tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 3, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EDT
got our fair share. how did he do that? beginning in his state career and going onto his federal career, he climbed up the ladder of seniority and was able to exercise more power then you might normally have. certainly in the united states congress where he was able to make sure colorado and western colorado would be treated fairly. his first major success was the passage of the colorado river storage project in 1956. >> see all of our programs saturday at 7:00. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on c-span3.
>> the u.s. chamber of commerce will hold a briefing on top economic workplace issues facing businesses including regulation, immigration, and changes to the tax code. later in the day, discussion about iraq's future from the center for strategic and international studies, live at 2:00 on c-span. the news today is that obama has clinched the deal can get through congress. senator barbara mikulski tipped the balance by saying she is in favor of it or, becoming the 34th democratic senator to do so. in a statement, she said no deal is perfect, especially one negotiated with the iranian regime. but it is the best program available to block iran from having a nuclear bomb. the senate is expected to debated on tuesday.
the house is expected to bring the resolution of this approval to the floor next week and, in a letter to her democratic colleagues, nancy pelosi announced, by the end of this week, well over 100 house democrats will have made their support for the agreement public. with these statements and private commitments i am certain that we will uphold the president's veto. announcer: on c-span tonight, we will focus on the iran nuclear agreement coming rooting secretary of state john kerry in philadelphia continuing his appeal to members of congress to vote in favor of the deal. then defense secretary ashton carter and joint chiefs chairman martin dempsey testifying on capitol hill in july about the iran agreement. and later, a few speeches from the senate floor, including mitch mcconnell and senator john
cornyn opposing the iran nuclear accord. and then dick durbin whose -- who supports it. here now is secretary kerry at the national constitution center in philadelphia today. he declared that congress's decision on the iran nuclear decision will matter more than any other foreign-policy decision in recent history. morn any other foreign-policy decision in recent history. [applause] sen. lugar: dear friends, we thank all of you for coming today, for really an historic message from a great american later. -- american leader. let me just add that not too
long ago, secretary kerry asked me and my partner sam nunn, who was involved with us in the reduction act to write an op-ed about the iran agreement. we were eager to do so and grateful it has been published. at the same time, the title of this is there is no perfect nuclear agreement. and the gist of the article is what happens next. occurs.implementation no perfect agreement. we said that from the experience ,f dealing with russia, ukraine belarus over a 20-your period of time. they weren't treaties. start 1 treaty, start 2 treaty, and even the new start treaty, erryh secretary k
was chairman for the committee. and they are important treaties. but more important really is the follow through. with regard to the russian , i go to, for 20 years russia at least once a year, often to kazakhstan and ukraine. it is really something to visit with russians, something to make sure that the best was happening, namely the nuclear weapons were being destroyed. over the course of that 20 years, 700 or weapons. the me mention that these weapons were on large missiles. and several could go out in different directions. they were targeted not only at all the military installations,
but at our major cities. i was appalled on time to find that indianapolis was on the target list. i served as mayor for eight years oblivious to the fact that we can have been obliterated at anytime. and this is why i took seriously and i'm very grateful for secretary kerry being so supportive throughout those years of the efforts that sam and i put in. but now we are in a new. it's a very important one. this is an agreement that deserves the support of the american people. and more immediately the support of the united states congress. it comes after arduous negotiations involving the secretary of state, almost unless talks and difficult arguments with iranian officials. but likewise, sometimes with our
earners in this, the countries that are backing us up to my doing russia and china and germany, france, great britain. these are very important partners. we have been involved in the sanctions against iran another rushers have been placed against that country. in arduouserry negotiations has helped bring about a remarkable agreement. the me just say it comes after a lifetime of public service. some of the parallels in our lives are substantial. the one of them is i volunteered for the navy and serve really most of my time as an intelligence refer for the chief naval operations. secretary kerry volunteered for out iny and he ended up the mekong delta.
he was awarded the silver star, the bronze star award, and three purple hearts from that very significant service. very early in his career. he was willing to give his life for this country. he served as lieutenant governor of massachusetts under governor dukakis. and then he came to the united states senate. 28 years of magnificent service. last chairman for the senate relations committee. but during that time, one pursued foreign relations rigorously. , i must say, in a nonpartisan way to bring results. kerry succeeded joe biden as the chairman of the committee i was either ranking
but we lookedrman together. , toetary and myself and joe see if we could get a 16-0 vote from the foreign relations committee. the best strongest face of america to the rest of the world as opposed to a 9-7 situation, which somehow rather a treaty or significant agreement was eked out. this was still a very important principle area this is why, it is a genuine pleasure to be with secretary kerry today, to know who serve not man only in the senate, but was a candidate for resident of the united states in 2004 and barely lost by a few electoral votes. he came back and continued that service as chairman of the orman -- foreign relations committee. our secretary, as
of state. indefatigable in his travel and his work. genuine honor and personal privilege to introduce to you today my friend secretary john evans carry. -- secretary john evans kerry. [applause] sec. kerry: thank you so much for that generous introduction. i want to say good morning to all of you here. it is great for me to be able to be here in philadelphia. i am delighted to see some a young people with us. i know school has started. i know the choice between coming here and sitting in class was a tough one area [laughter] we are glad -- a tough one. [laughter]
we are glad you made the choice you did. i am grateful that senator lugar chose to come here in order to introduce me and reaffirm his support for this agreement. but i am even more grateful to his service to our country over the course of a lifetime. as a former colleague of his on the foreign relations committee, i can wear witness -- i can bear ck lugar has ai long record of foreign-policy compliments. ofhas a lasting legacy leaving this world safer. he is someone who has consistently placed our country's interest above any other consideration. and he has a very deep understanding of how best to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands. he is one of our experts when it comes to that judgment.
