Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20160406 :

asa assurance that is not the case. and this morning secretary kerry was on tv acting like that was the case. i felt reassured yesterday. this morning it was seen we were going to do that. so i would like your response. >> i think you know there is bipartisan support for new sanctions authority in response to iran's repeated ballistic missile launches. i think the repeated ballisic it missile launches and the desire to purchase weapons from russia prove an increase push back if necessary. i hope you can help us answer these questions in a constructive manner so we know what the administration is thinking regarding these important matters. i want to thank you again for your service. i am glad you were confirmed in the timeframe you were. we appreciate you being here. i will turn it over to the distinguished ranking member ben cardin. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for convening this hearing. as we look at how we are going to look at the post-jcpoa era. ambassador shannon, it is a pleasure to have you here and thank you for your continued commitment to our country. you hold a critically important position as we look at the enforcement of the jcpoa and other activities iran is participating in. it is clear to me that we need to work together in regards to making sure iran fully complies with the jcpoa. that we need to look at iran's other nefarious activities. the chairman mentioned the ballistic missile testing done. iran did the testing that is clearly out of compliance with the security resolution 2231 whether it was a formal violation that requires action is something that is being debated internationally. but it was clear those types of missile violations were supposed to end and that we should be prepared to take strong action and the administration has taken action. throughout the middle east, iran is an instigator of instability and conflict fostering violence through its financial support of terrorist groups and violent militias committed to the path of secretarian violence. we need to be able to take action in regards to those types of activities. as the chairman knows, the last time the senate wasn't in session i went to saudi arabia and israel and senator marquee and senator gardner joined me and in israel i spoke with the israeli leaders on ways it further enhance our security cooperation and witnessed the cooperation the first hand paying a visit to iron dome. very impressed by the commitment of the israelis working with the united states in regard to the missile defense systems. the u.s. and israel are working together to complete systems. i sort of expected to hear that from the israelis. but in qutar and saudi arabia i heard similar types of concerns. it was encouraging to see the, i guess the consistency of concerns expressed by all three. they are all very concerned about iran's influence in that region. they are concerned about what iran is doing in syria. we saw the articles that iran has sent advi advisors into syr support the assad regime. in yemen, we have a delegate cease-fire we hope will yield results but we know iran is still actively engaged in yemen. there is concern about what iran is doing. saudi arabia, i learned how continued u.s. defense cooperation has bolstered the capacity of the saudi arabia partners and u.s. missiles have shot down missiles filled by the iranian supported movement in yemen. in qutar, i visted an operation center and it is incredible there. dedicated men and women to the campaign against isil and saw first-hand the impact we are having in that region. so mr. ambassador, it was encouraging to see the unity. but i must tell you i am concerned about the challenges that we have in the middle east and iran's role in making those challenges more difficult. i think we have to talk about what we can most effectively deal with those challenges. it is not undermining the jcpoa. but i want to see it carried out and aggressive oversight to make sure of strict compliance with iran in regard to its nuclear obligations. then we need to work in unity on iran's other nefarious activities that are continuing including the support of terrorism and human rights violations and its ballistic missile test. and how we can give you a stronger hand to prevent these types of activities from continuing. i look forward to working together to keep iran from becoming a nuclear state and rein in on human rights violations and support of terrorism. >> tom shannon is our witness under the secretary for political affairs at the u.s. department of state. i know you have been in before us in the past. if you could summarize your comments in about five minutes. thank you again for being here. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, ranking member cardin, and distinguished members of the committee. it is a pleasure to be here and thank you you and all of your members of the committee for your support. it is a pleasure to be here to talk about u.s. policy toward iran and especially recently iranian actions. i will summarize the remarks i submitted officially. i want to summarize three key parts. the first is to ensure iran adheres to the jcpoa. the second is to counter iran's support for terrorism and counter the ballistic missile program while working diplomatically to encourage iran to play a more constructive role in the region and finally promote respect for human rights in iran. iran has taken steps to change the nuclear program. iran was less than 90 days away from getting enough material for a nuclear weapon should it have chosen to secure that path. today iran is over a year away from getting that material and any attempt to do so would be detected quickly by the international community. exchange for iran exchanging the commitments, the united states and european union lifted nuclear related sanctions on iran. the united states retained the abilities to snapback sanctions into place should iran walk away but as long as they continue to meet their commitments we will meet our commitments. we are encouraged thus far but i want to emphasize the jcpoa doesn't resolve our profound differences with iran. we remain focused and determined to take all actions to protect ourselves and allies. iran's support of terrorist groups are at odds with core u.s. interest and pose fundamental threats to the region and beyond. that is why we have retained sanctions related to destabil e destabilizing the region. we believe working with our allies to deter and disrupt iranian threats is key. this is why we increased cooperation with the gulf corporation and provided assistance to israel. we continue to cord nate with partners to so they cannot develop a nuclear war head. we will continue to use all available tools to impede the development of the program. this policy hasn't changed as a result of the jcpoa. iran violates rights of citizens by restricting civil liberties. human rights related sanctions are not subject to relief under the jcpoa. our concerns about iran are substantial and we believe it is in the interest of the united states to continue a dialogue to address issues where week, make sure iran is hearing publically and privately what we stand for and what we will not stand for. we continue to hold iran's commitment to discussions and we will continue to raise attention of the u.s. citizens who are being held captive. the congress plays an essential role in shaping our policy and posture toward iran. the legislative and executive branches should continue to work together to calibrate the iranian threat and willing to engage when it is in our interest to do so. i look forward to having the conversation to strive to find the balance of friendship and keeping the line of communication open and standing strong and resolute in terms of real and dangerous threats. i thank you for the opportunity to testify and look forward to your questions. >> thank you so much. we appreciate it. tell us what is going on with the dollar transactions? there have been rumors coming out of administration. i talked to administration officials who don't know where those rumors are coming from and are somewhat disconcerted by it. i talked to adam luben last night who was assuring we are doing nothing to accommodate the transactions, the president said that on friday, and secretary kerry was on tv this morning acting as if we were. what is going on with accommodating their ability to use dollars in their transactions? >> thank you very much for the question. it is an important one and gathered a fair bit of media buzz as you noted. this is ultimately a treasury concern because they are the ones who do general license and adam zuben is a great person to talk to on this. let me tell you what i know is that is the rumors in the press is that the united states is preparing to reinstate a u-turn authorization or allow iran access to the u.s. financial system are not true. >> why would secretary kerry said the things he said this morning, saying we need to accommodate their ability to have the economic growth they thought they would have under the sanctions relief? >> what the secretary -- the point the secretary was making is that as iran attempts to access money that is being made available to it, to the lifting of sanctions, that there is instances in which we have had to help iran access that money by clarifying the regulations under which money can be transferred to them. we have found as iran seeks the funds, there are banks that are unclear about the nature of the regulatory structures and what sanctions have been lifted and what have not. the secretary believes that it is in our national interest to ensure the commitments we made are being followed through on. this is part of a larger engagement we have had with the iranians on different aspect of the commitments. >> the dollar issue is bogus? >> as of this moment, as far as i know, yes. >> so the person charged with heading o-fac, i know he is acting but i hope he is permanently put in that place, he told me there is a certain of a wink and nod. we were saying to institutions that know in spite of the agreement we will not come after you for this. you know of no instance of the treasury department being encouraged to turn their head relative to the black and white agreement relative to this issue. you