star mothers back home whose children were killed by these Iranian Forces and tell them that this agreement will take them off the list . Tell them that the United States of america will continue to keep the sanctions on him, specifically. He remains designated by our country, and we will not ever lift them, and that the United States will be pushing back on them. But look, heres what my final question. This secret deal between the iaea and iran theres no secret deal. We have never seen this. Are you going to present that to the congress . Theres no secret deal. There is an agreement which is the normal process of the iaea where they negotiate a confidential agreement, as they do with all countries between them and the country. And that exists. We have briefed on it. Are you going to present that to the congress . We dont have it. Have you seen it . We have been briefed on it. I have not personally seen it. But can i Say Something . You know we hear these complaints. We hear, well this agreement doesnt do this, doesnt stop their terror. This agreement is going to give them money this agreement is going to do this. What this agreement is supposed to do is stop them from having a Nuclear Weapon. Now, i want to hear somebody tell me how theyre going to do that without this agreement. I would like to know how youre were going to go to William Keene of massachusetts. Whats the next step for the United States . Nobody is answering that question. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank our witnesses for being here and their hard work. Three threads im going to throw out there and one of them there have been reports in the media that surfaced that among our European Partners in this there was reluctance. Those reports centered on france, in particular. Im curious, and you can answer all three at the end. Im curious what issues might have, that you can detail, they might have had guam qualms about, i want you to comment on those reports. Number two, if you could, generally comment about the cooperative actions of north korea and iran and how this might be impacted. Number three we have had witnesses before on this issue, and they really were forceful, including ambassador burns, forceful in saying its important that we send a Strong Military message should any agreement go forward. And when it comes to sales and transfer of arms and other things, you began to speak to this. I want to give you the time to address, what military options, what are our strongest saupgzoptions that we still have and how we can act on this. Im going to give all three of you the remainder of my time so you can answer some questions and i wont be interrupting you. Thank you congressman. Let me say quickly because i want my colleagues to have a chance to catch up here. But on the European Partners, france in the final comments when they signed on to the agreement, it was bastille day. July 14th. And the foreign minister said that he thought this agreement was not only a strong agreement, but he hoped it would be remembered in the same way as having the positive impact for the world, the way bastille day was remembered as having the impact for the development of france. And they supported this agreement and voted for it. With respect to north korea and iran, this is a very different agreement from anything that ever existed with north korea. There are about seven or eight different major differences between the north korean agreement, not the least of which north korea pulled out of the npp, and north korea had already exploded a Nuclear Weapon, and iran has not. And there are many differences. And we, i would rather lay them out on the record, if we can. But this covers all possible nuclearrelated activities. The agreement with north korea did not. We also have consent to the process of inspections. North korea i mean, there are a whole series of things. Finally, on the military option, i said it again and again. Everybody has. Ash carter has reiterated it. President obama is the only president who has actually commissioned the development of a weapon that can do what is necessary to deal with the facilities that are at risk. And he has not only commissioned its design. He has deployed it and he has made it clear that iran will not get a weapon. Hes prepared to use any option necessary in order to achieve that but his preferred option is the one he is pursuing here, which is a diplomatic solution. And which resolves this issue in a way that avoids the conflict that some people seem to be not even addressing, which would be almost inevitable as a consequence of not accepting this deal. Ernie . In terms of the first question about the dynamics with the eu or the other partners in general, first of all on the Nuclear Dimensions side, i should emphasize i have talked about our team but every one of the six countries had technical experts involved. They had very robust discussions we did not share our own classified discussions, but made sure we were coming out in the same place. To be honest, in many areas we pushed the envelope. In some areas, they pushed the envelope. The good news is i think we all came out of this very satisfied with the technical dimensions accomplished the job of blocking Nuclear Weapons pathways. There are some specific examples one could give in terms of additional infrastructure removal from centrifuge places in terms of 20 uranium issues, but these were very robust. I think all six countries feel very, very confident in our conclusions. Congressman, i think on the sanctions side, we have very different systems here in the United States and the eu. And the questions were getting on irgc underscore we need to look at our system and their system and understand theyre different. Theyre not enlisting the irgc for terrorist activities. If they do, at the end of phase two, the list for nuclear, the terrorist sanctions still stays in place. So i think people looking at the document ought to understand what is actually going to be in place after its in effect. And i think the cooperation