so it is appropriate that the senator is here with us this morning and i think everyone of us joins and saying thank you to you, dick, for your tremendous service. [applause] it's also fitting to be here in philadelphia, the homeground of this absolutely magnificent center to the constitution, the liberty bell, and one of our nation's most reveres founder -- revered founders, benjamin when. i must say i never quite anticipated that this is one of the great vistas of america and be able to look down and see independence hall. it's inspiring i think for all of us here. i would say a quick word about ben franklin. in addition to his many inventions and his special status as america's first diplomat, franklin is actually credited with being the first arson known to have made a list
of rosen cons, literally, dividing a page in two and writing all the resistance of order proposal on one side and all of the reasons to oppose it on the other. and this morning, i would like to invite you, all of you, those here and those listening through the media, to participate in just such an exercise. because two months ago, in vienna, the united states and including nations, permanent members of the un security council, reach agreement with iran on ensuring the peaceful nature of that country's nuclear program. as early as next week, congress will begin voting on whether to support that plan. and the outcome will matter is much as any form policy decision in recent history area like sent
-- history. like senator lugar, president obama and i are convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the framework we have put forward will get the job done and in that assessment, we have excellent company. nationsth, 29 of our top nuclear physicist and nobel prize winners, scientists, from one end of the country to the other, congratulated the president for what they call "a technically sound, stringent, and innovative deal that will provide the necessary assurance that iran is not developing nuclear weapons. to theentists praised agreement for its creative approach to verification and for the rigorous safeguards that will prevent iran from obtaining the fissile material for a bomb. fact, i will lay out the
that caused those scientists and many other experts to reach the favorable conclusions that they have. of -- whyw why they the agreed plan will make the united states, israel, the gulf states and the world safer. i want to explain how he gives us the access we need to ensure that iran's nuclear program remains wholly peaceful while preserving every option to respond if iran fails to meet us. i will make clear that the key elements of the agreement will years, asor 10 or 15 some are trying to assert, or for 20 or 25, but they will last for the lifetime of iran's nuclear program. and i will dispel some of the
false information circulating about the proposal on which congress is soon going to vote. discussion, there is an inescapable starting point. a place where every argument made against the agreement must confront a stark reality. of how advanced iran's nuclear program had become and where it was headed when presidents of obama and rouhani launched the diplomatic process that concluded this past july. septemberago, in 2013, we were facing in iran that had already mastered the new field -- the nuclear fuel cycle, already stockpiled enough enriched uranium that, if further enriched, could arm 10 to 12 bombs. enrichingas already
uranium to the level of 20%. which is just below weapons grade. and in iran that had already installed 10,000 plus centrifuges and in iran that was moving rapidly to commission a heavy water reactor able to produce enough weapons grade plutonium for an additional twoer to a year -- bomb or a year. that, my friends, is where we were when we already began our negotiations. a well remembered moment the previous fall, israeli prime minister netanyahu had held up a cartoon of a bomb to show just how dangerous iran's nuclear program had become. and in 2013, he returned to that podium to warn that iran was positioning itself "to rush
forward to build nuclear bombs before the international community can detect it and much less prevent it." the prime minister argued rightly that the so-called rake out time, the interval required for iran to produce enough fissile material for one bomb had bundled to as little as two months. even though it would take significantly longer to actually told the bomb itself using that fissile material, the prime minister's message was clear. iran had successfully transformed itself into a nuclear threshold state. in the obama administration, we were well aware of that troubling fact. more importantly, we were already responding to it. the record is irrefutable that americancourse of two
administrations, it was the united states that led the world against tehran, one of the toughest international sanctions regimes ever developed. we also had to face an obvious fact. sanctions alone were not getting the job done. not even close. slow, letfailing to alone halt iran's relentless march towards a nuclear weapons capability. so president obama act did. he reaffirmed his vow that iran would have really not be emitted to have a nuclear weapon. he marshaled support for this principle from every owner of the international community. he made clear his determination to build the on what sanctions could accomplish and find a way to not only stop but to throw into her verse iran's rapid
expansion of its nuclear program. strategy, weed our cast a very wide net to enlist the broadest critiques available. andat down with the iaea with our own intelligence community to ensure that the verification standards that we sought on paper would be effective in reality. we consulted with congress and our international allies and friends. we examined carefully every step that we might take to close off each of iran's potential pathways to a bomb. and of course, we were well aware that every proposal, every provision, every detail would have to withstand the most painstaking scrutiny. we knew that. and so we made clear from the outset that we would not settle for anything less than an agreement that was
comprehensive, verifiable, effect of, and of lasting duration. began with an interim agreement, reached in geneva. the joint plan of action. in a clamp -- it accomplished diplomatically what sanctions alone could never have done or did. it halted the advance of iran's nuclear activities. note --s critical to you never hear much about it, but it is critical to note that for more than 19 months now, iran has complied with every requirement of that land. -- that plan. but this is just the first step. from that moment, we pushed ahead, seeking a broad and enduring agreement, sticking to our core positions, maintaining unity among a diverse negotiating group of partners.