know of no instance of that? >> i do not. but again the point the secretary was making is we have commitments under the jcpoa and we need to live up to those commitments and ensure that the iranians are receiving, for what they have done, what they believe we have committed to. what the secretary has been clear about, and what secretary lu has been clear, is that iran has access to the assets open to them. >> i don't think the administration is on the same page. i think there are some people that are invested in this and developed relationships and i think they are trying to bend this in a way that will benefit iran. i hope secretary care kerry and adam get on the same page. if we acted to codify the act legislatively those things would not occur and that would be consistent with what the administration and you are saying today and that would not be a problem. is that correct? >> if you mean not authorizing u-turns or the financial system in the u.s. that is present. >> we could codify that and iran would not consider it a violation? good. we will attend to do that. on the ballistic missiles, you know, i pointed out testimony from secretary kerry, ambassador mall, we knew and the language said called upon this situation would likely occur. it has and it is disappointing. i was disappointing the letter from our european parties said it was inconsistance and not a violation. would you have any problem with us codifying putting in place some sanctions against them for clearly, in our opinion, violating the agreement as the administration explained to us the agreement said? >> thank you for the question. a very important one. as i noted, we remain absolutely oppose to iran's ballistic missile program. we believe that we have both multi laterally and unilaterally the tools necessary to attack that missile program and do whatever we can to interdict technology that iran is seeking to advance its ballistic missile program. we believe we have the necessary authorities now. we will continue to designate individuals and ententities we believe are supporting the program. our concern about this legislation is it not interfere with the jcpoa implementation. we believe we can address the punitive side of iran's ballistic missile program with the authorities we have but also we are, as i noted in my opening remarks, we are intent on helping our partners in the region defend us from iran's nuclear program. we want to delay and deter the program but support others to defend themselves as well. >> i think the majority of people up here, whether they supported or didn't support the agreement, were concerned about the called-upon language. we saw assurancs because we knew called upon was very different than what it meant in agreements in the past. unfortunately we are are we are and my sense is most people here want to take action against that whether they supported it or not. let me just ask one last question. and by the way, i am disappointed what the administration said didn't come to fruition and i am disappointed for our country and those counting on this agreement to deter that type of action. russia plans to sell sm-30s. do you consider this a violation? i know it is not a violation until they do it. i know they entered discussions and it may not come to fruition but if it does would you consider that to be a violation of the agreement we have with them? >> are you talking about the s-300? >> no, the s-30. >> the sale of su-30 fighter r aircraft is prohibited without the approval of the un security council and we would block the approval of any sale of fighter aircraft under the restrictions. >> if we decided to take action here just to ensure because the assur assurance we have isn't working well and we are getting mixed signals about the dollar transaction, if we were to take action to make sure that could not happen without additional sanctions you would not have a problem with that? >> it would be hard to tell the senate how to legislate. but i would say the sale of this aircraft is prohibited without approval and we will not approve it. >> thank you so much. with that, senator cardin. >> appreciate your explanations here. i will follow-up on questions of chairman corker as to how the united states senate and congress could help to achieve our objectives. congress and the administration has full abilities to deal with issues not covered under the jcpoa. once the chairman asked you about certain congressional action i will be clear i will not support congressional action that is out of compliance with the jcpoa because i think that would not be helpful by the united states' congress. your statement that you don't want to give iran a reason but iran has used interpretations far beyond any reason coverage in the agreement. i would urge us to be careful how we interpret the jcpoa. we will use international standards but not an iranian standard. i want to bring you back to how the congress can help. we are an independent branch of government. i remember clearly the testimony before this committee when your predecessor, secretary sherman, gave a similar answer you just gave and that is we have the authority to take action. we don't need congressional action. so congress did act and we did strengthen the iran sanctions act. it was, i think, partially responsible for bringing iran to the negotiating table and helpful to get a stronger agreement because congress did take action even though the administration had the ability to take action on its own. there are two areas i want to get your view on. one is the extension of the iran sanctions' act that expires at the end of this year as you know. that action, the administration has taken action under the waivers in order to implement the jcpoa, and having that as a back stop going beyond 2016, would seem to be critically important for u.s. leverage to make sure iran complies with the agreement. so i want to make sure of your view, if congress takes action to extend the iran sanctions act whether the administration will look upon that as consistent with the jcpoa and the appropriate actions for an independent branch of government. and the second point i want you to respond to is what chairman corker talked about and that is the ballistic missile sanctions under executive order and not under con dpregressional mandat. it seems that ballistic missiles, that are not covered, that the u.s. would be in a stronger position if we had congressional sanctions authorization under law. i never met an administration that thought they could do everything without the congress. but having congressional authority to impose these sanctions is, i think, a stronger position. will the administration work with us on legislation to extend the iran's sanctions act and provide congressional bases for the ballistic missile sanctions that are being imposed? >> thank you, very much, senator. in regard to the first question. my understanding is that isa expires at the end of this year. our view is that we should not be in a rush. we should begin to understand how iran is meeting its commitments under the jcpoa. and based on that, this will give us a stronger idea and feeling for what a renewed isa might look like. but i can tell you that we would be happy to engage with this committee and the congress on the renewed iran sanctions act assuming, again, that it does not complicate or prevent us from meeting jcpoa agreements. >> any objections for sanctions against iran for its ballistic missile violations? >> we are opposed to iran's ballistic missile program and do everything in our power to delay, deter and protect our allies. as noted and you noted we believe we have the authority to do that and believe we have acted responsiblely and actively in response to iran's ballistic missile activityment -- activity. we would be happy to talk about what that legislation might look like. >> i urge you to go back to look at the record from passing the sanctions regime in 2010 and look at what has happened since and how it is essential for congressional action in 2010 to lead to where we are today where the administration is pleased about the jcpoa. 2010 was a major chapter in accomplishing that because of what this administration did. this administration has nine months left and the jcpoa goes well beyond that. i would urge you to aggressively be working with us to setup the appropriate statutory framework to make it clear to iran we will not tolerate ballistic missile violations. it is not just the president, but the congress working with the president, that will not tolerate that type of activities. >> let me move to one other thing very briefly. that deals with the issue the chairman raised on the russian participation. how does it complicate the enforcement of the jcpoa, the fact that russia is prepared to to give missile defense support to iran? >> as you know russia has been in the process of selling s-300s to iran since 2008. for any number of reasons has not done so. the purchase hasn't been finalized and the delivery has not been made. there was a press report today that russia is preparing to move an s-300 system to iran. the s-300 is not prohibited under the security council resolution because it is a ground to air defense missile. >> i understand that. >> nevertheless, we made it clear to russia we consider this to be a bad move and destabilizing and not in keeping with what we have been trying to accomplish through the jcpoa and broadly in terms of your dpreement with iran. >> it seems to me this is making it more challenging to deal with security concerns of our partners in the region. it ups the ante for the united states and it takes us to a new level of what we need to do. >> a missile system would do that and the sale of fighter jets, which is what russia is looking at, would comp complica that further. senator purdue. >> i just got back from the area and the agreement from people in the region is things have gotten worse for domestic security for the four countries we visited. i am concerned particularly about comments this week and i would like to get you on the record about the -- in december, ambasber mole stated that ballistic missile launches would be a violation of 2231. but we have seen the missile firing before and after implementation day and this week, a joint report says the launches, and i quote, are inconstent but not a violation. do you think they were in violation, ambassador? >> thank you. 2231 prohibits iran from lunching ballistic missiles. 