Provides a new tool for resolving such disputes within a short period of time so the iaea gets the acis needs within 24 days. This is the first time there is a cutoff in time. But of course most important to complement that is environmental sampling provides sensitive measurement of microscopic measurements of Nuclear Materials even after attempts are made to remove the material and in a 2003 example found undeclared Nuclear Material even after iran denied access for six months. The combination of the measures and the coherence of the p5 1 dram dramatically increase the risk. For example any attempt to enrich to highly enriched uranium at any time must earn a sharp response by any means. A steep response must be clear from the start for any violation of the agreement. The blocking the covert path i should emphasis will always rely of course on the work of the American Intelligence Community and those of our friends and our allies. The deal is based on science and analysis. Because of the deep grounding in exhaustive Technical Analysis cared out largely again by the highly capable doe engineers im confident this is a good deal for america, for our allies and for our global security. This is nicely summarized in the recent letter to congressional leadership by seven former u. S. Ambassadors to israel and under secretaries of state individuals dedicated to strengthening the bonds between israel and the United States. And i quote briefly, this landmark agreement removes the threat that a Nuclear Armed iran would pose to the region and to israel specifically. We see no fatal flaws that should call for the rejection of this agreement and have not heard any viable alternatives from those who impose the implementation of the jcpoa. The big gamble would come in turning away from the agreement rather than in implementing the agreement. So thank you for this opportunity to be here. I look forward to our discussion. Thank you. We go to secretary of the treasury, secretary lew. Thank you, mr. Chairman Ranking Member engel members of the committee for an opportunity to be here. This is an important issue one where i think the full discussion were having where it will be clear this will strengthen our National Security and that the our allies. The sanctions on iran constitutes the most effective sanctions regime in history. This has demonstrated the cost of flouting the law and crippling the economy. Today the iran economy is 20 smaller than it would have been than if it remains on the pre2012 growth path. The United States stood in the forefront across two administrations and with the bipartisan support of congress. We had International Sanctions that persuaded the iran leadership after years to come to the table prepared to roll back the international program. International consensus and cooperation to achieve this pressure was vital. The worlds major powers have been and remain united in preventing a Nuclear Armed iran. That unit of purpose produced four tough u. N. Council resolutions and National Level sanctions in many countries and secured adherence to sanctions by countries around the world. The point of the sanctions was always to change Irans Nuclear behavior while holding out the prospect of relief if the sanctions were addressed. Once it is verified iran has taken key stopped to roll back the program and extended the key time to one year phaseout sanctions will roll back. There is no signing bonus in the agreement. To be clear, there is no immediate changes to u. N. E. U. Or u. S. Sanctions. Only if iran fulfilled the necessary conditions will the u. S. Begin suspending sanctions on a phased in basis. Sanctions that target third Party Countries doing business with raub. Iran could not uphold its side of the deal. That is why if they violate the deal we can promptly snapback both u. S. And u. N. Sanctions. And since preventing the u. N. Snapback provides a affirmative vote from the u. N. Security council we can enforce the reimposition of those sanctions. Even as we face the sanctions relief we will maintain significant sanctions outside of the scope of the deal including the primary u. S. Trade embargo and other measures. With very little exception iran will continue to be denied access to the Worlds Largest market and we will target the support for terrorist groups such as hezbollah, yemen, the backing of the assad regime and the Missile Program and the human rights abuses at home. Just this week several hezbollah leaders building on designated last month targeting the Front Companies and fasity taters and we will not relieve sanctions on the revolutionary guard corp or the kurds force or the subsidiaries or officials. Some believe this is premature until iran ceases these activities and funds could be used for malign purposes and i understand that concern. But the ties to the terrorist groups are exactly why we must keep it from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. The combination of the two throats would threats would raise a combined scenario. We need to address them in turn. Jcpoa will address the Nuclear Danger freeing us and our allies to check irans regional activities more aggressively. It would leave the world sponsor of terrorism with increasingly breakout time. We must be measured and realistic in what sarvegs relief means to iran. The 100 billion in restricted reserves which many believe will be directed for nefarious Purposes Council tute the annual savings and not the annual budget. Iran can only freely access around half of the resources or just over 50 billion. That is because over 20 billion is committed to projects with china where it cannot be spent. And 10 billion are in nonperforming loans to the energy and banking sector. As a matter of financial reality, iran cant spend the usable resources it will be needed such as financing for imports and external debt. Moreover, president rowe hahny was reelected on a platform of revitalize is and meets a imperative to start meeting those unfulfilled promises. He faced a half trillion dollars in government obligations. Iran is a massive hole for which it will take years to climb out. We will aggressively target any efforts to finance hezbollah or use funds from sanctions relief by proxy including enhancing our cooperation with israel and our partners in the gulf. Packing a backing way from the deal and trying to obtain a broughter capitulation from iran would be a mistake. Even if one believed that extending sanctions appreciate was a better course than resolving the threat of the Iran Nuclear Program that choice is simply not available. Our partners agreed to impose costly sanctions on iran for one reason, to put a stop to the illicit Nuclear Program. If we change our terms now and insist that the countries now escalate the sanctions and apply them to all of the objectable activity they wont do it. They would balk. And so it is unrealistic to think that additional sanctions pressure would force iran to capitulation and impactable to believe we could Global Partners to impose such pressure after turning down a deal our partners believe is a good one. The joint comprehensive packers is a good deal with phased relief after iran rolls back the Nuclear Program and a powerful snabback built in if later on they break the deal the terms achieve the plans they were meant to achieve. That is an overriding National Security priority and should not be at risk when an iranian Nuclear Program presents a threat to america and the world. Thank you again, wnd we look forward to answering your questions. Thank you, secretary lew. To get back to a point that was made, as i read it, the 24day suspect site process does expire in 15 years. The iaea Additional Protocol alone wouldnt deter iran with the noncompliance with the iaea, so i think that point stands. The other question i just would like to ask secretary kerry relates to what the secretary of defense said in his testimony about the i in icbm which stands for intercontinental which means flying from iran to the United States. Simply countries develop icbms to deliver a Nuclear Warhead and these will be aimed at us not at moscow. And at the same time that the missile restrictions are coming off, sanctions on the iranian scientists involved in the bomb work are also coming off. So how is that making us safer . It seems to me the winner here is russia which demanded and won on the lifting on irans behalf of these icbm sanctions. Why did we concede on that . We didnt concede on that, mr. Chairman . In fact, we won a victory, because we have seven nations negotiating. Three of the seven thought that the sanctions out to be lifted immediately. Four of them germany france and the United States, thought they shouldnt, and what we succeeded in doing was keeping both the armed embargo and the missile component and the missiles for eight years, the arms for five years notwithstanding the fact that iran has a very legitimate argument which they were making that the u. N. Resolution 1929 which is what created the sanctions and the structure we were negotiating under said that if iran comes to the table and negotiates, all of the sanctions would be lifted. Now they didnt just come to the table to negotiate, they made a deal. They signed an agreement. They came to an over all agreement. So they felt they were in compliance with the u. N. Resolution and we felt, on the other hand, they behavior in the region was such it would be unconscionable notwithstanding to lift. So the compromise with the five and eight. But we dont feel we lost anything whatsoever in that mr. Chairman. For the following reasons the u. N. Resolution of 1929 is a nuclear resolution. Susan rice put the she was then at the u. N. She put the arms piece in at the last minute a throwin in the last moment in the nuclear resolution. And the nuclear resolution always contemplated if the iaea came to what is known as the broad conclusion that iran was not engaged in any illicit activities in the declared or undeclared activities, that all of the sanctions are lifted. So no matter what was going to happen here, we were going to lose both the missile and the arms under the u. N. Component. But here is what weve done in the meantime that we believe actually takes care of this issue. First of all mr. Secretary i followed the arguments that youve made about the laws that we have to defend against irans Missile Program and i understand your the steps that you took here. Im just saying big picture big picture when we end up with a bottom line where in eight years they get the missile it doesnt look like a victory to me it looks like they dont. They may not get the missile at that time, but they can buy the technology at that time. The embargo is lifted. Actually they cant, mr. Chairman. Because we have several other protocols that prevent that from happening, specifically the Missile Control Technology Regime prevents that from taking place and we have an executive order from the United States that prevents the transfer. I would point out there is a reason why russia pushed it, there is a reason because they didnt want the u. N. Component of this. But they know that we have separate capacities and we will apply them. I would hope that we could strengthen our hand as we go along but the bottom line is iran is getting a financial windfall and increases the support for terrorist proxies and they have announced that and it integrated into the Global Economy and upgrades conventional weapons and i think it upgraded the Ballistic Missile over the time of this agreement and it has an industrial sized program in ten years and that is the time frame only if they dont cheat. And so when i look at this and i see that irans neighbors who know it the best trust it the least, i just ask were presuming iran will change its behavior no were not. And that doesnt change last week when they were chanting again death to america. Mr. Chairman, please, with all due respect, were not presuming any such thing. There is no presumption in here about what iran will or wont do. There is one objective. Make sure they cant get a Nuclear Weapon. And on the back side of that we have a very robust initiative that will push back against irans other activities. But let me be more specific. Order number [ inaudible ] orders u. S. Sanctions on foreign persons to contribute to the proliferation of missiles including efforts to manufacturer, acquire and develop them by any person or foreign country of proliferation concern. That is just one. Okay. My time has expired. Mr. Sect, im going to mr. Engel but thank you very much. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank all of you for testifying. I still want to get back to 15 years because frankly it is a thing that disturbs me the most. The truth is that after 15 years, iran is a Nuclear Threshold state they are legitimized in this agreement as being a Nuclear Threshold state which means they can produce weapons grade highly enriched uranium without limitation. And you can say they are already at that point now but why would we not try to negotiate a deal where they couldnt have those things in 15 years. I also want to mention that a Nuclear Agreement doesnt whitewash the fact that iran continues to remain a destabilize actor in the region and continues to fuel terrorism around the globe. Our friends in israel are rightfully concerned that iran funding of terrorism will continue to effect them in a skern existential way. And one of the problems ive had that from day one is only limits to the Iran Nuclear Program. The finances of terrorism will continue and could become much worse. The Iranian Revolutionary guard corp could take advantage of any sanctions relief that results from an agreement between p5 1 in iran because simply put money is fungible so i would like to know how well work with our allies to minimize the windfall to terrorist organizations and protect allies like israel. And the lifting of the arms embargo and the sanctions around the iran Missile Program further destabilizes the region and i was disappointed that the sanks will eventually be lifted. We were told that iranian weapons transfers were outside of the scope of the negotiations. So in my opinion the changes to the sanctions should have been outside of the scope as well. So that means when the arms embargo expires iran can legally ship weapons to president assad so he can continue to kill his own people. How can the administration be open to further consideration of new sanctions on arms activity and ballistic Missile Program and finally because the arms embargo and ball aftic missile sanctions are not mentioned in the jcpoa only the governing jcpoa will violations of the arms embargo be considered jcpoa does the snapback apply to the arms and missile embargoes if iran continues to ship weapons to his bolo before the arms embargo expires, are they in violation of the jcpoa. Congressman, there are so many questions in there. Were happy to come back to you on the record i want to answer every single one of them. But let me take on the biggest ones first of all. Let me call to everybodys attention here, the irgc opposes this agreement. So they are not sitting there thinking they are going to get the whole world and do what they want to do. And one of the reasons they impose this agreement and i invite you to talk to the Intel Community about that they will document that is they see themselves losing the cover of the Nuclear Umbrella they hope to have for their nefarious activity. There is nothing here to prevent them from pushing back against the irgc and others Going Forward. Congress and others are all free to Work Together to build the pushback against the destabilizing activities. But let me ask you a simple question. Has iran empowered more destabilizing with a Nuclear Weapon or striped of that with an internet agreement they have to live up to and us coming up underneath with a whole new set of agreements and pushback. I think the answer to that is crystal clear. You ask the question of what happens with respect to year 15 . Folks, under the Additional Protocol and the modified 3. 1 code, please focus on what happened. There is not a sudden breakoff at the end of 15 years. They are under remarkable constraint. The safe guards agreement they have to negotiate with the iaea which goes on forever provides the iaea provides them with safeguards on all source and special fissile material in iran to make sure the material is not diverted to Nuclear Weapons and all nonNuclear Weapons under the nonproliferation treaty have to bring this into agreement and it requires iran to maintain detailed accounting material on all material subject to the safe guards, operating records on all facilities subject to the safe guards, all public facilities in the program are subject to the safe guards it provides for a range of iaea inspections, including verifying the location, the quantity and all Nuclear Material subject to the safe guards and the design of the facilities. It requires the board of governors to take action without delay, that is a quote, in a situation where it is essential and urgent and provides consequence of noncompliance. That is just on the side of the declared facilities. There are a whole set of requirements for access and inspection and accountability on the undeclared facilities. So congressman, they are forever under enormous constraints here with respect to inspections and accountability. They have to provide accountability for all of the Nuclear Research and Development Activities not involving Nuclear Material manufacturing and production of sensitive material. Construction of hot cells, usable for plutonium separate uranium mines, concentration plants, nuclear waste, all kinds of things. Let me let ernie. May i suggest this mr. Secretary. We can respond for the record. Mr. Secretary to the Ranking Member questions but if we could go now to ileana ross lateinen and well get that later. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Last week the l. A. Times reported that the iran Foreign Ministers told the parliament that under the deal that they can deny inspectors access to military sites and the defense ministers has stated that he would not allow inspectors to enter military sites but president obama stated quote, inspectors could access any suspicious location, put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the iaea will have access where necessary when necessary. End quote. Can the iaea really have access to all military sites suspected of housing Nuclear Activity and does the agency need preapproval from iran to access these sites . And the whole point of sanctions, mr. Secretary, was not to bring iran to the negotiation table and dismantling the Iran Nuclear Infrastructure used to be the administrations goal. The administration repeatedly told us it would focus sanctions only on the Nuclear Portfolio yet in the deal we have 60 pages of Individuals Companies vessels that will be delisted specifically mentioned many of the sanctions are not nuclearrelated. The administration has always stated that all provisions within this agreement has to be agreement upon by all parties which includes allow the e. U. To lift sanctions on the cuds force, including the leader sola manny. What do you say to the families of americans that were killed or wounded as a result of his actions in iraq and please explain to them why as part of the Nuclear Negotiations the u. S. Agreed that the irgc kurds force that are responsibility for countless deaths around the globe are getting their designations lifted and will be getting billions of dollars to support their acts of terror throughout europe and im glad it is only 50 billion, i feel better already. Secretary kerry, you will be in cuba soon. I remain extremely worried about allowing cuba to open an embassy here in d. C. Giving the regime a license to spy against our nation. Will u. S. Law enforcement vet every cuba socalled diplomat that wants to come to washington and will we reject any cuban official that wants to be posted in d. C. If we have relations related to their espionage apparatus. And when posted the iranian deal, the president said, quote well continue our unprecedented efforts for israels security. Will you guarantee the u. S. Will veto any measure at the u. N. Security council on Palestinian Statehood except by bit lateral statehood between the israelis and statehood and nothing else. So madam chair let me come back to you on the record on a bunch of those because again they are more than i can answer in the time that we have and i appreciate your effort to get a lot of questions an well answer them all. Let me clarify a couple of important things i want ernie and jack to get on two things, one on the money and one on the highly enriched uranium. There is a confusion between the dismantling of the Nuclear Weapons program, versus the Nuclear Program. It was never the goal of this administration and by the way not even the Bush Administration, the Bush Administration in 2008 mr. Secretary, with all due respect perhaps if you could answer about the solly manny lifting of sanctions which we agreed to. I want to be clear we achieved what we set out to do which is dismantleing their capacity to make a Nuclear Weapon. With regard to their military sites, that is part of the inspection of an undeclared suspicious facility and if it is we will have access. We will have access to military sites. And if they dont proside it this they will be in military breach and the results will snap back. And well consult with iran before well there is a procedure in place but is it t doesnt rely on iran or russia saying yes. So iran is wrong when they say we wont have access to military sites . No what they said they are taking care of their domestic constituency in a way they need to. They understand what they need to what they say is not as important as what they do. Thank you. My time is up. Im going to remind the members they have five minutes. So ask the question and could i and were going to have the response for the record and were going now to mr. Brad sherman of california. Weve got to remember that this is not a binding deal. This is not a treaty. This is not binding on iran. This is not binding on the United States. It is not even an executive legislative agreement and these gentlemen here arent even asking for congress to approve the deal, i think they would appreciate it if we didnt pass a formal resolution of disapproval. It might be as most morally binding on this administration. So what may be important for us to look to see whether it is a good deal in the next couple of years, because i think the administration is planning to follow it, unless we prohibit that. And also try to see whether well have congresss and administrations in the future that will take the actions in the future necessitied by our natural interest. The irc may not publicly support this deal because that is what they can do or maybe they generally oppose it. But i want to focus, mr. Secretary, about dealing with iran nonnuclear behavior. And you say well be in a stronger position to deal with that and we have to deal with it. They are holding four american hostages. Assad is killing 5,000 people a month, at least, and the blood is on the hands of men in tehran. And they are supporting hamas and hezbollah and the houthi and those are just the organizations that begin with the letter h. You cant persuade them to change by charm. You bring a considerable amount of that. You need to threaten them with new sanctions unless they change their behavior. And weve seen sanctions cause raub to change their behavior even on things important to iran. Now im not asking you whether you think new sanctions are a good idea or bad idea, whether europe will follow or wont follow. Im only going to focus on what is legal under this agreement. You were asked about this in the senate and you said we will not vile the agreement if we use our authorities to impose sanctions on iran for terrorism, human rights missiles or on nonnuclear reasons. But you also noted there is this comment in provision in paragraph 26 that commits the United States to refrain from reintroducing or reimposing the sanctions imposed in an ex two which are the very bex sanctions weve got but we could come up with new ones if you tell us the old ones areforbidden. So you were also asked if we reimpose sanctions on the central bank of iran to deter terrorism, would that violate the agreement and you said no. But i would like you to clarify. Is congress and the United