and we arrived at the good and effective deal that we have sought. and i ask you today and in the days ahead, as we have asked members of congress over the course of these last months -- consider the facts of what we achieved and judge for yourself the difference between where we were two years ago and where we are now and where we can be in the future. agreement, iran's so-called breakout time was about two months. willthis agreement, it increase by a factor of six to at least a year and it will remain at that level for a decade or more. without this agreement, iran could double the number of its operating centrifuges almost overnight and continue expanding with ever more efficient designs . with this agreement, iran's centrifuges will be refused by
two thirds for 10 years. iranut this agreement, could continue expanding its stockpile of enriched uranium, which is now more than 12,000 furthers, and enough if in raced for multiple bombs. with this agreement, that stock mile -- that stockpile will shrink and shrink s'more, a reduction of some 98 sent, to no more than 300 kilograms for 15 years. agreement, iran's heavywater reactor will soon be able to produce enough weapons grade of plutonium each year to fuel one or two nuclear weapons. with this agreement, the core of that reactor will be removed and filled with concrete. and iran will never be permitted
to produce any weapons grade plutonium. without this agreement, the iaea would not have assured access to undeclared locations in iran where sex is -- were suspicious activities might be taking place. the agency could seek access but, if iran objected, there would be no sure method for resolving a dispute in a finite period, which is exactly what has led us to where we are today. that standoff. with this agreement, the iaea can go wherever the evidence leads. no facility, declared or undeclared, will be off-limits and there is a time certain for assuring access. there is no other country to which such a requirement applies. this arrangement is both unprecedented and unique. in addition, the iaea will have more inspectors working in iran,
using modern technology, such as real-time enrichment monitoring, high-tech electronic seals, and cameras that are always watching, 24/7, 365. further, iran has agreed never to pursue key technologies that would be necessary to develop a nuclear explosive device. so the agreement deals not only with the production of fissile material, but also with the critical issue of weaponization. because of all of these limitations and guarantees, we can sum up by saying that without this agreement the iranians would have several potential pathways to a bomb. with it, they won't have any. iran's plutonium pathway will be blocked because it won't have a reactor producing plutonium for
a weapon. and it won't build any new heavywater reactors are engaged in reprocessing for at least 15 years. we have theat, ability to watch and know precisely what they are doing. the iranian pathway will be blocked because of the deep reductions in iran's uranium enrichment capacity and because, for 15 years, the country will not enrich uranium to a level higher than 3.67%. let me be clear. no one can build a bomb from a stock mile of 300 kilograms of uranium enriched only to 3.67%. it is just not possible. finally, iran's covert pathway to a bomb will also be blocked. 24/7 monitoring of iran's key nuclear facilities. as soon as we start the
implementation, inspectors will be able to track iran's uranium as it is mind, then mailed, then thend -- as it is mined, milled, then turned into yellowcake. for a quarter of a century at least, every activity throughout the nuclear fuel change will receive added scrutiny. iaea willears, the a review the central components in iran to ensure that none are diverted to a covert program. decide to cheat, its technicians will have to do more than bury a processing facility deep beneath the ground. they would have to come up with a complete -- complete and completely secret -- nuclear supply chain, a secret source of
uranium, a secret milling facility, a secret conversion facility, a secret enrichment facility. and our nuclear management department agree iran could never get away with such a deception. and if we have even a shadow of doubt that illegal activities the iaea on, either will be given access required to uncover the truth or iran will be in violation and the nuclear-related sanctions can snap back into place. we will also have other options to ensure compliance if necessary. requirements,hese it is no wonder that this plan has been endorsed by so many leading american scientists. experts on nuclear nonproliferation and others. national 60 former
security officials, more than 100 retired ambassadors, people who served under democratic and republican presidents alike are backing the proposal as our retired generals and admirals from all five of our uniform services. ben scowcroft, one of the great names in american security and evers -- endeavors of the last century and now, served as a national security advisor to two republican presidents. he is among the many respected diggers who support it. the agreement is being backed with one exception by each of the more the more than 100 countries that have taken a formal position. the agreement was also endorsed by the united nations security council on a vote of 15-0. this not only said something very significant about the quality of the plan. particularly when you consider that five of those countries are permanent members and they are
all nuclear powers. it should also invite reflection from those who believe the united states can walk away from this without causing grave harm to our international reputation to relationships and to interests. you probably heard the claim that, because of our strength, because of the power of our banks, all we americans have to do if congress rejects this plan is return to the bargaining table, puff out our chests and demand a better deal. i heard one critic say he would use sanctions to give iran a choice between having an economy or having a nuclear program. well, folks, that is a very punchy sound bite. but it has no basis in any reality. ck said, i was chair of the
foreign policy committee. remember, even the toughest restrictions didn't stop iran's nuclear program from speeding hundredrom a couple of centrifuges to 5000 to 19,000 or a we have already been there. if this agreement is voted down, those who vote no will not be able to tell you how many centrifuges iran will have next year or the year after. if it is approved, we will be able to tell you exactly what the limits on iran's program will be. the fact is that it wasn't either sanctions or threats that expansiontopped the of iran's nuclear activities. the sanctions brought people to the table, but it was the start of the negotiating process and the negotiations themselves recently concluded in vienna
that actually stopped it. -- with ofhe nose those negotiations that iran begin to get rid of it stockpile of 27% enriched negotiation, did it stop installing more centrifuges and ceased advancing the iraq reactor. only then did it commit to be more forthcoming about iaea access and negotiate a special arrangement to break the deadlock. so just apply your common sense. ift do you think will happen we say to iran now, hey, forget it, the deal is off? let's go back to square one. how do you think an negotiating partners, all who have embraced this deal, will react? all of whom were prepared to go forward with it, how will they react? what do think will happen to that multilateral actions regime that brought iran to the are getting table in the first place? the answers pretty simple.
the answer is straightforward. not only will we lose the momentum we have else up in pressing iran to limit its nuclear activities. we will almost surely start moving in the opposite direction. sanctions remember don't just staying -- don't just sting in one direction. they also produce costs and those who forgo the commercial opportunities. it is a tribute to president obama's diplomacy and the for that to president george w. bush that we were able to commence countries to accept economic faculty's and sacrifices and the together the competence of sanctions regime that we did. many nations that would like to do business with iran agreed to hold back because of the sanctions and -- and this is and because they wanted
to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. they have as much interest in it as we do. and that is why they hope the negotiations will succeed. and that's why they will join us. in insisting that iran live up to its obligations. if weey will not join us unilaterally walk away from the very deal that the sanctions were designed to bring about. us if wewill not join are demanding even greater sacrifices and threatening their businesses and banks because of a choice we made and they opposed. so while it may not happen all at once, it is clear that, if we reject this plan, the multilateral sanctions regime will start to unravel. the pressure on iran will lessen. and our negotiating leverage will diminish if not disappear.
