The region and that is worrisome obviously. In your opinion, do you believe that if we acted in a unilateral manner to impose new sanctions or reimpose existing sanctions, not based on breaking the nuclear dual but based on other activities that we could impose sanctions in the area. Congressman, we believe that the acts on terrorism and destabilization are an area of concern. We have been putting sanctions in place. We reserve the right to put parts delisted on the list again if they are violating terrorism or destabilization provisions. I think that we have powerful tools and i think the world knows we mean to use them and i believe our credibility in doing it has to be for real. We have to be listing people for reasons of terrorism and regional destabilize is. And you feel we have the tools. We definitely have powerful tools. I will yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you. We go to geoff duncan of South Carolina. Thank you. Secretary kerry there are still three or four americans in prison in iran. I put their pictures here to remind you of them today. I understand not using them as pawns in negotiation, but what should have been what should have happened is they should have been released as a precondition before ever sitting down with iran for anything. And with that i yield to mr. Desantis from florida. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina. Secretary kerry for the Side Agreements between the iaea and iran can you agree one is about the Parchin Military site and the other is about the possible Nuclear Dimensions of the Nuclear Program. I believe there is one basic agreement which contains the approach to the pmd. So can you confirm that the congress will not im advised i think the two appendices, apparently. And is it your testimony that congress will not get to review those agreements before voting on no congress will be briefed on the contents of the agreements per what we know. We will not be given the actual agreements i dont believe you get the actual agreement. The problem with that is that the Iran Nuclear Agreement act that Congress Passes and president obama signs required the executive branch to provide congress with all documents and defined that to include any Side Agreements and so the executive branch has a Binding Legal agreement under the agreement to provide all documents including the side deals. We dont have a side deal so we are in compliance. The iaea is an in dependent agency and provides in a nuclear act with all due respect applies iran has with any other parties, any agreements implemented or prior to the agreement or implemented in the future so if there is an agreement between iran and the iaea under the Iran Nuclear Agreement act that needs to be provided to congress and if you are not in compliance with that act how is the clock even starting to rub for the run for the 60 day review period. Congressman im not sure legally that the congress of the United States has the power powerful as it is to be able to dictate to the iaea a change in its procedure. That is not what were doing. We passed the bill and the president signed it and we laid out the conditions we dont have the agreement. Youre not going to request the agreement and bring it so we can review it. Congressman we dont possess the agreement. Those are protocols worked out to satisfy that the iaea agreement on resolving the which are important because we need to know the pmd and know about parch in to evaluate the efficacy of the agreement you negotiated. The iaea will provide the report on september the 15th which summarizes which is after the window that congress has to review the agreement so were not privy to that information and asked to cast a vote on this. Let me ask you this secretary kerry, you alluded to previous questions if iran cheats we can snapback the sanctions but the problem i see is in the agreement itself it says iran states if sanctions are reinstated iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under the jcpoa in whole or in part. So if iran is doing incremental cheating and there is sanctions reimposed if you do that iran will walk away from its commitments and so for me it is structured in a way to allow iran to get away with small violations because the cost of going to actually impose the sanctions would be to blow up the deal that you guys have spent so much time negotiating. Congressman with all respect, that is a misread of the paragraph and a misread of what we have here. The paragraph was requested by iran because they are afraid because congress kept rattling the saber about more sanctions and so they said, well what guarantee do we have if we agree to this that Congress Wont pass por sanctions on the same thing or not more, but take the sanctions we had and bring them back after we made an agreement and that merely says that we are not going to reimpose the same sanctions and put them back and it does not as secretary lew said it will not bring other sanctions for other things and the language said in whole or in part so we are allowed for any minor infraction we are not facing this draconian choice of bringing the whole thing and risking the whole deal we would bring a small amount. Remember the reason iran is coming to the table to make the agreement is they want the relief from the sanctions and if indeed they were in flagrant violation, all of our friends who helped negotiate this will stand with us all in agreement that we have to put the sanctions back. We must go to grace ming of new york. That generates the behavior from iran. Grace. Thank you to all of you for being here for your time and dedicate to this important issue and for spending so much time with us here in congress on the hill to discuss so many of our concerns. I want to ask during the negotiations did this law of the land the Iran Nuclear Agreement review act signed by president obama and known to all