Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics And Public Policy Today 20240622

Goes forward, will the congress u. S. Congress have any role any further role in this Agreement Number one . Number two can any president alter this agreement or refuse to abide by it in the future . Well, congress will always have a role, obviously, and youve made that Crystal Clear in the context of what were doing here now. So, yes, there will be an ongoing role with respect to the enforcement, the implementation, our do we have to vote on anything . Afterwards . To repeal sanctions or ultimately, yes. Ultimately the iran sanctions act itself. There is the lifting of sanctions. Ultimately you would have to vote. If we dont do that pursuant to the agreement are there any penalties on our part . Actually, iran is fry to break the agreement because we will have broken it and then all bets are off in terms of compliance. Can a future president refuse to abide by the agreement . Absolutely. A future president can but its our judgment if the agreement is fully implemented and is working well, no further president is going to choose to do that because the implications. If its working, its achieveing of our goal of not having a Nuclear Weapon in iran. The appeal would be way down the road. Its not something that happens in the next year or two. Its many, many years in the future. Probably eight or more years. I want to get, again, to this this to the troubling issue of the inspections. Are you saying there is no limit to inspections by the iaea that it will go on forever . Did you say that . Yes. What im saying is there is a process, congresswoman who pays for that . Its paid for we pay a certain element of the budget. Its a u. N. Agency. We represent certain percentage of that budget, about 25 and others contribute to it. We train all the inspectors. Its one thing we do and do very effectively. But its an independent entity. Excuse me. Is it a separate, secret agreement that we dont see thats going to allow this continuation of inspections . Thats whats not clear. No. The continuation of inspections surnd what is called the Additional Protocol. The addition at protocol is exactly that. Thats what we dont get to see . Absolutely, you see that you can read every component of it. I was sharing some thoughts with the Committee Earlier about the things that it empowers the iaea to do. The accountability is very indepth and significant. This is not some light set of requirements. Well go to mr. Mo brooks of ambassador ambassador. Thank you, chairman. Three months ago Brigadier General said erasing israel off the the. Some peoples rhetoric and some peoples attitude in the iranian government . I dont think its possible for iran to do that. I think israel has enormous capacity. I didnt ask for all that other. Im just asking if you have a judgment as to my judgment is it is not a employmentable policy by iran. And death to israel. Do you believe his comments accurately reflect iranian government roles . Yes, no or i dont know . I think they reflect an attitude and rhetorical excess but i see no evidence they have a policy employmented against us at this point in time. To kill americans or israelis . Well, they may. They may. We have, as you know, responded to that from 1979 when they took over our embassy forward. We have put sanctions in place specifically because of their support for terror because of their abuse i understand that. You answered my question when you said yes, they may. Next, is the Obama Administration willing to use military force to prevent iran from obtaining building, testing or using Nuclear Weapons . Yes. And what has iran done in the past couple of years that causes to you believe iran will abide by the Iran Nuclear Treaty or wants to become a responsible member of the International Community . The only thing that indicates to us a willingness to try to comply with this agreement is the fact they have complied fully with the interim agreement for the last two years and that we have put in place such a strict set of consequences that it is deeply in their interest to comply if they have reduced twothirds of their centrifuges stripped their stockpile put emptied out fordah, so theres a lot of that focuses to a large degree on the nuclear side. What about the use of the conventional weapons and whether they will maintain their status as the worlds foremost we have serious concerns, which is precisely why were engaged with our friends in the region. Its why i will be in doha in a few days to meet with them, as we lay out the plans for pushing back against those opportunities. Well be in special forces training, counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, counterfinance, a whole series of steps in order to empower all of us to do a better job of reducing those activities. September 1 11th 14 years ago shows their desire to kill nonmuslims and other foes. Given religious zealously how confident are you that iran will not use Nuclear Weapons to further death to america or death to israel if iran obts Nuclear Weapons . They wont obtain a Nuclear Weapon. Im confident under this agreement and with president obamas commitment theyre not going to secure a Nuclear Weapon. Is that in part because of your statement that this administration is willing to use whatever means are necessary of a military nature to prevent iran from having Nuclear Weapons . That is certainly the final backup to it. I believe all the elements of this agreement will if its implemented fully, again, if its employmented will prevent them from even getting near that possibility. On occasion youve used the phrase, all options are on the table. Do those options to prevent iran from having Nuclear Weapons . Ive never asked that. I know of no president of the United States who have ever taken all military options available to them off the table. I also dont know of any realistic situation in which that can present a very feasible strategy given the proximity of friends from iran and the consequences of that. But i dont think the president has taken any theres no option thats been discussed. When you talk about the use of military force, is it fair to infer that were really talking solely about conventional alal weaponry . What the president has laid out is and what the military has designed is an approach and im not going to discuss that plan in open session here but a plan that sufficiently meets the task of preventing them from having a Nuclear Weapon. Thats the goal. Thats the objective. And our current set of options accomplish that. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Joaquin castro of texas. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, gentlemen for your work and diplomacy on behalf of the nation. I want to imagine for a moment another scenario. A scenario we dont take a deal, we walk away from it and there is military action against iran. Can you imagine for me for a moment, what would the fallout be from a destabilized iran . Weve seen other nations, libya, iraq egypt where there have been destabilized regimes, secular leaders who have been replaced by fundamentalists and terrorism that has now been franchised almost across the world. What would happen if iran was destabilized in the same way . You know, congressman its very hard for me to get into this speculative game here. Theres too much talk about military option and this and that when we have in front of us a plan that accomplishes the task of preventing iran from achieving a Nuclear Weapon, which they say they dont want to do anyway, and have made very strong affirments about their commitment not to do. It seems to be focused on the destabilized side of it and the military side of it is not the right focus. The right focus is on this agreement that accomplishes the goal of preventing them from having a weapon. The region is obviously destabilized, in flames and thats another reason why i think we should think really carefully about the consequences of turning away from this deal. I guess, let me point out, secretary kerry, that you know im not coy to support the deal. One of the questions i have is a concern that we find out that they are cheating and at that point a position has to be made, which is were not going to let them have a Nuclear Weapon. Frankly congressman, thats the easiest decision in the world for this president , and for all of us here. But heres my question mr. Secretary. What is the Tipping Point where sanctions will no longer work and you have to take military action if, in fact, youre going to keep them from not having the Tipping Point is a clarity with respect to what effort is being put into breaking out if thats the choice theyve made and where they are in that process. The Tipping Point is how much time you make a judgment that you have sure. With respect to where theyre starting and where they can wind up. But we are convinced that with the we will have enormous tipoff to this. Thats why a year was built into this agreement for the first ten years, and even after that. Theres a lengthy enough period of time that our interest the interest of the region our friends, israel, others, is protected. And were confident about our ability to have accountability in that process going forward. But i would say to everybody if this is rejected, then you have no inspections, you dont have a regime in place, you dont have sanctions, iran may undertake, not, immediately, but theyve considered themselves free to do so. And as they do it what are the options that are then available to us . It seems to me when you get those two scenarios, this becomes not that complicated of a choice. To put this in context, can you go over again i missed some of the discussion but can you go over again the deal offered in 2003 by the Bush Administration. In 2008 is when in 2003 there was discussion about 163 centrifuges, but the p5 1, the same p5 1, made an offer to iran for their suspension of enrichment and reprocessing that the United States and the p5 1, excuse me, would then recognize irans right treat Irans Nuclear program in the same as that of any nonNuclear Weapon state part to the ntp once confidence had been built. Provide technical and financial ability including stateoftheart power reactors support for r d and legally binding fuel supply guarantees, improved relations with iran and support iran in playing an important and constructive role in International Affairs work with iran and others in the region on confidencebuilding measures and regional security, reaffirmation of the obligation to remain from the threat or use of force cooperation on afghanistan, steps towards normalization of trade and economic relations and it goes on. All of these things were offered in exchange for suspending enrichment. Now, they didnt suspend. They went up to 19,000 centrifuges. And that fact is one of the driving factors in our coming to the conclusion, the president coming to the conclusion, that we needed to arrive at an agreement, which recognized their ability to have Nuclear Power under safeguards agreement, under the ntp, with our ability to know what they are doing. Randy webber of texas. Thank you, mr. Kerry. Appreciate you being here. I hope that you will you say were going to be briefed on that Side Agreement that the iaea has with iran. Is that correct . Yes that is correct. I want to implore you to use your power to make sure were not briefed by the same staff that briefed susan rice and Hillary Clinton on benghazi or Sergeant Bowe bergdahl. Make sure we get a briefing there. You say frequently this is the strongest negotiation you could get, you feel like it was. The president said he would walk away from a bad deal. And i would submit this, now, you come to us and you say theres not 535 secretaries of state and other countries dont appreciate that congress is weighing in. But if you were going to get a strong deal i have said from the