1929 says iran should not take activity in missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. 2231 calls on iran not to take action. in international parliaments, there is a distinction here but if is a distinction without a difference. 2231 is telling iran not to take any activity with ballistic missiles and that is how we reacted. we responded with designation. >> so we responded like it was a violation? >> yes. >> you believe it was a violation? >> i believe it violated 2231. from our point of view, these launches are prohibited and we are going to do everything we can to stop them. >> so on the sanctions we put in, and i agreed with the administration to do that, and agree with our ranking member, it would have more teeth if congressionally sanctioned. it was interesting transportation companies involved in the delivery of this technology were not included, financial partners were not included, members up and down the supply chain were not included. so if we want to stop the activity we would put sanctions on the full supply chain it seems. from a to b. can you speak about the major players in the supply chain. >> since 2010, with 1929 was approved by the security council i believe we assigned 27 entities and people that look not only at those providing equipment but those who are facilitating the provision of equipment. i would be happy to talk with you about specific individuals or entities that interest you and respond to that question. but i believe we have been focusing not just on providers of technology put those who fac facilitate that technology or the provision of that technology. >> thank you. i am also concerned about the liquid assets that are now available for for iran and what they will do about that. when the administration supported the jcpoa before its enactment were adamant about iran not continuing to fund hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. can you ensure what is being done to assure the people of the region that is being implemented. >> let me answer this in two answers. in regard to the money made available to iran through jcpoa we assessed that iran has access to $50 billion scattered through the banks. >> that is cash? liquid? >> if they could get it. >> there are other assets that are liquid datable? >> i am not sure. i was told there was a hundred billion in overseas attacks but $50 billion was called for through financial commitments iran has made for contracts or other aspects of the financial instruments being used. but the money available to iran is about $50 billion. it is scattered throughout an international financial system and held throughout different banks and therefore it has to be accessed piecemeal and over time. this is something we have been watching closely. this is what secretary kerry was referring to when he said there are times we have to clarify our guidelines in regards to sanctions so iran does have access to monies we have committed to make available to it. in regard to whether or not iran continues to fund terrorism activities or destabilizing activities in the region there is no doubt that is true. we are seeing it whether it is in syria, lebanon with hezbollah, and yemen with what they are doing with the rebels there. and we continue to do what we can through authorities that we have, both sanction authorities given to us through legislation and through executive actions, to sanction when possible, and to counteract the activities of iran in the region. >> thank you. real quick. given the increase activity iran is showing in the region can you give us an update on the understanding with israeli relative to the military systems there? i know it doesn't expire until 2018. and given iran continues to make anti-israel statements even stenciling that on the missile they are launching. can you update us on the mou? >> we are in the process of negotiating the mou with the dpment government of israel looking at how we can best meet the defense needs of israel as it faces the threats posed in the region. some of the most significant being from iran. since the beginning of this administration, over $20 billion has been provided to israel in defense spending including nearly $3 billion to help finance the iron dome anti missile system. >> over what period of time would that be? >> over this administration. eight years. >> eight years. >> and i can get you that latest data play of our negotiation with the mou but it is a constant theme of our engagement with israel. >> the military quanatative aids will continue? >> correct. >> senator menendez? >> mr. secretary, i have a greatest support for you. i supported you in your role as ambassador and support you in this role. it is with that respect i have the following statement. i am concerned listening to your answers with the chairman and ranking member about statements that suggest that we have to watch what we do because we don't want to have iran walk away from the table. well, this administration led by the secretary of state, after question after question, said clearly we were free to pursue all other actions of the iranians that are against the nation interest and security of the united states outside of the nuclear portfolio. i see all of these cautionary remarks all of the time and caveats and i don't understand them. i don't understand them. i don't understand when the president himself in remarks this week said while iran followed the letter of the agreement they have not followed the spirit sending signals of serious actions and among that failure to follow the spirit the president acknowledged launching ballistic missiles, calling for the destruction of israel, and shipping weapons to hezbollah. to that i would add, its status as a state sponsor of terrorism, and acts of aggression to our allies, its illegal detention of human sailors , it is trafficking weapons, and siver atta atta cyber attacks. what bothers me is that we seem to create a permissive environment shown by what happens in the missile issues that have been raised and i want to further pursue with you in which we are treading on doing anything else in this whole universe we recognize is against the security interest of the united states. why are we, for example, knowing resources, whatever amount it is, is in part going to fund these things against our interest? why does the president say we will not use dollars but it is possible to work through european financial institutions which transact with the united states ultimately. or the administration is seek ways to ensure u.s. regulations do not deter for companies for providing insurance coverage for iranian shipping. why are we facilitating possibilities for them to use resources in a way that is against our interest? >> thank you, senator, and thank you for your support. i am very grateful for that. let me be clear if where wasn't in my earlier comments. when i talked about wanting to make sure that actions taken in regard to reupping sanctions' legislation didn't interfere with commitments my purpose wasn't to say we are walking on egg shells with iranians or we somehow pulling punches or stepping away from firm pursuit of jcpoa commitments or as you noted broader understanding of concerns about iran. that is not the case. we just want to make sure as iran meets commitments we meet ours. we understand what those commitments are. and as we look at iran's behavior broadly, in the region, i would agree with everything you noted. we are concerned, we are appalled, but we are working to push back on it and stop it where we can whether it is in support for regional terrorism, support for groups like hezbollah, or the pursuit of a ballistic missile program. as the secretary and president noted, we are not going to caveat that and we are not going to soft peddle that. >> let me interrupt you. i appreciate what you saying. but specifically, for example, if we wanted it pull more punches and make it very clear that instead of sanctioning individuals, which is like playing whack-a-molex we would sanction financial inconstitutioinstitutions that are funding the activity. that hasn't seemed to be the administration's take. we see the broad reach and affect of that is against the iranians. let's turn to the missile issue. last july when secretary kerry was before the committee i asked him, and i quote, is iran banished from ballistic missile work under terms of resolution 2231 and does it supersede previous resolutions with respect to iran. and his answer was it is exactly what it is today. i am quoting verbatim from the transcript. it is the same language. well i disputed that because there is a difference between shall and called upon. if in fact it is exactly the same language, if the secretary's interpretation was correct, it would explicitly prohibit iran from testing ballistic missiles, then why would the united states and european allies not push for the touchest language in the letter sent to the security council? why not call it what it is? which is a violation -- toughest. isn't it a violation? or did we soften the language in such a way it permits exactly what iran is doing now? >> the language used in the letter was that iran's launch was inconsistent with the security council 2231. not it was in violation of 2231. i would argue this is a distinction without a difference because we believe 2231 prohibits these launches and there is a strong international commitment -- >> if that was the case why did we not use the word violation? if we believe it is prohibited why didn't we use the word violation? >> i am not an international lay lawyer. >> okay. i am not an international lawyer but i was a lawyer before coming here and i understand the difference between call upon and shall and there is a fundamental difference. i would say to you as the chairman and ranking member discussed the act i authorized with others, it needs to be a h auth authorized now because we are not sending a message that if they violate the terms we have something to snapback. you cannot snapback to something that doesn't exist at the end of the day. again, this tentativeness about worried what iran will do seem do is have frozen us and suggests the senate should be frozen. i hope the senate