Including ambassador burns, forceful in saying its important that we send a Strong Military message should any agreement go forward. And when it comes to sales and transfer of arms and other things, you began to speak to this. I want to give you the time to address, what military options, what are our strongest saupgzoptions that we still have and how we can act on this. Im going to give all three of you the remainder of my time so you can answer some questions and i wont be interrupting you. Thank you congressman. Let me say quickly because i want my colleagues to have a chance to catch up here. But on the european partners, france in the final comments when they signed on to the agreement, it was bastille day. July 14th. And the foreign minister said that he thought this agreement was not only a strong agreement, but he hoped it would be remembered in the same way as having the positive impact for the world, the way bastille day was remembered as having the impact for the development of france. And they supported this agreement and voted for it. With respect to north korea and iran, this is a very different agreement from anything that ever existed with north korea. There are about seven or eight different major differences between the north korean agreement, not the least of which north korea pulled out of the npp, and north korea had already exploded a Nuclear Weapon, and iran has not. And there are many differences. And we, i would rather lay them out on the record, if we can. But this covers all possible nuclearrelated activities. The agreement with north korea did not. We also have consent to the process of inspections. North korea i mean, there are a whole series of things. Finally, on the military option, i said it again and again. Everybody has. Ash carter has reiterated it. President obama is the only president who has actually commissioned the development of a weapon that can do what is necessary to deal with the facilities that are at risk. And he has not only commissioned its design. He has deployed it and he has made it clear that iran will not get a weapon. Hes prepared to use any option necessary in order to achieve that but his preferred option is the one he is pursuing here, which is a diplomatic solution. And which resolves this issue in a way that avoids the conflict that some people seem to be not even addressing, which would be almost inevitable as a consequence of not accepting this deal. Ernie . In terms of the first question about the dynamics with the eu or the other partners in general, first of all on the Nuclear Dimensions side, i should emphasize i have talked about our team but every one of the six countries had technical experts involved. They had very robust discussions we did not share our own classified discussions, but made sure we were coming out in the same place. To be honest, in many areas we pushed the envelope. In some areas, they pushed the envelope. The good news is i think we all came out of this very satisfied with the technical dimensions accomplished the job of blocking Nuclear Weapons pathways. There are some specific examples one could give in terms of additional infrastructure removal from centrifuge places in terms of 20 uranium issues, but these were very robust. I think all six countries feel very, very confident in our conclusions. Congressman, i think on the sanctions side, we have very different systems here in the United States and the eu. And the questions were getting on irgc underscore we need to look at our system and their system and understand theyre different. Theyre not enlisting the irgc for terrorist activities. If they do, at the end of phase two, the list for nuclear, the terrorist sanctions still stays in place. So i think people looking at the document ought to understand what is actually going to be in place after its in effect. And i think the cooperation with the europeans requires we not distort what theyre doing. Theyre not taking the rgc off the terrorist list. Thank you, gentlemen. I have received numerous questions from people in texas and i will submit those for the record. Theyre Pretty Simple questions, but i will submit those for you to answer. The secretary kerry, this question is for you. Following up on chairman mccauls comments about the secret deal, secretary rice said that she has seen this deal with the iaea and that it will be shared with congress. So if shes seen it have you seen it . I dont believe that susan rice, National Security adviser, has seen it. I think she said she did six days ago. She said six days ago she had seen it and reviewed it and that congress will get to see it in a classified section. My question is have you seen it . No, i havent seen it. I have been briefed on it. But you havent read it . You havent seen it. Let me ask you this its in the possession of the iaea. Are you going to read it . We dont have access to the actual agreement. Secretary rice has access to it but you dont have access to it. I dont know about that. Thats just what she said. Im just going on what she said. Is the policy of the United States still that iran will never have Nuclear Weapons . Yes. Is it the policy of the ayatollah, if you can answer for him, that iran wants to destroy the United States . That still their policy, as far as you know . I dont believe they have said that. I believe they said death to america in their chants, but i have not seen specifics. I kind of take that to mean that they want us dead. That seems like it would be their policy. He said that. You dont think thats their policy. Im not mincing words. Do you think its their policy to destroy us . I think they have a policy of opposition to us and a great emnity. I have no specific knowledge of the plan by iran to actually destroy us. I do know that the rhetoric is beyond objectionable. I know that we you know are deeply concerned with irans behavior in the region. Deeply concerned with their past activities. Which is why president obama felt reclaiming my time. I got your answer. Let me ask another question. Im reclaiming my