with the europeans requires we not distort what theyre doing. Theyre not taking the rgc off the terrorist list. Thank you, gentlemen. I have received numerous questions from people in texas and i will submit those for the record. Theyre Pretty Simple questions, but i will submit those for you to answer. The secretary kerry, this question is for you. Following up on chairman mccauls comments about the secret deal, secretary rice said that she has seen this deal with the iaea and that it will be shared with congress. So if shes seen it have you seen it . I dont believe that susan rice, National Security adviser, has seen it. I think she said she did six days ago. She said six days ago she had seen it and reviewed it and that congress will get to see it in a classified section. My question is have you seen it . No, i havent seen it. I have been briefed on it. But you havent read it . You havent seen it. Let me ask you this its in the possession of the iaea. Are you going to read it . We dont have access to the actual agreement. Secretary rice has access to it but you dont have access to it. I dont know about that. Thats just what she said. Im just going on what she said. Is the policy of the United States still that iran will never have Nuclear Weapons . Yes. Is it the policy of the ayatollah, if you can answer for him, that iran wants to destroy the United States . That still their policy, as far as you know . I dont believe they have said that. I believe they said death to america in their chants, but i have not seen specifics. I kind of take that to mean that they want us dead. That seems like it would be their policy. He said that. You dont think thats their policy. Im not mincing words. Do you think its their policy to destroy us . I think they have a policy of opposition to us and a great emnity. I have no specific knowledge of the plan by iran to actually destroy us. I do know that the rhetoric is beyond objectionable. I know that we you know are deeply concerned with irans behavior in the region. Deeply concerned with their past activities. Which is why president obama felt reclaiming my time. I got your answer. Let me ask another question. Im reclaiming my time, senator. Thank you, secretary kerry. We heard a if they did want to destroy us, they have a much better shot of doing it if they had a Nuclear Weapon. You dont know if its their policy. Thats my question and thats your answer. Next question is it our policy or our belief that after the deal, whether the deal is approved or not, do we have a policy in the United States that we want expect, desire a regime change by the people of iran to have their own, say, free elections . Weigh in on our policy toward a regime change in iran. Well as you know congressman, president obama was very outspoken with respect to support for transformation in iran around the time of the elections. Our policy today is specifically focused on pushing back on their activities when in the region that destabilized the reenggion threatened israel our friends and allies. That is specifically where we are gearing up to take a specific set of steps that will define a new Security Alliance with the region. Okay so we want to push back. We want them to stop their naughty ways. But regime change i mean, i personally think the best hope for the world for safety including in iran, is for the people of iran to have free elections and the people of iran really decide who their government should be in a free setting. Let me ask you another question. Secretary moniz. This might be my last question. If i understand the agreement the oil sanctions, which is prohinted iran from exporting oil, thats going to be lifted. Is that correct . Well sanctions are relieved. That would be among those relieved. Under this deal, thats one of the ones that will be relieved . If the sanctions are relieved, yes. Now being the secretary of energy, let me ask you this. Why are why is the United States lifting the sanctions on the exporting of oil on iran but were not lifting its sanctions on america exporting crude oil like texas sweet crude . We dont have sanctions on our exports. We have a congressional law that in the 1970s restricted exports. Do you support that law being changed . You know thats the question. Do you support the law this time has expired. Ill put that in the record. We need to go to david sis illini. Just a point of personal privilege. I wanted to make sure we knew what we were talking about on the record that properly reflects this. Susan rices quote is we know their contents and were satisfied with them. We will share the contents of those briefings in full and classified sessions with congress. She has not seen them. She has been briefed on them. And that of course reclaiming my time. We are still looking forward to that briefing. But now we must go to david of rhode island. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses. Not only for being here today but for the ongoing conversations, and i want to particularly thank the administration for really making sure that members have all the information that we need as we navigate through a very sober decisionmaking process with enormous consequences. I thank all three of the secretaries for their service. I have a series of questions that im not asking to support a conclusion that i have already made but actually to help me in arriving at the right conclusion. I would like to set forth the questions, recognize you can answer some, and the others, if you would submit in writing i would appreciate. The first is on parcheen the agreement says that the iaea will provide progress reports by october 15th and then the final assessment by december 15th. We know obviously this is a site where there was Nuclear Testing of some kind. My first question is is it at all concerning that this final conclusion or the set of final conclusions might inform in a substantive way whether we should go forward and is there any concern there will be something revealed in this report that will impact whether or not iran is in