will not be. on missile sanctions, which i think should be pursued particularly on financial institutions, and i would urge the chair and ranking member, and i have legislation i am happy to engage with the chair and ranking member on, to do some of this because i believe we are headed in the wrong direction. >> i could not agree more. there is an sure and that is most of us don't want to let a national security waver to be used to enter into a national agreement. and if we can get passed that we might have strong bipartisan legislation. you were working on venezuela and we appreciate your effort there. but this called upon language was a message to us we would wink and nod on this issue and give the other countries the ability not to enforce and that is why many of us were concerned. while you were working on venezuela we were concerned we were giving away leverage and on the front end iran would get this relief and we would be on the egg shells that senator menendez mentioned and the administration would be concerned if we push back they might walk away since they got it all on the front end. you are exhibit a to why there was so much concern about this agreement in the things you are saying today. senator brasso. >> i think we agree with you butt i don't believe the instruction is to all it can. i look at the sanctions and i like the reference to whack-a-mole. can you tell us those recent sanctions are going to have an impact given they have done testing in october, november, and march, just last month, two successful days of ballistic missile testing. >> iran is intent on pursuing its ballistic missile testing. it sees it as part of not only its larger strategic weapons program but plays an important political role in iran especially in the aftermath of the jcpoa. iran lost on the nuclear issue and their intent on doubling down the ballistic missile program. so we can expect more launches. but in that regard, we are very intent on doing everything we can to deter and delay that program and at the same time work with our partners in the region to ensure they can protect themselves and it is clear the ballistic program continues to call into question how it behaves internationally and it becomes less relevant as our partners and allies increase their ability to protect themselves. since 2010, if i have my numbers right, we assigned over 27 entities and individuals related to iran's ballistic missile program. and we will continue to desig t designate individuals and entities as we determine the role and which entities are playing a role not just in the provision of the technology but the facilitation of the technology. >> what you are hearing here is congress believes the administration needs a stronger backbone in legislation to allow you to accomplish your goal jow had to delay and deter. with regard to the russian sale to the iran. resolution 2231 requires the security council approval of any sale of major combat system to iran. russia and iran have been discussing an agreement for russia to sell the combat aircraft tanks, and just to clarify, would the united states veto the approval of such a sale at the un security council? >> yes. >> can you talk about how the sales of a system they are talking about to iran could affect the balance of power in the region? >> are you talking about the systems you listed? >> the su-30s or the su-300s? >> the 30. >> the fighter jets. >> yeah, obviously we have no interest in iran having enhanced either fighter capability or enhanced ground combat capability. any weapons iran can use offensively we would seek to oppose in whatever way we can. >> iran is a state sponsor of terror and a threat to israel and continues to threaten the region with ballistic missile testing. it appears the administration is afraid of iran pulling out of the deal and believes it might risk ties to the united states. if you read the article in the "washington post" called more dollars for the ayatollah. and it said this could have been anticipated expect more issues as iran plays on the weakness of america. what other action do you know that could forgprovide addition sanction relief beyond what has been committed to by the jcpoa? >> at this point none. we have met our commitments under the jcpoa. it is important to note that it is iran that gave everything up front as opposed to the united states. it was iran that tore down centrifuges and poured concrete into its heavy water reactor. because of this, as noted in my opening statement, we have been able to pushback iran's breakout period in pursuit of a nuclear weapon from a few months to over a year. and as we continue the implementation of jcpoa we believe we have in a position to ensure iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon. that is an accomplishment and an accomplishment this senate can take huge pride in as can the executive branch because we have had to work together through the sanction authority that this legislative body authorized and through the diplomacy we were able to fashion and build around that legislative authority. as we look into the future, we are intent on raising our commitments period. we are not intent on providing additional sanction relief and not intent on successful implementation. ... thank you mr. chairman. i want to repeat an element of your testimony to follow-up on page 2. iran has taken significant irreversible steps that change the nuclear program. simply put, the jcp away is working jc poa is working and is effectively cut off iran's pathway to build a nuclear weapon. this is made the world safer more secure. that is your testimony, i don't need to ask you that, the it's for the record. i'm interested now they're starting to be public comment by israeli officials that might be somewhat different but essentially making the same point, the israeli chief of staff is the equivalent of our joint sheet of staff. in january, the nuclear deal with iran contains many risk but opportunities, speaking of the ninth annual security challenge conference of the institute of security studies in tel aviv, quote the nuclear deal with iran constitutes a strategic turning point compared with a base over the past decade. the long-term it assessment is that iran will make great efforts to fill their side of the bargain and enjoy the benefits, however iran will continue to see itself as in a regional power after 15 years in terms of the deal expire may turn again toward expanding its nuclear capabilities. in the meantime the deal reduces the immediate threat because it rolls back iran's nuclear capability and deepens the monitoring capabilities of the international community into tehran's activity. many of us heard iranian official, israeli officials say the word stress privately. many is see it publicly. we we have seen reports on former israeli officials, of the predecessor, general betty ganz, after september. it had a a better deal they also acknowledge the final agreement and success in putting off the nuclear armed about ten to 15 years. the diplomacy had better from breaking out. it is israelis was been the most focus as they should be to some degree on whether the steel would work or not. you now have the current chief of staff, the equivalent of the joint chiefs of staff and immediate predecessor both same this deal has prevented war and will force iranian nuclear quota for ten-15 years. [inaudible] [inaudible] with five individuals running for president of the united states a the united states should exit the jc poa. two said they should rip it up, one said the u.s. should withdraw from the deal. based on your testimony and the stated public position of the head of the israeli military, talk a little about what it would mean for the united states, alone among the nations that negotiated the steel to rip up the dealer back away from it? >> thank you for the question, and thank you for highlighting the comments of the chief of staff. we would agree with him completely. we share that assessment, that assessment, we believe that through jc poa iran has given up its ambition of a nuclear weapon. and has submitted to an international structure of intervention in compliance that allows us great insight into the nuclear program and will come in complied with creative program that is exclusively peaceful. that is our purpose in our attention, that is that is the intention of the international community. in an environment as conflictive and combustible as the middle east, making sure that a country like iran does not have a nuclear weapon has to be a strategic goal of most importance. we believe we have accomplished that. we would argue that any effort to step away from jc poa would reopen a pandora's box in that region that we do not think we could close again. it would highlights an inability of the united states to maintain a continuity and stability and approach, when we accomplish with the u.s. government and the u.s. congress has been seeking for more than a decade, which is no nuclear weapon in iran, hypothetically, if we're to contemplate stepping away from the jc poa we would not be followed by our p5 plus one colleagues. quite the contrary, contrary, this would become an issue of extraordinary concern and division between ours selves and our c5 plus one colleagues. more portly it would be brass by supporters of a nuclear program in iran and by others in iran to assert that we were in unreliable inter- locker tour and that are stepping away from the jc poa would be a clear signal that they need to return to their nuclear weapons program with even greater urgency. we would see that is very dangerous. >> is it in the security interest of the world that we keep everyone's attention on iran's activity rather than the u.s. negotiating tactics? >> as i noted in as you noted, we are very focused on what iran is doing, it is very important in our diplomacy and and and our engagement with their partners that we highlights of where ran steps out of bounds. this is what the president was referring to when he said that iran was not complying with the spirit of the jc poa. because the spirit was one of engagement and highlighting the peaceful nation of a nuclear program. or the ambition of creating it in addition program. what it it is doing elsewhere indicates otherwise. therefore, our ability, while we implement the jc poa and while we