Meanwhile, the United States, the department of defense, and the men and women of the finest fighting force the world has ever known will continue, with your support to work in americans interests defend allies, and upholds the president s commitment that iran will not gain a Nuclear Weapon should it walk away from this deal. Mr. Mccain thank you. Mr. Dempsey. Mr. Dempsey i will keep my comments brief. As i have stated previously i was consulted during the course of the negotiations and provided my best military advice. It addresses a critical and the most dangerous point of friction with the iranian regime, but as i have stated repeatedly, there are at least five other areas of concern from weapons trafficking to the use of surrogates and proxies in naval minds and undersea activity, and last but not least, to malicious activity in cyberspace. The negotiated deal does not change the options at our disposal. We will continue to engage our partners in the region to address these areas. Ultimately time and iranian behavior will determine if the Nuclear Agreement is effective and stable. In the interim, i will provide my best military advice and options. With that, i look forward to your questions. Mr. Mccain we have a vote right now, and usually we vote we bounce back and forth, but i think this is important enough for us to recess. I would ask the indulgence of our witnesses. I apologize. If we could recess for 10 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 again, my apologies. We will stand down for 10 minutes. Congress has not been made privy to. Could i ask that since these side agreements have to do 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 . Mr. Carter chairman, i think it is important that the content of those agreements and the manner in which they provide for verification of the new year undertaking a ron is making in this agreement and the procedures of the iaea would be known to the congress. I cannot speak to the actual specific documents themselves. Im sure secretary kerry can. But it is an important part of the verification of the agreement, and obviously verification is an important art of any agreement. Let me ask if he wants to add anything. Cleggs first of all, to be honest, i would not call them side first of all, to be honest, i would not call them side agreements. The iaea i, as a standard, negotiates a safeguards confidential document with the country to define the protocols. Mr. Mccain those particles are very important mr. Secretary. Are we going to be aware of those protocols, because we know with any agreement, the devil is in the details. Critics personally, i have not seen the documents. Personally, i have not seen the documents. Mr. Mccain which is astounding. All i can say is their agreement requires cooperation with the iaea, and this is the Standard Practice of the iaea, which is critical to all of us. Mr. Mccain what is critical is that we have verification of the inspection of iranian activities because they have a clear record of cheating. We agree. Mr. Mccain so we believe, all of us, that we should see those instruments of verification. Otherwise, how can we make a judgment as to whether these agreements can be enforced and verified with a country that has a long record of cheating . The iaea will take the information that iran must provide by october 14, and at that point, we will understand to be iaeas confidence in their verification methods. Mr. Mccain 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 talked with the committee a few weeks ago. Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to Ballistic Missile and arms trafficking. Now we are seeing after five years of relief of sanctions on conventional arms and eight years of Ballistic Missiles. How does this comport with the statement you made before the committee . Mr. Dempsey it will not surprise you to know that my recommendation was to keep pressure on iran for as long as possible. I will say i think that time works for as as well as a ran in this regard. With the agreement made and having the opportunity to give my advice, i support it. Mr. Mccain do you believe iran will change its behavior if this agreement is finalized and have you seen any indication of that . I have not, and speaking from my own judgment, i have no reason to foresee that. Thats why its important the agreement be verifiable. Thats why its important iran not have a Nuclear Weapon. Thats also why it is important that we do everything we need to do to defend our friends and allies, remain strong in the gulf, freedom of navigation, ballistic whistle defense, all of the things were doing. Ballistic Missile Defense all of the things were doing. The agreement does not limit us in anyway. If iran changes its behavior, that would be welcome, but i see no reason to foresee that. Mr. Mccain i see no reason to foresee it, and i see them now with about 50 billion to 60 billion with which to pursue those activities. I hear secretary lew and others say dont worry, they will use it for domestic purposes. They are doing it now with the assets they have. One can only imagine what they would do with 60 billion additional dollars. I know the witnesses have very busy schedules. I am grateful you sought to testify before the committee today in order to help us understand this issue, and i thank you. Senator reid. Mr. Reid thank you very much. You indicated in your statement that the United States has not given up military options with respect to the iranians. It has also not given up any military intelligence or National Intelligence with respect to iran. Those intelligence operations, i would presume, would be focused in great detail on potential violations of this treaty. Is that your sense . Yes, without going into detail here, it certainly is that we have intelligence activity focused on the Uranium