compliance from the outset . Thats the first question. Because youll be asked to vote on in the first round of sanctions relief will be provided before that december 15th date. Second question is its been argued that were in the same position in 15 years with no options off the table except the economy of iran will be fortified, theyll be able to withstand sanctions in an enhanced way, and that the ability to reassemble this International Coalition will be very difficult as the countries will be doing business and reengageing with iran. Do you agree with that assessment . Or do you conclude that thats a sensible tradeoff that some have suggested . Third, you concluded mr. Secretary this agreement makes our world, our allies, including israel, and the region safer. I have no doubt you have concluded that is correct based on your best assessment. If you would just provide for us kind of some thinking of why it is that the current israeli leadership does not see it that way. You know, as they obviously have sort of come to a different conclusion. Why do you think that is . Four, after 15 years, iran most have suggested, is a Nuclear Threshold state. But that they must negotiate comprehensive safeguards again with the iaea. And whether or not i know theres been some discussion, have you seen those, but do we have some ability to influence what that agreement is . Do we have any ability to influence its content or monitor their compliance Going Forward . Thats between iran and the iaea. Fifth, is the likelihood of an International Consensus remaining if a deal is rejected . What happens if the deal is rejected . Some have suggested actually some top level israeli officials suggested iran will comply with the terms of the agreement. Well get relief from other partners, and the u. S. Will be isolated. Others have suggested iran will rush toward the development of a Nuclear Weapon with no constraints. Is there any reason to believe iran would comply with the terms of the deal if its rejected and not proceed quickly to a Nuclear Weapon . If the weapons six, if weapons are transfers to hezbollah during the fiveyear period, which is a violation of the u. N. Resolution but also a violation of the interim agreement, would that constitute a violation and cause snapback . In these intervening five years, if arms are sold to hezbollah . And finally, what will happen to the u. N. Security resolution specifically the listing of the arms embargo and the provisions if congress does not approve the agreement . Do those remain enact . And the last question, secretary lew, they described the process in which noncompliance in the agreement might result in sanctions snapping back to the u. N. , but this would only work in major violations. How would the administration treat minor violations . I invite, maybe to start with you, secretary lew. The ones you cant get to, i appreciate your answers and thank you for the work you have done. Ill start with the snapback question. We have reserved the right for snapback in whole or part. Obviously, if theres a small technical violation, that will not bring back the whole sanctions regime. The goal would be to get them back in compliance. If theres a need to make it clear that violations that are small will get a response we have the option of putting some of the smaller sanctions back into place. If theres a major violation, we have the option of putting, of course, all of our unilateral sanctions and ultimately going back to the u. N. For the International Sanctions as well. We have all the authorities we need to do that. Arizona. Thank you. Mr. Secretary you said you said no country would accept anytime anywhere inspections, but i submit iran is not a normal country. Iran is a terrorist state under a heavy International Sanctions. Its neither got the moral nor the geopolitical equal of the United States. Or our negotiating partners and i think we have to stop treating it like one. It aspires to be a regional power, the u. S. Right now is the only world superpower. And my question is this really the best deal we could get given the fact that we seem to have most of the cards . And we have had most of the cards since these sanctions were imposed. Secretary moniz, you said the deal includes anytime anywhere in the sense of a welldefined process and a welldefined end date. But all that depends on iran acting in good faith. We shouldnt make the assumption because iran has been stonewalling the iaea on the military dimensions while claiming to cooperate for years. Theyre doing that as we speak. First, the process is not just 24 days. If iran balks, its a minimum of 24 days. Before the clock starts the iaea has to tell iran about the concerns about a particular site and they have to provide an explanation. But theres no time limit. Does anyone believe that iran will respond immediately for the back and forth discussion for negotiations wont take place . Only after these delays in the high barriers are taken care of at best, maybe can the iaea make a formal request and start the 24day clock. But at the end of the 24 days, theres no punishment if iran says no. Instead, the matter goes to the dispute resolution mechanism which has lots of opportunities for delay and more barriers. Does anybody believe that the p5 plus 1, not this administration and certainly not the europeans will derail the entire agreement by imposing sanctions and restarting irans Nuclear Program just because iran is denying access to one sensitive site . More likely, there will be overwhelming pressure for a compromise. One thats no more substantive than whats in the final agreement. Kicking the can down the road is always one option. Its worked in iran for years. I think all of this led cia former director Michael Hayden to warn in front of this commitsy that the deal is taking inspections from the technical level and put it at the political level. And i just think thats a formula for chaos, obfuskcationobfuscation, ambiguity, and doubt. I think on the 24 days were kidding ourselves if we they think