consolidate this important strategic accomplishment that we continue to highlight and focus iran's bad behavior in terms of its regional activities, and it its support to has block, and the rebels, and support for the assad regime, in support of terrorism, and its ballistic missile program, from our point it be was a centerpiece of how we will deal with iran. >> thank you. if i could, and i know that we have worked together, think the the types of efforts that legislatively people are looking at are not into consistent with the jc poa. i just want to restate that,. it is. it is to push back on those areas. only an agreement can we approve and hope that it would bring in on the front end is to make sure it is not violated. i think there is both issues but in addition to that the activities in the region, that is where the focus legislatively as not to counter the jc poa, but to make sure it is enforced and to push back on other activities that are destabilizing the region. >> thank you for being here, i want to go back to the issue of access to the dollar. i saw a recent example cited in a blog and i wanted to get a clear understanding about how this would or would not work. the example that that was used as a swiss company who sells the product, of any kind to iraq, and i think the president and everyone has been clear about what they have not been allowed to do. they cannot go to a u.s. bank into a dollar in the dollar to swiss franc and that's been clear in outline, here's what i want to get out and that is an alternative mechanism. this outlines an alternative mechanism and i want to understand whether or not this alternative mechanism is allowed or not under this agreement. the way it would work under this scenario is that the u.s. would allow a general license for a bank, u.s. bank to provide dollars to a non-us clearinghouse somewhere overseas. then what would happen is iran will pay a european bank in rios. the european bank would then change the reels for euros and then go to the clearinghouse and swap the euro out for a dollar, bring the the dollar back and exchange the dollars for swiss francs and then pay that to the swiss company. is that sort of arrangement something that would be allowed under the agreement? >> i'm not sure. i would have to check because if it does not touch a u.s. bank, if it does not touch the u.s. financial system, because what our sanction legislation has done and what we have been able to accomplish in terms of limiting iran's access to our larger financial system is we have not permitted authorization, no no exchange of dollars inside the u.s. financial system and we have not allowed access to our larger financial system. but i do not know, again i'm not a financial expert, i'd have to check with treasury. i do not know of what you just described is authorized. >> to know that kind of mechanism was discussed as part of this negotiation? i know the chairman has alluded to this earlier but in an interview today, secretary carey implied that iran deserves the benefit of the agreement they struck. is there, within that agreement some sort of understanding with a rent that we would be helpful to them in figuring out how to get access to the dollar, even if it is out through one step removed a process like i outlined? >> the agreement's terms and what our commitments are and we believe we have met those commitments. my understanding of the secretary's remarks is we have worked with u.s. treasury and with banks to clarify what sanctions relief is. what banks are allowed to do in order to avoid any kind of punitive action for taking steps that are not permitted. under the jc poa. so my understanding is that our efforts to understand that iran has access to assets that we have committed to release to them is really about ensuring the banks understand how that money can be accessed, it is not my understanding there is anything beyond that. >> has the department received instruction from the white house or has the department of state signaled treasury that it needs to search for ways to allow iran to get access to dollars through mechanism that doesn't directly impact transaction within the u.s. bank. >> i've not received that instruction. >> the fundamental question, i know you said that doesn't touch the dollar but i want to make the point for the record. by allowing a u.s. u.s. bank a general license to move money offshore it is in essence access to the u.s. dollar. it is not technically happening within the united states per se, but we know that money is going to be used for. the general license would be used to provide liability protection to the u.s. bank. the only reason that u.s. money would be moving to that offshore entity would be so iran could get access to dollars. i think this is an important point we need clarity on, whether it be from treasury, but that sort of mechanism has never been discussed with the congress and my understanding. it is in fact part of this agreement, we have never been notified of that as well, what as well, what i'm going to try to get at the core of this, and you're saying, your testimony here today is this is not the case but was there ever a moment moment or part of this agreement that we would somehow help iran get access to dollars in some way that did not violate the need to deal directly with u.s. bank. you have said that you are not aware of that being part of this agreement or conversation in any way. >> again, i do not take part in the negotiations of the agreement. but my my reading of the agreement indicates otherwise. >> one more point and access to u.s. banking sector, this is not just about punitive action it's also about the fact that irrespective of the nuclear program the iranian baking sectors pose a hazard because of its laundering activity and so forth. has iran taken any action to halt the use of its financial institution for money laundering or other illicit behavior? >> my understanding is it's much more careful about what's institution it uses. but it still is engaged in money-laundering activities that we attempt to block and stop. >> thank you. >> if i could, since there is one minute left, i think it was the money laundering, and the the financing up these restrictions in place. in the beginning. that is still occurring my observation is that secretary kerry, and/or others within the state department spent a lot of time of this agreement are trying to figure out a way to accommodate iran. my senses of the treasury at this point still has held firm and hopefully they will, but i do think there is not congruence in the administration level. i'm glad that pressure is being applied to ensure that we do not try to accommodate them. that only iran gets only what they negotiated. which which to me was too much. we are not out there trying to make this agreement to work better for them after the fact, specially when they are violating the ballistic missile testing. it's an incredible thing that we want to accommodate on one and fall we know they are, in essence not of faith in another issue that we see is a clear violation. >> thank you mr. chairman very much. in response to recent questions about the administration plans to provide iran with additional relief from u.s. financial sanctions, president obama stated that existing restrictions would remain in place, he also noted that iran's difficulties in doing business abroad has more to do with its own aggressive actions including ballistic missile test than it does with u.s. financial restrictions. this morning secretary kerry reiterated that iran deserves the benefits of the agreement they struck. but if they want to capture the broader benefits of global commerce they need to change their aggressive behavior. rather than rather than changing any current rules that restrict the access to the dollar-based system the the president suggested the treasury department could clarify to form financial institutions, the kind of activities that are permissible under current restrictions. what kind of changes would we have to see in iran's behavior with respect to missile development, support for terrorism and human rights violations before we would consider changing existing restrictions on iran's access to our financial system. >> they have to stop. in terms of sanctions that limit iran's access to the financial system, this is related to a series of iranian behaviors that we find reprehensible. what you said at the beginning of the question is important. both both the president and the secretary may clear iran's ability to benefit economically and financially from a greater a place to the world and lived in the sanctions depends not just on the lifting of the sanctions, depends on the environment it creates inside of iran. first to establish a degree of confidence as iran engages generally in its large international community. as long as iran behaves as it is behaving, in the the area of terrorism and regional destabilization, and ballistic development, there will be a natural prejudice against some aspects of aspect of the financial engagement with it. >> we are saying does have within its own power, which would then help give the united states the ability to relax and access to the financial system. >> yes. >> in addition to imposing restrictions on iran's nuclear weapons program, one of of the great opportunities the jcp away provides is to raise the standards of the nonproliferation regime. i recently joined other senators writing up letter to president obama detailing the steps we could take to do that. one would be to expand the worldwide application of the additional protocol which provides the iaea with enhanced inspection rights, including the right to inspect and countries entire fuel cycle. environmental sampling beyond declared facilities. iran signs the additional protocol agreement in 2003 and under the jcp away it has agreed to implement it fully. what steps is the administration taking to encourage all mpt parties design and implement additional protocol agreements with the iaea? >> thank you for the point to on the protocol and the iaea. the commitment by rent to provisionally apply the protocol and ultimately accept only the additional protocol is, in a world of nonproliferation, huge deal. it indicates that the iaea will have enhanced capabilities to measure and track iranian compliance, not