Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics And Public Policy Today 20240622

Was the white house aware an indictment was imminent you flew on air force one with the president to philadelphia or criminal Justice Reform . No squl sgl and on the minimum wage, 15 minimum wage im wondering if the white house is willing to support 15 minimum wage. Jordan president obama has made clear eight years since the federal minimum wage increase last passed that action by congress to raise the minimum wage is long overdue. In a previous state of the Union Address we suggested congress raise the minimum wage to 10. 10. More recently we supported legislation by senator congressman scott raising wage to 12 an hour by 2020. Theres a number of proposals pending before congress. We just want them to move on one that we believe that despite this president s leadership in bringing this country out of an economic downturn that we havent seen since the great depression, that despite the longest stretch of private sector job growth in our nations history that wages have not grown fast enough or steep enough. And thats why the president believes that americas workers deserve a raise. I know that different localities, cities and states and even private companies are choosing to take action in light of congresss inaction. Those are moves we support. Its my understanding the current tally is 17 states in the District Of Columbia have all passed minimum wage increases despite congresss recalsitrance, but we believe its up to those localities to provide the best numbers that suit those areas. Thank you. Doug. Back to mullah omar. Theres talks set for this tuesday. Who has the government of afghanistan been negotiating with given hes been dead for two years now . And what would you recommend for this upcoming round of peace talks . Doug, i appreciate you raising that because we do believe the taliban has an opportunity to make genuine peace with the Afghan Government and rebuild their lives in peace in afghanistan. They can accept the government of afghanistan become a Peace Process and ultimately become part of the legitimate system in afghanistan, or they can choose to continue to fighting afghans and destabilizing their own country. So you are right in suggesting that the United States does continue to support an afghanled and afghanowned reconciliation process. Its the surest way to end violence in the region. Changing subjects now to this side deal in the iran Nuclear Agreement. Some of your cabinet members have been taking a beating in the Senate Armed Services committee today on that side deal. Why did the United States not know of this side deal . Why did not the Administration Representatives brief congress on this side deal when they first undertook briefings from members of congress . And why have no members of the Administration Read the side deal . Sure, doug. We should take this as an opportunity to clear this up. There is no side deal. There are no secret deals between the p5 1 and iran separate from the commitments outlined in the joint comprehensive plan of action. This is a deal that prevents iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. Everything in our p5 1 partners agreed to is spelled out within that joint comprehensive plan of action announced in sli yen na last week. In terms of congress, we have what we have. We have not only are they on the website, online, but also briefed many times over to congress. As is standard in these agreements theres an arrangement specifically between the iaea and individual states that are confidential documents that the iaea does not release to other states. And they have a number of very understandable and possibly obvious reasons why they dont release documents pertaining to proliferation more widely. But whats important to understand is the iaea, which are the International Communitys Renowned Experts in this area as well as the p5 1, the entire International Community, are absolutely confident in the agreement that was struck between the iaea and iran in their inspections. Can you confirm that this deal allows iran to collect its own soil samples at the facility . I think some of the details in that agreement remain classified and remain sensitive. So im not in a position to discuss them from here. But what i can do is i can assure you that not only is the international inspecting inspectors who we all trust to monitor this, have been assured and assured us that they will have the access they need. But i can also tell you the p5 1 the International Community which has a vested stake in this, are also confident in the arrangement that was struck. Last question. Why did secretary kerry just moments ago and secretary moniz moments ago say they have not read the side deal . They testified to that fact . I think theres a difference between reading the side deal and a specific piece of paper and knowing whats in it. I think weve been very clear that not only are aware of whats in it but were entirely comfortable with it. As are the International Inspectors and the scientists and the experts who had the expertise in this. Thank you mark. How can you say with such assurance a moment ago that theyll be a decision on keystone by the end of the administration . Its my understanding that this is a process that is undergone at the state department department. Again, this is a process that predates this administration. And we believe that if you check in with them for an update, theyll offer where they are in their process. Is there at all the disparity, do you think, between all the years state has been working on keystone and the 60 days youve Given Congress to come to a decision on the Iran Nuclear Deal . No. Why not . Because for us those are entirely separate and unrelatedish chiouunrelated ish issues. That was a clock they started. The keystone decision is under review at the state department. And its my understanding is it had nothing to do with senator corkers legislation, which dictated the architecture of how theyre going to have oversight over the iran deal. Is the president at all impatient with how long its taking . I havent heard that. Can you ask him . I will try. April. Im sure you saw back there in the conference about the Police Officers and the university of cincinnati hes indicted essentially for losing his temper allegedly against the suspect. Does this administration feel there needs to be more training of Police Officers in this country as it seems that there is somewhat that same type of threat when we see some of these instances, is there an effort from the Justice Department working with Loretta Lynch . I know there was a News Conference going on back in ohio just as we were coming out. So i didnt have a chance to watch it. And obviously its a local case under local investigation and prosecution. So id refer you to them for details. In terms of this issue at large which i think you are referencing, as you know the president did stand up a task force on 21st century policing, come out with a host of very serious intangible recommendations that Law Enforcement across this country has been studying and have taken to heart. I dont have an update for you on departments that have implemented those recommendations, but i know that it is a fulsome list which we can get you. And i do know that training is a big part of that. The president believes that in order to restore trust between certain Law Enforcement agencies around this country and the communities they serve, a gap in some places has been widening that one of the steps that local Law Enforcement can take is to increase their training. Last question. There seems to be a serious effort to draft Vice President biden to run for president of the United States. Has the president encouraged or talked to Vice President biden about possibilities . I have not spoken to the president about his private conversations with the Vice President. As you know the president has said the best political decision hes ever made in his career has been to ask joe biden to run for his Vice President. He could not be more impressed and appreciative of the Vice President s service than he is. Thats an endorsement. Im going to ask one more question. You said that was your last one. Well, im sorry. I changed my mind. Okay. Just checking. Okay. Has there been any talk around the white house hearing particularly from next door that he could possibly throw his hat in . I havent heard anything about those discussions if theyre happening or not. Thank you. Bill. Reports there was. [ inaudible ] against United Airlines, which information similar to what was taken, files regarding passenger lists and possibly more could have been taken. Do you have any information . I dont bill. I know that the United Airlines has put out a statement. We are certainly aware of their reports about their cyber intrusion, but id refer you to united for comment on their specific situation. The fact of the intrusion . What was the question again . Can you confirm the fact of the intrusion . Ive seen those reports but im going to refer you to united for comment. Is that what youre saying. Were going to refer you to united to address any circumstances around their the government must know something and doesnt want to talk. Bill, dont be so cynical. Moi . I think again, were going to let United Airlines which presumably has very able Public Relations folks field those questions. Thank you. Jc. The United States and turkey sign a deal over a former air base led for the u. S. Led Coalition Fighting the islamic state. The turkish minister mentioned this. Wednesday also marked heaviest air strikes by turkey against the pkk after the president already ruled out any Peace Process. Any comments on that from the white house . Jc, i think as you saw two weeks ago now when this was first announced that weve been clear that the United States and turkey have held ongoing consultations about ways we can further our joint counter isil efforts to respond to common threats. As you know trickyurkey is a valuable partner in the coalition to defeat isil. And we are appreciative of the commitment the turkish government has made to further and deepen our cooperation broadly in the counter isil fight. Thats going to include support for the train and equip, intelligence sharing and operational coordination. And like you mentioned as part of this turkey is granted clearance for the deployment of manned and Unmanned Aircraft from the u. S. And other Coalition Members participating in air operations in their air base. How does this play in with the unfortunate circumstance of the bombings of the pkk individuals . The kurdish who are supposedly supporting our efforts . Youre right. As we spoke in realtime that we do condemn the pkks attack. As we have said they are a foreign terrorist organization. And we have said that we respect turkeys right to defend itself. So we believe that overall we call for a deescalation and we call for a return to the peaceful solution process. Thank you. David. On the irs. Two House Republican lawmakers on monday called on the president to fire john koskonin. Any reports from the white house . Yes. As weve said commissioner koskonin has a steadfast commitment to Public Service during difficult times. His decades of experience around public and private institutions