Nuclear program. But on Everything Else they are doing. Malign activity, cuts force Ballistic Missiles, arms transfers, the whole thing. Its a very important intelligence effort. Mr. Reid i understand that general coffee indicated that he is confident, i think is a reasonable explanation, of the intelligence communitys ability to detect any significant violation of the treaties with or without direct contact with iaea. Is that a fair judgment in your mind . Yes cia director the the cia director and others all made statements that we would have far greater insight into the Running Program with the agreement. I would add that far greater insight will persist essentially forever. Mr. Reid general dempsey, in your military assessment, what is more effective in delaying or stopping the Iranian Nuclear program at this time or in the new year or in the near future . A military strike or this agreement . General dempsey i would like to point out that military options remain. I believe a negotiated settlement provides a more durable and reduces nearterm risk, which buys time to work with regional partners to address the other malign activities. But there are about five military implications. You have invited me here today to talk about the military applications. The first is it does reduce the risk of a nearterm conflict with iran over their Nuclear Program. Another military implication is we have to sustain those options. They have to be preserved into the future. Third, there is clearly opportunity for a ran to use some of the revenue they gain for malign purposes, and that bears watching in collaboration with our regional partners including israel. Fourth, this will require us to strengthen collaboration in that part of the world. Fifth, we should and will maintain our foreign presence. Those are the military implications. Mr. Reid in terms of the military expenditures, roughly double what the rainy and spend . What the iranians spend and has the capacity of going much higher, is that a Fair Assessment . Generall dempsey double is fair. Mr. Reid we have to make sure those resources are focused and can determine or defeat any aggression by there rainy ends or proxy aggression by the iranians or proxy aggression. We have a series of initiatives with the israelis to better position ourselves to address those other malign activities. Mr. Reid we have a situation developing rather resources are available. We are trying to reorganize in collaboration with the regional partners so they are much more effective to respond. So essentially, we are not ignoring these constant threats by iranians on the ground. Indeed, we are in a sense camping up our activities. Is that fair . Dash cam thing amping up our activities. Is that fair . This does cause us to increase our military we have to increase our attention to malign activities. Mr. Reid thank you. I am right now in the middle of one of the largest bills of the year. I am the sponsor. Therefore, i have not been in on all of this fun. I read this morning in the washington post, that president obama promised that the nuclear deal with iran would be based not on trust but unprecedented verification. It turns out it is based on trust after all, trust in two secret side agreements negotiated separately that apparently no one, including the Obama Administration has seen. Only the iaea and iran have yet to actually see it. The u. S. News world report says by law the administration is required to provide congress all contents of the deal. Secretary kerry do you agree with that an analysis of the law and what your requirement is . Mr. Kerry senator, let me just say to clarify the earlier part of the question, congress will be fully briefed on this agreement in a classified session, and indeed, one of our key negotiators, the day to day lead negotiator, wendy truman, was briefed on it, and ernie moneys was likewise briefed on it, so we are aware of what the basics are. It is standard procedure in the countries that have an agreement with the iaea, that are signed up with the mpt. Senator my question is, are we entitled mr. Kerry correct. Those that are part of the agreement, per se. This is by reference, and no country has access to the confidential agreements directly of the iaea. Senator i dont mean to interrupt you, but my time is limited. I cannot imagine that this would not be part of what we all were briefed on. Yesterday when congressman poe last the question, secretary rice said she asked the question, secretary rice said she had seen the deal and was going to share it with congress. At the same time or prior to the time that secretary rice saw it, did you see it . Mr. Kerry secretary rice has not seen it. She has been briefed on it. I gave her the exact quote. She has been briefed on it, she hasnt actually seen it. Senator i will give you her quote and make sure it is in the record. She said she did see it and did evaluate it. She said six days ago she had seen it and reviewed it, and that congress will get to see it in a classified session. Mr. Kerry senator you are quoting congressman poe. I corrected him with the direct quotes that we took from public record. Her quote is that she has been briefed, not that she has seen it. Senator i dont think that is correct. Mr. Kerry the White House Press briefing senator the hill magazine had something about that, and it was prior to the time it was six or seven days ago that we had a confidential briefing. I was there. You were there. Most of the people at this table were there. In a classified session you cannot say what was said, but was that addressed at all . Mr. Kerry it was. A question came up about it and the answer was given that of Course Congress will be briefed with respect to the contents, and of course you need to be briefed. Everybody needs to be briefed. Senator my point is that was a classified