obviously, that is not the path, as some critics would have us believe, to a so-called better deal. weaker path to a much position for the united states of america and to a much more dangerous middle east. and this is by no means a partisan point of view that i just expressed. henry paulson, the secretary of ofssuring under george -- treasury under george w. bush, he held designed the early steps. he said the other day "it would be totally unrealistic to believe, if we walk back out of this deal, that the sanctions will remain in place. "thisl volcker said, agreement is as good as you can get. to think we can unilaterally maintain sanctions doesn't make any sense."
we should pause for a minute to contemplate what voting down for agreement might mean iran's cadre of hardliners, for those people in iran who lead the chance of "death to america" and "death to israel" and even --ath to the honey death "death to rouhani." this agreementnt to fall apart are the most extreme factions in iran. there opposition should tell you all you need to know. from the very beginning, these thatmists have warranted dealing with the united states would be the worst thing of all time. why would we now take a step that would prove them right? let me be clear. reject in this agreement would
not be sending a signal a resolve to iran. it would be rude -- it would be broadcasting a message so puzzling that most people across the globe would find it impossible to company and. after all, -- to comprehend. after all, they listened when we spoke of the dangers of a nuclear iran. they watched as we spent four years forging an agreement to rein in that program. they nodded their heads and support as we explained that the program we have arranged will make the world safer. who would understand it if we suddenly reject the a very -- the very outcome we have worked so hard to obtain? and not by offering some new and viable alternative, but by offering no alternative at all. it is hard to conceive of a quicker or more self-destructive blow to our nation's credibility only withhip, not
respect to this one issue, but i'm telling you look ross the i'm telling you across the board. we would pay an immeasurable price for this unilateral reversal. friends, as dick mentioned, i have been in public service for many years. and i have been called on to make some difficult choices in that time. there are those who believe decided whether or not to support the iran agreement is just such a choice. and i respect that. and i respect them. but i also believe that, because onthe stringent limitations iran's program that are included in this agreement that i just described, because of where that program was headed before our negotiations began and will head again if we walk away, because of the utter absence of a viable alternative to this plan that we
have devised, the benefits of this agreement far outweigh any potential drawbacks. certainly, the goal of preventing iran from having a nuclear weapon is supported across our political set -- political spectrum. and a has the backing of countries on every continent. thehat then explains controversy that has persisted in this debate? a big part of the answer, i think, is that even before the ink on the agreement was dry, we were bombarded by miss of what the agreement will and won't do -- by the myths of what the agreement will and what do. the first is that somehow the deal is based on trust or naive expectation that iran will reverse course and many of the policies it has been pursuing internationally. critics tell us over and over again -- you can't trust iran.
what.guess there is not a single sentence, not a single paragraph in this whole agreement that depends on promises or trust. not one. the arrangement that we worked out with tehran is basics lucidly on verification and proof. that is why the agreement is structured the way it is. that is why sanctions relief is tied strictly to performance. and it is why we have formulated the most far-reaching monitoring and transparency regime ever negotiated. thee same critics point to fact that, two decades ago, the united states reached a nuclear framework with north korea that didn't a congress what it set out to do. and we are told we should have learned a lesson from that. well, the truth is we did learn a lesson.
the agreement with north korea was four pages and only dealt with plutonium. our agreement with iran runs 159 detailed pages, applies to all of tehran's potential pathways to a bomb, and is specifically grounded in the transparency rules of the iaea's additional protocol, which didn't even exist two decades ago when the north korea deal was made because it was with the specifically north korea experience in mind. lesson learned. the reality is, if we trust that iran are thought it was about to become more moderate, this agreement would be less necessary than it is. but we don't. we would like nothing more than to see iran act differently. but not for a minute are we counting on it.
iran's support for terrorist groups and its contribution to sectarian violence are not recent policies. they reflect the perceptions of its leaders about iran's long-term national interests and there are no grounds for expecting those calculations to change in the near future. that is why we believe so strongly that every problem in the middle east, every threat to israel and to our friends in the region would be more dangerous if iran were permitted to have a nuclear weapon. that is the inescapable bottom line. that is also why we are working so hard and soap are actively to protect our interests and those of our allies. in part because of the challenge those by iran, we having gauged in an unprecedented level of military intelligence and security cooperation with our friend and ally israel. we are determined to help our
ally. we work with israel every day to enforce sanctions and prevent terrorist organizations such as hamas and hezbollah from obtaining financing in the weapons they seek, whether from iran or for merit -- or from any other source. and we will stand with israel to stop its adversaries while once again -- from launching deadly attacks against the israeli people. we have provided $20 billion in foreign military financing to israel, more than half of what we have given to nations worldwide. over and above that, we have invested some $3 billion in iron dome batteries and other missile programs and systems. last gaza how, in the war, lives were saved in israel because of it. we have given privileged access
to military equipment. israel is the only nation in the middle east to which the united states has sold this fifth-generation aircraft. the president recently authorized a massive arms resupply package with penetrating munitions and air to air missiles. a newth hope to conclude memorandum of understanding, a military assistance plan that will guide our cooperation through the next decade. diplomatically, our support for israel also remains rocksolid. as we continue to oppose every effort to delegitimize a jewish biasedr to pass resolutions against it in international bodies. i understand personally there is
no way to overstate the concern in israel about iran and about the potential consequences that this agreement or rejecting this agreement might have on israel's security. the fragility of israel's is a should has been brought home to me on every one of the many trips i have made to that country. state,, as secretary of i have already traveled to israel more than a dozen times, spending the equal length of a full month there. even ordering my plane to land at ben gurion airport when commercial aircraft had been halted during the last house a war, doing so specifically as a sign of support. have walkears, i through yap i showed, a living memorial to the 6 million lost, and i have felt in my bones the unfathomable evil of the holocaust and the undying reminder never to forget.