get g i think theres a lot stronger position you should have taken, so im going to lay out some preclusions and you tell me if you operated between that basis. I agree with jeff duncan when he said american hostages should have been released first and foremost. Number two. The demand should have been for iran to dismantle all of its centrifuges. Number three, give the iaea unfettered 24 7 365 day access. Number four, stop the exporting of terror to syria to iraq and everywhere else. Number five, denounce terrorism and prosecute those who perpetrate it restore civil rights in their own country, number six. Stop the death chant to america and israel. And they need to recognize israels right to exist even as a jewish state, i might add. Number seven, secretary kerry theyve been a bad actor going back to 1979. So, if this is not based on trust, if this is based on actions, shouldnt we have required them to show by their own actions, i dont know say for half of the time since 1979, say, 18 years or a fourth of the time, nine years how about just two years shouldnt we have required them to show with their actions . You said in your exchange with grace mentiong said earlier me and my colleague were up here thinking, who cares . Were not the bad actors here. Theyre the one exporting terrorism. Did you start from that basis of strength . If you did how did we get here . You consider this to be a good deal. Well, congressman, plain and simple. All the things you just listed there never would have been a negotiation. Oh, my heart pains for them. These are bad pardon me . My hard pains for congressman, what you need to think about is our security. We are better off with iran not having a Nuclear Weapon. No question. Our primary objective here was to have a negotiation because they were already at 19,000 centrifuge already with enough material for 10 to 12 bomdz, already enriching at 20 and they were a step away from a plutonium react thats true could produce enough material for one to two bombs a year. How we stepped into that. I get that. And we rolled that back. You said that. How long before we knew about fordau. We discovered it. We blew the whistle. How long was it there before we discovered it. I dont know a precise amount of time. Ten years . But congressman, we discovered that and we also im sorry, you let me just say, in 2003 we discovered they were actually trying to make a bomb and we did it without inspectors, without this regime. Youve said all that. This is about the trust you keep saying were going to have. No theres no trust. Well, youre implying that we can catch them at what theyre doing and get fordau uncovered for 10 or 12 years. Thats not trust. We can supply that information. Let me do this. Sir, we can classified environment, well be happy im running out of time. Are you aware of the fact that today today, iran to United Nations, new sanctions could kill the nuclear deal. Theyre still uttering threats against us. I may remind us. Were not the bad actor here. In a letter to a 15member body u. N. s embody said to iran, quote, may reconsider its commitmentings end quote, if the pact if lifted under the deal are quote, impaired by continued application or the imposition of new sanctions with the nature and scope identical or similar to those that were in place prior to the implementation date, irrespective of such new sanctions are introduced on nuclearrelated or other grounds unless the issues are remedied within a reasonably short time. Today theyre threatening to walk away from this deal if we implement other sanctions. On even other grounds. Youre saying the hostages are different. We have to go to Tulsi Gabbard of hawaii. With the u. N. Security Council Voting to unanimously support this deal with iran the toughest what is the status of this u. N. Resolution and implications if Congress Disapproves this deal and overrides president ial veto . Well, congresswoman, we built into this a process that was kind of a compromise because our friends, our allies, thought they should immediately go to the u. N. Because congress had already voted to have a review period, we persuaded them to have a 90day period during which time it could not be implemented. They had their vote, but there is a grace period. That was a balance between the desire of our friends to exercise their own sovereignty and do what they wanted under the u. N. Versus our desire to try to protect congresss right to review. So, if congress does go through the review process and disapprove of the deal at that point, what happens with the if congress were to override a veto and disapprove the deal there would be no deal. That u. N. Resolution that was passed unanimously would no longer stand . The entire deal dies because we cant lift the sanctions without the ability to wave. Thats been taken away. That would be part of the vote. We would see this deal die. Thank you, secretary. Die without any other option. Secretary moniz, what evidence or materials could potentially be cleaned up or hidden within the 24day period listed in the inspections regime . There would be an attempt presumably to replace flooring to all kinds of cleanup and, as i say, we have experience in the both unclassified, classified arenas in terms of being able to detect very very small amounts of uranium. So, using Nuclear Materials, theres there would typically be a strong signature. And if iran fails to allow inspectors entry within that 24day period, what consequences would they face and under what timeline . If they fail to do it they are in material breach of the agreement. We can snap back all the sanctions and, obviously, all options are available to us that are available today. So immediately after the 24day period f theyve still not allowed if they fail to live up to the 24day period and provide the access they are in material breach of this agreement. If we had cause to have gone and ask for access to an undisclosed facility about which we have deep concerns, everybody will join with us in ratifying that concern and we will be operating with the consent, if you will, of the International Community because of irans noncompliance which is one of the reasons why i believe we have huge leverage for compliance. After termination day when the snap back mechanism will no longer apply, airan will still be subject to the Additional Protocol. If they violate that Additional Protocol after termination day . We have power to bring unilateral sanctions. Congress can join us. We can go back to square one. Or we have obviously, other options available to us. I think the concern is the time it takes for those kind of unilateral sanctions to apply whether they be from the United States or Global Community as weve seen from the past. What other immediate consequences would there be if they are immaterial, noncompliance in a way that is threatening, obviously were in a much more serious kind of situation and confrontation with the potential, needless to say, of the president taking the most dramatic options. I would add this exactly as senator kerry said, it would depend upon their motivation, what they were doing. Certainly in my view, anything that shows Movement Toward a Nuclear Weapon would have to be responded to quite forcefully. I would also go back to something congresswoman meng asked, i think its relative to your statements as well is the p5 1 by definition have a special role in the npt and a very, very strong interest in seeing its integrity maintained. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Scott perry of pennsylvania. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. We certainly appreciate your indulgence. We know its been a long time. In the context of these statements is how id like to ask my questions. 1994 not too long ago 11 13year context for this deal for the most strict portion of it, so from 1994 the entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of Nuclear Weapons is one statement, and also the United States and International Inspectors will carefully monitor north korea to make sure it keeps its commitments. We all know thats, of course quotes from president clinton that none of that happened. I mean, north korea is what it is. We are where we are. In that context, secretary kerry, reading your quote recently with a reporter from al arabiya. I dont know how to interpret at this oint in time except to take it at face value in relation to chants of death to america, death to israel, were going to continue our policy. And then its very troubling its very disturbing, very troubling and well have to wait and see. What will we have to wait and see, secretary kerry . Before you answer, 1979, 52 u. S. Hostages, 144 days. 1983 the u. S. Marine barracks 241 americans killed. 1992, the Israeli Embassy in argentina bombed. 2011, the attempted assassination of the saudi ambassador in d. C. The killings and maimings of hundreds in iraq and afghanistan, not to mention support of assad, hezbollah, hamas and activities in iraq, syria and yemen. What will we have to wait and see . What was your to see the implementation of the plan, congressman. I dont want a speechoff. We can have a competition about who is angrier about the things iran has done historically. We understand theyve killed americans. We understand what they did. We understand all of this. But they were marching towards a Nuclear Weapon. Mr. Secretary, you must understand no no. You must understand americans see iran as a crocodile or shark that does what it does. Were saying, were going to give the crocodile or the shark a few more teeth and lets see if it does something different. Thats not accurate. Thats what thats let me say this, too. You said we dont have a better option. You keep saying, you havent provided a better option. Congressman mr. Secretary with all due respect, it is not congresss job. This is the administration. If you would use the treaty process as provided by the constitution, maybe we wouldnt be in this situation. Furthermore, you know, you say, well, this is the only deal we can get. Theres no better deal. Congress has a long history of instituting better deals. For example 280 treaties, unilateral accords including the arms control agreement s. A. L. T. 2 and the threshold Test Ban Treaty that failed to reach a vote and were modified. So, there is a history for that, of getting a better deal. If the ayatollah doesnt like it and doesnt want to negotiate it, oh boohoo. Were here for america. We stand for america. You represent america. With that having been said you know, its in another interview, if you dont get a majority in congress, doesnt that undermine the deal . In your statement, they dont care over there. Im assuming you mean iraq. As long as the deal is implemented. Thats what we care about. That this deal being implemented. So, do you care more about this deal or the u. N. s approval or american sovereignty and the approval of the American People through their duly elected representatives, mr. Secretary . Congressman, i dont need any lessons from you about who i represent. Ive represented and fought for our country since i was out of college. God bless you for your service. Dont give me any lessons about that, okay . Let me make it chris cal clear to you. This is americas interest. Because america is the principal guarantor of security in the region. Particularly, with respect to some of our closest friends. We believe iran was marching towards a weapon or the capacity to have a weapon and weve rolled that back congressman. Thats your opinion. Thats indisputable met me ask you thats a fact. Is it possible iran will acquire Russian Air Defense missiles in relation to the arms embargo lifting to protect Nuclear Sites . Possible or not possible . Say is that again. Is it possible that iran will acquire Russian Air Defense missiles to protect Nuclear Sites . Those are not in the agreement. They have a300s in relation to the arms embargo