time, senator. Thank you, secretary kerry. We heard a if they did want to destroy us, they have a much better shot of doing it if they had a Nuclear Weapon. You dont know if its their policy. Thats my question and thats your answer. Next question is it our policy or our belief that after the deal, whether the deal is approved or not, do we have a policy in the United States that we want expect, desire a regime change by the people of iran to have their own, say, free elections . Weigh in on our policy toward a regime change in iran. Well as you know congressman, president obama was very outspoken with respect to support for transformation in iran around the time of the elections. Our policy today is specifically focused on pushing back on their activities when in the region that destabilized the reenggion threatened israel our friends and allies. That is specifically where we are gearing up to take a specific set of steps that will define a new Security Alliance with the region. Okay so we want to push back. We want them to stop their naughty ways. But regime change i mean, i personally think the best hope for the world for safety including in iran, is for the people of iran to have free elections and the people of iran really decide who their government should be in a free setting. Let me ask you another question. Secretary moniz. This might be my last question. If i understand the agreement the oil sanctions, which is prohinted iran from exporting oil, thats going to be lifted. Is that correct . Well sanctions are relieved. That would be among those relieved. Under this deal, thats one of the ones that will be relieved . If the sanctions are relieved, yes. Now being the secretary of energy, let me ask you this. Why are why is the United States lifting the sanctions on the exporting of oil on iran but were not lifting its sanctions on america exporting crude oil like texas sweet crude . We dont have sanctions on our exports. We have a congressional law that in the 1970s restricted exports. Do you support that law being changed . You know thats the question. Do you support the law this time has expired. Ill put that in the record. We need to go to david sis illini. Just a point of personal privilege. I wanted to make sure we knew what we were talking about on the record that properly reflects this. Susan rices quote is we know their contents and were satisfied with them. We will share the contents of those briefings in full and classified sessions with congress. She has not seen them. She has been briefed on them. And that of course reclaiming my time. We are still looking forward to that briefing. But now we must go to david of rhode island. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses. Not only for being here today but for the ongoing conversations, and i want to particularly thank the administration for really making sure that members have all the information that we need as we navigate through a very sober decisionmaking process with enormous consequences. I thank all three of the secretaries for their service. I have a series of questions that im not asking to support a conclusion that i have already made but actually to help me in arriving at the right conclusion. I would like to set forth the questions, recognize you can answer some, and the others, if you would submit in writing i would appreciate. The first is on parcheen the agreement says that the iaea will provide progress reports by october 15th and then the final assessment by december 15th. We know obviously this is a site where there was Nuclear Testing of some kind. My first question is is it at all concerning that this final conclusion or the set of final conclusions might inform in a substantive way whether we should go forward and is there any concern there will be something revealed in this report that will impact whether or not iran is in compliance from the outset . Thats the first question. Because youll be asked to vote on in the first round of sanctions relief will be provided before that december 15th date. Second question is its been argued that were in the same position in 15 years with no options off the table except the economy of iran will be fortified, theyll be able to withstand sanctions in an enhanced way, and that the ability to reassemble this International Coalition will be very difficult as the countries will be doing business and reengageing with iran. Do you agree with that assessment . Or do you conclude that thats a sensible tradeoff that some have suggested . Third, you concluded mr. Secretary this agreement makes our world, our allies, including israel, and the region safer. I have no doubt you have concluded that is correct based on your best assessment. If you would just provide for us kind of some thinking of why it is that the current israeli leadership does not see it that way. You know, as they obviously have sort of come to a different conclusion. Why do you think that is . Four, after 15 years, iran most have suggested, is a Nuclear Threshold state. But that they must negotiate comprehensive safeguards again with the iaea. And whether or not i know theres been some discussion, have you seen those, but do we have some ability to influence what that agreement is . Do we have any ability to influence its content or monitor their compliance Going Forward . Thats between iran and the iaea. Fifth, is the likelihood of an International Consensus remaining if a deal is rejected . What happens if the deal is rejected . Some have suggested actually some top level israeli officials suggested iran will comply with the terms of the agreement. Well get relief from other partners, and the u. S. Will be isolated. Others have suggested iran will rush toward the development of a Nuclear Weapon with no constraints. Is there any reason to believe iran would comply with the terms of the deal if its rejected and not proceed quickly to a Nuclear Weapon . If the weapons six, if weapons are transfers to hezbollah during the fiveyear period, which is a violation of the u. N. Resolution but also a violation of the