i have climbed inside a shelter where children were forced to leave their homes and classrooms to seek shelter from rockets. i witnessed of the shredded remains of homemade missiles from gaza, missiles fired with no other purpose than to sell fear -- to so fear in the hearts of israeli families. i piloted an israeli jet and observed firsthand the tiniest of israel airspace from which it is possible to see all of the country's neighbors at the same time. and i have bowed my head at the western wall and offered my prayer for peace, peace for israel, for the region and for the world. i take a backseat to no one in my commitment to the security of israel. a commitment i demonstrated through my 28 plus years in the senate. and as secretary of state, i am
fully conscious of the existential nature of the choice israel must make. i understand the conviction that israel, even more than any other country, simply cannot afford a mistake in defending its security. respectfully disagree with benjamin netanyahu, i do not question for an instant the basis of his concern or that of any israeli. but i am also convinced, as is president obama, our senior defense and military leaders and even many former israeli military and intelligence officials that this agreement puts us on the right path to prevent iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon. the people of israel will be safer with a steel and the same is true for the people throughout the region. that, we areensure
also taking specific and far-reaching steps to coordinate with our friends from the gulf states. president obama hosted their leaders at camp david earlier this year. lastited with them in doha month. and this week, we will visit kim so hon from saudi arabia to washington. there -- they are alarmed by iran's nuclear program. we must and we will respond on both fronts. we will make certain that i ran lives up to its commitments under the nuclear agreement and we will continue strengthening our security partnerships. we are determined that are gulf friends will have the lyrical and the military support that they need. to that end, we are working to develop a ballistic missile defense for the arabian peninsula, authorize urgently required arms transfer,
strengthen cyber security, engage in large scale military exercises, and enhance maritime interdiction of illegal iranian shipments. we are deepening our cooperation and support in the fight against the threat posed to them, to us, and to all civilizations by the forces of international terror, including their surrogates and their proxies. steps and others, we will maintain international pressure on iran. the united states sanctions imposed because of tehran's support for terrorism and its human rights record, those will remain in place. as well or sanctions aimed at preventing the proliferation of ballistic missiles and transfer of conventional arms. the un security council prohibitions on shipping weapons to hezbollah, the shiite militias in iraq, the booty rebels in yemen, all those will remain as well.
we will continue to urge tehran to provide information regarding an american who disappeared in iran several years ago, and to release the u.s. citizens its government has unjustly imprisoned. we will do everything we can to see that our citizens are able to safely return to where they belong, at home and with their families. have no doubt. the united states will oppose iran's the stabilizing puzzle aziz with every international degree -- policies with every security possible. i may clear the administration's willingness to work with them on legislation to address shared concerns about regional security , consistent with the agreement we have worked out with our international earners. this brings us to a second piece
of fiction. that this deal would somehow legitimize iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. i keep hearing this. years, iran has had a civilian nuclear program under the nonproliferation shoul treaty. it was never a realistic option to change that. is recognizing this reality not the same as legitimizing the pursuit of a nuclear weapon. in fact, this agreement does the exact opposite during under iaea prohibited iran is from ever pursuing a nuclear weapon. this is an important point. i want to be sure that everyone understands. the international community is not telling iran that it can have a nuclear weapon for 15 years. we are telling iran that it can't have a nuclear weapon
period. , 15, is no magic moment 20, to five years ago now -- years from now where iran gets a pass. in fact, iran is required by this agreement to sign up to and abide by the iaea additional protocol that i mentioned earlier that came out of the north korea experienced. and that requires inspections of all nuclear facilities. what does this mean? it means that iran's nuclear program will remain subject to regular inspections forever. iran will have to provide access to all of its nuclear facilities forever. iran will have to respond promptly to request for access to any suspicious site forever. and if iran at any time -- at any time -- and parks nuclear activities that are incompatible
with a wholly peaceful program, it will be in violation of the agreement forever. we will know that violation right away and we will retain every option we now have to respond, whether diplomatically or through a return to sanctions or by other means. agreement gives us unprecedented tools and all the time we need to hold iran accountable for its choices and actions. the specialme of additional restrictions that we successfully negotiated, those begin to ease after a period, in some cases 10 or 15 and others 20 or 25. but it would defy logic to vote to kill the whole agreement with all the permanent npt restrictions by which iran has to live for that reason.
after all, if your house is on fire, if it is going up in flames, would you refuse to extinction because of the chance that there might be another fire in 15 years? obviously not. fire and youhe take advantage of the extra time to prepare for the future. my friends, doesn't make sense to conclude that we should vote no now because of what might happen in 15 years, thereby guaranteeing that what might happen in 15 years will actually begin to happen now. because if this agreement is rejected, every possible reason for worry in the future would have to be confronted now, immediately, in the months ahead. once again, and soon, iran will begin advancing his nuclear program. we will lose the benefit of the agreement that contains all these restrictions and it would give a green light to everything that we are trying to prevent.
needless to say, that is not the outcome that we want. it is not an outcome that would be good for our country during nor for our allies -- for our country nor for our allies or for the world. there is a third myth, a more technical one, that iran could get away with building a covert nuclear facility. in truth, there is no way in 24 days or 24 months or 24 years for that matter to destroy all the evidence of illegal activity that has been taking place regarding fissile material area because of the nature of fissile materials and their relevant precursors, you can't eliminate the evidence by shoving it under a mattress, flushing it down a toilet, carting it off in the middle of the night. the materials may go, but the telltale traces remain year after year after year.