continue to make him the right person to lead this agency. If we look back at how cooperative the irs has been with the multiple investigations which have spanned multiple years now, i think its worth noting that theyve testified in over 25 congressional hearings, provided more than 50 employees for interviews and produced more than 1 million pages of documents documents. You mentioned two House Republicans who tried to make news to this. I call to your attention the response from congressman cummings who pointed out that the independent Inspector General himself who concluded in a report to the Oversight Committee just last month noted that theres no evidence to substantiate the very claims that republicans just yesterday were making. White house involvement or any intentional destruction of evidence. So command that report to your attention. Bob francesca. Whatever. George, jerry. Ill take it. Call me whatever you want. Welcome back. How was your trip . Thank you. Appreciate that. I want to go back to iran. With democrats and members of congress as extensive about the iran deal do you know if the president has talked to senator schumer personally about the deal . I dont have specific conversations to read out. The president has spoken with specific members of congress both in the house and in the senate. Both democrats and republicans. And both skeptics and supporters. The president believes that on the merits that this is an argument that our case is one that is worth making. I dont have specific conversations to read out to you. But i do know senator schumer as a member of the leadership in the senate is someone whose support we like. Will congresswoman debbie wasz wassemanschultz be there . I dont have that information. Is it troubling to the white house that both of those very high profile democratic members who also happen to be Jewish Americans as well have not come out in support of the deal . I know its only been two weeks, but the deal as the white house has said is very close to what the political framework was. So theyve known it was going to be in it for quite some time now. As you pointed out, its only been two weeks. As others have pointed out we have a whole 60 days for congress to look over this so were going to continue to make the case to the two members youve identified, but were going to make the case to everyone we can. Sheryl. Thanks. Following meeting tonight, congress is going to leave without having started any budget negotiations or addressing sequester, what is the president s message on budget Going Forward . Youve heard it from josh as well its unfortunate. This economic recovery weve seen is one supported if we lift restrictions bless you, gardner. Is that not allowed anymore . We dont have manners here . Sheryl, thats our approach. If you had eyes in the walls tonight in the east room, you would see the president making a similar case. I asked for that. Is there any particular tactic or strategy to try to kick start these negotiations . Well i can tell you that white house officials and officials at the relevant agencies like the office of management and budget have been in touch with leaders urging them to roll up sleeves and make progress on this. Weve been disappointed thus far with their inaction. John. Thank you, eric. Three brief questions for you. First, congressman mike kelly of pennsylvania has taken a different tact from other republicans. Rather than going and embrace the defunding of planned parenthood, he has written the commissioner of the irs and asked for an audit of some of the controversial reports that have been coming out. Is this something the administration would be positive about . An irs audit of planned parenthood to clear the air of controversy . I havent heard that any of the videos or any of the issues surrounding planned parenthood have anything to do with the irs. So im not sure. Im sure the commissioner of the irs will evaluate that request as he does all the others. But i havent seen anything to suggest that audit is necessary. The other question is does the administration while certainly the agreement between greece and its partners believe it is sustainable even though the International Monetary fund has raised questions . Or do they think that this specter of greek exit from the euro would reappear down the line . Thats a good question. I think as you note we do support the agreement that was reached between greek greece and european leaders. Its my understanding that they continue to make progress on implementing that deal. So i dont have any updates for you on that. And i certainly am not going to second guess that deal right here today. Finally, and ive been dying to know this for a while. The president made miss harper lee a member of the council of arts in his first term. Does he plan to set a watch . I have not spoken to the president about his reading list, as you know. Usually theres a few weeks in august where he gets a chance to read some books. So we can see if thats on the list for this year. Will you get back to me on that . I will try. Chris. Thank you. Boy scouts of america this week lifted its policy prohibiting openly gay people from serving as leaders. The president publicly has called for the organization to lift its ban on openly gay people. How was he made aware of the news . Did he have any reaction to that . I dont know how the president received the news, but as you point out under the leadership of bob gates, the boy scouts of america did take a big step forward monday regardless of who they love and this is something consistent with what the president has talked about. Hes long believed that the boy scouts is a valuable organization that has helped educate and build character in american boys for more than a century. And he thinks this was an important step for them to take. The policy in place allowing organizations to continue to use religion to evaluate does the president believe to prohibit these organizations as a factor . Again, chris, i havent talked to the president about this. But i do know he believes and was encouraged by the step this week. When the president was in africa he responded at a press conference quite boldly to the issue of in that country where being gay is punished by up to 14 years in prison. The issue came up publicly in a press conference, but did it come up privately . Yes, i can assure you that the president did raise this privately. And he didnt pull any punches at the time. The president believes a quality is a fundamental pillar not only because its the right thing to do but because it strengthens countries and the remarks he made both in press conferences in kenya and in ethiopia and in his extensive remarks yesterday in front of the africa yub onthat the issue of broader human rights in africa is one where theyve made progress but they clearly have a long way to go. And thats part of the reason why he was so encouraged by his visit. He felt that this visit was an opportunity to accomplish the goal of not only deepening the ties between the United States and africa but also raising awareness on these issues. I know that as the president himself said some countries prefer to not engage and to not try and lift up these issues even when they might be uncomfortable uncomfortable, but thats not this president s approach. What was the reaction you got . I dont have the detailed conversations, but i do know he raised this and was quite forceful on it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Addressing the fortune 500 companies under the leadership and organized. What do you make of the u. S. India relations. Was it claim any message from the president . Also there was an announcement that over 15 billion have been invested in the u. S. By Indian Companies creating over 100,000 jobs in the u. S. My question is how this exporting import bank effect indiau. S. Relations . I dont have specifics on how any specific loans or support structures that the ex im has offered specifically for business in india but im sure my friends and counterparts could get that for you. I think generally speaking the reason that republicans and democrats support ex im bank is because it is an engine of Economic Growth and american jobs for American Companies here at home. Generally speaking the u. S. India partnership that youve referenced the president is very enthusiastic about the prospect of increased collaboration, increased Economic Growth for American Companies and investments in india. I think you heard that from his recent trip there a few months ago. But just because hes not over there right now that doesnt mean we dont have key members of our team working on this. So Economic Growth across the world remains a priority for this president. And oftentimes that manifests itself in investments in Foreign Countries and india is very high on that list. After president ial victories among others now millions of undocument ed undocumented are seeking and asking this might be the last victory for the president before he leaves office. They are leaving under the shadow if president can bring them out of the shadows and if they see a light in the dark. Sure. As you point out millions are living under the shadows. And the best way for them to get out of the shadows and restore accountability is for the house to pass the Senate Bipartisan comprehensive Immigration Reform package. As you all recall that was a bill that was not written by this president. The president never called it perfect. Its presently not precisely the bill that he would have passed if he was writing it but that it was the product of compromise. It was a product of bipartisan compromise where democrats and republicans a rare scene in this town came together to pass a bill and we believe the house should take that up and pass it as well. And message you think he has for immigrants for undocumented immigrants . The president said as when took executive actions that youre referencing the president asked his team to develop executive actions the boldest that we could take within the bounds of the law. And he believes that his team both secretary of Homeland Security jeh johnson working with our attorney general at the time eric holder came up with a set of policies that he was proud of and worked to implement some of that is tied up in courts and litigation right now. Other pieces other significant pieces are being implemented. And so we focus continuing on that work. Thank you all. Todays White House Briefing is available on our website. Just go to cspan. Org if you missed any of it today. Lots of questions from supporters of the iran Nuclear Agreement. This morning four members of president obamas cabinet defense secretary ashton carter, secretary of state john kerry, treasury sec tair jack lew and general Martin Dempsey on capitol hill testifying. Heres the hearing chaired by senator john mccain. Good morning. The Committee Meets today to begin a series of oversight hearings on the joint comprehensive plan of action which the United States and other major powers have signed with iran. We welcome our distinguished witnesses and thank them for joining us today. We appreciate senators kerry and secretary moniz and secretary lew being here. I would, for the record i did not request the presence of secretary kerry or moniz or secretary lew. Im glad