States free under this agreement to adopt new sanctions legislation that will remain in force as long as iran holds our hostages and supports assad. We are free to adopt additional sanctions as long as they are not a phony excuse for just taking the whole pot of the past ones and putting them back. We can put them in place secretary kerry, it is my time and ive got a whole number of questions. Now, we have a number of entities listed on the for the Nuclear Activities that deserve to be listed for their terrorist activities but you havent had time to put them on that second list. Will you be putting entities on the on the list of sanctions for their taste activity for their Nuclear Activity on the terrorist list if you deserve it and can you get that job done before this agreement becomes effective. We have terrorism sanctions in place right now. But we have a list of entities. We have free to add. And we are free to add those we added some 60 entities during the course of the negotiations. Let me get to one other question. You strongly do not want us to override a president ial veto but if we do that triggers certain american laws. I would like to give you an opportunity you dont want us to do it you think it is terrible policy you think the rest of the world would be against us. But lets say congress doesnt take your advice and we override a veto and the law that is triggered then imposes certain sanctions. Will you follow the law even though you think it violates this agreement clearly and even if you think it is absolutely terrible policy . I cant begin to answer that without consulting with the president and determining what the circumstances are . So you are not committed to following the law. I said im not going to deal with a hypothetical. I would like to the secretary of treasury to respond to the sanctions. Were out of town. I would like to go to the gentleman from new jersey. Put it in the record. There are a lot of responses and if we had a minute or two to respond, it might be helpful to those who want to understand the agreement. Mr. Smith. There is collaboration with north korea and including articles written by dallas frons back in 2003 make is clear north korea is collaborating with iran. What happens under the agreement if north korea conveyed Nuclear Weapons to iran and other capabilities they have at their disposal. This incentivized saudi arabia and others like egypt to acquire a bomb and that becomes the middle east becomes more of a powder keg. [ inaudible ], when are they going to be free if you could speak to that mr. Secretary. And in your opening even if they break out, they have to still design the bomb. That is the problem with the agreement. It kicks the issue of the past military dimensions down the road. Iran has been stone calling the iaea for years. Inspectors have long been denied access to the sites and where it is believed they tested detonators for Nuclear Warheads. They have been refused access for years. In 2013 there is bull bosing of bulldozing of buildings and removal of roads. They failed to provide inspectors full access and disclosure. And yesterday, mr. Secretary at the tip report release, you spoke eloquently about and boldly about the combatting modern day slavery and i commend you about ending sex slavery and i believe it missed the mark and a number of countries got absolutely unmerited upgrades including malaysia and cuba and uzbekistan. I went back and read the reports from last year and the year record, in china there were 35 convictions of trafficking and that is a watch list country. Cuba 13 convictions for sex trafficking and nonfor labor trafficking. They say there is no labor trafficking which is nuts. A year ago there were ten convictions. So we are talking about minimal. Thailand by contrast had 151 convictions and they are still tier 3 and malaysia had three convictions for sex and labor trafficking a decrease from nine last year. The narratives miss it by a mile. Well, id be happy to sit down and talk that through. Since time so so precious i want to stay on iran and i want my colleague to address a couple of key issues. Mr. Chairman if i could just respond to a couple of the issues that have been raised. Congressman angle asked about the money. If gentlemen would yield. This is my time. Mr. Smith, lets well get answers here to everything. Lets let the witness on the question of the flow of money to iran there have been a range of estimates as to how much money iran has locked up. Lets remember why it is locked up. It is locked up because our International Partners locked it up and talk irans money and not let them get it. At the highest number we see there is 115 billion that is available. In reality 58 billion to 59 billion is unavailable. And some is roughed up in china and the balance is nonperforming loans. Im not going to a 56 billion is not a lot of money but it is not 150 billion and cannot all be used because they need to keep some foreign reserves to run the economy. If you look at the reserves for the use of the money we see 500 billion for competing demands for the 50 billion. So if any kind of allocation for the resource and you look at what theyve done under sanctions and theyve managed with sanctions in place to put several Million Dollars per year toward malign purposes. But the order is way smaller and in mal line with the kind of spending theyve been doing any way and you compare to it with a Nuclear Weapon and the bigger threat is iran with a Nuclear Weapon with the same kinds of objectives. And the questions about the irgc and sewell money, and he is not delisted. There are a few entities whose identity has changed over time. Privately were happy to go through the individual cases but we have kept in place our sanctions regime on terrorism. Thank you mr. Secretary. Now we have three questioned asked by the gentleman from new jersey, if we could just have a suck sink a answer to those. Congressman the greatest incentive for a arms race in the region in saudi arabia or egypt or one of the other countries to try to get a bomb would be if this agreement is rejected and the reason will be is iran will go back to enriching and well not have inspection and not have insight and theyll say, oh, my god, now theyre going for a bomb, now we have a reason to have to get one. They have in fact told us, these countries, that they are not going to chase a bomb providing the implementation of this agreement continues and providing that we are working with them on the other pushback issues for the region. With respect to the issue of par chin, yes, there will be access as appropriate under agreement between the iaea and iran and that is a agreement which is normally entered into confidentially between those countries. Again that is the problem. Americans held captive in north korea against the bomb conveys a bomb, what happens there . May i comment . I believe i heard you say, congressman, that iran set off a Nuclear Explosive at parchin and that is correct. I didnt say that. That is incorrect. That were not his remarks but there will be but again on americans held captive north korea conveys bombs, what happens under the agreement . My last conversation with Foreign Ministers zarif and the brother of the president was regarding the four people being held, the four american citizens. And we have followed up on that conversation since then and we are in direct conversation. That is all im going to say here today. I hope they will be returned to be with their families. North korea and the bomb . They convey bombs, what happens under the agreement if anything . If what . If north korea were provide weapons to iran what happens . They cant do that. They would both be in gross well that would be [ overlapping speakers ] the gentleman from new jersey. Thank you for being here. You know there are deep divisions in iran evidenced by the comments made by the hardliners and the Prime Minister and the Foreign Ministers an the supreme leader. Are the divisions likely to surface during the implementation of the agreement and what are the consequences of the implement because i keep reading they are constantly going back and forth and im concerned that we have a agreement and the hardliners so congress that is a very good question and appropriate understanding of the dynamic here. We saw the exact same divisions of things that were being said regarding the interim agreement, if you recall. And what weve learned is it is not as important as what they say, it is important what they do. And make sure that their actions are held accountable. Every aspect of the interim agreement has been lived up to, notwithstanding denials that came out publicly from certain politicians or certain leaders. Weve seen the same thing here. We heard that x or y or z was a red line that wouldnt be able to do it et cetera, but the agreement is the agreement. That is why weve been so clear, mr. Chairman. Nothing in this agreement is based on trust. Nothing is based on an expectation of some change of behavior. This agreement is 100 and whatever 109 pages because it is specific with the an exes in declaring of what is expected of whom and when and that precision gives us confidence we can hold them accountable. Thank you. And secretary, you said there are only 56 billion for them to really that is accessible. But really they do not need a lot of money for some of the groups to start up again. I mean they dont need billions. They can absorb billions some of the groups. So there is a lot of money to stir a lot of problems even with the sanctions in place, they are finding the relatively small sums of money to do terrible acts of regional destabilization and they are doing that now with sanctions in place and i dont think youre going to see the shape of that support change. Though there will be some Resources Available on the margin and along the signs of what they are already doing which puts the burden on us and our allies in the region to shut down the flow of money and material to malign forces. Frankly one of the issues we discussed with our gulf allies when we met with them at camp david was how to work effectively together to shut down the flows of money things happening today with the sanctions in place. So i think the problem exists today, with or without an agreement. And the challenge on this money that is irans money locked up overseas it is not in the United States. The money is in china, in india, in other places. If the p5 1 agreement is rejected by the United States, we cant rely on the other countries keeping the money locked up so you could end up iran getting access to that money without the benefit of an agreement which would be a bad out come. So i think we have to keep it in perspective. It is a serious issue. We have made the commitment to continue designating like we did last week additional hezbollah actors. We have sanctions and secondary sanctions in place. Well double and redouble our efforts. We need our allies to be part of it. But that is not a reason not to have an agreement to make sure iran doesnt get a Nuclear Weapon. Also congressman, i would underscore, if you look at their activities they have not they are not capital intensive. What theyve done with the houthi and what theyve done over the years i think our objective here was to make sure they cant have a Nuclear Weapon and secondly to work with our allies and friends in the region in order to do a greater job a much better job, of pushing back against those activities. And im going at the end of the week, im meeting with the gulf states, were laying out with them the specific steps with respect to that pushback and what well be engaged in in order to increase the security and push back against the activities youre talking about. But it is impossible to put them all in one pot at one time. First, one step and now we have the opportunity to push for the changes we want. Thank you. Thank you. We go to mr. Daniel roar backer of california. Thank you very much mr. Chairman and again thank you. And Ranking Member engel for providing such leadership on this issue. Weve had many hearings about it and mr. Secretary let me note that while youre receiving quite a grueling today, let us know that we appreciate the hard work that you and others of the