parties of the negotiation, was it known to all of the parties . Well obviously the other parties became very aware that congress was requiring a review period and they were very concerned about it. And so i want to bring up one example of during the Cold War Congress played a very Important Role in the development of nonproliferation agreements dealing with Nuclear Weapons specifically the testman treaty which i know was a treaty but we also have our law here. This treaty was initially blocked by the senate because of concerns over soviet compliance. The treaty was not submitted to the senate for approval for two years after signing and wasnt ratified until after the u. S. And soef yebt union reached agreement 14 years later on additional provisions to enhance americas ability to verify soviet compliance. So this all leads me to believe that congress should be and we are and we have the ability and authority to compel a better deal should it choose to disapprove of this one. What are the key differences between the jcpoa here and the cold war examples other than the fact that it was a treaty and there were multiple parties . Well, one of the principal differences is that we have not had any engagement or any dialogue with iran since 1979. And the lack of diplomatic relations which is different than what we had with the soviet union makes this a complicated situation. So you have to take and analyze what is achievable here in the context of the threat the Nuclear Program. And i believe given the nature of the political system in iran the challenges with respect to their own politics the notion that were going to be able to go back to the table, is just it is a fantasy. There is no latitude here. Because iran came to this table with enormous suspicions about even engaging with the United States. There was a huge debate in the country about whether or not they should. Whether or not we should be trusted and whether or not this was worth the risk. And many people in the country suggested we would not act in good faith. If indeed all of a sudden we stand up in vienna seven nations strong and the unationed nations support the agreement and we turn around and say we are not going to perform i think the Intelligence Community will confirm to you resoundingly we will not be back at the table certainly in the near future and i would think certainly not with this iranian government or leadership. One final question. Youve already obviously asserted that if congress does disapprove the International Sanctions regime will fall apart and iran goes back to two months breakout time. I understand russia and chinas top priority and interest might not be that of congress here in the u. S. But can you help me understand what the basis of the view of the two countries that would allow iran to fully violate the deal, why wont they hold iran to the Nuclear Commitments set forth in the agreement, and if they allow them to do that, then why do we also believe that they will be there with us in any sort of snapback scenario . Well, i think that iran that russia and china are very, very serious about the nonproliferation component as this, as serious as we are. Russia has agreed to export the spent fuel and process it in russia in order to help take this work. China has accepted major responsibility to be the lead entity with our cochairmanship on a committee that will offered to the iraq reactor in a way that is aprilable to us and they have taken on major responsibility. So they both have a huge interest in the nonproliferation interest of this but they both believe the other components of the resolution with respect to the arms and the missiles was thrown in as a addon in punishment not because it referred to the nuclear part of the resolution or agreement. The resolution of the u. N. Was a Nuclear Agreement and in that regard i think they would have serious reservations and did express sear yuz reservations well go to darrell issa of california. Thank you mr. Cheryl. I will be careful when i say secretary. Secretary lew, would the sanctions or the sanctions in place as of today effectively curtailing both the money flow and the economy of iran in a way that has brought them to the table . Congressman i think that the sanctions have been very effective at slowing the rate of groemg in the growth and the inflation high and the Exchange Rate of the currency unfairable. I dont think they have stopped doing bad things around the world and maintain fiscal challenges and malign activities which we have to stay focused on stopping even we have an agreement. But the question was did it bring them to the table or did they come out of good will . No. I believe the sanctions brought them to the table and the safrpgs were the sanctions were designed to bring them to the table. Secretary kerry, you agree with that. I do agree with that. I think sanctions and other strategic designs but i think essentially the sanctions crystalized the timing. And when i look at the sanctions lifted under this agreement, i looked at in the classified an ex, a long list of ships and aircraft and banks that will receive the relief under this, im sure youre both familiar with the 2030 pages. The question i really have here, because i think were all focusing on the nuclear deal but i want to focus on iran, a exporter of terrorism and a killer directly and indirectly of americans and a killer of americans since 1979 all of those sanctions that were agreeing to lift is there anyone who doesnt think that the sanctions and more are appropriate as long as they continue to export terrorism kill americans and others and destabilize not one, not two, not three, but at least five countries throughout the middle east. Ill start with secretary lieu from a stand port of the tools that were living, the 40 pages or whatever, single spaces, the things that can carry oil, move money and so on those are most of