theyre here at their desire to do so. Since this focus is todays hearing as befits the role of this committee strategic and military implications of the iran agreement. What we want to know among other things is how this agreement will effect Regional Security, proliferation and the balance of power in the middle east what impact it may have on irans malign activities and hegemonic ambitions in the region, what it means for perceptions of american credibility and resolve among our allies and partners and what the consequences are for u. S. Defense policy, military planning and force structure. When we consider these broader strategic consequences of the agreement, the second order effects what is already a bad deal only looks that much worse. To this committee perhaps of most concern attains to the verification and monitoring mechanisms. As been publicly reported the inspections of irans facilities will be conducted by the International Atomic energy agency, or iaea. There will be no americans allowed on the ground. And the details of how these monitoring activities will occur in certain important instances are contained in a separate agreement between the iaea and iran, which the u. S. Government and the congress have not seen. Furthermore, the mechanism to resolve the long Standing International concerns about the possible military dimensions of Irans Nuclear program is contained in another Side Agreement between iran and the iaea, which the u. S. Government and the congress have also not seen. To be sure much is known about irans past weaponization activities, but we can never know what we do not know. Which is why the director of the iaea has said that effective verification depends on resolution of the pmd issue. How that will occur we do not know. This presents a major problem. All of us will soon vote on the iran agreement and the merits of this agreement hinges on its ver fiability. And yet we cannot read key documents pertaining to these verification measures and our own government is not even a party to those agreements. I find that deeply troubling. What is more troubling are the broader military implications of this agreement. Iran is not just an arms control challenge, it is a geopolitical challenge. For years many of us have urged the administration to adapt a broader sfrat ji to counter irans malign activities in the middle east. Unfortunately that has not happened. Instead we have watched with alarm as irans military and intelligence operatives have stepped up their destabilizing activities and increased their influence in control in places like syria iraq, lebanon, yemen, bahrain and gaza. Iran has done all of this under the full pressure of sanctions. Now iran will soon receive a windfall of sanctions relief estimated at roughly 60 billion or possibly as much as twice that. Yes, a good amount of that money will surely go to irans domestic priorities. But its only fair to assume that billions of dollars that will float irans revolutionary guards corps and the cuds force money that will likely be used to boost arms supplies to iran easter ris approximate and double down on bashar assad right when he needs it most. This will present a host of new challenges for the department of defense. Whats worse, not only could this agreement strengthen irans malign activities in the region, its also likely to enhance irans acquisition of conventional military capabilities. For nearly a decade an International Arms embargo has significantly heard irans ability to build up and modernize its aging military. Throughout the Nuclear Negotiations the administration insisted that its diplomacy was limited exclusively to the nuclear file. Indeed just a few weeks ago general dempsey told this committee that quote, under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to Ballistic Missile capabilities and arms trafficking. And yet thanks to lastminute concessions by the administration that exactly what this agreement would do. At year five the International Arms embargo will disappear and iran will be free to acquire advance military capabilities such as fighter aircraft, attack helicopters, warships and antiaccess weapons. In year eight International Restrictions on irans Ballistic Missile programs will disappear and iran will be free to acquire through entirely liscit means for ever more sophisticated Ballistic Missiles. In all of this iran will not only have billions of dollars with which to go on a shopping spree in the International Arms market, but it is also sure to find plenty of states that are eager to sell those weapons, especially russia and china. In this way the iran agreement not only paves irans path to a nuclear capability, it will further irans emergence as a dominant military power in the middle east. This has direct and dangerous implications for u. S. Armed forces. The ultimate guarantee that iran will not get a Nuclear Weapon is not 109page document. It is the capability of the u. S. Military to do what is necessary if all else fails. And yet this agreement would enable iran to construct the kind of advanced military arsenal that could make our military option far costlier to employ. Instead of enhancing our deter rens of iran, this agreement seems to enhance irans deter deterance of us. The u. S. Members are called upon to take action against iran, their lives could be at greater risk because of this agreement. And that is perhaps the most troubling aspect of all about this agreement. What it means for americas credibility in the middle east. Since 1979 republican and democratic administrations have sought to contain the Islamic Republic of iran and prevent it from acquiring Nuclear Weapons capabilities. Our allies and partners have entrusted much of their own security to the United States because theyll believe our commitment, were credible. In this way americas role in the region has been to suppress security competition between states with long histories of mistrust and to prevent that competition from breaking into open war. I fear this agreement will further undermine our ability and willingness to play that vital stabilizing role. Our allies and partners in the middle east have increasingly come to believe that america is withdrawing from the region and doing so at a time when iran is aggressively seeking to advance its hegemonic ambitions. Now weve reached an agreement that will not only legitimize the Islamic Republic as a threshold Nuclear State with an industrial enrichment capability, but will also unshackle this regime and its longheld pursuit of conventional military power and may actually consolidate the Islamic Republics control in iran for years to come. After turning three decades of u. S. Foreign policy on its head is it any wonder that this agreement may lead our allies and partners to question americas commitment to their security . As that happens these states are increasingly likely to take matters into their own hands and indeed we already see evidence of that. These fateful decisions may well manifest themselves in growing Regional Security competition new arms races, Nuclear Proliferation and possibly conflict. All of which would demand more not less u. S. Leadership and presence in the region. It would be ironic but not historically unprecedented that a diplomatic agreement intended to decrease risk of conflict actually increased those risks instead. All of us hope that will not be the case now but it is the job of the Defense Department to be ready when our highest hopes fail us. And i fear there is much work to do. I welcome the witnesses, senator reid. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Good morning, secretary kerry, secretary moniz, secretary lew, secretary carter, general dempsey. Your parts before the Committee Comes a little more than two weeks after the world woke up to the news that after 20 months of negotiations the p5 1 and iran agreed on the terms of the joint comprehensive plan of action. The agreement no matter your position on it is historic. And if implemented scrupulously could serve as a strategic Inflection Point in the worlds relations with iran for International Nonproliferation efforts and for the political and Security Dynamics in the middle east. And i commend the president and his negotiating team for their persistence and hard work. In the weeks ahead congress has a solemn obligation to carefully review the details of this historic agreement and to independently validate that the agreement will meet our common goal of stopping iran from acquiring a Nuclear Weapon. Todays hearing is part of that obligation and i look forward to your testimony. Secretary kerry, you were the key architect of this agreement and your willingness to take on what im sure feels like a thankless endeavor is to be commended. I hope you will help us understand why it is your assessment that this agreement is a good deal and how you intend to direct our diplomats in the field to work with our partners in the region to address Iran Destabilizing activities in the region. Secretary moniz, you played an Important Role in negotiations. And you too have been a strong advocate for the comprehensive plan of action throughout. During your testimony i hope you will help us understand what gives you confidence in the technical safeguards build into this agreement particularly with regard to one the cutting off of irans pathways to Nuclear Weapon two, the crater to grave access and audibility of the supply chain, three, the dedicated procurement channel to manage all purchases triggerless and dual use items and, four, the iaea Additional Protocol for enhanced inspections and its design of detecting elements of the covert Weapons Program. And finally irans enrichment program. Secretary carter you are a unique secretary of defense with a ph. D. In physics. Having so much on Nuclear Weapons, i look forward to your insights to these elements as well as those of secretary moniz. Both secretary carter and general dempsey while neither of you were part of the negotiations you have both recently traveled to the middle east to speak with your counterparts about the agreements potential implications for Regional Security. During meetings you undoubtedly heard assessments of our partners and allies on a range of issues including how to pursue to expand its support to terror proxies and invest more heavily in its military. These are serious concerns and ones which i share. Our partners in israel see iran as a significant and ongoing threat to their National Security interests. While Prime Minister netanyahu is unlikely to ever endorse this historic deal, it is incumbent upon the United States to deepen further our cooperations with israel and better understand the concerns of the israelis. Its also critical our partners and allies in the middle east know the United States will not abandon this region in the wake of this Nuclear Agreement and we will continue to stand alongside them as we confront common state and nonstate threats. The may 2015 joint statement following the u. S. And Gulf Cooperation Council or gcc meetings at camp david provided a road map for how the administration intends to proceed. It also makes clear the department of defense will be at the forefront of these efforts. Critics point to related to irans Ballistic Missile capability. Camp david insurance statement