Currently have and future sanctions, should they be ramped up, that we have the resources to actually do that. A lot of the questions i had have been answered already, so i would just say that i applaud the chairman for putting forward the proposal he has in terms of congress waiting in on an ultimate agreement. I hope that we are sensitive to these negotiations. I do believe, as many of us have discussed, if this jpoa were to continue in perpetuity, it would not be a bad thing. As long as that breakup time is significant enough and iran isnt progressing towards a Nuclear Weapon that is what our goal should be. I hope that we can stick with these negotiations. I hope that they are fruitful in the end, but im certainly willing to play as constructive a role i can as a member of this committee to make sure that happens. Thank you, senator. Senator cowans. Thank you for holding this hearing and the constructive relationship you and our Ranking Member have had. I support the administrations strong, determined efforts to bring iran to the table and the congressionallyenacted sanctions have made a critical difference in changing the trajectory of irans illicit Nuclear Weapons program. I have suspicions of irans intentions and actions, their support for terror, and developments in yemen that suggests a they continue to engage in activities not just related to their Nuclear Weapons program but in many other ranges that should give us d about any agreement with them. Nonetheless, i think weve made significant progress in continuing negotiations. I will just reassert that no deal is better than a bad deal. A deal that we cannot ultimately enforce and that we cannot ultimately live with in terms of where it leaves us in the longterm or shortterm is worse than no deal at all. One of my concerns is whether or not we will have the time to react, will be able to detect cheating, leakage, whether we will be able to sustain the sanctions coalition you have so successfully convened and put into place. Just a comment to the nominee to be the Deputy Director of the cia my congratulations on your great leadership and work in sanctions enforcement. One positive of the omnibus was an increase in the Research Resources for sanctions enforcement. Whether it is the lightning of the load senator flake referenced or an increase in resources, it is my hope and my confidence that your successor will continue the same determined enforcement of sanctions that has been the hallmark of your time there. Lets get into where this deal as imagined and described would leave us. One of my core concerns has expressed eloquently earlier by senator kaine is that we are no longer negotiating the dismantling of Irans Nuclear infrastructure. We are negotiating for them to retain enough facilities that we are positive that their breakout time is no less than a year. What does that leave us in 2021 or shortly thereafter . I know the exact length of the agreement is not finalized and how do we avoid the regional proliferation that would come from an agreement that basically locks in iran as a threshold nuclear power, and how do we ensure that the message that the world takes from this isnt that we have assented to their being a Nuclear Weapons capable power . First of all, we share your deep suspicions about iran and its actions. That is precisely why we are driving to get a deal that satisfies very stringent requirements. We fully agree with you that no deal is better than a bad deal. There have been other opportunities to take a bad deal. Some of our partners wouldve been willing to settle for things we simply will not settle for. We agree with the premise you and other members of this committee have put forward. In terms of where iran is at the end of this, in our judgment, the oneyear breakout time is critical but also very conservative. Besides the material for a weapon, they need a weapon itself. We will be vigilant about their efforts to return to weaponization. They need the ability to deliver a weapon. We will be vigilant about that. We are being conservative because quite frankly it is hard to imagine iran or any other country breaking out in that fashion when they get to one weapons worth of material. It would be much more logical to accumulate enough for several weapons. If we have one year, we believe that would give us plenty of time to take whatever steps are necessary to reverse that action. It may be resuming economic pressure. It may a military pressure. They wont be a threshold state at the end of this. They cant become a Nuclear Weapons state. They will there will be a permanent ban on weapons activity. They will have to ensure protocol that there is no undeclared program. There will be an extensive iaea safeguard to ensure that there is no diversion. For the duration, we will have enhanced monitoring and access. That will allow us to understand better than ever before every note, every cranny, every person every place every document involved, so even beyond the duration, that knowledge will give us much greater ability to detect whether they are trying in any fashion to breakout. At the end of whatever the duration is, we retain the capacity we have today to take action if they do something that threatens our security. We will be no worse off, and indeed we will be infinitely better off, even the knowledge we will accumulate over time about their program. The idea that iran would be treated at the end of this kind of agreement as a nonNuclear Weapons state was one that was first advanced by the previous administration. Indeed, our partners around the world, and this goes to what senator flake said a moment ago the purpose of the sanctions has been to get iran to the table in order to negotiate something that gives the International Community confidence that any program iran has is going to be for peaceful purposes. Should they violate those commitments, we would be able to do something about it so that as an effective matter, they cannot breakout. That is what we are striving to achieve. We hope that we can get there by march. Im concerned that centrifuge r d also be a part of negotiations. Perhaps in the first phase, it