interim agreement, would that constitute a violation and cause snapback . In these intervening five years, if arms are sold to hezbollah . And finally, what will happen to the u. N. Security resolution specifically the listing of the arms embargo and the provisions if congress does not approve the agreement . Do those remain enact . And the last question, secretary lew, they described the process in which noncompliance in the agreement might result in sanctions snapping back to the u. N. , but this would only work in major violations. How would the administration treat minor violations . I invite, maybe to start with you, secretary lew. The ones you cant get to, i appreciate your answers and thank you for the work you have done. Ill start with the snapback question. We have reserved the right for snapback in whole or part. Obviously, if theres a small technical violation, that will not bring back the whole sanctions regime. The goal would be to get them back in compliance. If theres a need to make it clear that violations that are small will get a response we have the option of putting some of the smaller sanctions back into place. If theres a major violation, we have the option of putting, of course, all of our unilateral sanctions and ultimately going back to the u. N. For the International Sanctions as well. We have all the authorities we need to do that. Arizona. Thank you. Mr. Secretary you said you said no country would accept anytime anywhere inspections, but i submit iran is not a normal country. Iran is a terrorist state under a heavy International Sanctions. Its neither got the moral nor the geopolitical equal of the United States. Or our negotiating partners and i think we have to stop treating it like one. It aspires to be a regional power, the u. S. Right now is the only world superpower. And my question is this really the best deal we could get given the fact that we seem to have most of the cards . And we have had most of the cards since these sanctions were imposed. Secretary moniz, you said the deal includes anytime anywhere in the sense of a welldefined process and a welldefined end date. But all that depends on iran acting in good faith. We shouldnt make the assumption because iran has been stonewalling the iaea on the military dimensions while claiming to cooperate for years. Theyre doing that as we speak. First, the process is not just 24 days. If iran balks, its a minimum of 24 days. Before the clock starts the iaea has to tell iran about the concerns about a particular site and they have to provide an explanation. But theres no time limit. Does anyone believe that iran will respond immediately for the back and forth discussion for negotiations wont take place . Only after these delays in the high barriers are taken care of at best, maybe can the iaea make a formal request and start the 24day clock. But at the end of the 24 days, theres no punishment if iran says no. Instead, the matter goes to the dispute resolution mechanism which has lots of opportunities for delay and more barriers. Does anybody believe that the p5 plus 1, not this administration and certainly not the europeans will derail the entire agreement by imposing sanctions and restarting Irans Nuclear program just because iran is denying access to one sensitive site . More likely, there will be overwhelming pressure for a compromise. One thats no more substantive than whats in the final agreement. Kicking the can down the road is always one option. Its worked in iran for years. I think all of this led cia former director Michael Hayden to warn in front of this commitsy that the deal is taking inspections from the technical level and put it at the political level. And i just think thats a formula for chaos, obfuskcationobfuscation, ambiguity, and doubt. I think on the 24 days were kidding ourselves if we they think that the 24 days is the total length of the deal. I think it could be much much longer. And i would like to know how ultimately were going to deal once we do find infractions. My second question is of all the sanctions to be lifted in the Iran Nuclear Agreement, few are more significant than those against a shadowy 100 billion organization belonging to the islamic Supreme Leader. The u. S. Delisting the headquarters for the execution of the imams order will pump 10s of billions of dollars into the supreme leteaders personal coffer bolstering irans ability to promote its agenda abroad. Its estimated hell gain access to as much as 95 billion. The u. S. Treasury designated ico and 37 subsidiaries in june 2013 noting its purpose is to generate and control off the books investments shielded from the view of the iranian people and their regulators. Explain why ico will be designated . Congressman, im going to turn to ernie for the first part of that because its important to understand the 24 days. You are, i say respectfully, misreading the 24 days. By the way, thats an outside period of time. It could be less than that. Its very possible it could be 18 days or something. But ernie, why dont you discuss that . First you started out with the question of iran being unique in terms of verification. Thats why we have the verification system in this agreement that is unparallels. This goes beyond what anyone else has accepted because of the distrust built up over iran. The iaea can cut that off any time by declaring their request for access, and then the 24day clock runs. It is not the beginning of dispute resolution. Its the end of dispute resolution. In fact, at that point, theyre in material breach. You asked about would there be a response if it was, quote, only one site . Well, im going to turn it over to my colleagues, but i want to emphasize in the snapback it says in whole or in part. So a graded response is possible. Going to go to mr. Alan grayson. Mr. Secretary i have five minutes. I have ten short questions. Im hoping for ten short answers. Will implementation of the agreement increase irans support of terrorism . You want these . Yes. We have no way to know. I presume in some places possibly. Only