outlines our enhancement of the Ballistic Missile capabilities gcc and improving operatability in order to counter irans irans terror proxies. So as to better enable our partners to confront irans asymmetric capabilities. These are important efforts i look forward to hearing about today. I want to make one final point. These negotiations focused on denying iran a pathway to a Nuclear Weapon. A nuclear iran would be a more Formidable Force in the region. And as it has repeatedly demonstrated not a force for peace and stability, but one that supports terror and seeks to impose its will throughout the middle east. Moreover, a nuclear iran would likely prompt a Nuclear Arms Race in the region that through action or design could lead to catastrophe. None of us would condone or ignore irans support of terror or other destabilizing activities in the region. But properly focused on Nuclear Weapons. The history of arms control makes this point. As fred caplin pointed out, the United States strategic arms signed throughout the cold war didnt allow disavow communism, or institute jeffersonian democracy. They capped and later years reversed the Nuclear Arms Race and provided a forum for diplomacy, a cooling off for the time where no other issue could have done so. I look forward to the panels responses and continue to understand this agreement and evaluate capacity to cut off all pathways to Nuclear Device and provide longterm warning of violations so that an appropriate response can take place. Thank you. Thank the witnesses for being here today. And secretary carter, could we begin with you . Yes mr. Chairman. Thank you. And with your leave i think that you prefer thats fine with us, if only i and general dempsey make opening statements. I hope thats agreeable to the other witnesses. It is. It is. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you Ranking Member reid. Thank you all the members of the committee for giving me the opportunity to testify this morning on our Defense Strategy toward this critical region in the wake as senator reed noted of my travels to the region last week the chairmans also and of course very importantly two weeks after the conclusion of the joint comprehensive plan of action. Im pleased to be joining joined by my fellow cabinet members who can talk in detail about that agreement reached in vienna. That deal is an important step, one brought about by the leadership of president obama, the persistent diplomacy of secretaries kerry, moniz and others. Crippling sanctions that secretary lew led and that Congress Helped put in place. Its a good deal because it prevents iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon in a comprehensive and verifiable way. Once implemented it will therefore remove a critical element of risk and uncertainty one element of risk and uncertainty. But a critical element of risk and uncertainty from the region. For those reasons and those my colleagues have provided in testimony before other congressional committees i urge you to support it. I also urge you to support the broader elements of the Defense Strategy in the middle east i will describe including and especially by supporting a stable and reformed Defense Budget be implemented. The successful negotiation of this deal is one part of our broader defense policy. The most influential power in the world we have responsibilities all over the globe. The middle east remains important to Americas National interests. And as a result the department of defense is committed to confronting the regions two principle security challenges iran and isil. The departments strategic approach to protecting our interests in confronting those challenges will remain unchanged. We will continue to maintain a Strong Military posture to deter aggression, to bolster the security of our friends and allies in the region, especially israel. To ensure freedom of navigation in the gulf. To check irans malign influence. And to degrade and ultimately defeat isil. Were also continuing to advance our military capabilities that provide all options as the president has directed should iran walk away from its commitments under this deal. Last week i was in the middle east and i had the opportunity to visit with some of our men and women in uniform who are carrying out this strategy. I know how much all of you care for them. And like me youre proud of their impressive work. And ill tell you this morning what i told them. Were continuing full speed ahead, standing with our friends, standing up to isil and standing against irans malign activity. On isil as i testified earlier this month we have the right strategy in place built on nine synchronized lines of effort to achieve isils lasting defeat. But we continue to strengthen execution. Today in iraq and other places were working with partners on the ground and in Global Coalition to enable capable and motivated Ground Forces to win back iraqs sovereignty and peace on its own territory. I saw several parts of that effort last week and spoke with some of our partners on the ground. Were headed in the right direction in this counter isil effort. Weve made some progress, but we need to make more. On iran this new deal when implemented will place significant limitations on iran that will effectively cut off its pathways to the material for a nuclear bomb. But its also important to note that it places no limitations, let me repeat that, no limitations, on what the department of defense can and will do to pursue our Defense Strategy in the region. It places no limits on our forces. Our partnerships and alliances, our intensive and ongoing Security Cooperation or on our development in fielding of new military capabilities capabilities we will continue to advance. If iran were to commit aggression our robust forced posture ensures we can rapidly surge an overwhelming array of forces into the region leveraging our most advanced capabilities married with sophisticated munitions that put no target out of reach. Iran and its proxies will still present security challenges. Iran supports the assad regime in syria, backs hezbollah and lebanon whose fighting positions by the way i positions i observed firsthand during a visit to israels northern border with the Israeli Defense ministers and contributing to disorder in yemen and iran still directed hostility and Violence Toward our closest ally in the region, israel. In the face of that activity well continue to meet our commitments to our friends and allies in the region, especially israel and continue to build on our cooperation in meaningful ways. And i made that clear last week in israel, jordan and iraq. And i made clear well continue to maintain our reeng nall robust posture which includes tens of thousands of personnel and ground and merit im and air and ground Missile Defense. And despite the merits of the deal, that we have an enduring commitment to deterrence and Regional Security. Im proud to say our defense partnerships in the region have never been stronger and as i made clear in israel and as we agreed at camp david with our Gulf Partners as senator reid indicated, we committed to making them stronger and more capable against a range of threats. The United States will maintain the ironclad commitment to israels qualify tated military edge or qme. Well continue to provide israel with advanced capability for example next year it will if he our first and only friend flying the f35 joint fight striker. We continue to work on Ballistic Missile Defense Systems in fact three of them, the iron dome david sling and the arrow system for missiles of progressively increasing range. And were working mult yu laterally and by laterally to improve our Gulf Partners. At the gcc summit at camp david hosted by the president in may and last week with saudi leaders, i stressed a number of functional areas that are critical to enabling gulf countries to play a stronger regional role, including Maritime Forces and Ground Forces and especially special operations and air and Ballistic Missile and Defense Forces and cyber protection. We also conduct over 50 military exercises a year with our regional partners. And weve offered sophisticated defense equipment including theed that missile ballistic Defense System and long range ballistic strike capabilities to some of our Gulf Partners. In conclusion this is a good deal because it removes a continued source of threat and uncertainty in a comprehensive and verifiable way from preventing iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon and takes no option away from a future president. It is an important achievement and a deal that deserves your support. Meanwhile the United States and the department of defense and the men and women of the finest fighting force the world has ever known with your support will continue to be committed to the defense of americas interests, friends and allies to counter isil and irans malign influence and to uphold the president s commitment that iran will not obtain a Nuclear Weapon should it walk away from this deal. Thank you. Thank you mr. Secretary. General dempsey. Thank you chairman and Ranking Member and gentlemen for addressing your questions regarding the military deal with iran. Given our discussion before this body a few weeks ago ill keep my comments brief. As i stated previously i was consulted on the military implications during the course of the negotiations and provided my best military advice appropriately. If followed, the deal addresses one critical and the most dangerous point of friction with the iranian regime. But as ive stated repeatedly there are five other malign activities which give us and our regional partners concern. These run the gamut from Ballistic Missile technology to weapons trafficking to the use of surrogates and proxy and sea activity and last but not least to malicious activity in cyber space. It does not alleviate our concern in those five areas. It does not change the military options at our disposal. And in our ongoing efforts toen counter the iranian malign activities well continue to engage our partners in the region to reassure them. Time and iranian behavior will determine if the Nuclear Agreement is effective and sustainable. In the interim im continue to provide my best military advice and present military options. With that i stand subject to your questions. I mention to my colleagues we have a vote on right now and usually we bounce back and forth but i think that this is pofrpt enough important enough for us to recess until the completion of the second vote. I understand there is two that one is ending right now and the other is beginning. So i would ask the indulgence of our witnesses and i apologize if we could recess for approximately ten minutes while we are able to complete these two votes. I think this hearing is important enough not to have us bounce back and forth because i think all members would like to hear the complete testimony. So i again my apologies. Well stand down for ten minutes. [ pause in proceedings ] the committee will reconvene. And i want to thank the witnesses for their patience. Im sure they understand that from time to time we are required to vote. So i want to thank the witnesses for being here. And general dempsey your statement has been completed. And is there any other statements that would like to be made . Then well begin with questions and well have five minutes. Secretary carter the issue has arisen that there is Side Agreements that have been made between the iaea and iran that apparently the congress has not been made privy to. And could i ask that since these iaea Side Agreements have to do with with the Weapons Programs of the iranians and the inspection and verification of those programs will we in congress receive the information concerning those Side Agreements in order to make a judgment as to the degree of verification . Chairman i think it is important that the content of those agreements and the manner in which they provide for verification of the nuclear undertakings iran is making in this agreement and the procedures of the iaea be known to the congress. I cant speak for the actual specific documents themselves. Im sure secretary moniz or kerry can. But it is an important part of the verification of the agreement and obviously verification is an important part of any agreement. Let me ask secretary moniz if he wants to add anything on the specifics of the iaea. Thank you. I could certainly add that first of all, to be honest i would not call them Side Agreements in that the agreement in the jcpoa is that iran must cooperate for the iaea to complete the process on pmd. Then the iaea as is standard, negotiates a document with the country to define the protocols. The protocols are very important mr. Secretary. Are we going to be aware of the protocols because with any agreement with a country such as iran the devil is in the details. All i can say is first of all, i have personally not seen those documents. Which is astounding to be honest with you. That is absolutely astounding that you have not seen the documents about requirement for verification. All i can say is the agreement requires their cooperation with the iaea and this is the Standard Practice of the iaea whose independence is very critical to all of us. What is critical to all of us, mr. Secretary that we have verification of the of the inspection of iranian activities because they have a clear record of cheating. We agree. So we agree, all of us, i believe, that we should see those instructions of verification. Other wise how can we make a judgment as to this agreement that can be enforced and verified with a country with a long record of cheating. The iaea will of course then take the information that iran must provide by october 15th and complete their report and at that time i think well understand the iaeas confidence in their verification measures. Building up i might say a very long history of this. So we are then dependent on the confidence of the iaea not the actual viewing of the agreement and verification. I dont think many of us would agree with that process. General dempsey you told the Committee Just a few weeks ago quote, under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to Ballistic Missile capabilities and arms trafficking, now were seeing afterive years a relief of sanctions son conventional arms and of course eight years Ballistic Missiles. How does that kport comport with the terms of the agreement with the statement that you made before the committee. Well it wont surprise you chairman to know that my recommendation was to keep pressure on iran on the other malign activities for as long as possible and that was entered and made and entered into the negotiating process. I think time works for us as well as iran in this regard and so with the agreement made and having had the opportunity to give my advice i support it. Do you, secretary carter believe that iran will change its behavior as a result if this agreement is finalized . And have you seen any indication of that . I have not mr. Chairman, in speaking just from my own judgment. I dont foresee that or have any reason to foresee that. That is why it is important that the agreement be verifiable. That is why it is important that iran not have a Nuclear Weapon and that is also why it is important that we keep doing everything that we need to do, defend our friends and allies remain strong in the gulf freedom of navigation Ballistic Missile defense, all of the things were doing. We need to keep doing those things and the agreement doesnt limit us in any way. Obviously if iran changes its behavior, that would be a welcome thing. But i see no reason to foresee that chairman, personally. I see no reason to foresee it and i see them with about 50 billion or 60 billion with which to pursue those malign activities and ive seen secretary lews testimony and others worrying they are using it for domestic purposes and they are doing it now with the assets that they have. One can only imagine what they might be doing with 50 or 60 billion additional. I just would like to say again i know that the witnesses have very busy schedules and i am grateful that you sought to testify before the committee today in order to help us understand this issue and i thank you. Senator reed. Thank you very much, mr. Carter, you indicated in your statement, the United States has not given up any of the military options with respect to the region to the iranians and i would presume it has not given up any military National Intelligence with respect to iran. And those intelligence operations i would presume would be focused in great detail on potential violations of the treaty is that your sense too . Yes. Without going into detail here, certainly we have intelligence activities focused on the iran Nuclear Program. But we have on Everything Else they are doing, malign activity, kurds force, Ballistic Missiles, arms transfers the whole thing. It is a very important intelligence effort. And secretary moniz, i understand that general clapper yesterday indicated that he is confident, i think is a reasonable explanation, of the Intelligence Community to detect any significant violation of the treaties with or without direct contact of the iaea. Is that a fair judgment in your mind. Yes. Mr. Clapper and cia Deputy Director and National Intelligence director cardillo all made statements and clapper in particular said we would have far great erin sight into the Iranian Program with the agreement and i would add that far greater insight will persist essentially forever. General dempsey, and in your military assessment what is more effective in delaying or stopping the iranian Nuclear Program at this time or in the near future, a military strike or this p5 1 agreement . Well, first senator i would like to point out that the military options remain. Secondly, i think that a negotiated settlement provides a more durable and reduces near term risk which buys time to work with regionable partners to address the other activities. But there are five implications that you have invited me to talk about. The military implications if you would allow me please. It does reduce the near term conflict over the program. Second, another military implication is we have to sustain the options. They have to be preserved into the future. Third, there is clearly the opportunity for iran to use some of the revenue that they gain for malign purposes and that bears watching and collaboration with our regional partners including israel. Fourth, this will require us to strengthen our relationships and our collaboration in that part of the world. And derivative of that is fifth we should and will maintain our forward presence. Those are the military implications. The gcc, in terms of the military expenditures roughly double what the iranians spend and has the capacity of even gos much higher given their revenues. Is that a Fair Assessment . Double is probably the average, certain countries far more than that. And one of the factors that well have to work with our allies in the region is making sure the resources are focused and can deter or defeat any aggression or proxy aggression by the iranians and that is the whole point i think of the collaboration that you are undertaking. We have a series of initiatives with the israelis and the gcc to better position ourselves to address the other malign activities. And so we have a situation developing where the resources are available, were trying to reorganize in collaboration with the regional partners so they are much more effective to respond. So essentially, were not ignoring these hostile threats by the iranians on the ground through proxy and Everything Else we are indeed amping up our act its, is that activities is that fair. You know one of my abilities is to articulate risk and provide options to our leaders and how to mitigate them and this does cost us to have to increase our military we have to pay more attention to the malign activities. Thank you very much mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you mr. Chairman. Right now im in the middle of one of the largest bills and im the sponsor and thereafter therefore therefore i havent been in on all of this fun. And i read, this is in the washington post. President obama promised that niz nuclear deal with iran would not be based on trust but rather unprecedented verification. Now it turned out obamas verification regime is based on trust after all. Trust in two secret Side Agreements negotiated exclusively between iran and the International Atomic International Agency that apparently no one, including the obama administration, has seen. And it goes on to say it turns out only the iaea and iran have got to actually see it. However and then further in the u. S. News and world report it says by law the administration is required to provide congress with the contents of the nuclear deal in all relatediuumk but within that 100 billion there are contact youll obligations of iran to pay some to come to iran would be about 50 billion. Is that somewhere in the ballpark. Senator that is roughly correct. Im happy to walk down the numbers to the best of my knowledge. You dont need to. Im trying to get concepts here. The one thing i would add, there is between 50 billion and 60 billion accessible but that money is not sitting in that is where i wanted to go. That money is sitting in foreign banks. In china and india and other places. China india and japan and even taiwan and uae, those banks . Correct. So therefore if we denied the lifting of economic sanctions, that money is in the hands of foreign banks. What, in your professional opinion, is the likelihood that that money would be released . Well just to be clear to iran . It is money tied up because of iran. It is money they have sold oil and it is tied up in accounts and it is sitting there. And if this money is rejected, the question is what do the other banks do. I dont think theyll feel bound to hold the money the way theyve held it in a escrow away from iran, i think without a Nuclear Agreement, some of the money will start going back to iran if there is no agreement. If this agreement is rejected. So to recapitulate then, if we were to reject it the money is likely to flow because it is in the hands of foreign banks that would not be compelled to adhere to the United States wishes at that point. Is that correct . Right. And we do obviously have sanctions we could impose in other ways but this money is not sitting in u. S. Banks, we cant lock it up directly. We need the cooperation of other governments, other Central Banks and other banks in order to keep this money from