lifting. No, theyre not banned by the arms em ba bar goe. Theyre outside of it. Were going to Brandon Boyle of pennsylvania. My intention is to keep going to give our junior members an opportunity to ask their questions. Thank you. I want to ask my question to secretary moniz and im probably going to be boring here but a technical question. When i ask the white house and the president specifically, he directed it to you saying youre one of the top ten experts in the world on this. So, with that buildup, there is a report about six days ago in the New York Times that really question this issue of the 24 days. There are some, such as youve said look 24 days, its not exactly like youre flushing a whole program down the toilet. That certainly wouldnt be enough time in which to hide illicit behavior. Former Deputy Director of the iaea contradicted that. Saying while its true with some of the larger scale operations some things such as manufacturing uranium components as well as triggers, toolactually could be covered up. Im trying on get an answer because i think its a key component trying to look at this in an intellectually honest way to see if we have a verifiable deal here. Yes, i spoke with mr. Mr. Hinenan, up the river at harvard these days. The issue i want to emphasize what ive always said is that work with Nuclear Materials, we have very very high confidence in terms of finding microscopic amounts there. When you go to things like triggers things that do not involve Nuclear Materials but are important for a Nuclear Explosive, then that gets into a higher stage of rirmentd. As ive said in a classified environment, we could talk more about it. Even there there can be some signals, some signals that are quite interesting and certainly may be quite detectable. But certainly one gets further away from the Nuclear Materials, then there are more possibilities of both coverup and for at least maybe semicredible explanations for pursuing other activities. For example, any military does work with conventional explosives in chambers. So, the question is was that work around certain hemispherical shapes with multipoint nation and that requires more and more investigation. But nuclear material, to leave quite significant signatures typically. I wanted to with only a couple minutes let me switch because this is something the israeli ambassador raised in my office and has been raised a couple of times. Again, i think is a legitimate i realize some of this is bash the administration and that this part of politics but there are those of us on the democratic side who do have real, genuine concerns. The 24day is one of them. The other is the question of how exactly we bring forward and what we have to reveal in terms of our intelligence to demand or request that a site is being inspected . It has been pointed out we would have to reveal exactly why we suspect a site. Meaning we would have to compromise where we got intelligence and why we suspect it. Can you talk about how that process would work and how much we would have to reveal to the iranians just to inspect the site . Thats something you should ultimately get from the Intelligence Community, and personal protecting sources and methods is particularly important. Now, having said that, clearly in the past, intelligence agencies from many countries have been able to share information. Also note, of course, four out of the seven countries involved in the talks are very Work Together quite closely. Namely the europeans and United States. I think we would do all we could to provide the iaea with relevant information that would point to a suspicious site no matter where it was. Could i ask secretary kerry to weigh in on that point. Yeah, congressman. Ive been through this kind of thing a little bit on occasion. Were very careful not to disclose sources and methods. And we have ways of providing information in making it available and ways that dont have that. I can assure you that will not happen. Its not something our Community Feels stopped by. You mentioned the israeli ambassador was in there talking to you about these concerns. Sandy levin is the longest serving jewish member of the United States congress. He came out today i read his statement. Well, he was asked about it. He said, israels security has and always will be of critical importance to me and our country. I believe that israel, the region and the world are far more secure if iran does not move towards the possession of a Nuclear Weapon. I believe the agreement is the best way to achieve that. Er with going to mr. Ron de santos of florida. A vote on. Two minutes remaining. Secretary moniz, with respect to the agreement between iran and the iaea for possible military de mentions have you read those documents or agreements . No, sir, i have not seen them. And you to your knowledge nobody in the u. S. Government has a copy of the agreements . To my knowledge we do not have a copy. Have you again, in vienna we had very broad oral i had at least a broad, oral briefing but i never saw any paper. So, you were briefed in vienna before the vcop was announced . Shortly before, yes. Who briefed you . D. G. Amano. Do you have any plans to request that those documents be provided to Congress Consistent with the Iran Nuclear Deal act . I dont know if it is kebt consistent so ill check with our folks and make a determination. I dont think we judge that it is consistent, but well, as weve said, we will certainly brief the contents if appropriate class if you could provide us the rationale for why you dont think the definition of agreement would encompass i said, i dont know. Congressman be i just said i dont know. No, im saying if you would make that determination, if you could provide us kind of the legal justification for well of course wed have to. Of course, wed do that. Very good. There was a report in the Associated Press today that the agreement between iran and the iaea may not be impleetd. Something that iran may be the one to take soil samples. Can you guys comment . Is it, in fact still being negotiated between iran and the iaea . In session here, we cant discuss what the methology is. Were happy to take this on in classified session. Can you confirm the ap story . Have you seen it . Absolutely not i cannot. You cant i cannot confirm it. I havent seen it among other things. Secretary moniz we get into a very complicated agreement. Very important. I know you guys worked hard on it, but sometimes i like to take a step back and just a few years ago it had been the policy of the United States that an agreement iran gives up Nuclear Program no enrichment. The president when he was debating governor romney in 2012 said the deal will accept, that they end their Nuclear Program. Its very straightforward. Secretary moniz, i mean do you acknowledge this agreement i know you think its good. Put that aside. Do you acknowledge that this agreement doesnt meet that standard of where theyre ending their Nuclear Program that they are allowed to maintain a significant Nuclear Program in the International Community will be helping them to develop Nuclear Technology . I know you guys are going to say youre confident you can dweblgt thats used in a military capacity, but that does represent a change, does it not from where we were just a few years ago . Congressman, ive had conversations with members of the prior administration. And its inappropriate for me to tell you who or speak for them. I think if you talk to them you will learn that they had come to a conclusion by the end of that administration that that policy wasnt working and that they were going to need to in fact, have some structure of enrichment and some structure of the program. Theres a distinction here between irans Nuclear Weapons capacity and a peaceful Nuclear Program. Unlike north korea which pulled out of the ntp, iran is still a signatory to the npt. Iran has not exploited an ordinance. Iran has not gone forward to make a weapon even though they had enough material for 10 to 12 bomdz. So iran is stating in this agreement its willingness to comply with and live within the nonproliferation treaty. Under the nonproliferation treaty, countries have a right to a peaceful Nuclear Program. So just so i get clear with the question, youre acknowledging there has been a reappraisal in kind of the gold posts and its been shared with the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration. I dont think they shared it publicly but they shared it with us privately so, to that may i add the construct going in then, this was among the p5 1, that our basic construct quoob to get the oneyear breakout time secretary kerry, just real quickly, because this is not going to be ratified as a treaty, there are a lot of states florida in particularly where state legislatures have enacted sanctions against iran in various capacities. Do you acknowledge that this deal will not affect states abilities to do it since its not going to be approved as a treat y its not going to be considered extreme law. Land . More of an executivetoexecutive agreement . Thats correct but weve urged to take steps not to interfere with that. Mr. Ted of florida and dont feel compelled to use all your time. Yes, sir. I appreciate it. Mr. Secretary i want to ask you a simple yes or no question. The iran sanctions act expires on december 30th or 31 2016. Will this Administration Support legislation we obviously are committed to the isa but i dont think any decision has been made on timing or what steps the president will take. Can we do the snapbacks without this . Yes, we can. According to this we cant because of the iran sanctions act expires. Those are necessary to no, we have other existing authorities where we could snap back both financial and can you guarantee this body those acts are facilities are in place so snap back works without an act of congress . Yes. I have a problem with the secret deals going on, and youre asking us to support this deal without ng arings august to rye it read it. Youre asking us to vote on something. We dont know whats in that deal. You will. I think its disingenuous as representatives of the United States citizens to vote on a deal that we dont know whats in it. Were not. Ive said to three or four congressman i heard that. Its not clear the information will be forthright. Were going to get briefings but briefings is not the same as being able to read the actual agreement i realize its the iaea with iran but were paying 25 of the budget of that place. I think we as the representatives of American People, we deserve that. Zoo congressman, on sanctions act. First thing, it doesnt expire until the end of 2016. Now would not be the appropriate time. Its premature to take action. I think respectfully, we know if theres a problem in 2016, it wont take very long for congress to act. Saw its premature to take action. This is my last question or statement. You say this is the best deal we get. If we walk away from the table we walk away alone. I feel that you this negotiating team put america in that situation because of the way you negotiated this from the very beginning. If we go back to the very beginning, iran will not be allowed to have a Nuclear Weapon. You said, mr. Secretary i heard it come out of your mouth, anywhere, any time, anyplace. Thats been passed on. Were beyond that point. Its beyond the point of trying to prevent iran from having a Nuclear Weapon. Were trying to prevent something we cant instead of preparing that for which we will have. Weve been boxed into a bad corner because you negotiated from weakness instead of as a super power and you go into the u. N. To get their approval first so we look like the guys. This is a bad deal. I think if we operate from a level of strength, iran will come back to the negotiating table. To think theyre going to come back to the negotiating table a year or two from now, i think thats a fallacy and disingenuous to