them most of them, equally effective, in deterring terrorism, arent they. Congressman, as a class we are listing for relief from sanctions entities and individuals who were violating the nuclear provisions. Right. But the entities are banks in many cases. So a bank that was designated as a nuclear violator stays on. So bank sattarat stays on the list. If they are institutions that are dlists and relisted under other authorities under terrorism, we have every right to do that. But delisting is what you would expect if there is a Nuclear Agreement. The Nuclear Sanctions would go away but other sanctions stay in place. And they can be again, congressman, i want to emphasis that we share with everybody the concern about irans behavior within the region and we have the ability to bring sanctions with respect to that behavior as we go forward. Well, let me just give you a hypothetical and it is not a hypothetical without some thought. What if, at the same time as we dont reject this plan, we bring you a package of new sanctions. What if in fact congress determines the only way we can accept this risk is if we can truly essentially snapback now relative to their promise, just day the day after you sign this, they promise to destabilize baja rain and continue doing what they are doing in yemen and the support for hezbollah and hamas and the supporting of assad regime and taking of hezbollah and with that threat and that continued goal and continued activity is there anyone reason that we should not either reject this agreement or and or include further sanctions in order to keep them from expanding their support for the murder of americans and our allies around the world an the destabilizing of the middle east one that is leading to an arms race. Congressman we have powerful tools to snapback sanctions. Not snapback. Im talking about the day they are doing this what would you say we should be doing if the gentlemen will suspend, we need to go on simply because the junior members do not have sufficient time. And so lois. Thank you, mr. Chair, thank you, gentlemen. Some quick follow up questions and some new ones. If there is new enrichment sites detected under the 24day rule, will those sites then become under a constant inspection . If a new site is emerges in this . Yes. Absolutely. Okay. And could you tell me how many countries other than the p5 1 are currently engaged in sanctions and how long would you say that did it take to have all of these sanctions in place to get iran to the table . Congressman, i would have to check the number but our sanctions and International Sanctions are being honored around the world so it is many many countries and it has taken us years to put that regime in place and i would have to underscore our looney lateral sanctions are powerful but the ability to have effect still requires cooperation and the International Sanctions without exist without cooperation. Weve spent a lot of effort for countries for whom at substantial economic cooperate they have tried to stop iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon. How how could a snapback it concerns now how you get a snapback. How secretary kerry said earlier, there is unity in keeping iran from getting Nuclear Weapons. If they violate a Nuclear Weapon and if a snapback is warranted because of nuclear issues, the international and the u. S. Sanctions would snapback. We are continue to prosecute our unilateral sanctions on things like terrorism and regional destabilization and human rights but there are different regimes. Once congress if we dont disapproval this agreement and if it goes forward, will the congress u. S. Congress have any role any further role in this Agreement Number one. Number two, can any president alter this agreement or refuse to abide by it in the future . Well, congress will always have a role obviously. And youve made that Crystal Clear in the context of what were doing here now. So yes. I mean, there will be an op going role with respect to the enforcement and implementation. Do we have to vote on anything . Afterwards. To repeal sanctions . Ultimately, yes. Ultimately the iran sanctions act itself, there is the lifting of sanctions ultimately you have to have vote, and if we dont do that, are there any penalties on our part . Iran is free to break the agreement because we would have broken it and all bets are off. Can a future president refuse to abide by the agreement . Absolutely. A future president can but its our judgment that if this agreement is fully implemented and working well no future president is going to choose to do that because the implications. If this is working it is achieving our goal of knotting having a Nuclear Weapon in iran. And just to be clear, the actual weapons is the actual sanctions are way down the road. Probably eight or more years down the road. I want to get to the troubles inspections. Are you saying there is no limit to inspections by the iaea, that it will go on forever . Yes. What im saying is there is a process, congresswoman. And who pays for that . Well it is paid we pay a certain element of the budget. It is a u. N. Agency. We represent certain percentage of the budget, 25 and others contribute to it. We train the inspectors. That is one thing we do and do very effectively. But it is an in dependent entity. Excuse me. It is a separate secret agreement we dont see that will allow this continuation of inspections . No. That is the continuation of inspections is under what is culled the Additional Protocol and that is exactly that. That is what we dont get to see. No, you can see absolutely. Can you read every component of it. And i was sharing some thoughts with the Committee Earlier about the things that it empowers the iaea to do. The kind of accountability is very in depth and significant. That is what i was trying to point out. This is not some light set of requirement. Well go to mr. Mull