administration are making. We know that you sincerely are looking to make this a more Peaceful World. But some of us realize that in the past weve seen people who are very sincere in seeking peace, creating unfortunately setting things off in a direction that led to war and re appreciation and didnt create a more Peaceful World. One of the efforts i noted when i was part of this is how ronltd reagan succeeded in ending the cold war and during that time period we reached weapons agreements with the soviet union. But let me note, while we were making those agreements with the soviet union to put a lid on Nuclear Weapons and in europe, et cetera, we ratcheted up our support for the democratic elements struggling against soviet domination in various parts of world, whether in the soviet union or nigeria or afghanistan, we were actually increasing our efforts to support those people. We also denied them hard currency much less had any agreement that would have bolstered the soviet economy. And because we had that approach, the soviet union fell apart and in the long run that is what made a more Peaceful World, the elimination of that regime and im afraid without without fighting by the way. Im afraid the treaty you are talking about today and promoting will do the opposite of what we saw succeeded and that is it will actually empower rather than making a more peaceful regime and make peace more likely. Em pooring them in the long run will create more chaos and likely of war because they are the supporting of terrorism and hatred toward the west that weve seen coming from their regime. Now what i would like to ask you is we all know in this body weve been aware for example of the repression and the brutal treatment of people within iran and like the mek that are suffering and youve noted this in the past yourself, the brutality that that these people that oppose the regime have had to face. Did you confer in any way with the democratic elements in iran or these other people who are struggling for a free iran and how this agreement will affect their longterm goal for a democratic iran and thus a more Peaceful World . As you know, this was a Nuclear Negotiation but i have on many occasions, met with and had discussions with folks representing different interests and aspirations within iran. What i would say to you, congressman, and you know, you have to make a sort of hard judgment about where iran is. President rouhani and foreign minister zarif are both individuals who have expressed a different point of view from past leadership i have a limited amount of time. So your answer is no, you did not confer no, thats not what i said. I said i had plenty but you are conferring with their oppressors instead. I didnt say that at all. During the reagan years we talked about only 55 billion well figure out if 150 billion theyll have or whatever, part of the effort that worked under reagan was supporting the democratic element and undermining the economy of the soviet union. In the long run what will bring peace to this part of the world is not for us to have shortterm arms deals with the regimes and the other people that hate the west and are supporting terrorism but try to support the elements in those societies that want peace with the west and arent preparing some sort of holy war against us. I am sorry, mr. Secretary, i appreciate your sincerity and what you guys are trying to do, but i believe this treaty will empower the mullahs and make conflict more likely. Mr. Connelly of virginia. I find my friend from california, i find his words ironic, because Ronald Reagan was nothing if not a pragmatist and was quite capable of compartmentalizing relationships for the sake of the greater good. And his relations with the soviet union were the quintessence of that kind of pragmatism, exactly whats in front of us today. Something is overriding. Nuclear capability in the region. Shall we deal with it or not . Samuel taylor described fiction as the willing suspension of disbelief. I must say i find a lot of fiction involved, the willing suspension of disbelief in some of the criticism of this agreement. Its not perfect. It will hurt israel. It will give them a Nuclear Capability some day. It doesnt do enough and it doesnt deal with ancillary and horrendous behavior. Who said it would . And heres the bottom line. Valid those many of those criticisms may be, imperfections we can find by the score. Whats your program . You know what i have heard in a series of hearings here, lets go back to p5 plus one and say, we couldnt sell it, lets start over. That was one of the most monumentally naive statements ive ever heard for sure. And its not true. Lets stick to the facts. No, the willing suspension of disbelief is at work. Its alive and well here. Including the issue of the existential threat to israel. Walking away from this agreement, you need to take responsibility for the consequences of israel, whether you are netanyahu or a member of congress, and you have to weigh it carefully. What will happen . What risks am i willing to take before i make that vote on behalf of our country and our allies like israel . Mr. Secretary, i think its an extraordinary job youve done, and i would like to give you the opportunity to talk about two problems and you too, secretary moniz, if we walk away from this agreement what is likely to happen, and secretary moniz, one of the real vulnerabilities in this agreement is that 24day problem, all of us have reasons to be concerned about is that. Thats not the robust kind of inspection we hoped for. I will be quick because i want ernie to get in here. Its not speculation, its clear. If Congress Rejects this, iran goes back to its enrichment and the ayatollah will not come back to the table. Anybody that makes that judgment has not talked to the Intel Community. There is no way given his feelings already about the west and his mistrust of us and his reluctance to have engaged in this discussion that he will reenter if we reject this. Moreover the sanctions regime falls apart and the folks we relied on to provide a united front france, germany britain, russia and we will have set ourselves back, folks. I dont know how i would go out to another country if that happens and said you ought to negotiate with us, or you ought to talk to us about any issue whatever it is with the reliance that we could actually deliver, because they will sit there and say, well, you have 535 secretaries of state in the United States, we dont know who were negotiating with. Whatever deal we make is at risk of being overturned, and thats not the relationship that has existed between the executive and the congress. And finally iran will say, were free, we can go back to our program. What i said about earlier about bringing year 15 to today or year 20 or whatever, and they will take their 19,000 centrifuges and can enrich. They will feel we backed off. Ernie . For my five months at the negotiating table i doubt our p5 plus one partners would be any more interested in going back to the table than iran. On the 24 days, all the regular access, for declared sites, its constant. The 24 days is a new tool in the sense there has never been any limit at all. So the key is, in getting enough of a compressed process where we feel confident in being able to detect any use of Nuclear Materials, number one, over the time period, and in the classified environment we could provide more evidence than i already discussed today. Thank you, mr. Secretary. Now to the congressman from ohio. Thank you. This administration the president specifically called isis the jv team, that clearly wasnt true. This administration cited yemen as the model approach to u. S. Counterterrorism, and that was shortly before yemens near total collapse into chaos. So that wasnt true either. President obama declared al qaeda to be decimated, on the run and broken apart and on their heels and weak, and those are all quotes, by the way, and that may be Wishful Thinking but it certainly wasnt true and isnt true. Why should the American People trust the administration now on this deal . Were not asking them to trust, were asking them to read the deal and look at the components. Like i said, nothing in this deal is built on trust. Nothing. Its on very specific steps that have to be taken. For instance, iran gets zero relief from the sanctions until iran has implemented the oneyear breakout time by destroying the clan diaw and taking out the centrifuges, undoing the piping, all of that and they have to as you know, i have limited time. I will move on. When you say its not depending on trust and that strains credibility, and there has to be trust or theres no deal. No theres not let me ask you this, let me ask you this. Relative to anywhere anytime inspections, you said, and i quote, this is a term that honestly i never heard in the four years that we were negotiating. Now, in fact, in april of this year deputy secretary adviser ben rhodes said that the International Atomic Energy Agency would have immediate access to any site the agency wanted to inspect. Immediate access sure sounds like anytime to me. Also in april, Energy Secretary moniz, the gentleman sitting next to you there, he said, and i quote, we expect to have anywhere anytime access to places that are suspected of outofbounds activities, unquote. Theres that anywhere anytime once again. So again, why should the American People trust what they are being told by this administration about this deal . May i say, my quotes have not been anytime anywhere in the sense of a welldefined process and a welldefined time scale, and thats what we have. Let me go further than that. That really clears things up, mr. Secretary. Thank you. Go ahead, mr. Secretary. We never had a discussion in the context of these negotiations that talked about anywhere anytime. Nowhere on the planet earth does any country anywhere under the mpt have anything called anywhere anytime. What we have is called managed access and its a process by which we get in. This 24 days please, let me answer. Thats a month. 24 days is an outside for 24 years or longer, 2400 years they would not be able to hide the remnants of Nuclear Material, and ernie moniz will tell you that. I only have five minutes. I have several more questions. No. [ all speak at once ] if this is such a good deal why is israel so opposed to it . Well, first of all, i understand when you say israel. There are people in israel who support it. The Prime Minister, okay, he is the representative, like president obama is the representative of our country on these types of things you will agree president obama always talks for everybody in the country. He is sure speaking for us in this agreement and he seems bound and determined to go forward with this thing whether the elected representatives of the American People, the majority of it at least, are for it or not. Let me speak to your question its a serious question. As i said earlier, we fully understand, every israeli has concerns and fears and there are concerns about the region they live in, about the nature of the rhetoric that is used, death to israel and death to america. Everybody is concerned, which is why this is not based on some element of a dream they are going to change or some element of trust. But, i will tell you there are people in israel who you are going to name a couple people. The Prime Minister is against it and i am almost out of time. This is one of the main reasons as a representative of the American People i am concerned because israel could be directly affected but with the icbms and the technology that could be coming the whole excuse me. We have to go to mr. Ted deutsch of florida. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the witnesses for being here, and mr. Secretary kerry thank you as well for continuing to raise the the plight of the americans that are held and i agree with you, its time for them to come home. I want to talk specifically about pmd, if we dont discuss the military dimensions of the program, its impossible for us to believe that the iaea will have what it needs Going Forward. Under the terms of the agreement the Nuclear Related activities set forth in order for there to be sanctions relief, they leave out the most important point which is the one that the iaea has to have final resolution of pmd. I have two questions. The first question is, will we have access will the iaea have access to parcheen . The second question am i right, because i dont see any other way to read the agreement the satisfaction of pmd will not be a prerequisite to iran getting sanctions relief . It is. It is a prerequisite. If they have not complied and lived up to the dates in the program, august and october, they will not get relief. Mr. Secretary, i acknowledge that. By october 15th they have to have activities where they need to set out what they are going to do but its december 15th by which the director and the board of governors will assess whether they complied and thats not a condition of the deal. Actually, it is. They will be in breach. I understand. I would just point out its specifically omitted in the list of past and present concerns. Its not a requirement. The outcome, if you are talking about the outcome, its not dependent on the outcome because the outcome we have no way of knowing which way thats the issue, mr. Secretary. No, its whether they comply or not. We know what they were doing. We have drawn our conclusion about 2003. We know they were engaged in trying to make a weapon. Its not the you are saying that if they comply with the iaea, and the iaea ultimately concludes that they have not they are not satisfied on pmd because they dont have access or didnt get access to the scientists that would be a breach. We would not do sanctions relief. They know that. I respectfully suggest its not at all clear in the agreement. We can talk about that, but i would like to move on to the issue of specifically the sanctions. This has been brought up by a number of my colleagues. The annex to the lists, lots and lots of individuals and entities getting sanctions relief under the deal, and many of them are involved in not just proliferation activities but also involved in terrorism, support for terrorism and human rights abuses. They went on this list because it was easier to get the european allies to go along with the proliferation sanctions. Secretary lew, i appreciate that we will continue to sanction hezbollah, but what i really want to know is, will we be able to and are we going through the process now of scouring this list not just for individuals, but for banks and shipping lines and stateowned companies to reimpose sanctions if they are subject to sanctions for terrorism . We have not listed for relief many entities. I understand. I am asking about this list. There are institutions that were designated for their acts of terrorism or regional destabilization that have not been relieved. Mr. Secretary, i understand that. I have a very specific question. Will we be under this agreement able to reimpose sanctions on all of these entities if we find we have retained all rights to designate including everybody listed here . Includes entities that are on the list. But what we cannot do and this is what secretary kerry was saying a few minutes ago we cant put in place the Nuclear Sanctions we have given up no ability to target i hope we are going through the list and scouring it right now. I have a few seconds left. I would just i just ask for some acknowledgment when we say iran is engaged in all of these terrible activities now and it doesnt cost much money, and it has been reported that 200 million a year is the amount they use to fund hezbollah. So if only 1 billion of the 56 were to go to hezbollah, we would double the amount of support for five years at which time the arms embargo comes off and they are considerably more dangerous. We have to at least acknowledge that congressman, we can put the arms there are plenty of opportunities to deal with the arms. Theres a resolution preventing them from sending weapons to hezbollah. Theres a resolution preventing them from sending weapons to iraq at this time we have to go to joe wilson of south carolina. Thank you. Thank you for hosting this hearing and i appreciate the panel being here today. Secretary kerry, i share the concerns of an oped by David Horowitz of the times of israel where he says the nuke deal is a catastrophe for the western world. We need this as a response for the American People so as we vote in september the American People will know, as you stated a few minutes ago, the correct facts. One, was the Iranian Regime required to disclose the previous military dimensions of its military Nuclear Program in order both to ensure effective inspections of all relevant facilities. No. Two, has the Iranian Regime been required to halt all uranium enrichment, including thousands of centrifuges spinning at the main enrichment facility . No. Has the Iranian Regime been required to shut down and dismantle the iraq heavy water reactor and plutonium production plant . No. Four, has the Iranian Regime been required to shut down and dismantle the underground uranium enrichment facility it is building . No. Five, has the Iranian Regime been required to halt its Ongoing Missile Development . No. Six, has the Iranian Regime been required to halt research and development of the faster centrifuges which will enable it to break out a bomb far more rapidly than is currently the case . No. Seven, has the Iranian Regime been required to submit to anywhere anytime inspections of any and all facilities suspected of engaging in rogue nuclearrelated activity . No. Eight, has the International Community established procedures setting out how it will respond to different classes of violations to ensure that the International Community can act with sufficient speed and efficiency to thwart a breakout of a bomb . No. Has the Iranian Regime been required to halt the test army in lebanon . No. Ten, has the Iranian Regime been made to surrender for trial the alleged members involved in the bombing by hezbollah, the suicide bomber of the amia Jewish Community center in buenos heiress argentina in 1994, resulting in the deaths of 84 people . No. 11, has the Iranian Regime undertaken to close its 80 estimated Cultural Centers in south america from which it allegedly fosters terrorist networks . No. 12, has the iranian leadership agreed to stopping hatred among its people against israel and the United States and stop its relentless calls for the annihilation of israel . No. 13 has the Iranian Regime agreed to halt executions, currently running at an average of some three a day, the highest rate in 20 years . No. 14, does the nuclear deal shatter the painstakingly constructed sanctions regime that forced iran to the negotiating table . Yes. 15, will the deal usher in a new era of global commercial interaction with iran reviving the iranian economy and releasing Financial Resources iran will use to bolster its military forces in terrorist networks . No. 16, does the nuclear deal further cement irans repressive regime in power . Yes. Im going to be submitting these for the record. I look forward to receiving them during the next month. In the meantime, the American People need to know theres bipartisan opposition to this deal. I was really grateful two weeks ago, we had senator Joe Lieberman here who addressed my concern and that is that the secretary of state designated iran a state sponsor of terrorism over 30 years ago in response to the hundreds of marines who were killed at the marine barracks. I asked senator lieberman, has there been a change in course. His quote, directly, this iranian government, the Islamic Republic of iran has the blood of a lot of americans on its hands. Marines at the barracks in beirut, and i would go on. Incidentally, hundreds of american soldiers were killed in iraq by shia militias that were trained in iran by the irgc. So your question is a good one. Has the government changed . Theres no evidence of change. Mr. Secretary, has there been evidence of change . Yes. In that the president of iran sent his foreign minister to negotiate an agreement to which i could pose you a lot of questions that i can give you an answer to that are yes, too. Does iran have to give up two thirds of its centrifuges for ten years . Yes yes. Does iran have to mr. Secretary, those are words if the gentleman will suspend, the time has expired. Yes. I have suggested to the members, ask the questions and leave time for response. Were going to Brian Higgins of new york. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The snapback provisions in this agreement are real and powerful. And i think are born out of a deep distrust of iran. Snapback provisions, as i understand them, allows for any of the six powers to the deal to flag what it considers a violation. That concern would be submitted to dispute resolution panel. If those concerns remain unresolved, sanctions would resume or snap back after 30 days, preventing a resumption of sanctions would require a vote of the Security Council from which the United States and its western allies would have veto power. Its unprecedented, and i think very, very powerful and speaks volumes to this deal. Under this deal, uranium would be cut by 98 . The level of enrichment for what remains is 3. 67 , a long way from the 90 enrichment that would need to occur to achieve a weaponsgrade material. Centrifuges would be reduced from 19,000 to a little over 6,100 for ten years. There would be no enrichment, and only centrifuges permitted for use would be older, firstgeneration centrifuges. Plutonium, the iraq facility will be reconstituted so it cant make weaponsgrade material. Materials that do exist there today would be sent out of the country entirely. Number four, iran may try to build a Nuclear Weapon in secret. Mr. Secretary of energy, i would ask you, through robust monitoring and verification and inspections, the deal would allow inspectors access to inspect any suspicious sites. I heard critics of this plan say, well, thats like, because of the 24day period, its like a Police Officer calling a drug dealer to say that were going to raid your apartment in 24 days, so they can clear all the evidence. Would you speak to that, within the context of physics, and talk about the half life of both uranium and plutonium . Ill start with the last question, if i may. First of all, technically, on the half life, the half life of the uranium isotope is roughly the age of the earth, which is why it still exists in the earth. That of the uranium 235 which is the isotope that you would want to enrich for a Nuclear Weapon, is somewhat shorter and therefore is more rare in nature. However, the issue of the, first of all, the analog to putting the drugs down the toilet is not very applicable to the use of Nuclear Materials, and as i have said, in both unclassified and classified regimes, we have extraordinarily sensitive ways of finding minuscule amounts that are left over from using Nuclear Materials, whether its enrichment or in an explosive environment to understand the Nuclear Weapons behavior. So on that were very, very clear. In addition, we have other constraints on them, some of them forever, in terms of other parts of weaponization, like neutron sources where we also have some interesting signatures should there be a suspicious activity. Secretary lew, you had dealt with the issue of the projected amount of money that would be available to iran once the sanctions are lifted. Irans currency has lost my understanding is that most of that money is iranian money frozen in foreign accounts. In that iranians irans currency has lost about half its value over the past three years, was that factored into your estimate about the amount of money which will be available to iran once it comes back to that . I was addressing the specific issue of their reserves that are tied up overseas because of sanctions. We have done enormous damage to their economy. It will take them years to get back to where they would have been if sanctions had not been put in place, even if they got that money back. Theyre not looking at breaking out into a period of great growth. And i think the challenge here is, we have a pretty good understanding of what the pressures in iran are right now. We cant know with certainty what decisions theyll make. We know, for example, just to get their oil fields up and running properly would require an investment of 100 billion to 200 billion. I