iran. And just to add one more detail, i think the notion that a 50 billion or 60 billion check gets written is wrong. They cant spend all of this money. This is the foreign money they need to settle foreign transactions. They are doing transactions in some of the countries that are permitted, using foreign reserves as exchange. They still need to buy things overseas. They cant just spend all of the money or the ability to conduct International Commerce goes away. And as i said before they have hundreds of billion dollars of domestic needs. Well i cant say not a penny will go to malign purposes i never said that but it is highly exaggerated by thinking it is a 50 billion transfer. Mr. Secretary moniz can you explain to the committee the insight that you we the United States government, will have as a result of this agreement as their uranium centrifuge Program Number one, and number two, on their plutonium program as a result of the agreement stating there has to be modifications and or dismantlement of the plutonium reactor. Yes, senator. On the uranium centrifuges, the iaea will have daily access and the use of advanced technologies to make sure that all of the idle ones are locked up and used only as replacement for broken ones and they will confirm they are broken. In addition for 20 years well have containment and surveillance of all manufacturing of key centrifuge parts. So it is as general clapper said, we have tremendously enhanced insight into the program. On the plutonium well theyll be required to take out the core part of the reactor, fill it with concrete and then with International Collaboration and well be part of that. Well make sure that the replacement reactor is the one that reduces plutonium production by about a factor of ten. So it is way below the amount needed for a weapon. But secondly, theyve also agreed that belted suspendered that the plutonium where it resides, will be sent out of the country. So we have very, very good containment there. Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Sessions. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank all of you. Ive been a member and chair now of the strategic subcommittee and worked with senator donnelly and nelson over the years and it has been a view over the years that iran not have a Nuclear Weapon. It is a grave threat to peace in the world. Secretary kissinger, sitting where you are, set a few months ago, that if iran gets a Nuclear Weapon, he named turkey, saudi arabia, egypt would get Nuclear Weapons, proliferation dangers are very real and that is why the whole world and the u. N. Is very worried about this and i believe the initial error was the commencement of negotiations in 2009 after president bush had rolled back from that because of the behavior of iran. And experts in the region warned us that the iranians are exceedingly patient and that talking can be a trap and the deeper you get into this talk the less able you are to take corrective action and to alter the situation as we see it. So now were at the end. Iranians see longterm. And im afraid that we have endangered the goal that we have a unanimous nation world behind. Secretary carter, do you believe that iran represents the worlds foremost sponsor of terrorism . Lets see state sponsor, probably so. There are unfortunately it is such a kaleidoscope these days there are a lot of sources of terror but for state sponsorship i think that is a consensus. Secretary kerry testified yes to that yesterday in the house and i wish it werent so. Me too. And as a goal and dream that somehow iran can be brought in from the cold and we can work with them but i believe it was former adviser to president reagan bud mcfarland that said revolutionaries dont go back on the revolution and you believe that the Supreme Leader remains to the goals of the revolution. I only read what he says which suggests that he does. I think he does. I dont think he has any intention to abandon that. Hasnt he he was recently at an event and led a rally in which chants punctuated the rally, death to america death to israel. Do you believe that those reflect his views . Again, im not an expert, but i can read the newspaper and it certainly seems so and that is the reason to be so concerned about iran, irans malign activity support for terrorism and especially to make sure they dont get a Nuclear Weapon. That is key. I think that is the only conclusion we can reach. I think he means what he says. We can think it is strange and unserious and not serious but it is serious. It represents the radical ideological regime which makes this a pariah regime and danger to the world and that allows them to obtain missiles is also dangerous, even if it is five or eight years out, the iranians are very patient. You ask earlier about this and you said the reason we want to stop iran from having an icbm program is the i in icbm stands for intercontinental which means having the ability to fly from iran to the United States, and we dont want that closed quote. An that is a clear policy of the United States. But doesnt this agreement allow after at least eight years theyve been known to cheat to purchase on the open market items that would help assist them in building an icbm system capable of reaching the United States. Well, i am, and i think we all need to be concerned about the Ballistic Missile activities with or without this agreement. That is why Ballistic Missile defense is important, including Ballistic Missile defense of the United States. I spoke earlier about Ballistic Missile defense of israel which i think [ overlapping speakers ] and also missile ballistic defense for the United States and you say they shouldnt have this capability and we should stop it and does this agreement not allow them to purchase anything they need on the world market after the date in the agreement . No sir. Could i answer that. . The eight years represent the best that we were obviously able to negotiate with three countries of the seven who said there should be nothing. But we were comfortable accepting the idea of the eight which, by the way, still leaves us the eight years with chapt seven enforcement with respect to that but we were comfortable because we have a number of other tools already available to us, senator, which we can apply to be able to prosecute their efforts with respect to missiles specifically. We have the Missile Technology control regime. We have executive order of the president of the United States which allows them to sanction anybody providing anybody with any materials for any construction. We have the Proliferation Security Initiative with 100 countries that allows us to block the transfer of materials for weapons construction. We have the irannorth korea, syria none proliferation act. We have an additional two executive orders. So we have tools available to us way in the future. It seems the last agreement, this agreement would trump that no. There is no trump anything. These agreements are existing. I dont know what language is in the agreement for if it has no meaning, senator kerry. These are additional agreements outside of this agreement which allow us to continue to protect us with respect to missile development. We also have additional u. N. Sanctions that prohibit the flow of weapons to his boloa his bolo and prohibits the flow of weapons to houthi. But they are flowing now. Indeed. Because they havent been enforced. Because which is why the administration decided we need to do more effectively and which is why im meeting with the whole gcc in dougha to lay out the specifics of the proposal of how we are going to push back against iran. If i leave you with one thought senator, youve adequately and appropriately pointed to the rhetoric of the leader. And to the things they are doing. Simple question. If that is what they want to do are you better off preventing them from having a Nuclear Weapon or do you want to go right back to where we were when they had 19,000 centrifuges, 12,000 kilometers of material, enough for 1012 bombs, theyve mastered the fuel cycle to dont look 15 years down the road right now they have this ability and were stopping that. Were taking that away from them and providing a lifetime the senators time has expired. I wonder how that north korea deal worked out for you. Well senator, i can give you the complete senator mccaskill your time is expired. Senator mccaskill. You cant get that from me. I didnt cut the deal. Senator would anything constrain our ability to take any military action our country thought was necessary against iran. No senator. Secretary lew im concerned about the alternative to the deal and one of the things that i dont think has been covered enough in all of the testimony that occurred and i think all of us are following this closely, i got the point that senator nelson was trying to make that the money is not in our control and it appears looking at, if all of the other countries walk away from us if we reject this deal, that they are going to get the money one way or another, either theyll get the money because they are entitled to it if we do the deal or theyll get the money because we cant control it. But i dont know that is completely accurate and i think it is important. Because this is not about is this a good deal this is also about what happens if we dont do this deal. And i think it is important to talk about whether the power of the United States would have if this deal was rejected, to in fact, force our will on these countries that hold this money. We have a lot of tools at our disposal as the Major Economic power that we are. A lot of these are our nato allies. Obviously japan. So i think it is fair that we shouldnt just say if we walk away from this deal theyre going to get all of the money and theyre going to i think it is fair to try to drill down and try to give us a picture lets assume i know none of you want to assume this deal is rejected and lets assume it is. At that moment what power do we have as a country to keep this money from flowing to iran and its nefarious activities. Senator it is a fair question and nobody can give you an entirely precise answer because there is perfectly legal ways for them to use some of this money now. For example, if they buy chinese goods they can pay with the reserves held in china. They could acquire the things they need to and achip away at and chip away at those reserves. What our sanctions could do versus Multi Lateral sanctions. We have powerful unilateral tools. The United States is the worlds banking center. The dollar is a reserve currency. Transactions through u. S. Financial institutions are within our grasp. But that doesnt give us the ability to reach out to all foreign banks and foreign transactions. And i think that it is at our own peril if we have a sanctions regime where we are enforcing unilateral sanctions that the rest of the world is rejecting which is different than what has been going on over the last few years. We have worked around the world to do things against their own economic interest because they agreed with us on the imperative of stopping iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon. If they see us walking away from an agreement that would stop iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon the degree of corporation we get goes down considerably. It