and the 24 days is the outside. of time -- outside period of time during which they must allow access. dispute to access in any location, the united states and our european allies have the votes to decide the issue. once we identify the site the raises russians, we will be watching it and tenuously until the inspectors are allowed in. let me underscore that. the united states and the international community will be monitoring iran nonstop. and you can bet, if we see something, we will do something. the agreement gives us a wide range of enforcement tools and we will use them. and the standard we will apply can be summed up in two words. zero tolerance. there is no way to guarantee that iran will keep its word and that's why this isn't waste on promise or trust. but we can guarantee that, if
iran decides to break the agreement, it will regret breaking any promise that it has made. there are many other myths circulating about the agreement, but the last one i will highlight is economic and it's important. the myth that sanctions relief, receivean will will be too generous and too dangerous. like any serious negotiation, this involved quid pro quo. iran wanted sanctions relief. -- world wanted without the trade-off, there could have been no deal and no agreement by iran to the constraints that it has accepted , very important constraints. but there are some who point to sanctions relief as grounds to oppose the agreement.
and the logic is faulty for several reasons and the first and most important is that absent new violations by iran, the sanctions will erode regardless of what we do. it's an illusion for members of congress to think that they can vote this plan down and then turn around and still persuade countries like china, japan, south korea, turkey, india, iran's major oil customers. that they ought to continue support sanctions that are costing them billions of dollars every year. is not going to happen. and a forget that the money that has been locked up as the result of sanctions is not sitting in some american bank under u.s. control. the money is frozen and being held in escrow by countries with which iran has had commercial dealings. we don't have that money. we can't control that. it will begin to be released anyway if we walk away from this agreement.
remember as well that the bulk of the fans iran will receive under this actions relief are already spoken for. and they are dwarfed by the country's unmet economic needs. a crippled infrastructure, energy infrastructure. it has to rebuild it to be able to pump oil. it has an agriculture sector that has been starved for investment. massive pension obligations, significant foreign reserves that are already allocated to a foreign projects. and a civilian population that is sitting there expecting that the lifting of sanctions is going to result in a tangible improvement in the quality of their lives. is notctions relief going to make a significant difference in what iran can do internationally. never been based on money. make no mistake. the important thing about this agreement is not what it will enable iran to do, but what it
will stop iran from doing. and that is the building of a nuclear weapon. before closing, i want to comment on the nature of the debate which we are currently engaged in. some have accused advocates of the iran agreement coming rooting me, of conjuring up frightening scenarios to scare listeners into supporting it. curiously, this allegation comes most often from the very folks who have been raising alarms about one year another for years. planruth is that, if this -- this plan is voted down, we cannot predict with certainty what iran will do. but we do know what iran says it will do. and that is begin again to expand its nuclear activities. and we know that the strict limitations iran has accepted will no longer apply because
there will no longer be any agreement. iran will then be free to begin operating thousands of other advanced and other centrifuges that would otherwise have been mothballed. they will be free to expand stockpile ofull -- enriched uranium, move ahead plutonium.s grade who will be held responsible for this? not iran. iran was prepared to implement the agreement and will have no reason whatsoever to return to the bargaining table. the world will hold accountable the people who broke with the consensus, turned their backs on our negotiating partners and ignored the council of top scientists and military leaders. the world will lend the united states. when those voices that accuse us
of scaremongering begin to warn, iran's nuclear activities are once again out of control and must at all costs be stopped, what do you think is going to happen? build, myre will friends. the pressure will build for military action. the pressure will build for the u.s. to use it in your -- unique capabilities to disrupt iran's nuclear program. negotiating is not going to work as we just tried it. president obama has been crystal clear that we will do whatever is necessary to prevent iran from getting a new your weapon. the big difference is at that point we will not have the world behind us the way we do today. because we rejected the fruits of diplomacy, we will be held accountable for a crisis that could have been avoided but instead we will be deemed to have created. why in theion is world would we want to put ourselves in that decision on
having to make that choice especially when there is a better choice, a much more broadly supported choice, a choice that sets us on the road to greater stability and security but that does not require us to give up any option at all today. here is the decision that we are called on to make. isvote down this agreement, to solve nothing because none of the problems we are concerned about will be made easier if it is rejected. none of them. not iran's nuclear program, not iran's support for terrorism or sectarian activities, not the then rights record and not opposition to israel. to oppose this agreement is or not totended to -- recommend a policy of national paralysis. it is to take us back directly to the very dangerous spot we were in two years ago only to go
back there devoid of any realistic planner option. by contrast, the adoption and implementation of this agreement will cement the support of the community behind a plan to ensure that iran does not ever acquire or possess a nuclear weapon. in doing so it removes a looming threat from a uniquely fragile region. discourage others from trying to develop nuclear arms, make our citizens and our allies safer and reassure the world that the hardest problems can be addressed successfully by diplomatic means. at its best, american foreign-policy in the policy of the u.s. combines immense power with clarity of purpose, relying on reason and persuasion whenever possible. as has been demonstrated many
times our country does not shy from the necessary use of force but our hopes and values push us to explore every avenue for peace. the iran deal reflects our determination to protect the interests of our citizens and to shield the world from greater harm but he reflects as well our knowledge that the firmest foundation for security is built on mobilizing countries across the globe to defend actively and bravely the rule of law. ago,ptember, 228 years -- franklinnkly in closed a debate on the constitution. he told a rapt audience that when people of opposing views