cant tell you how much of the 50 billion theyll apply to their oil fields, but you have to assume that one of the things theyre going to want to do is get their economy moving. So that money will quickly be used for a lot of purposes. I wish i could say that zero, not a nickel, would go to malign purposes, but even with the current sanctions regime, theyre finding the money to put into malign purposes. The question is do they do it with or without a Nuclear Weapon . The representative from texas. Thank you. Secretary kerry, the countries that know iran the best fear this agreement the most. And the reasons why are that for the following reasons. It lacks the necessary verification. Measures to ensure iran doesnt cheat. It lifts the restrictions on irans intercontinental Ballistic Missiles which the ayatollah himself said they would mass produce. International sanctions on irans revolutionary guard corps, its terror arm, will be released, and the european sanctions. This deal could also in my judgment spark a Nuclear Arms Race in the middle east as the saudis told me when i recently visited there. As chairman of the Homeland Security committee, what concerns me the most is that this deal frees up hundreds of billions of dollars to the leading state sponsor of terrorism. Susan rice, the president s National Security adviser said, quote, we should expect some portion of the money will go to the Iranian Military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior we have seen in the region. Now, youre asking this congress to endorse an agreement that the president s own National Security adviser admits will spread terror in the region. Finally, irans Deputy Foreign minister confirmed we will provide weapons to whomever whenever we deem appropriate and buy weapons from wherever we can. Chairman royce and i sent a letter to you and the president of the United States asking you to submit this deal for consideration by the American People through their representatives, first, before this deal was submitted to the united nations. Instead, you went around the congress and the American People, submitted it to the united nations, and then china, russia, and venezuela got a chance to vote on this and approve this agreement before we have had a chance to deliberate. My question is this. If the Congress Overrides the president s veto, what effect would that have on this deal . In other words, would it kill the deal . Yes. We said that many times. Let me come back to your earlier comments. But, this is a very important point. Will the u. N. And eu sanctions be lifted . And that will relieve iran of these burdens . Or if we override the president s veto will it collapse the entire International Deal . The the sanctions rely on the International Communitys participation to be able to enforce them. Our sanctions alone did not do the job alone. It wasnt until we went out and worked with other countries diligently, china, for instance, in order to persuade them not to buy xamount of oil, countries in the middle east to not be trading underneath the table or otherwise. There were a lot of Different Things necessary to make these sanctions work. If the United States unilaterally through congressional decision pulls away from this deal, theyre not going to continue to apply those sanctions. They have no reason to. Theyre gone. They have already said theyre gone. And with respect to saudi arabia, there was an a. P. Article the other day when ash carter visited saudi arabia. Saudi arabias foreign minister said, Irans Nuclear deal appears to have the provisions needed to curtail irans ability to obtain a Nuclear Weapon. My times limited and ive heard otherwise. But let me thats very important for us. Thats a very public comment. For us and the congress to understand if we override the president s veto, it will stop this. Thats is important for us. I have one more question. Its been debated by secretary lew and yourself that you did not approve the delisting of the quds force commander, the iranian terror arm from the european sanctions list. Im looking at the agreement right here. Theyre taken off the list, off the european list, which is an agreement that was approved by you that could force you they killed americans in iraq and afghanistan. What do i tell my gold star mothers back home whose children were killed by these Iranian Forces and tell them that this agreement will take them off the list . Tell them that the United States of america will continue to keep the sanctions on him, specifically. He remains designated by our country, and we will not ever lift them, and that the United States will be pushing back on them. But look, heres what my final question. This secret deal between the iaea and iran theres no secret deal. We have never seen this. Are you going to present that to the congress . Theres no secret deal. There is an agreement, which is the normal process of the iaea where they negotiate a confidential agreement, as they do with all countries between them and the country. And that exists. We have briefed on it. Are you going to present that to the congress . We dont have it. Have you seen it . We have been briefed on it. I have not personally seen it. But can i Say Something . You know, we hear these complaints. We hear, well this agreement doesnt do this, doesnt stop their terror. This agreement is going to give them money, this agreement is going to do this. What this agreement is supposed to do is stop them from having a Nuclear Weapon. Now, i want to hear somebody tell me how theyre going to do that without this agreement. I would like to know how youre were going to go to William Keene of massachusetts. The gentlemans time is expired. They have the ability to enrich again. Whats the next step for the United States . Nobody is answering that question. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank our witnesses for being here and their hard work. Three threads im going to throw out there and one of them, there have been reports in the media that surfaced that among our European Partners in this, there was reluctance. Those reports centered on france, in particular. Im curious, and you can answer all three at the end. Im curious what issues might have, that you can detail, they might have had qualms about i want you to comment on those reports. Number two, if you could, generally comment about the cooperative actions of north korea and iran and how this might be impacted. Number three, we have had witnesses before on this issue, and they really were forceful, including ambassador burns, forceful in saying its important that we send a Strong Military message should any agreement go forward. And when it comes to sales and transfer of arms and other things, you began to speak to this. I want to give you the time to address, what military options, what are our strongest options that we still have and how we can act on this. Im going to give all three of you the remainder of my time so you can answer some questions, and i wont be interrupting you. Thank you, congressman. Let me say quickly because i want my colleagues to have a chance to catch up here. But on the European Partners, france in the final comments when they signed on to the agreement, it was bastille day. July 14th. And the foreign minister said that he thought this agreement was not only a strong agreement, but he hoped it would be remembered in the same way as having the positive impact for the world, the way bastille day was remembered as having the impact for the development of france. And they supported this agreement and voted for it. With respect to north korea and iran, this is a very different agreement from anything that ever existed with north korea. There are about seven or eight different major differences between the north korean agreement, not the least of which north korea pulled out of the ghmpt pulled out of the npt, and north korea had already exploded a Nuclear Weapon iran has not. And there are many differences. And we, i would rather lay them out on the record, if we can. But this covers all possible nuclearrelated activities. The agreement with north korea did not. We also have consent to the process of inspections. North korea i mean, there are a whole series of things. Finally, on the military option, i said it again and again. Everybody has. Ash carter has reiterated it. President obama is the only president who has actually commissioned the development of a weapon that can do what is necessary to deal with the facilities that are at risk. And he has not only commissioned its design he has deployed it, and he has made it clear that iran will not get a weapon. Hes prepared to use any option necessary in order to achieve that, but his preferred option is the one he is pursuing here, which is a diplomatic solution. And which resolves this issue in a way that avoids the conflict that some people seem to be not even addressing, which would be almost inevitable as a consequence of not accepting this deal. Ernie . In terms of the first question about the dynamics with the eu or the other partners in general, first of all, on the Nuclear Dimensions side, i should emphasize i have talked about our team, but every one of the six countries had technical experts involved. They had very robust discussions we did not share our own classified calculations, but made sure we were coming out in the same place. To be honest, in many areas, we pushed the envelope. In some areas, they pushed the envelope. The good news is i think we all came out of this very satisfied that the technical dimensions accomplished the job of blocking Nuclear Weapons pathways. There are some specific examples one could give in terms of additional infrastructure removal from centrifuge places both in the towns of fordo in terms of 20 uranium issues but these were very robust. I think all six countries feel very, very confident in our conclusions. Congressman, i think on the sanctions side, we have very different systems here in the United States and the eu. And the questions were getting on irgc underscore we need to look at our system and their system and understand theyre different. Theyre not enlisting the irgc for terrorist activities. If they do, at the end of phase two, delist for nuclear, the terrorist sanctions still stays in place. So i think people looking at the document ought to understand what is actually going to be in place after its in effect. And i think the cooperation with the europeans requires we not distort what theyre doing. That i theyre not taking the rgc off the terrorist list. The gentleman from texas. Thank you, gentlemen. I have received numerous questions from people in texas, and i will submit those for the record. Theyre Pretty Simple questions, but i will submit those for you to answer. The secretary kerry, this question is for you. Following up on chairman mccauls comments about the secret deal, secretary rice said that she has seen this deal with the iaea and that it will be shared with congress. So if shes seen it, have you seen it . I dont believe that susan rice, National Security adviser, has seen it. I think she said she did six days ago. She said six days ago she had seen it and reviewed it and that congress will get to see it in a classified section. My question is, have you seen it . No, i havent seen it. I have been briefed on it. But you havent read it . You havent seen it. Let me ask you this we dont possess it. Its in the possession of the iaea. Are you going to read it . We dont have access to the actual agreement. Secretary rice has access to it but you dont have access to it. I dont know about that. Thats just what she said. Im just going on what she said. Is the policy of the United States still that iran will never have Nuclear Weapons . Yes. Is it the policy of the ayatollah, if you can answer for him, that iran wants to destroy the United States . That still their policy, as far as you know . I dont believe they have said that. I believe they said death to america in their chants, but i have not seen specifics. I kind of take that to mean that they want us dead. That seems like it would be their policy. He said that. You dont think thats their policy. Im not mincing words. Do you think its their policy to destroy us . I think they have a policy of