only with the jcp away but broadly with the mpt. this is a huge concession on iran's part, and one that is viewed with concern around the world with those that do not adhere to the additional protocol. so committing to the protocol it is something that my colleagues who work in a dress on a regular basis. we will continue to do so, it is our hope that in this regard that iran's willingness to accept additional protocol should be seen as a point of reflection for those who have not done so. >> another step that the administration could take would be to achieve a band on the production of the material in the middle east in terms of the jcpoa they have agreed not to produce for three years, but it has expressed the willingness to extend extend if neighbors do the same. what steps is the ministration doing to discourage the additional countries from the middle east from engaging in that kind of activity? >> i think the jcpoa itself is a powerful reason for countries in the region not to develop their own nuclear enrichment capability because they are not facing a threat from iran to a nuclear weapon at this point in time. we continue in our regular engagement throughout the region and regular security discussions to identify and understand the security threats and vulnerabilities that are partners face and to help them find ways to address them without approaching a nuclear threshold. we do this with the golf correlating counsel. they'll be meeting in bahrain at the end of the week. the president will be meeting with the leaders in the near future. >> so the ministration is encouraging all states in the middle east to not pursue uranium enrichment and processing facilities? >> anywhere we can. >> thank you senator gardner. thank you for your time here today. i want to clarify remark that you made here earlier and i believe it came in response or at least after your exchange where i believe it said iran was the one that gave everything up front. and later on and perhaps another question and answer with another senator you mentioned that iran has given up ambition for nuclear program. i don't want to misquote you. what did you say? >> i'll have to go back and check the transcript. my intent was about the nuclear weapon. >> do you believe they've given up their ambition of a nuclear weapon? >> at this point, if if the jcpoa as it is implemented prevents iran from achieving a nuclear weapon. >> at this point, but i mean do you believe that iran is testing ballistic missiles with sunday the hope of putting up a nuclear warhead on it? >> this is one of the reasons why we are concerned about the ballistic missile program, and and especially about ballistic missile that has the capability to launch nuclear weapons. but that jcpoa, as it is implemented today in overtime will not allow iran to develop a nuclear weapon. should for whatever reason. >> today or overtime? is that you said. how many gulf countries a group you on that point? >> in terms of? >> how many allies in our region agree that iran has completely given up its nuclear weapons program? >> i think at this point they would agree given what iran has done in terms of. >> leadership in saudi arabia, leadership and cutter, privately would agree with you that they've given up their ambitions of visions of the nuclear weapon and there testing a ballistic missile to put a conventional warhead on time? >> cutter, i don't know but i haven't been there spoken to them. i have been in saudi arabia. the saudi's new the iranians as a real danger in the region. they view them as a danger and the reason for a number of ways,. >> if i may though, there testing out ballistic missile with putting a nuclear warhead on it? >> that was their purpose when they began question. >> is that no longer the purpose today. >> it's not their purpose if they can't achieve a nuclear weapon. >> then why would they test a ballistic missile? >> because it's a weapon that could deliver at different payloads. >> like a nuclear weapon. >> indeed. >> let me just to drill down. if. if the administration is so concerned about a listing missile, if they have given up and ambition for a nuclear weapon, do they believe they would like to, do you believe that they would hope to continue to test a ballistic missile and helps to put a ballistic missile on it? >> i understand the point and i would just reiterate that we are opposed to this ballistic missile program. >> i understand that you're appalled about how concerned we are. but yesterday no, do you believe i ran hopes to put a nuclear weapon on top of a ballistic missile? >> at this point no, because they can't. >> mr. shannon, with conversations i've had with allies in the region, nobody there believes they have given up their nuclear weapons ambition. >> i think it's important to address, yes this outrage over missile but we haven't put in the full responses that we said we would in order to prevent them from testing a ballistic missile. i don't believe there testing a ballistic missile to show that they can do it i believe they're doing it with the purpose to do a nuclear weapons. at the end of this 12 year. they they believe that they will have a short amount of time to indeed possess and develop a nuclear weapon. that's what the leaders in the region will tell you. secretary carey said in the letter in september 2 to the senate that the full measure of u.s. response would be affected if iran continues to push this bad behavior like testing ballistic missiles. do you think we have done everything possible to stop iran's testing of ballistic missiles? >> within the authorities that we have been given, we have. this is an evolving situation. as we determine where iran is giving. >> within the authorities we have been given. what authorities are preventing us from preventing us to fully -- >> the thirtys we have a distinction authorities are nonoaud. >> it stop there missile programs? >> know but it has deterred and delayed it by limiting the ability of external existence to that program and proliferation assistance to that program. iran has an indigenous capability that we cannot affect in the short term but we can limit and delay iran's ability and as we gain time we can work with our partners in the region to make sure they have the capability to defend himself and we have the capability to defend themselves. >> so by their continual testing of ballistic missiles we believe that the delay there ballistic missile program? >> considering where a be absent, yes it's not where we want to be obviously but iran sees this ballistic missile program as an important part of it's a strategic weapons system. it will continue on this route. we just need to make sure that it does not get there in any fast time. >> then do you believe our sanctions effort against i ran has been a success or failure? >> it has been an effective tool but it has not been a complete success. >> in the wall street journal, the uae and pastor of the united states stated is now clear one year since the framework of the deal has been agreed upon iran sees it as it as an opportunity to increase hostilities. instead of accepting this as a reality the the international committee must intensify its actions to check their. >> do you agree? >> i do. >> have others expressed similar concerns. >> yes. >> have we acted appropriately in response? >> we are working closely with our partners to ensure that they have the ability to defend themselves. >> so iran sees the the framework as an opportunity to increase hostilities in the area. could you outline some of those hostilities question. >> as i noted in my testimony in a previous,, what iran is doing in syria and what is doing in lebanon hezbollah, what it is doing in yemen are destabilizing actions that we believe are opposed significant danger to our allies in the region. we are responding to them. by working with our allies and partners, by enhancing their capability to defend themselves, and by looking for waves to build broader diplomatic connectivity in the region that will allow them to push back on iran and a significant way. >> thank you mr. chairman. my time has expired. >> i think this is important part of the testimony and for you, i know your new in this particular position and you are getting some leeway today because of that. for you to state that you know they're going to continue to do the ballistic missile testing that they are doing in clear violation does speak to the fact that certainly we don't need to be accommodating them, relative to dollars but we should be punishing them from violating the intent of this law we think it violates it specifically. you mentioned the need for authority with that you have a shoe on a bipartisan basis that if you feel like you need additional authorities, i think you can pass them out of here very quickly. i think it's unsatisfying to listen to that line of questioning and for you to state that you know they're going to continue to violate and yet we have a secretary of state acting as if we need to accommodate them because they didn't negotiate the deal good enough. >> thank mr. chairman. on it is very nice to have you here finally. i want to continue some of the questioning around the ballistic missile program because i was interested of the u.s. response to the program last week. we bless listed to iranian companies for supporting the ballistic missile companies and we sanction to british businessmen for helping an airline that was used by the iran revolutionary guards. france has also suggested there could be unilateral european union sanctions against iran over the launches. as we know, one of the reasons the sanctions regime was so effective in pushing iran to the negotiating table to get the jcpoa is to is it because of the international sanctions that really work together to put pressure on iran. so can you talk about how realistic it might be for the europeans to put additional sanctions on iran over the ballistic missile test? >> tank very much senator, thank you for that question, i know that our european colleagues, european union, germany, france and the u.k. agree with us on ballistic missile testing. they view ballistic missile testing as a danger, not just to the region but to themselves. for this reason we have worked in concert with them in response to ballistic missile and that's why they joined us in