america. Congressman i urge you i urge you, congressman, with all respect, to spend time with the intel community. I think youll hear a different no disrespect we get those people in here all the time. We hear intelligence briefings. We hear this as a bad deal. If you say, president obama is going to make america safer congressman wait a minute. The Intelligence Community is telling us to build Missile Defense systems on the east coast, bolster the ones on the west coast and alaska because this is a great deal i think we should run away. The Intelligence Community is not saying that. The Intelligence Community supports this deal, congressman. Whats more, they were an integral part of helping shape it. Furthermore, the reason we were able to get the good deal we got is because we did operate out of position of strength, which is why theyre dismanteling twothirds of their program, undoing their stockpile, living by restraints on enrichment and have accepted Additional Protocol as well as 25year restraints on their uranium and so forth. Just to add the agreement, is the iaea and iran the iaea will complete its pmg. Thats the agreement. Thats the protocol. Thank you. Secretary kerry earlier you had had countries in the future will not trust negotiating with the u. S. State department because theyre now negotiating with 535 individual members of congress. For 228 years the constitution provided a way out of that mess by allowing treaties to be with the advise and consent of 67 u. S. Senators. Why is this not considered a treaty . Congressman, i spent quite a few years ago trying to get a lot of treaties through the United States senate. Frankly, its become physically impossible. Thats why. Because you cant pass a treaty anymore. And its become impossible to you know schedule. Its become impossible to pass. And i sat there leading the charge on the disabilities treaty which fell to basically ideology and politics, so i think thats the reason why. I may not disagree with that. Political world around here is pretty challenging for both parties, certainly the congress and the president. I will say one of the concerns voiced to me by my constituents is the fact in the president s press conference about this agreement, he threatened to veto the Congress Action if we didnt agree with him anyway. So, there was this arbitrary poke in the nose of the congress when it was unnecessary and so my folks back home are saying, i want to have some say in this. My only say is through you. I think that maybe could have been handled a little different. Secretary moniz go ahead, secretary. Yeah, i understand. Secretary moniz, is it not billions of dollars cheaper to build a natural gas power plant rather than a Nuclear Power plant . Why do you think iranians have gone down the nuclear road . Typically a Nuclear Plant has lower operating costs. In this case, the natural gas quoob would be free to them. Im not sure its free. Certainly in the sense im not arguing one way or the other but just what the argument is is that its more valuable than as an export product where of course, with lng prices for example, in parts of the world theres quite a bit of rent to be captured. Yeah, sure, sure. Secretary lew, appreciate your patience today. You havent been called on that much. But in light of the how tantalizing the sanctions have been on this economy, it still strikes me odd that iran would continue to move toward this very, very expensive construction project as opposed to other alternatives. Does it seem odd to you . I mean billions and billions which expense . The actual expense of constructing Nuclear Power plants. Theyve been under great stress economically. I think that they have been under enormous stress, like any government, they make decisions based on their short and longterm needs. I cant question why theyve chosen one form other another. Inadequate in order to have a foundation for economic growth, they do need more power. And thats going to require investment. Its one of the reasons that i believe they have domestic needs. Their domestic infrastructure is in pretty bad condition right now. It seemed to me one of the possible solutions to this whole deal would have been for the p5 1 countries to 1 countries in building alternative sources of electrical power to meet that need as opposed to setting this canard up they can go ahead and nuclearize. Ill hand back. Thank you. If you can keep these comments brief, theres votes going on on the floor. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses for being here and for your service. Secretary kerry you said in your opening statement, there have been major distortions and president obama actually said yesterday that there have been no factual arguments on the other side worth scrutiny. Simple yes or no. These are the facts that are basing the negotiations off of at the outset. Theyre Holding American hostages sponsoring terrorism, calling for death to america on israel wiped from the face of the earth. Guilty of egregious Human Rights Violations and creating instability around the world. Are those facts true . Yes or no . Yeah. They are. But would you say those facts looked in collectively would suggest that iran is guilty of bad behavior . Well, i think its more than just bad behavior. Theyre destabilizing countries and blowing people up somewhere is beyond bad behavior. Ill take that as a yes. How would a deal lets say i wanted to sell my business to lee. Back when i was in the business world, we were doing an acquisition. I would say to my team, you cant do a good deal with a bad guy. So can you just sort of understand our concern about this deal because it sure looks like if were doing a good deal as you suggest, its with a bad guy. I understand exactly what youre saying, and its its, you know, we confronted questions about what could be achieved and not achieved in the course of these negotiations ourselves and came to the conclusion, therefore, that nothing is based on trust. That we are going to set up something that you can read, we can read everybody can understand what the expectations are. And thats one of the reasons why from a position of strength we believe we achieved something that really helps establish some level of confidence over the years, and thats the level to which they will reduce their Current Program reduce their stockpile, live by limitations on enrichment, which are absolutely ascertainable and so forth. So weve created we think a dynamic here where you get over the hurdle of the things you dont like and bad behavior because youve created something that is verifiable and has certainty in it. Any chance that irans strategy is to get the deal signed, get the 50 billion and a year or so down the road start to violate the agreement knowing that as we said earlier. I know, thats the challenge of going last or next to last, but i appreciate you staying. Isnt there a chance a year from now, its going to be a whole lot more difficult for us to get the band back together and be able to put in place some protections. Not if theyre breaking the agreement. Russia and china are going to go along and say gosh, the United States, we understand your concern and what can we do to get . Were convinced about the seriousness of purpose of all of our five other partners in this effort. You know, hindsights 20 20, and im not asking you to necessarily evaluate how we got to this point. But any credibility to the concern that i think someone earlier mentioned that maybe decisions by ambassador rice or the administration or your negotiating team really put us in a position now where if we dont sign this deal, were really left without any good options . Any concern in hindsight we couldve done things differently . Maybe resolution 1929, other decisions that were made along the way that put us in this box in terms of having no great options . Well, we think we have a great option. The great option is the agreement that we came to and we did not create the box. By the way. You know you guys decided you wanted to review it and now youre reviewing it. And im sorry about the consequences of that review, but thats not our creation. The consequences of the review are the reality that this agreement can, you know, not go forward. And there are consequences to that. I have no regrets, sir about having the responsibility of reviewing this agreement. Im not arguing with you about your right to do it. But we are arguing that the consequences when you weigh the benefit of this agreement going through versus the consequence of not doing it are serious. But and you know one last question, sir i appreciate your time. But you said earlier that this was never about making sure iran did not have a Nuclear Program, but rather making sure they did not have a Nuclear Weapon. The capacity to build a Nuclear Weapon or get one. What did president obama or candidate obama mean in the debate with mitt romney in 2012 when he said the deal we will accept is they end their Nuclear Program, its very straightforward. He really was talking about the capacity to create a Nuclear Weapon, not having played mitt romney for him in preparation for that debate, i can assure you thats what he meant. Thank you for your time. Hope youre doing all right with your crutches. I spent a lot of time over the year on crutches. Theyre not any fun. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Kerry, just now in response to his question i want to understand with regards, this isnt a treaty because it was difficult to pass. Is that is that correct . Well its not there are a lot of other reasons. We felt, we dont have diplomatic relations with iran. Its very complicated with six other countries. Its just very complicated process. So we thought that the easiest way to get something that had the leverage had the accountability, could achieve our goal was through a political agreement. And mr. Secretary, if you would be able to submit for the record just a little bit more background as to why this is not treated as a treaty. I think it would be helpful for us. Absolutely, sure. Okay. And you said a little earlier the reason iran came to the table is because they wanted the relief from the sanctions. The iranian Supreme Leader said the Islamic Republic of iran will not give up support of the frepds in the region, the oppressed people of yemen the oppressed people of bahrain and fighters in lebanon and palestine. There is so much state sponsorship of terror in that list a hezbollah leader said this past weekend, the United States remains the great state in both before and after the nuclear accord. The leverage that brought the iranians to the negotiating table was the sanctions relief. Let me just recap some of the stuff that wasnt part of the negotiations. Iran developing icbms overthrowing foreign governments, sponsoring terror, unjustly imprisoning United States citizens including a marine a pastor a reporter pledging to wipe israel off the map. None of that was part of the negotiations. Irans neighbors who know them the best trust them the least. Its just something for us to think about. Id also ask if you can submit for the record just for the sake of time a little bit more in the plan. As for stopping all the other iranian terror that wasnt part of the deal. I think it would be very helpful for congress to have a better sense of what the plan is regarding everything that wasnt part of the deal. And mr. Secretary if we remove the sanctions, were removing the leverage that brought the iranians to the table. Over 70 years ago, a leader of the free world held up a document declared it peace for our time. Im afraid that many years from now if the American People through the representatives in congress accept this bad deal that just like the munich agreement of 1938 this iranian agreement will prove to not be in the best interest of American Security or the stability and safety of the free world. There is an alternative