opposition to us and a great enmity. But i have no specific knowledge of a plan by iran to actually destroy us. I do know that the rhetoric is beyond objectionable. I know that we, you know, are deeply concerned with irans behavior in the region. Deeply concerned with their past activities. Which is why president obama felt reclaiming my time. I got your answer. Let me ask another question. Im reclaiming my time, senator. Thank you, secretary kerry. We heard a if they did want to destroy us, they have a much better shot of doing it if they had a Nuclear Weapon. You dont know if its their policy or not. Thats my question and thats your answer. Next question, is it our policy or our belief that after the deal, whether the deal is approved or not, do we have a policy in the United States that we want, expect, desire a regime change by the people of iran to have their own, say, free government, free elections . Weigh in on our policy toward a regime change in iran. Well, as you know, congressman, president obama was very outspoken with respect to support for transformation in iran around the time of the elections. Our policy today is specifically focused on pushing back on their activities when in the region that destabilized the region, threatened israel, our friends and allies. That is specifically where we are gearing up to take a specific set of steps that will define a new Security Alliance for the region. Okay, so we want to push back. We want them to stop their naughty ways. But regime change i mean, i personally think the best hope for the world for safety including in iran, is for the people of iran to have free elections and the people of iran really decide who their government should be in a free setting. Let me ask you another question. Secretary moniz. This might be my last question. If i understand the agreement, the oil sanctions, which is prohibiting iran from exporting oil, thats going to be lifted. Is that correct . Well, if sanctions are relieved, that would be among those, correct. Under this deal, thats one of those that would be relieved . If the sanctions are relieved, yes. Now, being the secretary of energy, let me ask you this. Why are why is the United States lifting the sanctions on the exporting of oil on iran but were not lifting the sanctions on america exporting crude oil, like texas sweet crude . We dont have sanctions on our exports. We have a congressional law that in the 1970s restricted exports. Do you support that law being changed . You know thats the question. Do you support the law the gentlemans time has expired. Okay ill put that in writing. We need to go to david sisillini. Just a point of personal privilege. I wanted to make sure we knew what we were talking about on and the record properly reflects this. Susan rices quote is, we know their contents, and were satisfied with them. We will share the contents of those briefings in full and classified sessions with congress. She has not seen them. She has been briefed on them. And that of course, reclaiming my time. We are still looking forward to that briefing. But now we must go to david of rhode island. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses. Not only for being here today but for the ongoing conversations, and i want to particularly thank the administration for really making sure that members have all the information that we need as we navigate through a very sober decisionmaking process with enormous consequences. I thank all three of the secretaries for their service. I have a series of questions that im not asking to support a conclusion that i have already made but actually to help me in arriving at the right conclusion. I would like to set forth the questions, recognize you can answer some, and the others, if you would submit in writing i would appreciate. The first is on parchin, the agreement says that the iaea will provide progress reports by october 15th and then the final assessment by december 15th. We know obviously this is a site where there was Nuclear Testing of some kind. My first question is, is it at all concerning that this final conclusion or the set of final conclusions might inform in a substantive way whether we should go forward and is there any concern there will be something revealed in this report that will impact whether or not iran is in compliance from the outset . Thats the first question. Because well be asked to vote on and the first round of sanctions relief will be provided before that december 15th date. Second question is, its been argued that were in the same position in 15 years with no options off the table except the economy of iran will be fortified, theyll be able to withstand sanctions in an enhanced way, and that the ability to reassemble this International Coalition will be very difficult as the countries will be doing business and reengaging with iran. Do you agree with that assessment . Or do you conclude that thats a sensible tradeoff that some have suggested . Third, you concluded, mr. Secretary, this agreement makes the world, our allies including israel, and the region safer. I have no doubt you have concluded that is correct based on your best assessment. If you would just provide for us kind of some thinking of why it is that the current israeli leadership does not see it that way. You know, as they obviously have sort of come to a different conclusion. Why do you think that is . Four, after 15 years, iran, most have suggested, is a Nuclear Threshold state. But that they must negotiate comprehensive safeguards again with the iaea. And whether or not, i know theres been some discussion, have you seen those, but do we have some ability to influence what that agreement is . Do we have any ability to influence its content or monitor their compliance Going Forward . Thats between iran and the iaea. Fifth, is the likelihood of an International Consensus remaining if a deal is rejected . What happens if the deal is rejected . Some have suggested actually, some top level israeli officials suggested iran will comply with the terms of the agreement. Well get relief from other partners, and the u. S. Will be isolated. Others have suggested iran will rush toward the development of a Nuclear Weapon with no constraints. Is there any reason to believe iran would comply with the terms of the deal if its rejected and not proceed quickly to a Nuclear Weapon . If the weapons six, if weapons are trafford transferred to hezbollah during the fiveyear period, which is a violation of the u. N. Resolution, but also a violation of the interim agreement, would that constitute a violation and cause snapback . In these intervening five years, if arms are sold to hezbollah . And finally, what will happen to the u. N. Security resolution specifically the listing of the arms embargo and the provisions if congress does not approve the agreement . Do those remain enact . Do those remain intact . And the last question, secretary lew, they described the process in which noncompliance in the agreement might result in sanctions snapping back to the u. N. But this would likely only work in major violations. How would the administration treat minor violations . I invite, maybe to start with you, secretary lew. The ones you cant get to, i appreciate your answers and thank you for the work you have done. Ill start with the snapback question. We have reserved the right to snapback in whole or in part. Obviously, if theres a small technical violation, that will not bring back the whole sanctions regime. The goal would be to get them back in compliance. If theres a need to make it clear that violations that are small will get a response, we have the option of putting some of the smaller sanctions back into place. If theres a major violation, we have the option of putting, of course, all of our unilateral sanctions and ultimately going back to the u. N. For the International Sanctions as well. We have all the authorities we need to do that. Matt salmon of arizona. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, you said you said no country would accept anytime anywhere inspections, but i submit iran is not a normal country. Iran is a terrorist state under heavy International Sanctions. Its neither got the moral nor the geopolitical equal of the United States. Or our negotiating partners, and i think we have to stop treating it like one. It aspires to be a regional power, the u. S. Right now is the only world superpower. And my question is this really the best deal we could get given the fact that we seem to have most of the cards . And we have had most of the cards since these sanctions were imposed. Secretary moniz, you said the deal includes anytime anywhere in the sense of a welldefined process and a welldefined end date. But all that depends on iran acting in good faith. We shouldnt make the assumption because iran has been stonewalling the iaea on the military dimensions while claiming to cooperate for years. Theyre doing that as we speak. First, the process is not just 24 days. If iran balks, its a minimum of 24 days. Before the clock starts, the iaea has to tell iran about the concerns about a particular site and they have to provide an explanation. But theres no time limit. Does anyone believe that iran will respond immediately for the back and forth discussion for negotiations wont take place . Only after these delays in the high barriers are taken care of, at best, maybe can the iaea make a formal request and start the 24day clock. But at the end of the 24 days, theres no punishment if iran says no. Instead, the matter goes to the dispute resolution mechanism, which has lots of opportunities for delay and more barriers. Does anybody believe that the p5 plus 1, not this administration, and certainly not the europeans will derail the entire agreement by imposing sanctions and restarting Irans Nuclear program just because iran is denying access to one sensitive site . More likely, there will be overwhelming pressure for a compromise. One thats no more substantive than whats in the final agreement. Kicking the can down the road is always one option. Its worked in iran for years. I think all of this led cia former director Michael Hayden to warn in front of this committee that the deal is taking inspections from the technical level and put it at the political level. And i just think thats a formula for chaos, obfuscation, ambiguity, and doubt. My question, besides the fact that i think that on the 24 days were kidding ourselves if we think that the 24 days is the total length of the deal. I think it could be much, much longer. And i would like to know how ultimately were going to deal once we do find infractions. My second question is, of all the sanctions to be lifted in the iran Nuclear Agreement, few are more significant than those against a shadowy 100 billion network of foundations belonging to the Islamic Republic supreme leader. The u. S. Delisting the headquarters for the execution of the imams order will pump tens of billions of dollars into the supreme leaders personal coffers, helping him to secure his grip on the iranian people, and bolstering irans ability to promote its agenda abroad. Its estimated hell gain access to as much as 95 billion. The u. S. Treasury designated ico and 37 subsidiaries in june 2013 noting its purpose is to generate and control massive, offthebooks investments, shielded from the view of the iranian people and their regulators. Explain why ico will be designated. Congressman, im going to turn to ernie for the first part of that because its important to understand the 24 days. You are, i say respectfully, misreading the 24 days. By the way, thats an outside period of time. It could be less than that. Its very possible it could be 18 days or something. But ernie, why dont you discuss that. First, you started out with the question of iran being unique in terms of verification. Thats why we have the verification system in this agreement that is unparalleled. This goes beyond what anyone else has accepted because of the distrust of iran built up from previous behavior. With respect to the 24 days, the iaea can cut that off any time by declaring their request for access, and then the 24day clock runs. It is not the beginning of dispute resolution. Its the end of dispute resolution. In fact, at that point, theyre in material breach. You asked about would there be a response if it was, quote, only one site. Well, im going to turn it over to my colleagues, but i want to emphasize in the snapback, it says in whole or in part. So a graded response is possible. Going to go to mr. Alan grayson. Grayson of florida. Mr. Secretary, i have five minutes. I have ten short questions. Im hoping for ten short answers. Will implementation of the agreement increase irans support of terrorism . You want these yes. We have no way to know. I presume in some places possibly. Only in the sense that they are committed to certain things that we interpret as terrorism, they dont, and were going to continue to conflict on those issues. All right. If the agreement is implemented, will iran in fact allow inspections at all its military sites . They have to. If they dont, theyre in material breach of the agreement and well snap back the sanctions. Or take other action if necessary. If the agreement is implemented, do you think theres a significant risk that iran will cheat on the agreement and develop a Nuclear Weapon secretly . I dont think theyre able to develop a Nuclear Weapon secretly because our Intelligence Community tells us with the regime we have established here, it is physically impossible for them to create an entirely covert secondary fuel cycle. And we have a sufficient intrusive inspection mechanism and capacity on their fuel cycle that they cant do it. You cant make a bomb at 3. 