is not black and white wnd we go from everything to doing nothing but what made the sanctions regime so effective the last into years is the fact we have the international cooperation. India and china have been buying less oil from them than have been good for their economy. How do you enforce countries to do things against their interest. So there are things we is can do but it gets much harder. I appreciate that but i think it is helpful for those of us trying to analyze both scenarios so if you try to put in writing your best vision and our best effort at keeping iran isolated if in fact this deal is rejected. Because i dont think it is fair for us just to assume that we have no power if this deal is rejected. Because clearly we still have a lot of power. Im almost out of time but this is an important for secretary moniz and i know this is a hard question to give an exact answer to. But do you believe that if we walk away from this deal, iran has a Nuclear Weapon by christmas . Well, i cant really answer that question. But what i can do your best. I think it is important for us to know how close they are . They are a Nuclear Threshold state today. They could certainly generate the Nuclear Materials within months. Which is before christmas. And what is then the unknown is the degree to which they have completed we cant discuss right now other weaponization requirements. That is what of course the iaea in building up the dossier over many years which it now needs to complete have certainly south dakota fied and labelled iran as having had a structured program of activities relevant to Nuclear Weapons in the past. So it is a threshold state and that is the risk we face the deal will walk them back from that threshold and give us permanently more insight into any Weapons Program they might choose to pursue. Thank you mr. Chairman. Senator wicker. They are a Nuclear Threshold state and they have denied all along they had any intention of doing so up until the present time. I think that is instructive. I think senator mccaskill might be on to something here with regard to all of the options before us. My friend senator reid asked if we are better off with a negotiated settlement or a military strike. As if those are the only two alternatives. Of course we know those arent the only two alternatives. I wish our western friends, our allies were not so eager to leave the regime but we could goozs damning this agreement with faint praise i have to say. You mention there are six areas in which iran is a bad actor and you say five five of these malign activities give us real concern and you list but then you end and give us these words of assurance. Ultimately time and iranian behavior will determine if the Nuclear Agreement is effective and sustainable. That, sir, does not give me a confidence level and i just have to tell you that based upon your very brief and i think tepid endorsement of this agreement. With regard to the arms embargo as least as of the spring, we werent hearing about this. General dempsey when did you become aware there could be this huge relief from the conventional arms embargo and isnt it a fact that it caught you by surprise. Well, first, senator, i would ask you not to characterize my statement as tepid nor enthusiastic but rather pragmatic and i said from the start that relieving the risk of a Nuclear Conflict with iran diplomatically is superior to trying to do that militarily but i will sustain the military options in case that becomes necessary. As to your question about timing. I was consulted or asked for my advice episodically when military implications became part of the conversation. And probably about a week or two before the agreement was finalized, i gave my final recommendation regarding sanctions. Well, that is very late in the agreement and i with just say it seems to me the advice that weve been getting on the other side of this agreement down through the months and over time this massive retreat from conventional arms embargoes is something new and something very troubling. Let me just say, mr. Chairman in the minute i have left, that the assessment of the facts and the assessment of the effect this agreement will have, by neighbors in the region i think it should be so instructive to this congress. And i dont blame my friends on the democratic side of the aisle for having concerns also. It is striking that from right to left, every ideology of the country of israel is opposing to this. It is striking that the arab neighbors, the saudis and others, are alarmed at this deal. And i would submit to the record, mr. Chairman, in the closing seconds, an op ed by ari chafette, from left of center heretz in which he said the iranian negotiating team completed in destroying the weapons mechanism system. And he points out that the United States, european unite and russia and china recognize again irans right to develop advanced centrifuges which could be five to ten times bigger than the capacity of the old ones. This means mr. Chafette concludes that the International Community is not only enabled but ensuring a new iranian Nuclear Program which will be more powerful and dangerous than the predecessor. I submit this article for the record mr. Chairman. Without objection. Senator shaheen. Thank you for your efforts on this negotiation and for being here today. Secretary carter you were in the middle east last week. Can you tell us what you heard from our allies in the middle east about how they felt about this agreement, and specifically saudi arabia and israel . Obviously weve heard what Prime Minister net minister netanyahu had to say. Sure. Beginning with israel, Prime Minister netanyahu is very clear, as he has been very clear publicly to the opposition. We discussed that. And we discussed many other things as well. Hezbollahs activity on the border with lebanon. In fact, i visited there. Our Missile Defense activities, our cyber Security Cooperation, our intelligence cooperation, and a lot of other regional issues and we discussed many top topics but he was very clear. And excuse me for interrupted but would you agree with senator wickers interpretation that the israelis were opposing from left to right. I only spoke to this from the Prime Minister, the leader of the country as hes been publicly very, very clear. And what did you hear from some of our arab allies in the middle east. I spoke to the king of saudi arabia who repeated to me a statement he had issued a few days before supporting the agreement. He referenced that again i dont think this is violating any confidence that the verification and, as he put it, snapback provisions were particularly important to him, and he referenced those things. And then again we went on to talk about other things that are more related to the defense agenda including the his air forces munitions, Cyber Concerns that saudi arabia has and something we started to discuss at the gcc, namely saudi arabias role in countering isil which is a whole other subject. And did you hear from any other arab allies in the middle east that they support the agreement . I spoke to the jordans about it and again it wasnt a major topic with them we had a lot of other things to talk about but did not express any opposition. I dont recall exactly what they said. It wasnt the subject of our meeting there. Those are the three places that i met with. Thank you. General dempsey, is there a military option short of invasion that would roll back Irans Nuclear program more substantially over the next ten years than the jcpoa does in your opinion . Well, i would have to make assumptions about how often we would be compelled to conduct airstrikes or standup munitions. But the military options that exist would disrupt the program by several years but there is nothing to say we couldnt repeat it if necessary. And do you have is there any intelligence information to suggest what irans response would be should we engage in an air strike against them . I wouldnt say it rises to the level of intelligence, but the analysis suggests that they would counter or presence in the region at every opportunity and use these other malign activities that they have available to them. Thank you. Secretary moniz, there has been a lot of discussion about the 24day delay. Can you testify you testified in the Foreign Relations committee that the extent to which we would be able to detect nuclear activity, so uranium, in an extended period beyond the 24day delay, what if the act tichity does not include nuclear the activity does not include nuclear material. To what except do you believe we could detect other activity other than uraniumrelated or nuclearrelated activity . Well senator, first of all, let me reinforce the fact that having the 24day period is itself new in the sense there has never been any time limit in terms of access to undeclared sites. Again to repeat, on Nuclear Materials we have very, very sensitive capabilities and historically those have been proved and we can have more in classified context. With materials it gets more difficult. When one has Nuclear Weapons specialized activities such as explosively driven neutron initiators we would not be without tools to detect activities in that kind of a time period. But clearly as one gets farther and farther away from into lets say just explosive testing, which is something militaries do normally, then it is a question of intelligence putting together the context for suspicious activities, but nuclear material, in the end you need to do Nuclear Materials to get to the weapon and that is where we have extraordinary techniques. And senator, if i may add one more comment, to go back to senator wickers on the foounls, i dont know the particular article you quoted but it appears to have advanced the most advanced machines, the 5x, they have operating at full level and they are going to be dismantled before this is implemented. Thank you. Thank you mr. Chairman. Im informed that senator earnest is required to provide over the floor of the United States senate which is critical to her presence so i would ask the indulgence of my colleagues to allow her to proceed. Thank you mr. Chairman. And thank you colleagues. Gentlemen, thank you for being here today. This will be one of the most significant votes that we take as members of Congress Moving forward. So i believe it is imperative that we get this right. Not long ago the United States discovered that we had had a data breach at opm. Simple. Data personnel records had been tapped into, so that is just laying the ground work of where im going next. Secretary carter and secretary moniz, i am very concerned regarding the governments ability to detect deter and defeat Cyber Attacks on our government particularly by china, russia and iran. With respect to iran in particular, according to director of National Intelligence James Clapper iran has conducted Cyber Attacks on u. S. Government officials involved in nuclear none proliferation, hacking which compromised the Marine Corp Intranet sans Las Vegas Casino and attacks against u. S. Banks. In relation to the iran deal, these attacks with recent successful attacks against opm leads me to have less than confidence in our own Cyber Capabilities let alone the Cyber Capabilities of the iaea. It is vital they have a lock tight necessity vital to ensuring