that the 24 days is the total length of the deal. I think it could be much much longer. And i would like to know how ultimately were going to deal once we do find infractions. My second question is of all the sanctions to be lifted in the Iran Nuclear Agreement, few are more significant than those against a shadowy 100 billion organization belonging to the islamic supreme leader. The u. S. Delisting the headquarters for the execution of the imams order will pump 10s of billions of dollars into the supreme leteaders personal coffer bolstering irans ability to promote its agenda abroad. Its estimated hell gain access to as much as 95 billion. The u. S. Treasury designated ico and 37 subsidiaries in june 2013 noting its purpose is to generate and control off the books investments shielded from the view of the iranian people and their regulators. Explain why ico will be designated . Congressman, im going to turn to ernie for the first part of that because its important to understand the 24 days. You are, i say respectfully, misreading the 24 days. By the way, thats an outside period of time. It could be less than that. Its very possible it could be 18 days or something. But ernie, why dont you discuss that . First you started out with the question of iran being unique in terms of verification. Thats why we have the verification system in this agreement that is unparallels. This goes beyond what anyone else has accepted because of the distrust built up over iran. The iaea can cut that off any time by declaring their request for access, and then the 24day clock runs. It is not the beginning of dispute resolution. Its the end of dispute resolution. In fact, at that point, theyre in material breach. You asked about would there be a response if it was, quote, only one site . Well, im going to turn it over to my colleagues, but i want to emphasize in the snapback it says in whole or in part. So a graded response is possible. Going to go to mr. Alan grayson. Mr. Secretary i have five minutes. I have ten short questions. Im hoping for ten short answers. Will implementation of the agreement increase irans support of terrorism . You want these . Yes. We have no way to know. I presume in some places possibly. Only in the sense that they are committed to certain things that we interpret as terrorism, they dont, and were going to continue to conflict on those issues. All right. If the agreement is implemented, will iran in fact allow inspections at all its military sites . They have to. If they dont, theyre in material breach of the agreement and well snap back the sanctions. Or take other action if necessary. If the agreement is implemented, do you think theres a significant risk that iran will cheat on the agreement and develop a Nuclear Weapon secretly . I dont think theyre able to develop a Nuclear Weapon secretly because our Intelligence Community tells us with the regime we have established here, it is physically impossible for them to create an entirely covert secondary fuel cycle. And we have a sufficient intrusive inspection mechanism and capacity on their fuel cycle that they cant do it. You cant make a bomb at 3. 67 enrichment for 15 years. You cant make a bomb with 300 kilograms of a stockpile for 15 years. You cant make a bomb if you cant go enrich and move forward without our knowing it. And we have submitted and we believe with clarity that we will know what theyre doing before they can do that. If an agreement is implemented, is there a significant risk that iran will adhere to it for a year, lets say, then pocket the 50 billion and then violate the agreement and build a bomb . Again they cant do that. Because the red flags that would go off, the bells and whistles that would start chiming as a result of any movement away from what they have to do. They have to live for 15 years under this extraordinary constraint of a limitation on the number of centrifuges that can spin. On a limitation, and there are indeed, on 24 7 inspections. On daytoday accountability with Live Television with respect to their centrifuge production and so forth. So it is not possible for them during that period, in one year two years five years to sort of make this decision and stiff us. If they did, in some way if they just radically said, you know, were going to change this whole deal and were breaking out of here then we have snapback of all the sanctions with the full support of the International Community, which would then be absolutely in agreement that they have to do it, and we have the military option if that was necessary. But briefly on a followup, isnt it true in that scenario they would then have 50 billion in their pockets they wouldnt have . No, i doubt after one or two years they would. They have investments in their economy and they would be moving, but you have to look at this in the real world. Here they are trying to attract investment. Frantz, germany, china, all kinds of countries. Is the your presumption that a country that has destroyed its stockpile, reduced its centrifuges by two thirds put concrete in its culand ria, totally stripped the ability to do fissile material, that that country and is now seeking investment and trying to build its economy, with a population of 50 of the country under the age of 30 who want jobs and a future, is it your presumption that theyre just going to throw this all to the wind and go create a Nuclear Weapon after saying well strip our program down and wont . I dont think its going to happen. What about after 15 years . If the agreement is implemented, is iran in fact likely to build a Nuclear Weapon after 15 years at the end of the deal . All i can say to you is that they cant do it without our knowing what theyre doing. Because after 15 years, they have to live by the additional protocol. They have to live by the modified coat 3. 