session where we were to be briefed at that time and we werent. Mr. Kerry i dont think we had the full material too brief. I didnt have it come anyway. But we are prepared, and i think Wendy Sherman is going to be briefing shortly on that. What we did providing can provide is the actual roadmap that the iaea put out and the iaea has issued a full roadmap of their expectation senator i understand that. But i am talking about the secret document. Mr. Kerry its a confidential agreement. Its being postured as this its a confidential agreement which is the standard of the iaea. We have lived with the iaea for years. Historically, they always create what is called a comprehensive safeguard agreement, a csa which they negotiate with the country, and we dont get that its not shared with the world. The reason it is confidential has to do with what you can get out of that country, but we do get briefed on it. We are aware of it. Secretary moneyonize may have tightened it up a bit. You have confidence in it. Senator i would say as chairman it is incomprehensible that we did not have full access to that and i think most people agree with that. But my time is expired. Thank you. Mr. Mccain senator nelson. Senator nelson thank you gentlemen all. Thank you for your public service. Secretary loew, i want to go down a different road. We have heard so many commentaries about how much of a windfall the sanctions relief would be for iran. We have heard over 150 billion dollars. The chairman is speaking of 50 billion. Tell me if this is correct. Sanctions relief of what has been withheld is about 100 billion. But within that 100 billion there are contractual obligations of iran to pay some 50 billion, and therefore, the net that would approximately come to iran would be about 50 billion. Is that somewhere in the ballpark . Jack lew that is correct. The one thing i would add is there is between 50 billion dollars and 60 billion that is accessible, but that money is not sitting senator but thats where i wanted to go. That money is sitting in foreign banks, is it not . Jack lew it is sitting around the world in china, india and many other countries. Senator china india japan taiwan uae, those banks . Check loop correct. Jack lew correct. Senator therefore, even if we deny the lifting of economic sanctions, that money is in the hands of foreign banks. What, in your professional opinion, is the likelihood that money would the released . Jack lew to be clear, that money belongs to iran. It has gone in foreign accounts and it is sitting there. If the deal were to be rejected, the question is what do the other banks do. I dont think they will feel bound to hold the money the way they have held it in escrow away from iran. I think with out without a Nuclear Agreement, some of that money will start going back to iran, if this agreement is rejected. Senator so, to recapitulate, if we were to reject it, the money is likely to flow because it is in the hands of foreign banks who would not be compelled to it here to the United States wishes at that point, is that correct . Jack lew we do have sanctions we could impose in other ways, but this money in banks, we could not lock it up directly. We need the cooperation of other governments and Central Banks to keep this money from iran. Just to add one more detail, i think the notion that somehow a 60 billion check gets written is wrong. This is the reserve they need to settle foreign transactions. They are already doing transactions in some countries using foreign reserves and exchange. They still need to buy things overseas. They cannot just spend all this money or their ability to conduct International Commerce goes away. They have hundreds of billion dollars billions of dollars of competing domestic needs. While i cannot say they will not use it for malign purposes, i have never said that, i do think their ability to use this has been exaggerated. Senator can you explain to the committee the ability the United States government will have on the uranium and plutonium programs as a result of the agreements stating there have to be modifications and or dismantlement of the plutonium reactor . Price yes, senator. On the uranium centrifuges, we will have yes, senator. On the Uranium Center fuses centrifuges, we will have technology to make sure the idle ones are locked up and used only as replacements for broken ones. For 20 years we will have containment and surveillance of all manufacturing of the centrifuge parts. As general clapper said, we have tremendously enhanced insight into their program. On the plutonium they will be required to take out the core part of the reactor, fill it with concrete, and then with international collaboration, and we will be part of that, we will make sure that the replacement reactor is the one that produces reduces plutonium production by a factor of about 10, way below the amount needed for a weapon. Secondly, they have also agreed that the spent fuel for life will be sent out of the country. We have very good containment there. Senator thank you mr. Chairman, and thanked all of you. I have been a member of an chair of the strategic Sub Committee over the years. It has been a unified view of the worlds developed nations that iran not have a Nuclear Weapon. It is a grave threat to peace in the world. Henry kissinger sitting where you are said a few months ago that if iran gets a Nuclear Weapon, proliferation dangers are very real, and that is why the whole world is very worried about where we are. I believe the initial era of negotiations commenced in 2000 nine after president bush had pulled back because of the behavior of iran. We have been exceedingly warned that talking can be a trap, and the deeper we get into this talk, the less able we are to take corrective action and alter the situation as we see it. Now i am afraid we have i