and passions are brought together, compromise is essential. and perfection from the perspective of any single participant is not possible. he said that after weighing carefully the pros and cons of that most historic bait, he said the following. thissent, sir, to constitution because i expect no better and because i'm not sure that it is not the best." my fellow citizens, i have had the privilege of serving our country in times of peace and war and peace is better. i have seen our leaders act with incredible foresight and also seen them commit tragic errors like plunging into conflicts without sufficient thought about the consequences. can old ben franklin, i claim and do claim no monopoly on wisdom and certainly nothing
can compare to the gravity of the debate of our founding fathers over our nations founding documents. but i believe based on a lifetime's experience that the iran nuclear agreement is a hugely positive step at a time when problem-solving and danger reduction have rarely been so urgent, especially in the middle east. the iran agreement is not a panacea for the sectarian and extremist violence that has been ripping that region apart but history may judge it a turning point, a moment when the builders of's -- of stability sees the initiative from the destroyers of hope. when we were able to show as that generations -- as have generations before us that when we demand the best room ourselves and insist that others adhere to a similar high standard, when we do that, we
have immense power to shape a safer and more humane world. that is what this is about. that is what i hope we will do in the days ahead. thank you very much. [applause] >> the iran nuclear deal is expected to come to the house floor next week. john bader -- boehner released a statement. why should iran be trusted to do its own nuclear inspections at a military site it tried to hide from the world? as our focus on the iran nuclear agreement continues, we will have live coverage tomorrow of a former british defense secretary liam fox on the consequences of
the deal. that is at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. now, ashton carter and a joint chiefs of staff chairman testify about the iran nuclear accord. they are joined by john kerry, energy secretary, and treasury secretary jack lew. from july, this part of the hearing is about two hours. we welcome our distinguished witnesses and thank them for joining us today. we appreciate senators kerry and
secretary minis and secretary lou being here. i did not request the presence of secretary kerry or moniz or secretary lew. i am glad they are here at their desire to do so since the focus of today's hearing is on the strategic and military implications of the iran agreement. othere want to know among things as how this agreement will affect regional security, proliferation, and the balance of power in the middle east. what impact it may have on iran's malign activities and hegemonic ambitions in the region. what it means for perceptions of american credibility and resolve among our allies and partners, and what the consequences are for u.s. defense policy, military planning and structure. when we consider the
consequences of the agreement, the second order effects what has been a bed deal and it looks that much worse. to this committee perhaps of most concern about the agreement itself pertains to the verification and monitoring publiclys as has been reported, the inspection of iran's facilities will be conducted by the international atomic energy agency or iaea. there will be no americans allowed on the ground and the details of how these monitoring will occur in certain important instances are contained in a separate agreement between the iaea and iran, which the u.s. government and the congress have not seen. tothermore, the mechanism thelve the concerns about possible military dimensions of iran's nuclear program is contained in another side agreement between iran and the iaea. which the u.s. government and
the congress have also not seen. to be sure, much is known about iran's past weaponization activities, but we can never know what we do not know, which is why the director of the iaea has said that effective verification depends on resolution of the pmd issue. how that will occur, we do not know. this presents a major problem. all of us will soon vote on the iran agreement and the merits of this agreement hinges on its verifiability. and yet my we cannot read key documents pertaining to these verification measures and our own government is not even party to those agreements. i find that deeply troubling. what is more troubling on the broader military -- are the broader military implications. iran is not just a arms-control challenge. it is a geopolitical challenge. for years many of us have urged
the administration to adopt a broader strategy to counter iran's malign activities in the middle east. unfortunately, that has not happened. instead we have watched with alarm as iran's military and intelligence operatives have stepped up their destabilizing theirties and increased influence and control in places like syria, iraq, lebanon, yemen, bahrain, and gaza. iran has done all of this under the full pressure of sanctions. now iran will soon receive a windfall of sanctions relief estimated at roughly $60 billion or possibly as much as twice that. yes, a good amount of that money will surely go to iran's mystic priorities. this is money that will likely boost support to proxies and to
double down on bashir aside when he needs it most. present a host of new challenges for the department of defense. what is worse, not only could this agreement strengthen iran's malign activities in the region it is likely to enhance iran's acquisition of conventional military capabilities. for nearly a decade and arms embargo has heard iran's ability to build up and modernize its aging military. throughout the nuclear negotiations the administration that its diplomacy was limited exclusively to the nuclear file. just a few weeks ago general dempsey told this committee that "under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking." and yet, thanks to last minute concessions by the
whatistration, that is this agreement would do. at year five, the international arms embargo would disappear and iran would be free to acquire advance military capabilities. a year 8, restrictions will disappear and iran will be free to acquire through entirely licit means, the necessary technology and materiel forever more sophisticated ballistic missiles including icbms. in all of this iran will not only have billions of dollars with which to go on a shopping spree in the international arms market, but it is also sure to find plenty of states that are eager to sell those weapons, especially russia and china. in this way, the iran agreement not only paves iran's path to a nuclear capability, it will
further iran's emergence as a dominant military power in the middle east. dangerous direct and implication for u.s. armed forces. the ultimate guarantee that iran will not get a nuclear weapon is document. a 109 page it is the capability of the u.s. military to do what is necessary if all else fails and yet this agreement would enable iran to construct the kind of advanced military arsenal that could make our military option far costlier to employee. instead of enhancing our deterrence, this agreement seems to enhance iran's deterrence of us create if this agreement fails, the u.s. service members are called upon to take action against iran. their lives could be at greater risk because of this agreement. that is perhaps the most troubling aspect of all about this agreement. what it means for america's credibility in the middle east.