effective monitoring of iranian capabilities under the sooish attacks. Just simple yes or no secretary carter. Are you concerned regarding irans capability of monitoring iaea equipment through cyber. Im sorry, i cant give you a yes or no answer to that. Im very concerned about iranian cyber activity and you named three countries i could go on with the ones. This is a big problem. And i sadly i share the lack of confidence you have in the inadequate ys of the defense. In the Defense Department, when you think with all we have paid attention to protecting our own networks that we would be secure but we are not and we know that and it is not just iran but it is others as well. And that is why were trying to make investments in that area and pull up our socks in the cyber area but i cant reassure you on the cyber front. Im very concerned about this. Secretary moniz, yes or no do you share a concern this could be vulnerable . Oh, absolutely share a concern. But the iaea does have some Robust Technology in terms they are much more advanced than the United States . Well i didnt say that no. Look, cyber is tough. General dempsey also mentioned cyber is something that keeps us up all of the time. And we have to develop our capabilities. Fantastic. I have no confidence that we would not be able to know if there were tampering involvement going on as we try and monitor these activities or as the iaea tries to monitor these activities. The iaea is of course quite aware of this and they do have measures. And i hope that they improve those measures. I do believe that we are vulnerable as weve seen with our own infrastructure. And general dempsey, weve heard other discussion today about the choices that the president has with this agreement. Now two weeks ago many of our newt outlets usa today, others had quoted president obama is the choice as the Iran Nuclear Deal or war. This seems to be a military decision and i understand that you advised the president on these issues. Is that what you have told the president , is that we either take this deal or we go to war . No. At no time did that come up in our conversation nor up in our conversation, nor did i make that comment. Who is advising the president , then, that we must go to war if this deal is not signed . I cant answer that. I can tell you that we have a range of options, and i always present them. And i thank you for that because i do think and i think its imperative that everybody on this panel understand that there are other options available out there. And a multitude of options. We are taught in the military about d. I. M. E. , diplomatic options, Information Operations military operations and economic types of sanctions and opportunities that we might have. So for the president to outright reject everything but war is outrageous to me. And i do hope that you are able to better advise him that he needs to be careful with his language because that seems to be the rhetoric we are hearing out there is that we either go to war or we accept this deal. And i reject that premise. And as long as we agree that military strikes on a sovereign nation is an act of war, but there are things between here and there. Absolutely. I agree general dempsey. Thank you, gentlemen very much. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thanks, mr. Chairman. General dempsey, you answered well, first of all, let me than everybody at this table for your service to our nation and the hard work and dedicated service that produced this agreement whether we vote for it or not and i have made no decision for myself. I think the nation owes you its gratitude for the hard work that youve done. Is it fair to say, general dempsey, that the breakout time for iran to produce enough material for a Nuclear Weapon will return to what it is now about two to three months after the tenyear period . I dont know that its fair to say that because i think that some of the Additional Protocols and things which are out of my area of expertise could inhibit them for a longer period of time. Lets assume for the moment that, in fact, the breakout time is reduced at the end of that tenyear period to essentially what it is now. Will the United States be in a stronger or weaker position militarily if the military option is necessary for some future president . The chairman earlier correctly pointed out that iran could procure some Weapons Systems that could make our military option more difficult but will not make it more impossible. And i think the answer to your question, senator, is it depends how we use the time between now and then, and weve got a plan with our allies in the region to increase their capabilities over that period of time. So if we use the timewisely and we have the resources necessary to do it, we should not assume we would be in a weakened position. Because the expectation has to be that the iranians will use that time to build their conventional forces, at the very least, theyll have more revenue from various sources as the sanctions are lifted, substantial revenue, is that correct . Yes, but they are starting from an treerdextraordinarily weakened position conventionally. But in the asimymmetric position they are starting from what changes in military force structure do you think the United States has to take both to make sure that our National Security is assured and also that our allies is as well . What specific changes should the Armed Services committee be supporting in the near and longer term . Well, i mean, thats almost a separate hearing, but i would suggest to you that we really need to have the kind of budget certainty that the secretary of defense has articulated, and then secondly that we should not at this point in time consider reducing our force presence in the middle east area of responsibility. Secretary liuew, let me turn to the economic sanctions that could be available which my colleague from iowa has mentioned. Can those be put back in place . Can the United States alone, even without our allies, use its finance system and its banks to implement a severe sanctions system . Norsenator, we certainly have very significant tools that we have used unilaterally and we could use again unilaterally but what weve seen is the impact of multilateral sanctions that have truly had a crushing impact on irans economy. Its brought them to the table. Theyve reached the agreement that were here discussing. I think the notion that we can unilaterally equal or surpass that is something that is inconsistent with what weve learned we may not be able to equal or surpass it, but we can certainly make a significant and also severely damaging effort if we choose to do so. We can. And what i would say, importantly, the snapback provisions that are in this agreement, if iran violates it, make it so that both the u. S. And the International Sanctions would be back in place that puts us in the strongest position. The challenge will be to mobilize our partners. I dont think its a challenge. The way it was constructed its a very strong snapback provision. The International Sanctions snap back in a way that we can work our will by exercising a veto if theres a disagreement with us. Secretary kerry did you have a comment . I noticed that you seem to be well, sears a surreality here. And with all respect the senator from iowa was not here, but the president of the United States is not mandating war. He doesnt want to go. Its not his choice. And hes not advocating war. What he is saying is that if you analyze the alternatives here and this is what i mean by surreality, when you say could the United States continue some sanctions, to what end . To negotiate . I mean, with whom . You think the ayatollahs going to come back and negotiate after hes already secretary kerry the time has expired. Please finish your remarks. Can i just say one thing, senator . Yes. The reason that the president talks about the possibility of war is iran has already made it clear that if this is rejected, they consider themselves free to go back and enrich and go back to where they were with the 12,000 kilograms 10 to 12 bombs, et cetera. And the inevitable consequence of that will be what are you going to do about it next step. We will have lost the International Support because the International Community is ready to enforce this deal. If were not unilaterally, they walk away. So you have huge difficulty with the sanctions, and you lose your capacity to have the support for the military strike. If there had to be one. Its not a choice the president wants to make, but its the inevitable consequence of them moving to assert what they believe is their right in the furtherance of their program. Senator ayotte . I want to thank the chairman and all the witnesses for being here. I also want to take this opportunity its probably going to be the last time that general dempsey testifies before the committee. I want to thank you for your dedicated service and for the service of your family. And i know, general that when you appeared before the committee on july 7th, i was actually the person who asked you about there had been floated some views in the press at that time that iran was pushing for lifting of the resolution on Ballistic Missiles and the resolution of arms which we now know are in the agreement at five years and eight years. Just to be clear when you came before the committee then, you said under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran on those issues. So was it your military recommendation that we not agree to lifting of those sanctions . Yes. And i used the phrase as long as possible. And then that was the point at which the negotiation continued. But yes, that was my military advice. Thank you. I also wanted to ask you about an issue i know senator ernst had talked about, the iranian cyber activity. And a number of years ago we saw that there was an interruption of Irans Nuclear program through some other cyber activity, i think, was reported called stucksnet. And that was reported in the press, i believe. In this agreement according to paragraph 10. 2 of annex 3 of the deal, the United States is actually obligated, under this agreement, to help strengthen irans ability to protect against sabotage of its Nuclear Program. It might be hard for americans to believe that we would agree to help iran protect against sabotage of its Nuclear Program in light of its prior intentions. And general dempsey i wanted to ask your opinion on that. Do you think its a good idea for the United States to help iran actually protect its Nuclear Program against sabotage . I hadnt thought about that, senator. I would like to have the opportunity to do so. I will say there is, back to this cyber question that was asked earlier, i think next would this committee and the senate will consider some cyber legislation that weve been eager to see passed for some time so we can get ourselves better protected. Well, when we know that iran continues malign activity on the cyber front, the idea that we would agree to help them protect its Nuclear Program against sabotage, and i assume, as i read this language that that would also obligate us to inform the israelis inform iran if the israelis were undertaking any kind of activities that might undermine its Nuclear Program, at least if were going to adhere to the plain language of this agreement