writing a letter to the un security council highlighting the recent ballistic missile test, so they are partners ineffective in implementing the jcpoa. i believe they will work with us to attempt to address the ballistic missile launch issue. we would have to have a larger discussion with them about what an enhanced sanction regime might look like in regard to that, but they would at least be prepared to have that discussion. >> the secretary general of nato is here this week, is there a role for nato given the ballistic missile pose a potential threat, is there a role for nato in how we should respond to iran on the missile issue. >> i'm sure there is, i'm not capable at this point of delineating it except it would be related to how we work melissa defense inside of nato and which we do are ready in some parts of the region. >> i know that whenever i ran has launched a missile that there has been activity at the un to try to condemn that and that russia has been the obstructionist and many of those cases to are taking stronger action at the un. can you talk about what other actions we might be able to take to counter what rush is doing? >> we have been engaging with the russians regularly on this. for several purposes, first, in order to try to the extent possible to ensure that we have coherence and cohesion within the p5 plus one as we address jcpoa implementation and as we address any other activities of iran that are dealt with in the un security council. most recently 2231. in this regard, we have a difference with the russians. so we have been engaging with them on many different levels to try to find a way to address that disagreement. >> we have a commitment from the russians in terms of working to prohibit the transfer of technology to iran's ballistic missile program and on this we are trying to ensure that they stay firm within the p5 plus one and at this point they are. >> so the russians are actually helping on that front. >> they are in the sense that there complying with their commitment not to transfer these kind of technologies. >> i want to switch topics to the iranians and ask what our analysis and the state department was in those parliamentary elections back in february, and whether we think there is any room to believe performers may be gaining support within iran? >> and whether those reformers are actually doing anything that is going to moderate iran stance with respect to its actions in the international community. >> an important question, the elections are still in place since there is is a variety of runoff elections. it is hard-pressed to give a global understanding or estimate of the impact of those elections. however if if we just look at what happened in tehran and the extent to which reformers swept the board in terms of -- i think it highlights the fact that the president and his intent on opening iran to the world in addressing some of the fundamental stumbling blocks has resonated in a positive way. it's not easy for us at this point to determine the impact that it's going to have on how i ramp leave strategically. largely because iran is a mix of conflicting entities in groups. with hardliners aligning themselves with religious leadership and with the security leadership to prevent reformists from moving too fast, too far. part of the work of the supreme leader is to balance forces inside iran. but it is our hope and our intent that as we pursue the jcpoa and as iran begins to connect with our colleagues in the european union and elsewhere, that the positive impact of that connection or connectivity are going to have a political effect in iran. it's important to understand that iran faces a huge demographic population. 60% of iran is 30 years old or younger. in other words they were born after the revolution. they have lived in a sanctions society. their ability to connect with the larger world is going to be a big factor within iranian politics. it is our hope is that that will lead to some changes in their behavior. >> i know i'm out of time mr. chairman. if i could follow up with one question, do you see any connection to that and the connection to human rights abuses that are occurring inside iran? >> at this point we do not see lots. that is because there is a political struggle going on in a definitional struggle. in moments like that, moments like that, the tendency for human rights is to go up. >> thank you. >> i appreciate i appreciate that we have a functional and relevant committee as well. investors shannon shannon thank you for your testimony today. broadly speaking i continue to be glad that iran has taken critical steps to restain its nuclear weapon program is mandated by the jcpoa, to limit its ability to quickly develop a nuclear weapon. i applaud the administration for sanctioning both individuals and entities against cyber attacks in the united states. i urge continued fairness and vigor in the enforcements of all the different mechanisms we have are preventing the iranians from continuing to project power in the region. i remain deeply concerned that iran continues to expand its influence in the middle east. iran's recent plastic missile test which i know have been discussed at length in the hearing today contradict its commitment under un security council resolution 2231. i think it demonstrates the nuclear deal will not change iran's nuclear behavior, at at least in the short run and remains, iran remains on ready to meet the obligations required of a responsible international community. i remain disturbed that i ran violates the human rights of the iranian people. i believe that if we fail to hold iran accountable for these actions avail to respond to violations of the jcpoa that the viability of the nuclear agreement will be in jeopardy. like men the administration for its recent actions, encourage that that they continue and that you enhance the nuclear port. while we continue to work together on a bipartisan basis it to be vigorous their support to terrorism and their proxies in human rights violations, let me start if i could about iaea funding. in february 2016 iaea officials have expressed concerns about the reliability of the sustained extra budgetary contributions for jcpoa enforcement activities due to possible donor fatigue on the long run. and a visit i made to vienna to meet with iea iaea leadership earlier this year reinforce these concerns. does the state department agree these are significant concerns of failure of the iaea to have appropriate personnel deployed to take advantage of the search made possible matters deeply. do you believe the u.s. should make a significant proactive and long-term investments to meet the iaea requirement to fully commit. >> the short answer is yes. the longer answer, first of all were grateful for the report, we have it in draft and we are commenting on it. we believe the iaea has the resources it needs in the short-term, through the end of the year to address its responsibilities in terms of compliance verification. we are continuing to look for ways with our partners with its resources that the iaea has at its disposal. what we are asking the iaea to do is quite remarkable. it is an important organization to begin with in terms of nonproliferation and nuclear security and safety. but, we are asking it to take on a role in iran so intrusive and so interventionist that it will be groundbreaking in many ways. much of it can do technologically, but much of it is also going to require inspectors on the grounds. this is going to require special funding and training. we are working with our partners to ensure the resources are available. we will have a conversation with this congress to discuss the broader detail where we think additional help would be important. >> thank you best are. my strong impression is that the iaea is a thorough, cautious, professional organization and so they are simply being responsible and not leaping forward to invest in a new generation of inspectors. that is not not what this moment calls for. one of the real positive features of the jcpoa is the opportunity for searching and intrusive inspections as you reference. they take a while to train and deploy and i do not think we should be penny wise and pound forward in this area and take advantage of this window. one other question, earlier this month you issued a report showing a number of people executed by the iranian government skyrocketed to nearly 1020 15, twice as many as 2010, ten times as as 2010, ten times as many as 2005. in your testimony you highlight the -- as a tool to potentially draw others too. do you believe authorities should be going expanded in any way in light of iran's ongoing abuses? >> first of all, one of our biggest and i think of area of concern is human rights. because of the situation we see right now. what it means for iran politically and what it means with iran going into the future. when it comes to sanctioning, iranian, again, we believe we have the authorities and i know this is not satisfactory answer for some on this committee but we are happy to engage in this conversation with this committee and with the senate about what more we can and should do to address these issues as we would be in other areas of sanctions as i noted. >> i see my time has expired, let me make a couple comments and closing. we had a chance yesterday to meet with the investor of the united nations. he made it clear that they will block and i think it is in common it on us to work closely together on the legislative branch to ensure that greater action and i'm very concerned about other committees about the possibility of wider access to the u.s. dollar and the dollar facilities for iran, i am determined that we make sure on its efforts to expand the reach and to finance terrorism is contained appropriately. thank you for your testimony. >> thank you. i just want to make a comment about u.s. leadership. obviously it would be for to have the security council take action against iran for its missile violation. that would be preferred. it also be preferred that in addition to u.s. actions we have coalition partners, including beyond the jcpoa, the gulf countries participate with us would be very helpful in sanctions against iran and missile violations. it really starts with u.s. leadership. the u.s. is is not prepared to take a very strong stance. it