In this context does indefinitely mean that time period has not been established or does it mean perpetually . It means that under this agreement and under the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty, iran is prohibited from pursuing a Nuclear Weapon, updating, acquiring or developing one. Ever, ever. So it really means perpetually, yes. Under the code, does iran have the right to enrich up to weapons grade uranium after the expiration of the cap . No. If they indeed move to enriching to what we would consider weapons grade that will raise a red flag to the entire international community, to the iaea. There are very few circumstances where iran needs to for Peaceful Nuclear purpose of enriching above 5 . One could argue for submarine fuel perhaps but indeed if they went to weapons grade it would raise instantaneous red flags and we would see it as a major noncompliance. Enrichment over 5 start to essentially raises red flag with the exception of submarine fuel speak with submarine fuel and may be one or two other things. Im not an expert but i could ask mike was sitting behind but very few. One would be submarine fuel . I think it is 20 could be 20, some are higher. So thats a big distinction between five and 20, but are you basically saying that if the amount of fuel enriched didnt specifically the quality profile of the nuclear submarines, that i would be a red flag . So essentially its 5 . 5 or less. In terms of after the one of the distinction i should make his for the to run Research Reactor which helps to make medical isotopes for Cancer Research or Cancer Treatment in iran uses 20 , but this agreement says that we will provide fabricated fuel for the to run Research Reactor overtime tehran. We of the controls on the so cannot be used for other purposes. How much enriched uranium above 5 code iran star without creating a red flags be quick to point. Mr. Szubin reminds me for 15 years iran is not allowed under this agreement to enrich beyond 3. 67 . So the concern youve raised only begins to raise those red flags after those 15 years. They are allowed for the speakinseekingis to have a stocf 300 kilograms. That is not enough to provide enough this material for Nuclear Weapons. But after the seeking if they can have more than 300 kilograms so theres no particular limit at that point . There is not a limit but, of course, begin we would look at an everincreasing stockpile and understand the reasons and uses of the. One of the things that is very clear because we have uranium accountancy for 25 years, centrifuge production for 20 years, they have to make a declaration to the iaea of their additional protocols, research and development over the long term, that there will be many, many metrics for measuring what they doing with their program for a very, very long time. Because my time has expired my last question is, when you look at snap back, its kind of a sledgehammer approach. Given the scale of violations, is there a scalable response . Yes, senator. We have reserved the right to snapback in whole or in part and thats a quote from the agreement and predicted with her unilateral sanctions, we can do with the u. N. Sanctions and the eu has assured similar right. Putting back in place in a sector, all the way through to full snapback. Thank you. Senator cotton. Turn one. I have to note that it was an eight Minute Exchange between senator schumer and the witnesses about the meaning of the grandfather clause. I think that some can answer out of the but also note Administration Officials have said repeatedly iran will exploit every ambiguity to their advantage i can only imagine what they will say about that clause if it come to pass. But moving on, secretary sherman, theres a lot of commentary about access, access to Irans Nuclear sites, military sites throughout the jcpoa. Secretary kerry, secretary moniz have talked about managed access. Can you assure us that this access will actually be physical access . Iaea inspectors will be physically walking into the site and taking samples or installing equipment . I think that every situation is different, senator, and that the iaea has the capability, the expert knowledge to make sure that whatever they do can be technically authenticated. So i cant go through every hypothetical situation. I know the that directorgeneral amano will get asked this question by our colleagues in singapore Relations Committee but what i am assured of is that whatever they do in every circumstance where they believed they need to access, they will be technically authenticated and eliminate the standards that they must have and that they require for insurance verification. The answer that sounds like is no, we cannot be assured that iaea inspectors were physically and personally be present on every you know, you dont have to be physically present on every site in this technological world to get done what is necessary. Our labs can walk you through those parameters as well. Who will decide what is and is not a military site . Well, i think the better way to respond to your question is to say if the iaea believes it has justification of access to the site, we have a process to ensure they get that access, whatever that site is, military or nonmilitary. Can iran do Research Universities to be military sites because they have justification to enter any site regardless of what it is an excess of Group Provides a process to assure they will get access. The United States would not agree to an agreement where access was not assured if the iaea believed it had to have it your that is what we have in this agreement. Are you aware of actions the government of apprentice didnt get sent i think sensitiv sinces suspected sites since the date of the jcpoa . Im not going to discuss anything that would be considered closely