other than war. Its a better deal. Now, you say getting a better deal is fantasy land. Some other stuff i would consider fantasy land is believing that you have access to military sites when the iranian leadership tells us we dont. Fantasy land is agreeing to a threemember Advisory Board where one of the members is declared an independent member. But theres no details in agreement whatsoever as to how that independent member is selected. Fantasy land is saying theres a secret deal with theres no secret deal with iran and the ia ea even though were acknowledging there is an agreement and that its secret. Fantasyland is saying this deal provides 24 7 saying that iran does not want to destroy the United States, dismissing their death to america pledge is just rhetoric. I dont believe that this is a great option as you just said to the last person. I know it the American Public knows it. That there is an alternative other than war and its a better deal. America got played like a fivestring quartet. Mr. Secretary, a lot of americans have fought and died to make our country the greatest nation in the world. And you, sir, respectfully, you dont have the power to surrender our greatness. And i would strongly, you know with all of these hypotheticals that if Congress Rejects this deal that everything falls apart apart you have not yet answered what you would do next. What would you three secretaries do if Congress Rejects the deal . Because the answer on the next day is no one shows up to work. No one is working with the International Community to try to protect america and their free world. So if Congress Rejects this deal deal when you wake up the next morning, sir, what would you do . Well congressman, you threw a lot out there all at once. All of us take affront at the comments that are made publicly by many people in iran, whether its in general or a leader of one or another, or the ayatollah ayatollahs comments. Whats important is what iran does. Not what it says, what it does. For two years now iran lived by a deal that many of your colleagues here called an historic mistake. But they live by it. Theyve actually rolled their program back. And president obama is the first president in the United States who has challenged this issue who has actually rolled the Iranian Program back significantly and stopped them from the path to get a weapon. Now with all due with respect, for sake of time. What you would do the next morning. You have not answered the question of what the administration. Theres a vote on and your time has expired. Thank you, mr. Chairman. If you could submit that for the record. I think its important for congress to know what you would do next. Sure. I want to thank our witnesses. For being with us today. These are not easy issues. Congress will be taking an historical vote on this agreement in september. The committee will continue doing its job before that vote and after and i thank each of our witnesses, again, for being with us today and staying through the process of having all of the members ask their questions. We stand adjourned. And wrapping up this testimony on the Iran Nuclear Deal. Hearing from cabinet secretary secretary of state john kerry, of course, Energy Secretary ernest moniz and jack lew. On capitol hill for the second week. This time before the House Foreign Affairs committee. Were opening our phone lines to get your thoughts on the deal announced by both sides on the 14th of this month. Do you support it . Are you opposed to it . Here are the numbers. If you support the agreement, 2027488920. If you oppose the agreement 2027488921. And we have a line for those undecided. That numbers 2027488922. Also, looking for your tweets and your facebook comments, facebook. Com cspan is how you would leave those comments. And well have a couple of those for you in a couple of minutes. Our first call is from mickey who is in pearl, mississippi. Shes opposed to the agreement. Caller yes, im opposed to it. Can you tell us why . Im not an expert on any of this i guess you call it foreign affairs, but, you know, common sense just tells you why should we trust iran when theres standing up there saying death to america. And this isnt going to stop them from a nuclear bomb or any other kind of weapons. It doesnt have to be nuclear. And theyre just playing america, weve become weak especially with this president. And were not the super country nation that we used to be. Everyones laughing at us china, russia iran. And thats just my personal opinion. And were just becoming a weak nation and everyone knows that, and were no longer considered a super power. On our support line is sharon in hellortown, pennsylvania. Go ahead. Thank you for taking my call. I have to disagree with the lady who just spoke about us no longer being a superpower. I hate to say this but im i really believe that the United States is part of the problem. I support this deal i think its important. I dont want to be alienated from our allies who have been our allies since we signed a declaration of independence. Its important that we accept this deal. Why is it and im also tired of the influence of the israeli government. Im really disgusted with it. And we must agreen of this deal. Thanks for your call. Next is rose. Rose is calling from normal, illinois. Shes opposed. Caller yes, hi. Yes, i sat and watched the whole thing. And while i was watching it, i called a bunch of my friends and just different people. And i asked if they could tell me why they are having a deal, trying to have a deal. And you dont know nobody could tell me why. That was first. Second, well, thats crazy. A lot of crazy things going on in our world today and, especially in washington. I want to say that we lost our car plant you know, 900 to 1200 jobs because of and everything, it seems to be going opposite good for america and for god knows who, i dont know, our enemies, the people with all the money. I mean were not the middle class is dying where mr. Obama said he was, building it up. From across the pond. He said the economys great. And im telling you theres a bunch of people in this town who are not feeling too great right now. And then we have this. I was wondering, can we take action against people who make a decision like this on our behalf if we dont agree with it . And somebody gets hurt . You know, that was the question seriously. Thanks, rose. Cnn poll gives a taste of how americans are feeling about the nuke deal. A majority of americans the story says Want Congress to reject the recently negotiated nuclear deal with iran, even as president obamas Approval Rating continues to stand in net positive territory for the second month in a row. 49 approve the way the president s handling his job. 47 disapprove. But on the president s biggest accomplishment since then, the Nuclear Agreement reached between the u. S. And allies in iran, most say they would like to see congress rejected. Overall, 52 say that congress should reject a deal. 44 say that it should be approved. And back to your phone calls. This is matthew who was calling on our opposed line. Where are you calling from . Im calling from new jersey. And thousand do you feel about it . Well, i watched the whole hearing, and im glad i did. You know, i was very much not interested in politics. But on a serious note theyre debating on, its really smoke and mirrors. They talk about things and things they can watch, and these people cant be trusted. And thats the biggest thing is trust. You know. And why did we get the prisoners back . And why dont we negotiate . And what do we care if a country like this doesnt trust us. And to go against the u. N. Who has been against the United States for many, many years. Why do these things . Why not put it before Congress First . Well, i say its the best deal. And if it doesnt go through congress, they dont know what theyre doing and the president says im going to veto this. Its just no no caring about what the individual in the United States thinks about what theyre doing. Its theyre putting it forward. This isnt going to stop a nuclear war. And if they didnt go along, thats the only thing thats going to work. People getting killed, slaughtered every day by these people. I just think that they think our heads are in the sand and the American People are not intelligent enough to know about the move theyre making. I hope a lot of people examine this and just dont look at it politically with obama and whos against this stuff, but the actual substance of what theyre talking about. Listen to what theyre saying. The total disrespect for the congress and people in the United States. Try toe get get to as many calls as we can. Kelly is on the support line. Caller yes thanks for taking my call. Identify been listening to the arguments going on now for many, many months. Really carefully. This is a well laid out plan. We have five top allies okay. These arent fools. George bush didnt have five top allies invading iraq. And the last caller was bashing the u. N. The u. N. Was against us going into iraq. Israel was 100 behind us going into iraq. Now, the republicans in the Congress Today were saying that that theyre bad actors, iran. We cant trust them. They want to wipe israel off the face of the earth. Theyre not stupid. Theyre not suicidal, the iranians. They know that they would be there would be retaliation from the United States. And as far as bad actors, can i just remind people it was the saudis that caused 9 11. It was the saudis that funded isis, and now israel brags that theyre on board with the saudis. People, you better wake up. Kelly from daytona beach, florida, thanks for your call, kelly. President obamas on a tour of african nations. And late last night he reacted to Republican Opposition to the nuclear deal. The president saying theyre playing fast and loose quote unquote, with the facts. To scuttle the accord in making a mockery of the american political process asked specifically about g. O. P. President ial candidate Mike Huckabee invoking the holocaust holocaust mr. Obama said republicans are employing political rhetoric about the agreement that would be considered ridiculous if it werent so bad. Now, the Washington Post has an article saying according to a Rare National survey support the new Iran Nuclear Deal. The l. A. Jewish journal survey released thursday found that 48 oppose the deal, 28 oppose it, 25 hadnt heard enough to form an opinion. The survey describing key parts of the deal, lifting sanctions against iran in exchange for iran restricting its Nuclear Program in a way that makes it harder to produce Nuclear Weapons. Back to your calls now. Carl is in millsboro, delaware, hes undecided. Hi thanks for taking my call. I would just amplify what she said quite well. I wouldnt worry about these polls you cited earlier. Ha lot of times, the polls of uninformed americans, like your first caller trying to assert that the u. S. Is in the superpower any more. I just encourage americans to learn a little bit about the history of u. S. Involvement in iran under the secret police that touched almost every family. And touched putting it mildly. People living in fear. Maybe theres a reason that iranians mistrust this country. And if people do a little research, you might learn about that. But the only other thing i wanted to say was that when we look at these countries regarding Nuclear Weapons, who really is the role model that set the pattern . August 6th august 9th are coming up, hiroshima, nagasaki, thats something worth thinking deeply about. Thank you. Thanks, carl. Calling from california. You support the agreement, tell us why. Yes, sir. Im supporting it. Thank you for taking my call. Actually, i spent 15 years of my life in iran, and i have been in both sides, meaning that ive been there prior to revolution and a little bit into revolution with all the turmoils and everything. The countrys developing into modernizing its