is difficult to get that type of attention internationally. we did that recently in north korea with the passage of the north korea sanctions act. it was a strong bill, strong message working within the administration. we got that done >> .. not only does it show willingness to work with congress but it will help us come to the appropriate legislative response. today we see iran is violating missile violations. we will treat that as a separate basket. let's not be bashful about the need for u.s. leadership and congress is a critical role in that. you can help us. there is a common agenda in the administration but there's a different attitude in the treasury, white house, the state department of defense, defense, and i think you can play an important role by wringing us together with a strong statement by the united states congress, getting us to pass legislation that can help this effort. >> thank you. senator menendez, then i want to come back and asked some questions. thank you for the opportunity. >> mr. secretary, just some questions. when you hear the question you will probably realize it's a simple yes or no question. yes or no, is sanctions against ballistic missiles testing a violation of the jc poa? >> no. >> is sanctions against financial institutions that are financing, whether it be ballistic missile tests or terroristic terrorist activity a violation of the act. >> no. >> okay a little more inquisitive, i don't thick it is , i am sure you are aware about the jc poa in the international ability to ensure that you ran is following the letter and spirit of the letter. they pointed directly to future problems at the iaea with monitoring the agreement. it included limited investment and analytical capabilities. certain important equipment operating at capacity and as the iaea turns its attention almost exclusively to a run and other player freighters as well. this is a profound challenge. i am raising some other challenges with you for the first time. i hope to hear your response to it. iran has a history of safeguard. how does the iaea communicate potential violations of the agreement to the joint commission or individual agreements to the party. have they flagged any activity of violations so far? >> the iaea is a central part of compliance with the jc poa. as you noted, were going to a place with a special responsibility on the iaea. there's also special demands that will require the iaea to transform aspects of its structure and behavior. we are prepared to work with them and we are prepared to do so. they communicate with the joint commission in a variety of forms. it has regular reporting requirement related to jc poa poa compliance. it also engages with us individual on compliance it is also in a position to identify aspects of the jc poa compliance that need further attention. we have had. >> i'm sorry to interrupt you. my specific question is how does it communicate potential violations of the agreement to the joint commission and have they flagged any activity as a violation or potential violation so far question and. >> they not flagged violations. they have flagged issues in which there is not a complete understanding of both party about what needs to be done. because of that we are working within the joint commission and working with our partners and the iranians have been able to address them. >> so they communicate in writing, verbally, to individuals? i'm trying to get the process here because that's one of the things they talked about. what is the process to do this? >> it's kind of a two-tiered process. the first is through its formal reports. secondly, joint commission members engage regularly. that's the reason we do the meetings. >> let me ask you this. you said there was interpretation requests. have there been instances of questionable compliance thus far that were resolved outside of the dispute resolution method? >> these were issues that didn't raise issues of dispute. they were issues in which we noticed certain activities that we felt were not in compliance. we were engaged with the iranians and they were fixed. >> so so those wouldn't, if there was a dispute on something it would be more formal and everybody would know about it. the way in which you describe those issues, it's rather informal. no one knows exactly what they are. there's no record of that. >> all have to go back and check on a couple of the specific ones. whether or not they were formalized or written in some fashion. >> let me ask you this, if an access issue arose with the joint -- with the iaea still get access within 24 days of someone disagreed on the significance? >> i'm sorry. >> given access question, to the joint commission, would iaea still get access within 24 days if days if any member of the joint commission disagreed on the significance. some might say it's not a significant or worthy of having access. with the joint commission, what the iaea still get access? >> my understanding is yes. my understanding is they can access areas. >> even if members of of the joint commission are in disagreement? >> yes. >> finally how will the iaea and/or know that that exporters are going through the people cure minute channel? other consequences and penalties for exporters failing to go through the procurement channel? >> if the material that they are seeking to sell is on the excluded list my understanding is yes. anybody who wants to engage with iran on issues have to go through the procurement working group. >> i raise these questions because this is a new onset of the jal study and i am by you as you go back to the department to review your answers to me and if any of them need to be modified, i'm just interested in the fact. if they need to be modified for the record i'm sure the chairman would consider it. >> i would actually ask you to reconsider your answer. there is a joint commission vote that has to occur in the iaea can be denied access so i know you're somewhat new to this and you weren't involved in the negotiation. i don't think you answered that question appropriately. not intentionally, but my sense is you will need to correct that. >> none of those are got you questions. they are new questions raised by the study that i asked of the commission and i just want to get a definitive answer. >> i appreciate that. >> i think that was one of the concerns, the period leading up to the 24 days and then the 24 days and four days and then the vote of the commission. i do think you might want to restate your answer. >> okay. >> i think were closing out. i would just like to say, i know the senators have some question about the election. i think some folks were concerned if they are putting on a moderate image but carrying out the same policy or if those policies will change at some point. the number of people who have been executed and human rights violations, the things they're doing are doing in the region that d stabilize seem to be on the fence and these elections have taken place. secondarily, i would just say that there are people on this committee that voted in different ways relative to the agreement and that is understandable. i don't think a single person today said that they wanted to light and up in pursuit of iran adhering to this agreement. i don't there is a push. i may have misunderstood, but i don't think that's the case. i get the sense that secretary has developed a relationship and i just get the sense there's a desire to accommodate and make this bend to make this work more than the agreement states that it should for iran. i think there are other parts of the administration that are countering that. i think the middle is somewhere in between. i don't think today you've heard from this community and i'm glad we had this hearing, but i don't think you heard any desire to permit flexibility that doesn't permit. i think what you heard is making sure we push back in the appropriate way because there's a sense that over time, the will to adhere to this could a road. i hope you will take that back to the state department. we think you for your testimony. there will be questions asked in writing, if you will the record would remain open until the close of business thursday. if you respond appropriately we would appreciate it. i know this is a hearing on some technical issues today. some of which you are familiar with and some of what you're not. we think you for coming and the role you're playing in the state department. >> thank you very much. i appreciate the opportunity. >> with that the meeting is returned. three thinking reform in prisons in america. they won the second prize for their video on gender wage inequity in the workplace. then our campaign 2016 bus stop bus stop in los angeles, a ceremony for third prize winner. cspan extends a special thanks to our cable partners for their help in coordinating our student cam winners in the community. be sure to watch one of the top 21 winning entries at 6:00 a.m. eastern before "washington journal". >> cspan "washington journal" is live every day with policy issue that affects you. there's also a look ahead to the contest in colorado and wyoming and the key race in new york later this week. then the economy economists for the research group will be on with us to talk about the election. also carrie arnold, freelance journalist will be with us to discuss her article on hold based nutrition and bmi screening for students. some evidence shows the methods are triggering deadly eating disorders in children. be sure to watch these fans "washington journal" beginning live wednesday morning. join the discussion. >> landmark cases, cspan's cspan's special history series produced in cooperation with the national constitution center. exploring the human stories and constitutional drama between 12 historic supreme court decisions. >> number 750

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Germany , Iran , Tel Aviv , Israel , Syria , Lebanon , Russia , As Iran , Az Arbayjan E Sharqi , Washington , District Of Columbia , Bahrain , United Kingdom , Iraq , Wyoming , Tehran , Colorado , Saudi Arabia , North Korea , Vienna , Wien , Austria , Yemen , Switzerland , France , Venezuela , America , Saudi , Russian , Iranians , Iranian , Israelis , British , Swiss , Israeli , Russians , Carrie Arnold , Shannon , Poa , Tom Shannon , Cspan , Los Angeles , Betty Ganz , Ben Cardin ,