but theres meeting this afternoon and will be prepared to answer questions. Lets move to the deals from the iaea and to render you acknowledged that you read the cited groups between the iaea and iran. Anyone else in the United States government reduce aggregate speak with yes. Some of our experts did as well as all of the p5 1. Can you give an estimate of how many officials read the site agreement . A handful. I would have to stop and think. You said earlier to senator Corker America on the confidentiality of these agreements between the iaea and a rant but if youve read speed actually it is the iaea in every country with which it is safeguard confidential protocol. Outcome to the animal but the fact that you have read them under the Us Government officials have with them, doesnt that undermine the claim of supposedly confidentiality . We are showing them in a confidential setting and i will share with the United States senate as ive done with house leadership chairs and rankings may confidential understanding, and will hopefully keep them in a classified setting. How long are these documents the . Very short. Like the roadmap is the . I would have to stop and think back but a very short. Why are these document classified . Its not a u. S. Government, not recovered, not subject to extensive collection methods. Iran knows what degree do. You know whats in it why are these classified . So the reason is they are what are called safeguard confidential. Under the comprehensive safeguards agreement to which we are also a party, we have confidential safeguard, confidential documents and protocols with the iaea between the United States and the iaea, as do all of the countries that are under the csa. The iaea has committed to keeping them confidential. And so, therefore, they are committed to keeping these protocols under tsa confidential as well. Im aware that that is a statement. You also gave senator corker us and youre not implying any kind of moral equivalence between the United States and iran. Absolutely not. I said to a senator, you are not yet here, senator cotton, that i understood that this was a very turf different circumstance and since we can to keep iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon and was an International Understanding that had been negotiated among the sixparty and iran. So yes, i understand this is different circumstance, which is why i believe the iaea at an expert level shared the protocol arrangements, understanding they would be classified, and i made clear to the iaea under our system i would be required to share in a classified confidential setting with members of the United States congress what i had seen, and i will do so this afternoon. Did you make it clear that u. S. Law, u. S. Law was signed in the middle of these negotiations required congress to receive a text of all agreements to include agreement to which the United States is not a party . Indeed our understanding of the legislation that was passed by the house and senate is that we must give you every document that we have come and weve given you every document that we have spent the legislation says all agreements. It doesnt actually matter whether the United States has it in its possession or not. Its very difficult to give you something we do not have. Did you make that clear to iran and iaea at the time speak what they are quite well aware of our legislation. I pressure they follow you every single the. Fascinating interview today from secretary kerry and jeffrey, if congress to vote no on this it would be screwing the ayatollah, and then secretary kerry says that if Congress Rejects that the original iran quote american is not going to negotiate in good faith but it didnt negotiate in good faith now and that would be the ayatollahs point. Surely be made clear to iran that congress had to vote on the day before it could go forward and, therefore, they should not be operating under such a misperception speak was of course the new congress was going to vote on mr. Everything was very public. Everything that happened here in our country is transparent, democratic and public and we are very proud of that. Are you concerned about congress during the ayatollah . I have not seen his energy. Im not going to comment on it. What i will comment on is that secretary kerry, secretary moniz, myself, the negotiating team have been working diligently on this for over two years, having previously United States senate and congress countless times, hundreds of times quite frankly, did everything they could to ensure the safety and security of the United States, thats our solemn obligation and thats what we did. Thank you. Senator warner. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im going to start by simply saying i appreciate what youve been doing. I think many of us have concerns about components of the deal. Many of us are like the monday morning quarterback but i find it remarkable that some members seem to mq that you were not there trying to get the best deal possible for the United States of america, and our longterm prospects of stability in the region. I may agree or not agree with what you negotiated and ive got more Due Diligence to do, but i would never question the approach you took or the dedication that you have taken and is processed. Mr. Szubin, clear your actions, both administrations working on this brings a lot of history and commitment, and i believe you want to make sure that we follow up, particular on iranian actions to stabilize actions in the region. I do want to continue on what senator sasse asked about what would happen if we dont act your there are some who put forward a theory because, had said if the United StatesCongress Terms of this agreement down, that iran would still come with still be in irans best interest to go