complying with the npts. Never attacked any countries and theyve been away from all of these wars and everything and theyve been on the defensive mode all the time. Saudi arabia has broken the international law, and listening aggressively from israel and bombarding yemen into pieces. And the whole the world is just looking the other way. And not really seeing the truth. American people need to really really and i agree with the last caller indicating there was a tremendous involvement of the United States. Iranians never trusted americans. American government, not the peoples, american government. Since then they still dont. And i absolutely dont blame them for that. You know im im torn between the two countries. Ive been i spent most of my life here in the United States and im absolutely grateful for what i have. And i always pray to god for whats been given to me and ive been blessed. But at the same time, i cannot pull the wool over my eyes and not seeing the truth and seeing why theres such a mistrust from one nation and, you know, indirectly toward the government thats been demonizing. We have demonized cuba for many many years. And they need to realize we were wrong all along. And were going to be wrong all along about iran. You know, when you create tumor and you dont treat it that tumor becomes you know, eventually kills you. This tumor was developed in iran. And the iranian government are trying to get rid of the tumor so they can live in peace. This deal is nothing but bringing peace to both nations. And thanks for your call. To our undecided line, its benjamin in lakeville, minnesota. Caller well, thank you for having me on. You know, i think that i voice, you know, kind of the opinion of a lot of americans as being undecided on this issue. I think theres to both sides of the argument, theres important important factors. But, you know, i did hear some of the opinions mentioned in the last caller. I agree with them. But some of them suggest why is there a distrust . And i think for, you know, your average american who is sitting at home and hearing what you know, whats happening in this hearing, you know, youre hearing many members of Congress Express a concern over the notion that some iranians are shouting death to america. And this is something that they actively believe. And so you know, answer that question, well if theres a distrust, i would, you know, say comments that reflect back. Comments that show a hatred for america. But then on the other end of the its important, i think, for the future. And as a Young American who you know, im sure this issue will come up again, its important to address a relationship between iran and the u. S. For the future because this realistic answer is this could not continue to go on. There needs to be a diplomatic relation. So id agree with both sides. But id say theres still so much i would like to know about this deal. And a lot of individuals express the concern over actually seeing this deal. And i think thats really important. Build transparency in the government that has not been transparent at all. If youd like to read the deal, its available on our website. Go to cspan. Org. Along with your phone calls were taking your facebook comments. And she says, no, when have they ever kept their word . We should never negotiate with terrorists. And this from karen. She says, i support the attempt no one knows the right thing to do, so taking leap of faith is okay with me. Also john says John Pendleton says no muslim koran teaches them to lie to us. So iran will not abide by it no matter what is say said. Diplomacy is always best as much as we can. We must try diplomacy as much as we can. For example, this meeting you had republicans shouting at a hearing, not really asking questions. Just shouting what do you think asking questions. The same thing applies in iran. So when the ayatollah is saying, death to america, death to israel. But then, at the same time says, guess what we dont really want Nuclear Weapons anyway. Its our decision to say, we dont want it. We have to read through the lines. Hes really saying, youre going to agree with the treaty. But at the same time, hes talking to the masses trying to you know make sure the same thing with the republicans. Yes, not really listening and asking questions. So when people just listen like they dont really understand what is going on they have to take a step back. And not be brainwashed. Russia and china and all these people dont want countries having Nuclear Weapons. Nobody does. And in terms of trust nobody trusts iran. Thats why we have the surveillance. And on top of that intelligence and detection of Nuclear Materials can happen without going there in person. So iran wants this deal the ayatollah said it. And the republicans are only doing this for political reasons in indiana is coming to pass. And i should start reading between the lines and stop going crazy all over the place. Thats my comment. Thanks, sam. By the way, members of congress have 60 days to review the deal. And the hills been keeping a tally of senators who support and oppose the idea and those undecided. As of july 23rd there are five democrats who agree with the deal including bernie sanders. 13 are leaning, yes and 28 are undecided. Among republicans, 22 are opposed to it. And that includes president ial candidates ted cruz, lindsey graham, rand paul and marco rubio. Our next call in fayetteville, new york. Caller the last question in particular wasnt importance to me. And that was regarding what secretary kerry would do if it was vetoed. If the if a representative could override the veto. And that was, you know, a real interesting question. And i would like to hear the answer on that or read the answer if it was available. One of the other callers mentioned transparency. And i think that would be a major issue that should be transparent. However, i also think they put the cart before the horse. And there were a number of items that were listed including the release of those that they have as captives. That should have been part of the negotiation process. So i think theyve put the cart before the horse but i would be interested in knowing what secretary kerry would do if it was if the veto was overridden. Next is mary from utah, undecided. Caller hi, good afternoon, the reason im still undecided is because there are some secret side deals especially with the iaea that i would really like to know whats in that agreement to see if it is supported by the congress are we actually going to get what is promised with all of the rhetoric i have to look at whats best for the United States. What i have to wonder also is why in the world would this agreement not have been taken to congress all of the talking points, all of the major points discussed first. Voted on to see if anything could have been changed or to let secretary of state john kerry know that these are the things that must be in the deal. If theyre not going to be in the deal, then walk away because now president obama has put us in the predicament. He went to the security u. N. Council before congress got a chance. Now secretary kerry is saying, if we walk away were not going to have the support of the other countries that are involved. Had they done what they shouldve done in the first place, taken it to the congress we wouldnt be in this situation because then the deal wouldve never have gone to the u. N. Security council before the American People and our congressmen and senators and house of representatives had a chance to take a look at what was being offered what could be a wiggle room and what would be in the best interest of the United States and our allies of israel and all the other countries that this is going to affect in a detrimental way if someone walks away. Thank you for your allowing me to give my comments. And thanks for calling. Thanks for calling, mary. Again, congress does have 60 days to review the deal, and you can read it on our website. Go to cspan. Org. Final call is john calling from stanford, connecticut, on our support line. Hi, good day, thanks very much. Im strongly supporting the deal followed very carefully, followed this hearing the whole way through. Id make three quick points. In the old days, you used to confront a bully by, you know, straight on fighting. Weve got better techniques these days. References to world war ii to munich and hitler not only are almost half a century old and you want to suggest rather ditched thinking. But also, very much out of date. One should realize that the allies are around all of this deal, including my former country. Before i came became an american are also not silly and theyre deeply engaged in this. And they all understand. Why should america be the only one that doesnt seem to understand the bottom line of this deal . What country is that . Where did you come from . Caller im a brit, former brit. Israel understands it former leaders have both endorsed the deal. Everybody who has looked at this deal in any real serious debt thoroughly understands its a reasonable deal. Not perfect, but its reasonable. And my final point is that i spent quite a lot of time in the region including just north of iran between iran and russia over the last decade. And ive been listening to people who live there. And theyre tired of their leaders. Tired of being a praia. Theyre tired of being on the outs with the world. They want to come into todays world. I understand that. Ive heard the young people speak of their dreams. Theyre no different from american dreams. What the American Administration has done in this deal has taken the best possible step they can. I strongly urge people listening to this program to look carefully at all sides of it. Look carefully at the arguments of the other countries. I worked with the United Nations and a number of private arrangements in countries all the way around. And ive also been from one end of iran to the other when i was young, i once drove from the Turkish Border to the afghani border and through central iran. Its a lovely country full of wonderful people who dont get to express themselves nearly enough. Larry says yes, i do i support it. Its better than sending troops into world war iii. He says, yes, anything to avoid another war with us leading our way with thousands of dead soldiers. I do not support dealing with terrorists or anyone thats unlawfully Holding American citizens no matter what the deal thanks for your calls and comments and tweets. We expect more tomorrow as the Senate Armed Services committee will meet to discuss the u. S. Interests in military balance in the middle east. Ashton carter along with ernest moniz will be the witnesses live coverage tomorrow at 9 45 eastern on this network cspan 3. Now well go back to the hearing. Show you the hearing with the House Foreign Affairs committee on the Nuclear Agreement with iran and it begins with opening statements. This hearing will come to order. Today we continue our review of the Nuclear Agreement the Obama Administration reached with iran. This is a critical hearing on one of the most sweeping diplomatic initiatives in years some say decades, demanding the committees thorough review. The global threat has been a focus of this committee for as long as i can remember. Last congress we passed comprehensive sanctions, legislation by a vote of 40020. It would have given iran Supreme Leader a choice between the Nuclear Program or economic collapse. But the administration was successful in blocking that legislation. So instead of us considering a verifiable, enforceable, and accountability agreement, we are being asked to consider an agreement that gives iran permanent sanctions relief for temporary nuclear restrictions. Should iran be given this special deal. In september, Committee Members will face the important decision of approving or disapproving this agreement. We will have that agreement because of the review