wasnt as fully embraced as it shouldve been. My sense it now is. There are two ways they could expand their breakout time, one of the accumulation of fissile material. I think the jpl way jpoa has dealt with it. The core concern Going Forward is that they would not be allowed in any way Going Forward to engage in the sorts of r d to change their breakout time on the backside. Any to shut down any sort of centrifuge r d. If i could for just 10 seconds, thank you for your kind wishes on my new assignment. I want to assure you, members of this committee, and anybody else who may be watching, the team that will remain a treasury after i move along is completely committed to ensuring that the implementation of sanctions will be robust, probably even better without me being there. That team i worked with closely over the past several years is the team that will remain. I am certain that our sanctions will continue to be very well enforced. You have done a great job with limited resources. I wish you the best of luck in your new opportunity. Senator paul . When our founders brought together our government, they brought together coweek of branches. The hope was that they would pick ambition against ambition. The ambitions of congress to maintain power would be pitted against an executive that would want more power. This back and forth would check and balance power. Im glad to see that there is some exhibition that on both sides of the aisle congress is trying to pitted their ambition against the executive. In saying this, i believe that we have all concluded, both congress and the executive that final passage has to be done by congress. We are arguing over waivers, suspension of waivers, and how long these will be. If we get to the crux, maybe there could be an agreement. When we rewrite this legislation, any legislation moving forward, we need to be more careful with the waivers we give. As we move forward, i have been one who says, new sanctions in the middle of negotiations is a huge mistake and may well break up the sanctions coalition may drive a iran away from the table. I have been one who wants sanctions because i dont want war frankly. There are many on our site who say, we dont need 535 generals. The president should do what he needs to do. I think there is a certain analogy to diplomacy that we dont need 535 negotiators. I dont want to give up my right to approve of the negotiation. You want a suspension to go on to the end of the president s term. If i am the iranians, why would i want to go through all of this to have sanctions relieved for a year . You have a greater ability to negotiate once you affirm the law that will have to pass the final negotiations. Admit to it. Come to an agreement with senator corker. Admit to the law, and then we can have permanent sanctions relief trade with iran if they will submit. They will be more assured of what we are doing and of the agreement if they know it has to pass us. I have heard it whispered, those republicans will never approve anything. As you listen to us all the way around, i think there is a nuance of opinion. There are several of us on this site who do not say, no we will not vote to approve an agreement. You want to to know that we have the right to vote so that you talk to us, the chairman. I have been working with senator boxer on an agreement that would not be new sanctions. It would be, if they do not comply with the current agreement, sanctions would renew. I would like to marry that with what senator corker is talking about, the admission this would be an admission and a signal you will have to get our agreement in the end. Is there any kind of compromise . Maybe. I think you need to talk to senator corker. Could there be something that is a period of time . We could do years of negotiations to get 120 days of sanctions relief. They want permanent relief. We want something from them. We want them to live in a safe, nonnuclear world. We keep asking for more and more. Centrifuges have to be a part of this. I dont know that you gain a lot in the administration by saying, we are not going to agree what senator corker is saying. In doing so, you bring us to an impasse. There is a chance at an override of a veto. Im somebody who wants to work to find a middle ground, but i want you to include some of the language senator corker is talking about admitting we dont want to be consulted. I want you to ask for permission, and i want you to present the agreement to us, and i want you to present an agreement we all like. It will get everybody, but i think the vast majority will vote for a reasonable thing. Lets see if we connect chile read proposals if we can actually read proposals and see if there is some kind of Common Ground we can find. First of all, as a matter of basic principle, i personally absolutely welcome the opportunity to consult closely with the chairman, the Ranking Member, every member of this committee on the way forward on iran and any other issues before us in Foreign Policy and National Security. We can absolutely continue this conversation. This is a question of judgment, i think. Our best judgment right now is this. Senator, you pointed to something important. What the iranians want is permanent relief. Precisely by holding back that permanent relief until, over a significant time, theyve demonstrated the idea of suspension is not a bad idea. However, then you need to work with us. I like the idea. We vote on a oneyear suspension. Lets find out if they are complying. Lets vote again on another year. Dont just think you are going to be able to do it by yourselves. If you acknowledge have to bring it to us, sell us, democracy is messy you got to come and sell us on something. We are your boss. We are your coequals in this. I fully believe that you can bring if you have all p5 plus one on board with a negotiated settlement, i think you can sell it to us. I think its not an impossible sell. Thank you, senator. I will say consultations up until this point have been a phone call in the morning that something is happening and generally speaking, while we are receiving that phone call, reading in your times, or someone else reports