through implementation date so that, together nuclear stockpiles, and some parts of the reactor so they could still obtain 50 billion plus dollars and affect isolate america since the rest of the world would be otherwise online. You want to comment on the theory . Senator, obviously its always dangerous to speculate about how cement plant, especially highly complex International Scenarios like the one youre describing. Deployed made earlier is important industry fac that whit isnt a black or white answer. The u. S. Were to retain our sanction because Congress Rejects the deal and certainly for our part within implement the sanctions, that is our obligation to do, we would still see some international enforcement, whether its on the oil slick, on the reserves site. That would begin to erode a special in the snare your describe where iran actually goes through with its commitments in order to isolate us, to show they are not a good actor to comply with all the commitments and the u. S. Is the one who walked away. Thats a snare i very much hope thait doesnt occur but it woule terrible for us in terms of our sanction, in terms of our credibility. When the exercise of these authorities, extraordinary authorities, we need to do so in a way thats meaningful and where people dont we are ready to act. I very much hope it doesnt come to that. It would be a situation of we can leverage. It will not be zero, not 100 but weakened and the question then is could we turn we can leverage into a much stronger deal . My assessment is no. Ambassador sherman, any other comment speak as i couldnt agree more. In fact, if we walk away, even if we retain some sanctions capability, and we will of course enforce our laws, the rest of the world will go in another direction. And more importantly iran will go in another direction and the president of the United States, whether it is president obama are the next president of the United States will face but theres a separate premise, with a walkway immediately or go through the publication date. We dont know but i doubt very certainly, if the United States sanctions remain in place, iran will proceed that weve walked away from the deal and they no longer have to stick with it. To questions. I will try to stay within my time. One is that, one of the concerns is the administration did say when congress for tougher sanctions and move forward, switch notions, using the swift system it was reluctant from the administration about us taking that step. I think in retrospect taking that step was important, effective and help tighten down the sanctions. I do wonder if we dont move forward though, you know, will we be prepared to move forward with those same sanction, particularly as we look at sanctioning the bank of korea, the bank of japan, comments on that . Id like to get one last question recognizing everybody has got a little overtime. Its a very stark scenario that youre depicting because the institution youre talking about are some of the most significant and fundamental institutions and International Financial sector, whether its swift who is the leading messaging company for banks worldwide, whether its the largest commercial banks in korea, india, the central bank of japan. The prospect of us having to our sanctions authorities against those entities is frightening. But if we chose to reject it, that would be our policy . It within the threatening those institutions unless they come along with the u. S. Approach on this. Let me just get my last question in. A statement you made earlier, i think further exploration on i got to the 24 days, i was surprised at first about that time, still have some concern but lisa have a little more clarification. One of the things that you said and i think its an artful process you created, not unlike other members of Permanent Council to have a veto. We in effect have a default veto. But what kind of assurance can we really have that our current eu partners and friends in uk for example, if, in germany, if they engage in a major way with iran on a basis basis going forward, that they will stick with us, how do we get more comfort around that . I think that this comfort is the one that acting under sectaries up and gave which is in 2012 we were in the same circumstance where, in fact, europe have lots of business with iran, a lot of businesses in iran and they were very concerned about iran having a Nuclear Weapon and moving down that pathway into the joint is enforcement of not on our unilateral sanctions but under own sanctions and multilateral sanctions and, in fact, enforcement and Companies Like siemens and others all had to leave. Id like to more particularly from our european allies on that matter. I would urge you to speak with him directly but i think you get the right answer you were looking for. Senator warren . Mr. Chairman, if i could i would like to yield to senator don and come back when it is my turn. Thank you. I want to thank senator warren for her kindness on that and thank you both for your hard work. In regards to parchin and the iaea agreement, moving ahead in parchin and every other facility, is it your understanding that they iaea can get into every facility that if they choose to, that they can go in there physically themselves as opposed to having iran turn over materials . That they have physical access . Id be happy to get into this in greater detail in a classified session, senator. What i can tell you is that whatever the iaea ladies that it needs to do to have a technically authenticated result, for whatever access to the belief they need to have, they will get it. If they believe they need to physical access to a place, that will not be denied . As i said, whatever they believe they need for a technically authenticated process, they will get under the agreements tha