act passed in may. Which the administration did not want to be frank the administrations preference has been to sideline americas representatives. Gave russia and china and others at the u. N. Security council a vote on this agreement before the American Public. Thats backwards and wrong. Weve heard serious concerns from experts about the substance of this agreement. First, iran is not required to dismantle key bombmaking technology. Does that make the world safer . Second it is permitted a vast capacity reversing decades of bipartisan nonproliferation policy. Does that make the region more stable . And third, iran is allowed to continue the research and development to gain an industrial scale Nuclear Program once this agreement begins to expire in as little as ten years. Ten years a flash in time and then iranian obligations start unwinding. Does this make the world more secure . We appreciate president obamas effort to secure the most Intrusive Inspections in history. Instead, there is managed access with iran russia and china having a say in where International Inspectors can and cant go. The deals 24day process is a far cry from anywhere anytime. And this provision expires, too. While the administration has professed absolute knowledge about the program it is a fact that we have been surprised by most every Major Nuclear development in irans history. And iran has cheated on every agreement theyve signed. So i ask, mr. Secretary has iran earned the right to be trusted . This deal guts the web that is putting intense pressure on iran. Virtually, all economic, financial and energy sanctions disappear. Where does that money go . To the largest Terror Network on earth. Gone are the sanctions on the Nuclear Program, but also on the bad banks that have supported the terrorism and Ballistic Missile development. And to our dismay, iran won a late concession to remove International Restrictions on its Ballistic Missile program and conventional arms imperilling the security of the region and our homeland. If this agreement goes through iran gets a cash bonanza a boost to its international standing, and a lighted path toward Nuclear Weapons. With sweeping sanctions relief weve lessened our ability to challenge the conduct across the board. As they grow stronger, well be weaker to respond. Yes, the u. S. Would roil the diplomatic waters if they reject this deal. But the u. S. Still wields the most powerful economic sanctions in the world. Sanctions that would continue to deter countries and companies from investing in iran. I understand the effort the administration has put into this agreement. But these are about as high stakes as it gets the committee must ask if we made the most of our pretty strong hand or are we willing to bet as the administration has that this is the beginning of a changed iran. These are complex issues and i look forward to what should be an extremely informative hearing, and i now turn to the Ranking Member. Thank you all for your dedicated service no matter what side of the issue anybody is on, i dont think anyone here doubts your commitment to the United States and your good intentions on this deal. Thank you for the time youve taken over the last week to engage with members of congress on the proposed deal. And thank you for your testimony today. Congress gave itself 60 days to renew this deal, and i sincerely hope my colleagues take full advantage of this time to study this agreement to ask questions, and to make an informed decision when the time comes. Weve had many months and many hearings to discuss the different aspects of a Nuclear Agreement with iran. But at this point were no longer dealing with hypotheticals. We have a specific deal on the table, and we have to decide if that deal advances the National Security interests of the United States and our allies. To be fair, we need to ask ourselves what is the alternative . Absent this deal with the International Sanctions regime and the p 5 1. How would we get the iranians back to the table . Would new sanctions have to be coupled with military action . As i continue to review the deal, though, there are a number of issues that i find troublesome troublesome. I hope the three of you will address them in your testimony, and as you answer the committees questions. First, i continue to have concerns that International Inspectors will not have immediate access to undeclared sites. Under the agreement, iran has 14 days to grant access. If iran refuses access, members could take another week to resolve the concerns. After that, iran has three more days to provide access. Were nearly a month after inspectors first wanted access but if iran continues to say no another month could go by while this dispute is resolved. That potential length of time gives me pause. Id like to know how we can be sure iran cannot use these delays to sanitize sites and get away with breaking the rules. Already, were seeing irans leadership declare that military sites will be off limits to inspectors. If this is irans version of transparency during the implementation of the agreement were getting off to a bad start. Im also troubled by reports about how the arrangement reached between iran and the iaea secondly, i have concerns about the sunset of the International Sanctions on Ballistic Missiles, advanced conventional weapons. Now, my understanding was these werent on the table during the talks. So i was disappointed to learn that after a maximum of 5 and 8 years, respectively, theyll be terminated. Id like to understand why we allow this to happen and what we can do to ensure this doesnt make a terrible situation in the region get even worse. Im also concerned about what irans leaders will do when sanctions are fazed out and new resources come flowing in. Were talking about tens of billions of dollars. Of course, id like to see irans leaders use this money to help the iranian people. But even with tough International Sanctions in place, iran has bolstered hezbollah, shia militias and the assad regime. If this deal goes through, how would you propose to keep the newfound wealth out of the hands of terrorists and tyrants . Next, while im glad that iran will be limited in its development of advanced centrifuges for eight years, i worry what happens down the road. After the research and Development Ban expires iran could quickly move towards the next stage enrichment activities. Id like to know what other provisions of any will mitigate this risk. Finally, i have a fundamental concern that 15 years from now, iran will be off the hook. Without any limitation. They could use advanced centrifuges to speed this progress even further. This amounts to iran being a legitimatized Nuclear Threshold state in the year 2030. My big question is this, what happens then . Are we back to square one . Is this deal just pushing the pause button for 15 years . I must also say that i have trepidation barely a week after the iranians signed the deal with us there was a Supreme Leader, the ayatollah chanting death to america, death to israel. You would think there might be a deal they would keep quiet for a month. How can we trust iran when this type of thing happens . Its very disconcerting. So im looking forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses on these issues. Again, i thank you for your service and hard work and i yield back to the chairman. Thank you, mr. Engel. This morning, were pleased to be joined by john kerry, the secretary of state ernie moniz the secretary of energy, and jack lew, the secretary of treasury. Prior to his appointment secretary kerry served as a United States senator from massachusetts. For 28 years before being appointed secretary of energy, dr. Moniz was professor of physics and engineering at m. I. T. Where he was a faculty member since 1973. From director of the office of management and budget to white house chief of staff, secretary lew now serves as the 76th secretary of the treasury. Gentlemen, welcome. And without objection, the witness full prepared statements will be made part of the record. Theyll have five days to submit statements and questions and extraneous materials for the record. And before turning to the testimony, we have most of the members present here. I know we all recognize the gravity of this issue. We want everyone to have a chance to question the secretaries. To accomplish that, i would ask everyone, members and witnesses to respect the time limit, and that means leaving an adequate amount of time for witnesses to answer your questions. And nothing requires full use of your time. So well we will begin with a summary of secretary kerrys testimony. Mr. Secretary . Well, chairman Ranking Member and all of the members of the committee, thank you very, very much. We genuinely appreciate the opportunity to be here to, frankly clear up a lot of misinterpretations. Some element of public distortion that exists out there. I know theres one ad ive seen on tv has at least three or four major, absolutely totally incorrect facts on which it bases is ad. And with all respect about the chairman and the Ranking Member there are conclusions that have been drawn that just dont in fact, match with the reality of what this deal sets forth. And we happily, happily look forward to clarifying that of course, at this hearing. Thats what its all about. And we welcome the opportunity. We are convinced that the plan that we have developed with five other nations accomplishes the task that president obama set out, which is to close off the four pathways to a bomb. And i think as you listen to ernie moniz, particularly on the technical components and see the whole deal, i really believe that that is a conclusion that everybody can come to. Not saying they will, but can. Im joined by, obviously, two cabinet secretaries both ernie and jack were absolutely critical to our ability to do this. The treasury departments knowledge of the sanctions and application of the sanctions has been exemplary. And they helped us understand the implications of all of these sanctions. And as jack will let you know, were not talking about 150 billion. Were not talking about 150 billion. Were actually talking about about 55 billion that will go to iran and well go into that later. But from the day that our negotiations began, mr. Chairman. We were Crystal Clear that we would not accept anything less than a good deal. By six nations. In fact, accomplishes that. I might remind everybody. All of those other nations have Nuclear Power or Nuclear Weapons. All of them are extremely knowledgeable in this challenge of proliferation. So under the terms of this agreement iran has agreed to remove 98 of its stockpile of enriched uranium. Dismantle 2 3 of the installed centrifuges and destroy by filling it with concrete the existing core of its heavy water plutonium reactor. Iran has agreed to refrain from producing or acquiring highly enriched uranium and weapons grade plutonium for Nuclear Weapons forever. Now, how do we enforce or verify so that is more than words . And particularly, to speak to the Ranking Members question, what happens after 15 years . What happens is forever. We have an extremely rigorous inspection verification regime because iran has agreed to accept and will ratify prior to the to the conclusion of the agreement. And if they dont, its a material breach of the agreement to ratify the Additional Protocol, which requires extensive access as well as significant additional transparency measures. Including cradle to grave accountability for the countrys uranium. From mining to milling through the centrifuge production to the waste for 25 years. Bottom line if iran fails to comply with the terms of our agreement our intel community, our energy department, which is responsible for Nuclear Weaponry are absolutely clear that we will quickly know it and we will be able to respond accordingly with every option available to us today. And when it comes