1. They have to live with inspectors, 150 additional inspectors are going to be going into iran as a consequence of this agreement. And those inspectors are going to be given 24 7 access to declared facilities. So if iran suddenly starts to enrich more, which we will know all of the bells and whistles go off. The International Community would be all over that with questions and restraints. My time is almost up. I want to ask you this. May i just this is the agreement that codifies a permanent ban on Nuclear Weapons in iran and we have to take thank you mr. Secretary. I want to ask this one additional question, and i had one more, but thats the way it go. Tell me exactly what you expect will happen if the agreement is rejected . Specifically, theres been some suggestion that iran will adhere to it anyway. Sanctions will remain in place anyway if the agreement is rejected. I heard that for the first time last night when i met with an israeli friend who suggested that might be possible. Its physically impossible. Explain why. Ill tell you why, because in the legislation that you have passed, which you have given yourself the ability to vote you have also put in an inability for the president to waive the sanctions. So there will be no waivering of the sanctions. Theres no way for deal to work because our lifting of sanctions is critical to the ability of other countries to invest in work and critical obviously for iran to get any money. So nothing works for them unless this deal is accepted. We have a lot of members who still want to ask questions. We need to go to tom marino. Mr. Secretary of state, we all know what iran has done as far as giving weapons to terrorists. To do irans dirty work. What will stop iran from giving Nuclear Material or even more weapons to terrorist organizations . And how is nuclear how is a nuclear iran going to make the world and the United States a safer place. More particular how is a nuclear iran going to make american citizens feel safer . Well the opposite of your question is to suggest that somehow you or we can prevent them from having any Nuclear Program at all. Now, you all have a responsibility to show us how thats going to happen. Im going to show you how im going to show you right now how its going to happen, mr. Secretary. You answered my question. Im going to show you how thats going to happen. Im going to take secretary lews words. The sanctions have crippled iran. If we ratchet them up, and get our allies to ratchet those sanctions up, you can bring iran to its knees where it cannot financially function. Thats how to do it let me just tell you, i suggest i really suggest very respectfully that you spend some time with the Intel Community. Ask the people who have spent a lifetime following iran very closely whether or not they agree with your judgment that an increase in sanctions will in fact bring iran to its knees. They do not they do not believe there is a capitulation theory here. And you will not sanction iran out of its commitment to what it has a right to. Iran is an npt country. There are 189 of them. And we have a right to protect the american citizens from this disaster, this country having nuclear power. Sanctions have worked. Are you going to retract any statements made by secretary lew and anyone else who has said it would cripple them, it would take them years to get servicing again. If youre going to quote me, let me speak for myself. I quoted exactly what you said. Cripple iran and it will take them years to recover. So if we up the sanctions the other part of what i said is the reason it was crippling is because we had international cooperation. We have worked very hard to get that international cooperation. The parties that we worked with reached an agreement here. Look who we work with. We work with china and we work with russia. The people who want iran to be in that position because it jeopardizes the United States. The power of our sanctions is not going to have the affect i disagree with you. The economists disagree with you. Individuals i have read article after article on disagree with you. Congressman, as we have said again and again, and i want to repeat it now. We are absolutely committed that iran will never get the material for one bomb. Not for one bomb. But you didnt answer my original question, mr. Mr. Secretary. My original question is, how is that going to make the United States citizens safer . Let me tell you. Ill tell you exactly how it makes the United States citizens safer. Because if iran fully implements the agreement we have come to iran will not be able to make a Nuclear Weapon. And we have created an agreement which has sufficient level of intrusive inspection and verification. That we are confident in our ability to be able to deliver on preventing them from having enough fissile material for the one bomb. Now, mind you we have started in a place where they already had enough fissile material for ten to 12 bombs. We have already rolled that back. And that made america safer. By the way, it also made israel and our friends and allies in the region safer. Everything we have done thus far in the interim agreement, which has been enforced for two years has made the world safer. Im going to reclaim my time. Youre repeating i understand. I have 40 seconds left. If you repeal this deal, thats not making america safer. I hope youre right, because if not, you, the executive branch in congress, is going to have a disaster on our hands, and we need to be accountable for the United States. I want to ask an important question. Secretary kerry this is an extremely important topic for the future of this countrys security and the safety of the American People as well as our allies in the middle east. I would first like to ask you a simple yes or no question. In accordance with the office of mampg management and budget as well as the National Archives directive as well as state department policy, have you ever used a nongovernment and personal email account to conduct official business . No. Thats my business on a government account. We need to go to dr. Ber era. I want to thank the wenlsz witnesses. Im going to go through a series of questions as i try to make my decision with regards to this deal. Secretary kerry, in multiple times