67 enrichment for 15 years. You cant make a bomb with 300 kilograms of a stockpile for 15 years. You cant make a bomb if you cant go enrich and move forward without our knowing it. And we have submitted and we believe with clarity, that we will know what theyre doing before they can do that. If an agreement is implemented, is there a significant risk that iran will adhere to it for a year, lets say, then pocket the 50 billion and then violate the agreement and build a bomb . Again, they cant do that. Because the red flags that would go off, the bells and whistles that would start chiming as a result of any movement away from what they have to do. They have to live for 15 years under this extraordinary constraint of a limitation on the number of centrifuges that can spin. On a limitation, and there are indeed, on 24 7 inspections. On daytoday accountability with Live Television with respect to their centrifuge production and so forth. So it is not possible for them during that period, in one year, two years, five years, to sort of make this decision and stiff us. If they did, in some way, if they just radically said, you know, were going to change this whole deal and were breaking out of here, then we have snapback of all the sanctions with the full support of the International Community, which would then be absolutely in agreement that they have to do it, and we have the military option if that was necessary. But briefly on a followup, isnt it true in that scenario they would then have 50 billion in their pockets they wouldnt otherwise have . No, i doubt after one or two years they would. They have investments in their economy and they would be moving, but you have to look at this in the real world. Here they are trying to attract investment. From france, germany china, britain, all kinds of countries. Is it your presumption that a country that has destroyed its stockpile, reduced its centrifuges by two thirds, put concrete in its culand ria, totally stripped the ability to do fissile material, that that country and is now seeking investment and trying to build its economy, with a population of 50 of the country under the age of 30, who want jobs and a future, is it your presumption that theyre just going to throw this all to the wind and go create a Nuclear Weapon after saying well strip our program down and wont . I dont think its going to happen. What about after 15 years . If the agreement is implemented,happen. What about after 15 years. If the program is implemented, is it likely theyll have a weapon after 15 years add the end of the dale. They cant do it after knowing what we are doing. After 15 years they have to live by the Additional Protocol and the modified code and the additional 150 additional inspectors going into iran as a consequence of this agreement and those inspectors are going to be given 24 7 access to declared facilities. So if iran suddenly starts to enrich more which well know, all of the bells and whistles go off. The International Community would be all over that with questions and restraints. My time is almost up and i want to ask you this may i just add, this is the agreement that codifies a permanent ban on Nuclear Weapons in iran and we have to take thank you, mr. Secretary and i want to ask this additional question and i had four more but that is the way it goes. What happens if the agreement is rejects, specifically there is suggestion that iran will adhere to it any way they cant adhere to it any way. If the agreement is rejected. I heard that for the first time last night when i met with an israeli friend that suggested that is impossible. That is physically impossible. Explain why please. Because in the legislation youve passed in which youve given yourself the ability to vote youve put in an in ability for the president to wave the sarvegs so there is any way for the deal to work because our lifting of sanctions is critical to the ability of other countries to invest and work and critical obviously for rabd to get any money so nothing works for them unless this deal is accepted. We have a lot of members who still want to ask questions. We need to go to mom moreno of pennsylvania. Mr. Secretary of state we all know what iran has done as far as giving weapons to terrorists to do irans dirty work. And what will stop iran from giving Nuclear Material or even more weapons to terrorist organizations and how is nuclear how is a nuclear iran going to make the world and the United States a safer place and more particular how is a nuclear iran going to make american citizens feel safer . Well, the opposite of your question is to suggest that somehow you or we can prevent them from having any Nuclear Program at all. Now, yall have a responsibility to show us howl this is going to happen. Im going to show you how that is going to happen. Mr. Secretary. Im going to show you how that is going to happen. Im going to take secretary lups words. The sanctions have crippled iran. If we ratchet them up and get our allies to ratchet those sanctions up you can bring iran to its knees where it cannot financially function. That is how to do it because it proves that it can be done. Let me just tell you please. I suggest you go spend some time with the Intel Community and ask the people who have spent a lifetime following iran very closely, whether or not they agree with your judgment that an increase in sanctions will in fact bring iran to its knee. They do not believe there is a capitulation theory here and you will not sanctions iran out of its commitment to what it has a right to. It is an npt country. There are 189 of them. And we have a right to protect the american citizens from this disaster of this country have nuclear power. Sanctions have worked. Are you going to retract the sanctions made by secretary lieu or anyone else who has said it has crippled them. Congressman if you are going to quote me, let me speak for myself. I quoted what you said you said it crippled iran and will take years for them to recover. And the reason it was crippleding is because it had international cooperation. We worked hard to get that international cooperation. Parties we worked with reached the agreement. Look who we worked with. We worked with china and russia the people who want iran to be in that position because it jeopardizes the United States. But it will not have the effect we want. The economists disagree with you. Individuals that have read article after article disagree with you. But congressman, as we have said again and again and i want to repeat it now, we are absolutely committed that iran will not get the material for one bomb. My original question mr. Secretary is how does that make the United States citizens safer. Ill tell you how it makes the United States citizens safer, because if iran fully implements the agreement that we have come to, iran will not be able to make a Nuclear Weapon. And we have created an agreement which has sufficient level of in trucive inspection and verification verification, that we are confident in our ability to deliver on preventing them from having enough fissile material for the one bomb. Mind you we started in a place where they already had enough material for 1020 bombs and weve already rolled that back. And what that made america safer. By the way it made israel and our friends and allies in the region safer. Everything that we have done thus far in the interim agreement in the past two years have made the citizens safer. Im going to reclaim my time. I understand because i have 40 seconds left. If you kill this deal. I hope you are right because if not, you the executive branch and congress is going toft a disaster on our handed and we need to be accountable to the American People. 32 seconds. I want to ask a important question. Secretary kerry, this is a extremely important topic for the security and the safety of the American People and our allies in the middle east. I want to ask you a simple yes or no question. In according to the office of management and budget and the archives and Records Administration directives and state Department Policy have you ever used a nongovernment and personal email account to conduct official business . No. I conduct my business on a government account. We need to go to dr. Omy berra from california. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses. Im going through a series of questions as i try to make my decision with regards to this deal. Secretary kerry multiple times you said this negotiation had one objective, to make sure they cannot get a Nuclear Weapon. Secretary moniz, you are the expert here, in your opinion do you believe this deal makes it less likely within the next decade, next 15 years, over a lifetime, for iran to obtain Nuclear Weapon. Far less likely. Okay, great. I dont trust iran. Secretary kerry, you said multiple times there is nothing in this agreement that is based on trust secretary lew, you said there will be no immediate sanctions relief, is that an accurate statement. The sanctions relief comes after iran complies with all of the measures to stop the Nuclear Program. And in your estimation is there enough in the verification regime in in deal that would allow yeah, would you defer to secretary moniz but ive been persuaded by everything ive read and seen that it is the toughest verification regime weve ever had. Is that correct . And secretary lieu secretary lew, there is no signing bonus. There is no signing bonus. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter is not here but im direct this to secretary kerry. In your opinion, would you say that secretary carter and our joint chiefs are satisfied with the icbm provision of no missiles for eight years as well as the arms embargo for five years as the that they would be okay with that provision . Yes. Okay. Moving on. Secretary kerry youve talked about your time in the senate your a defender of israel in your opinion do you believe this deal makes israel safer or less safe . Ip am i am absolutely convinced beyond any doubt this makes israel safer and the world. And would you say that president obama shares that opinion . Yes. Okay. Secretary moniz weve talked a lot about the 24hour framework. Is it accurate that you believe as an expert here that within that 24hour framework we can detect any Nuclear Activities et cetera. 24 days. 24 access to undeclared sites and working with Nuclear Material i feel quite confident we can detect anything. That there will be no completing and we can detect it within that 24 day period. Work with Nuclear Materials. Nonnuclear work might be more difficult. Okay. Great. Secretary lew, if in fact, there is no Nuclear Activity going on and iran is complying with the terms of the deal, i do have serious reservations that theyll continue to offend fund terror groups and