to verification and monitoring, there is absolutely no sunset in this agreement. Not in ten years not in 15 years, not in 20 years not in 25 years, no sunset ever. Now, remember, two years ago when we began these negotiations negotiations, and a lot of people are kind of forgetting conveniently sort of where we are today people are sitting there saying oh, my gosh in 15 years, this is going to happen or whatever. Irans going to have the ability to, you know, capable Nuclear Power. Folks, when we began our negotiations we faced an iran that was already enriching uranium up to 20 . They already had a facility built in secret underground in a mountain that was rapidly stockpiling enriched uranium. When we began negotiations they had enough enriched uranium for 10 to 12 bombs, already. Already they had installed as many as 19,000 nuclear centrifuges, and they had nearly finished building a heavy water reactor that could produce weapons grade plutonium at a rate of 1 to 2 bombs per year. Experts put irans breakout time when we began which remember is not the old breakout time that we used to refer to in the context of arms control, which is the time to go have a weapon and be able to deploy it. Breakout time, as we have applied it is extraordinarily conservative. It is the time it takes to have enough material for one bomb but for one potential bomb. Its not the amount of time to the bomb. So when we say theyll have one year or two, a certain amount of material, they still have to go design the bomb, test, do a bunch of other things. And i think you would agree, no nation is going to consider itself Nuclear Capable with one bomb. So if this deal is rejected, folks, by the way, that the existing when we started negotiations the existing breakout time was about 2 months. Were going to take it to one year and it tails down slowly, and ill explain how that provides us with guarantees. But if this deal is rejected, we immediately go back to the reality i just described. Without any viable alternative. Except that the unified diplomatic support that produced this agreement will disappear overnight. Let me underscore the alternative to the deal that we have reached is not some kind of unicorn fantasy that contemplates irans complete capitulation. Ive heard people talk about dismantling their program. That didnt happen under president bush when they had a policy of know enrichment. And they had 163 centrifuges. They went up to the 19,000. Our Intelligence Community confirms and i ask you all to sit with them. Theyll tell you thats not going to happen. So in the real world, we have two options. Either we move ahead with this agreement to ensure that Irans Nuclear program is limited, rigorously scrutinized, and wholly peaceful or we have no agreement at all no inspections, no restraints. No sanctions, no knowledge of what theyre doing. And they start to enrich. Now, to be clear, if Congress Rejects what was agreed to in vienna, you will not only be rejecting every one of the restrictions that we put in place. And by the way, nobodys counting the two years that iran has already complied with the interim agreement. And by the way, complied completely and totally. So that weve already rolled their program back. Weve reduced their 20 enriched uranium to zero. Thats already been accomplished. But if this is rejected, we go back to their ability to move down that road. Youll not only be giving iran a free pass to double the pace of its uranium enrichment to build a heavy water reactor to install new and more efficient centrifuges, but they will do it all without the unprecedented inspection and transparency measures that weve secured. Everything that we have tried to prevent will now happen. Now, whats worse . If we walk away, we walk away alone. Our partners are not going to be with us. Instead, theyll walk away from the tough multilateral sanctions that brought iran to the negotiating table in the first place. Multi lateral sanctions that brought us to the table in the first place and well have skaundered the best chance well have to solve this problem through peaceful means. Make no mistake the president has made it clear hell never accept a Nuclear Armed iran. And he is the only president who has asked for and commissioned the design of a weapon that has the ability to take out the facilities and who has actual deployed that weapon. But the fact is iran has already mastered the fuel cycle. Theyve mastered the ability to produce significant stockpiles of fissile material and you have to have that to make a Nuclear Weapon. You cant bomb away that knowledge. Any more thank you have sanctions it away. I was chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when we put most of the iran sanctions in place and i know well as you do that the whole point was to bring raub to the iran to the negotiating table and even the toughest sanctions doesnt stop the iran program growing from what, 163 to 300, to 5,000 to more than 19,000 now. And it doesnt stop iran from accumulating a stop pile of enriched uranium. Sanctions are not an end to themselves. They are a diplomatic tool that has enabled us to actually do what sanctions could not without the negotiation and that is to rein in a Nuclear Program headed in a dangerous direction and to put limits on it to shine a spotlight on it and to watch it like no other Nuclear Program has ever been watched before. We have secured the ability to do things that exist in no other agreement. To those who are thinking about opposing this deal because of what might happen in year 15 or 20, i ask you to simply focus on this if you walk away, year 15 or 20 starts tomorrow. And without any of the longterm access and verification safeguards that we have put in place. What is it alternative . What are you going to do when iran starts to enitch, which they feel le will have a right to if we walk away from the deal. What will they do when we walk away from a deal that our five fellow nations accepted. Ive hearded critics say that the vienna agreement will legitimize the iran Nuclear Agreement. That is nonsense. Under the agreement the irans leaders are permanently barred from pursuing a Nuclear Weapon and there are permanent restraints and access provisions and inspection provisions to guarantee that. And i underscore if they try to evade that obligation, we will know it because a civil Nuclear Program requires full access 24 7 and requires full documentation and well have the ability to track that as no other program before. The iaea will continual lymon tor their production so centrifuges cannot be moved to a covert facility. For the next 25 years they will monitor uranium from the point it is produced all the way through production so it cannot be diverted to another facility. For the life of this agreement, however long iran stays in the npt and is living up to its obligations, they must live up to the Additional Protocol and that is, as we can get into today, greatly expand the capacity to have accountability. And this gives us a far stronger detection capability, more time to respond to any attempt to break out toward a bomb and much more International Support in stopping it than we would have without the deal. If we walk away from this deal and then we decide to use military force, we are havent going to have the United Nations or the other five nations that negotiated with us because they will feel we walked away. And make no mistake president obama is committed to staying with the policy of stopping this bomb. So in the 28 years, or little more that i was privileged to represent massachusetts, i had a 100 voting record on every issue for israel. First traveling there in 1986, i have great friends there, members of my family and others who care enormously about israel. I understand the fear. I understand the concerns that our friends in israel have. But we believe that what we have laid out here is a way of making israel and the region, in fact, safer. And i emphasize, we do not lose any option in 15 years, 10 years, 20 years, 5 years, that we have to us today. We will push back against irans other activities. Weve laid out a very detailed policy for working with the gulf states and others and we look forward to working with israel in the effort for that. Our current cooperation with israel is at the current level and it is why we have a robust level in the region and working so robust with the gulf states. So mr. Chairman, we will continue to push back against iran on every front available but the fact is it is a lot easier to push back against an iran that doesnt have a Nuclear Weapon rather than one that does. That is our principal strategic objective. Deal with a Nuclear Weapon. And then you have an easier time dealing with the other issues too. The outcome here is critical. We believe this deal makes our country and our allies safer it. Will guarantee that irans program is under intense scrutiny it. Will ensure that the World Community is unified in backing this up. And in the end it will guarantee irans program has to be peaceful and therefore is a good deal for the world a good deal for america and a good deal for our allies and our friends we believe it richly deserves your support. Dr. Moniz. Thank you secretary kerry. Secretary kerry has been very thorough. Dr. Moniz, if you could be brief and well get back on time and we recognize you at this point. Thank you chairman and Ranking Member and members of the committee. Thank you for discussing the jvp cpoa reached between the the three plus two. This provides strong verification measures to give us time to respond and takes none of our options off the table. I want to stress i was backed up in the negotiations by the nuclear competency built up over decades at doe and supported by this congress. The experts at doe labs and sites were engaged throughout the negotiations. Nine labs and sites in seven states took part in supporting our negotiating position. These experts again were essential and as a result of their work i am very confident that the technical underpinning of this deal are solid and the department is ready to assist in the implementation. They will extend at least ten years for them to produce fissile material to at least one year and that is the fissile material being reduced from 12,000 to 300 kilometers. Stringent constrainted on the stockpile as i said for 15 years. A strong containment and surveillance measures on all centrifuge manufacturing and the ooun supply chain for 20 and 25 years. Verification that iran is following the agreement is forever stronger than it would be without the agreement. The iraq reactor redesigned so it is not a plutonium factory and the plutonium bearing fuel sent out of the country for the entire life of the reactor. Thus the parameters are maintained and all paths to a bombs worth of Nuclear Weapons material are addressed. In fact lousanne is strengthed in the p5 1 vienna agreement. One important area and only one is that iran will not engage in several activity that could contribute to the development of a Nuclear Explosive device include newt ran sources and multiple point detonation systems. These commitments aren definite and they will not pursue plutonium or uranium or allergy for 15 years. Weapons for Missile Launch add to the breakout time line. Mr. Chairman i cannot agree that the agreement does not dismantle the Technology Efforts of relevance to Nuclear Weapons. In fact every aspect is rolled back. Returning to verification the iaea will be permitted to use advanced technology such as enrichment monitoring and electronic seals, factory laboratories have developed. And much have been made about the 24 day process for inspectors getting access to undeclared sites. In fact the iaea can request access to any suspicious location with 24 hours notice which iran will implement under the deal. The cjpoa goes beyond that recognizing that disputes could arise regarding access and