you have said this, the negotiations had one objective. To make sure they cannot get a Nuclear Weapon. Secretary moniz, youre the expert here. Would you, in your opinion do you believe this deal makes it less likely within the next decade, next 15 years. Over a lifetime, for iran to obtain Nuclear Weapons . Far less likely. Okay, great. I dont trust iran. Secretary kerry, you said multiple times theres nothing in this agreement that is based on trust. Secretary lew, you have said there will be no immediate sanctions relief. Is that an accurate statement . Sanctions relief will only come after iran complies with all the measures to stop the Nuclear Program. In your estimation, is there enough in the verification regime, in this deal, that will allow us to i would defer to secretary moniz, but i have been persuaded by everything i have read and seen that it is the toughest verification regime we have ever had. Is that correct . And secretary lew there is no signing bonus . There is no signing bonus. Okay, great. You know moving on then, secretary of Defense Ash Carter is not here. But ill direct this to secretary kerry. In your opinion would you say that secretary carter as well as our joint chiefs are satisfied with the icpm provision of no missiles for eight years as well as the arms embargo for five years . That they would be okay with that . Yes. Okay. Moving on, secretary kerry, you pointed out in your time and history in the senate, youre a very strong defender of israel and had a strong record of support of israel. In your opinion do you believe this deal makes israel safer or less safe . I am absolutely convinced beyond any doubt this deal makes israel safer, and the region. And the world. Would you say that president obama shares that opinion . Yes. Secretary moniz weve talked a lot about the 24hour framework. Is it accurate that you believe as an expert here that within that 24hour framework, we will be able to detect any activities, Nuclear Activities et cetera. 24 days. Im sorry, 24 days. Access to undeclared sites that work with Nuclear Material i feel quite confident we can detect it. That there will be no cheating, we can detect it in the 24day period . I want to emphasize, i work with Nuclear Materials, other work nonnuclear work might be more difficult. Okay. Secretary lew, if in fact theres no Nuclear Activity going on and iran is complying with the terms of this deal, i do have a serious reservation that they will continue to spend it on terror groups. Fund organizations that destabilize the region. And that is worrisome obviously. In your opinion, do you believe that if we acted in a unilateral manner to impose new sanctions or reimpose existing sanctions, not based on breaking the nuclear deal, but based on other activities activities, that we would be able to impose sanctions Strong Enough that they result we totally agree that their actions on terrorism and regional destabealism are and continue to be an area of concern. We have been putting actionsanctions in place. We have reserved the right to put parties on the list again if in fact theyre violating terrorism or destabilization provisions. We have powerful tools. I think the world knows we mean to use them. I believe our credibility in doing it has to be for real. It has to be that were listing people for reasons of terrorism and regional destabilization. You feel we have the tools if we have to work unilaterally. We definitely have powerful tools. Great. Ill yield back the remainder of my time. Wheal go to jeff duncan. Thank you. Secretary kerry, theres still three or four americans imprisoned in iran. I put their pictures here to remind you of them today. I understand not using them as pawns in negotiations but what should have been what should have happened is they should have been released as preconditions before ever sitting down with iran for anything. With that, i yield to mr. Dos santos wheres. Thank you. Secretary kerry, for these side agreements between the iaea and iran, can you at least confirm one of the agreements is about the military site the other about the possible military dimensions of irans Nuclear Program . I believe theres just one basic agreement which contains the approach to the pmd. So can you confirm that the congress will not i think hes been more briefed on it than i have. Theres two appendicize. Congress will be briefed on the contents of the agreement per what we know. We will not be given the actual agreement. I dont believe we get the actual agreement. The problem with that is the Iran Nuclear Agreement act that Congress Passed and president obama signed required the executive branch to provide congress with all documents and specifically defined all documents to include any side agreements. So the executive branch has a Binding Legal obligation under the Iran Nuclear Review act to provide those documents. Actually we dont have a side agreement. So we are in compliance. Gr doesnt matter. The iaea is an independent u. N. Agency and it makes an independent agreement under standard procedures. The Nuclear Review act, with all due respect, applies taany agreement iran may have with any other parties, any other relations agreements to be entered into or implemented in the future. If theres an agreement between iran and the iaea under the Iran Nuclear Agreement act, that needs to be provided to congress. So if youre not in compliance with that act, how is the clock even starting to run for the 60day review period . Congressman im not sure legally the congress of the United States has the power powerful as it is, to be able to dictate to the iaea a change in its procedure. Thats not what were doing. We passed a bill the president signed it. Laid out the conditions before we would then we dont have the agreement. Youre not going to request the agreement and bring it so we can review it . Congressman, we dont possess the agreement. These are protocols worked out to satisfy the iaeairan agreement. Which are very important issues because we need to know the pmd. We need to know more