so i do want to associate myself with his comments. Senator udall . Thank you, senator corker. Let me join with others in thanking you and senator menendez in terms of trying to work through things. You have shown it when your positions were reversed, your willingness to get bipartisan agreements. I very much appreciate having the witnesses here today. A lot of what im going to say im going to repeat many of the things that have been said but i also support the negotiations. I think it is very important that congress doesnt torpedo them and disrupt them. The message you are getting from us is we want a hardnosed negotiation. We want to be involved in the process. Part of it is going through this hearing. One of the things you are saying that is absolutely key is if we were alone doing sanctions without all of these other countries, we would be in a much different situation. It is holding the coalition together that is tremendously important. I think we need to remember that. When we move forward with whatever negotiations continue we want to keep the pressure on. I want to to comment on that. I have a couple of questions here. One is, how quickly could we put additional sanctions in place if we had a failure . That is one. Another is an observation we hear a lot about the spring later in iran. We hear a lot about the president. Then we hear a lot about the hardline. What role do the various players there who is really going to determine iran signing on to this deal . As you follow this, you begin to wonder who is in charge there. If you have an agreement, who could undermine it in the future . Im going to go ahead and let you take a shot at a couple of those who may be followup in a minute. Why dont i take the question about how quickly we can impose sanctions . I think the answer to that is very quickly. It has been done in the past with some legislation and active. There have been sanctions that have gone into effect in a matter of weeks. In some of the executive actions weve taken, those sections are almost immediately effective. The answer is, we would be able to, working with congress as well is working on our own impose additional sanctions as quickly as we want to. Do you think, secretary cohen, other countries we are working with, if things developed in a negative way that they would be willing to join us on that . It is a crucial question. The willingness of other countries continue to work with us on imposing sanctions contrary to the economic interests of these countries, is dependent on their continuing belief that we are seeking a negotiated resolution. In the future, if the talks break down, the ability to hold together the coalition to intensify the sanctions is going to depend in large part on who our partners perceive is to blame for the breakdown. So long as we do everything in our power to try to achieve an agreement that meets our needs and the needs of our partners and it is iran that is to blame for not reaching an agreement you will have a much better chance of Holding Together the two National Coalition and being able to intensify the pressure on iran. In regard to your question about who is in charge, we have perfect knowledge of this. Hope we have what we have assessed, there are clearly Different Power Centers in iran. Have a tendency to look at iran as if it is the one country in the world that doesnt have politics. In fact, it does. The Supreme Leader is the first among equals for some time, but there are other critical constituencies that factor in. Of the most powerful things that happened in iran was actually the election of president rouhani. In our judgment, that was a reaction to the desire of the iranian people to improve the economy, to get out from the isolation they are under, and to move iran in a different correction. Within the confines of the system, that was what president rouhani was trying to be responsive to. I think the Supreme Leader has to measure that in factoring in how much leeway he is going to give to the negotiators in the nuclear context. To date, as the iaea continues to confirm, iran has made good on the commitments it has made under the interim agreement. Going forward, if the power center changed as weve made very clear iran, if it violated the agreement in any fashion, would be subject to an intense reaction from us, and as the under secretary said, if we are able to preserve the unity of the interNational Coalition you pointed out the beginning of your remarks, that would give us a much greater ability to respond effectively to any decision by iran to violate the commitments that it makes. Thank you very much. Senator rubio . Secretary bullington, much of the debate has been about the role of congress and our need to trust and the ability of the administration to craft a good deal and the fact that we would be consulted. I want to take you back to the last time you were before this committee, and i asked you a question about whether there would be any changes in cuba policy. Your answer anything in the future that might be done in cuba would be done in full consultation with of this committee. you told me that the last time you were here before this committee. Who did the administration consulted with on this committee before it announced the changes . Senator, i regret that i did not live up to the standard that i sent during that hearing and in the remarks you just quoted. I think i couldve done a better job in engaging with you and consulting with you in advance. I regret that. Did you consult with the chairman . A number of members were reached out to, consulted. What happened was this who were the members consulted . If i could come back to you on that, i would need to discuss. I would need to get an accounting of that, and make sure that any members consulted would i can assure you that i was not consulted. You were the chairman at the time. Were you not consulted . No. There is a difference between notification and consultation. To be notified when its going to happen is not consultation. We are being told that we are going to be in the loop on everything happening with iran. Have an example very recently where we were not