about the site. We need to evaluate the efficacy of the agreement. The iaea will then be providing its report on december 15th which summarizes all they have found. Which is after the window congress has to review the agreement, so were not going to be privy to that information, and were going to be asked to cast a voes on this. Let me ask you this, secretary kerry. You had alluded to in previous questioning about the ability that if iran cheats, we can snap back the sanctions. The problem, though, i see is in the agreement itself, it says iran has stated if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its agreements. So if you have a situation where iran is doing incremental cheating and then theres a movement to have the sanctions reimposed, if you do that, iran is saying its going to walk away from its agreements. Its structured in a way to let iran get away with small violations because the cost would be to blow up the deal you have spent so much time negotiating. Congressman with all respect, thats a misread of the paragraph and a misread of what we have here. The paragraph was requested by iran because they were afraid because congress kept rattling its saber about more sanctions, and so they said well, what guarantee do we have if we agree to this that congress isnt going to pass more sanctions on the same thing or, excuse me, not more just take the sanctions they had and bring them back after we made an agreement . So that paragraph merely says that we are not going to reagree that were not going to reimpose the sanctions and put them back. It does not, as secretary lew said, prevent us from bringing any other additional or inappropriate sanctions for other things. The sanctions language also says in whole or in part. So were allowed for any minor infraction were not facing this, bringing the whole thing and risking the whole deal. We could bring a small amount. Also remember, the reason iran is coming to the table to make this agreement is they want the relief from the sanctions. And if indeed they were in flagrant violation, all of our friends who helped negotiate this will be standing with us all in agreement, that we have to put sanctions back. We must go to new york. Grace. Thank you to all of you for being here for your time and dedication to this important issue and spending so much time with us here in congress on the hill to discuss so many of our concerns. I want to ask, during the negotiations, did this law of the land that Irans Nuclear agreement review act signed by president obama and known to all parties of the negotiation, was it known to all the parties . Well, obviously, the other parties became very aware of the fact that congress was requiring a review period. They were very concerned about it. And so i want it bring up one example of during the cold war, Congress Played a very Important Role in the development of nonproliferation agreements dealing with Nuclear Weapons. Specifically, the threshold test treaty, which i know is a treaty, but we also have our law here. The treaty was initially blocked by the senate because of concerns over soviet compliance. The treaty was not submitted to the senate for approval for two years after signing. And wasnt ratified until after the u. S. And soviet union reached agreement 14 years later on additional provisions to enhance americas ability to verify soviet compliance. So this all leads me to believe that congress should be, and we are, and we have the ability and authorities to compel a better deal should it choose to disapprove of this one. What are the key differences between the jcpoa here and the cold war examples other than the fact it was a treaty and there were multiple parties . Well, one of the principle differences is that we have not had any engagement or any dialogue with iran since 1979. And the lack of diplomatic relations even which is different from what lack of diplomatic relations, which is different than what we had with the soviet union, makes this a very, very complicated situation. So you have to take and analyze what is achievable here in the context of the threat, the Nuclear Program, and i believe given the nature of the political system in iran, the challenges with respect to their own politics, the notion that were going to be able to go back to the table is just a its a fantasy. There is no latitude here, because iran came to this table with enormous suspicions about even engaging with the United States. There is a huge debate in the country about whether or not they should, whether or not we could be trusted, whether or not we thought this was worth the risk. And many people in the country suggested we did not act in good faith. In indeed, all of a sudden we stand up in vienna, seven nations strong embrace an agreement, the United Nations has supported the agreement we turn around and say, were not going to perform, i think the Intelligence Community will confirm to you resoundingly, we will not be back at the table. Certainly in the near future, and i would think certainly not with this iranian government or leadership. One final question, you also asserted that if congress does disapprove, the International Sanctions regime and iran goes back to two months breakout time. I understand russia and chinas Top Priorities may not be the views of congress here in the u. S. , but if you can help me understand what is the basis for the view that these two countries would also just allow iran to fully violate the deal, why would they why wouldnt they hold iran to their Nuclear Commitments set forth in the agreement . And . They allow them to do that, why do we also believe they will be there with us in any sort of snapback scenario . Well i think that russia and china are very, very serious about the nonproliferation component of this, as we are. Russia has agreed to export the spent fuel and process it in russia in order to help make this work. China to be the lead entity with our cochairmanship on a committee that will work to redesign the iraq reactor in away that is acceptable to all of us. They have taken on major responsibilities. They both have a huge interest in the nonproliferation piece of, this but they both belief that the other components of the resolution with respect to arms and missiles was thrown in as an addon. Not because it referred directly to the nuclear part of this of the resolution. The resolution was a Nuclear Agreement and in that regard i think they would have they did experience serious well go to darrell issa of california. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I guess i have to be careful when i say mr. Secretary, but secretary lew, lets start with you, were the sanctions or are the sanctions that are in play as of today effectively curtailing both the money flow and the economy of iran in a way that has brought them to the table. Congressman, i think that the sanctions have been very effective at slowing the great of roet in irans economy making inflation high and the Exchange Rate on their currency very unfavorable. I dont think it stopped them from doing a lot of other bad things around the world. And theyve maintained even in a very difficult set of fiscal challenges blind activities, which we have to stay focused on stopping. The question, mr. Secretary was did it bring them to the table, or did they just come out of goodwill . I believe the sanctions brought them to the table and the sanctions were, in fact, designed to bring them to the table. Secretary kerry youd agree with that . I do agree with that. I think the sanctions and other strategic designs but essentially the sanctions are what crystalized classified annex, a long list of ships and aircraft and banks that were received relief under this. Im sure youre both familiar with those 20, 30 pages. The question i really have here because i think were all focusing on the nuclear deal, but i want to focus on iran an exporter of terrorism, directly of americans kidnappers directly and indirectly, of americans since 1979. All of those sanctions that were agreeing to lift is there anyone that doesnt think those sanctions and more are appropriate as long as they continue to export terrorism kill americans and others . Ill start with secretary lew from a standpoint of those tools that were lifting. Those 40 pages of whatever single space, a huge amount of things that will now be able to carry oil, move money and is so on. Those are, equally effective in deterring or slowing their ability to export terrorism, arent they . Congressman, as a class we are listing for relief from sanctions entities and individuals who were violating the nuclear but those entities those entities are banks in many cases. A bank that was designated as a nuclear violator so bank sadarat stays on the list. If there are institutions delisted that are relisted subsequently under authorizes that deal with terrorism, we right to do that. I think the delisting of nuclear parties is what you would expect if theres a Nuclear Agreement. The Nuclear Sanctions would go away, but other sanctions stay in place. And they can be again congressman, i want to emphasize we hair with everybody the concern about irans behavior around the region. We have ability let me give you a hypothetical. What if at the same time as we dont reject this plan, we bring you a package of new sanctions. What if in fact, congress determines the only way we can accept this risk is if we can truly snap back now relative to their promise, just the day after you signed this, they agreed to stabilize bahrain, continue what theyre doing in yemen. Obviously their support for hezbollah and hamas, the assad regime and taking of lebanon and syria. So with that real threat with that goal, with that continued activity is there any reason we should not either reject this agreement or and or include further sanctions in order to keep them from expanding their support for the murder of americans and our allies around the world and the destabilizing of the middle east one that is leading to an arms race . Congressman, we have powerful tools to snap back sanctions no, not snap back. Im saying today. Today they are, in fact, doing all of this. What would you say the gentleman suspend. We need to go to i just want simply because these junior members do not have sufficient time. So, lois. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you, gentlemen. Some quick followup questions and then some new ones. If there is a if new enrichment sites are detected under that 24day rule, will those sites then become under a constant inspection . If a new site emerges in this . Absolutely. And could you tell me how many countries, other than the p5 1 are currently engaged in sanctions and how much would you say did it take to have all these sanctions in place to get them to the table . Can congressman, i would have to check but our sanctions and International Sanctions are being honored around the world, so its many, many countries. Its taken us years to put that regime in place. Id have to underscore two points. One is our unilateral sanctions are powerful, but the ability for them to really have an effect still requires cooperation. And the International Sanctions wouldnt exist without cooperation. We have spent a lot of effort with countries for whom it is substantial economic cost, they have cooperated to try to stop iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon. So, how would a snapback affect all those countries . It concerns me how you could actually get the snapback i think as secretary kerry said earlier there is enormous unity in the gold of keeping iran from getting Nuclear Weapons. If they violate the agreement, if, in fact, a snapback is warranted because of nuclear issues, i think that both the international and the u. S. Unilateral sanctions would, in fact, snap back. We are going to continue to prosecute our unilateral sanctions on things like terrorism, on things like regional destabilization, but and human rights. And human rights. But theyre obviously different regimes. Once congress if we dont disapprove this agreement, if it