since 1979, republican and democratic administrations have sought to contain the islamic republic of iran and prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. our allies and partners have been -- and trusted much of their security to the u.s. because they have leave that our .ommitment were credible in this way, america's role in the region has to been -- has been to suppress competition between states with long histories of mistrust and to prevent that competition from breaking into open war. i fear this agreement will further undermine our ability and willingness to play that vital stabilizing role, our allies and partners in the middle east have increasingly come to believe that america is withdrawing from the region, and isng so at a time when i ran aggressively seeking to advance its hegemonic ambitions. now we have reached an agreement that will not only legitimize the islamic republic as a fresh -- a threshold nuclear state
with an industrial enrichment capability but will unshackle this regime and its long-held pursuit of conventional military power and make consolidate the islamic republic's control in iran for years to come. after turning three decades of uris foreign policy on its head, is it any wonder that this agreement may lead our allies and partners to question america's commitment to their security? happens, the states are increasingly likely to take matters into their own hands and indeed, we already see evidence of that. these fateful decisions may well manifest themselves in growing regional security competition, new arms races, nuclear proliferation, and possibly conflict, all of which would demand more, not less u.s. leadership and presence in the region. and not be ironic historically unprecedented that a diplomatic agreement attend -- intended to decrease risk of conflict actually increased
those risks instead. be of us hope that will not the case now. it is the job of the defense department to be ready when our highest hopes fail us and i fear there is much work to do. i welcome the witnesses. good morning. your appearance comes a little more than two weeks that after 20 months of negotiations the p-5 plus one and iran agreed on the terms of the joint copperheads of plan of action. the agreement no matter your position on it is historic and if implemented scrupulously, inld use -- serve as a point every -- relations with iran, and for the political and security dynamics in the middle east and i commend the president and his negotiating team from
cabinet people to scientists. we have an obligation to review the details of this agreement and to independently validate that the agreement will meet our common goal from -- of stopping iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. today's hearing is part of that obligation and i look forward to your testimony. secretary kerry, you are the key -- ofect of this area this. i hope you understand why it is your assessment that this is a good deal. and addressing iran's destabilizing agreement. acretary moniz, you have been strong advocate for the comprehensive plan of action. i hope you will help us understand what gives you confidence in the safeguards built into this agreement, particularly with regard to the
cutting off of iran's pathways increaser weapons, to [indiscernible] manage purchases and the iaea for enhanced it special and -- inspections. iran's limitation of enrichment program. secretary carter, you are a unique secretary of defense with a phd in physics and having so, i look forward to your technical insights as well as those of secretary moniz. thee neither of you were in negotiations you spoke with your counterparts of the applications were regional security. you undoubtedly heard the assessments of our partners and
allies on a range of issues including how iran may use sanctions to pursue its ambitions, expand its support to terrorist proxies, and invest more heavily in its military. these are serious concerns and ones in which i share. our partners in israel see iran as a significant and ongoing threat to their national security interest. while prime minister netanyahu is unlikely to ever endorse this deal it is incumbent on the u.s. to deepen further our corporation on military and intelligence matters with israel and to better understand the concerns of israelis. we will continue to stand alongside them. the joint statement following the u.s. cooperation council, innings at camp david provided a roadmap for how the
administration intends to proceed. in makes clear the department of defense will be at the forefront of these efforts. critics point to perceived flaws related to iran's ballistic missile capability and the support of terrorist proxies across the region. the camp david statement outlines our capabilities and their interoperability to increase collective defense in order to counter iran's support of terrorist proxies. the joint statement indicates we will be increasing our training and exercise engagement with special operation force elements to better enable our partners to confront iran's asymmetric capabilities. i want to make one final point. these negotiations focused on denying iran a pathway to a nuclear weapon. a nuclear iran would be a more formidable force in the region and as it has repeatedly demonstrated, not a force for peace and stability.
but one that it -- supports terror and seeks to impose its will throughout the middle east. a nuclear iran would prompt an arms race that through accident or design could lead to catastrophe. none of us would condone it or other destabilizing activities in the region but the focus of these negotiations will focus on nuclear weapons. the history of arms control makes this point. as fred kaplan pointed out, the treaties did not require the soviet union to disavow communism or institute jeffersonian democracy but they deals were useful. the capped and reversed nuclear arms race and provided a form for diplomacy, a cooling off of the distrust and hatred at a time when no other issue could have done so. i look forward to the panel's meansses and evaluate the
to cut off all pathways to a nuclear device so an appropriate response can take place. thank you. mccain: secretary carter, could we begin with you? secretary carter: thank you and with your leave, i think you preferred and that is fine with us if only i and general mc make opening statements. senator mccain: i hope that is agreeable to the other witnesses. carter: it is. thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify this morning on our defense strategy toward this critical region. reide wake of as senator noted of my travels to the the chairmaneek to and two weeks after the
conclusion of the joint comprehensive plan of action. i am pleased to be joined by my fellow cabinet members who can talk in detail about that agreement reached in vienna. that deal is an important step. one brought about by the leadership of president obama and the persistence of secretaries kerry and others. and congress helped put in place. it is a good deal because it prevents iran from getting a nuclear weapon in a comprehensive and verifiable way. once and verifiable way. once implemented, it will remove a critical element of risk and uncertainty. one element of risk and uncertainty. element from the region. for those reasons, and those my colleagues have provided in testimony, urge you to support it.
i also urge you to support the broader elements of the defense strategy in the middle east i will describe including and especially by supporting a stable and reformed defense budget. the successful negotiation of this deal is one part of our broader foreign and defense policy as the most influential power in the world, we have responsibilities all over the globe. the middle east remains important to america's national interests and as a result, the department of defense is committed to confronting the region's two principal security challenges, iran and isil. strategicment's approach to protecting our interests and confronting those challenges will remain unchanged. we will continue to maintain a strong military posture to deter aggression, bolster the security of our friends and allies, especially israel. navigationreedom of
in the gulf. to track -- to check iran's malign influence and degrade and defeat isil. we are dangerous to us, israel, continuing to advance our military dangerous to us, israel, capabilities that provide all options as the president has directed should iran walk away from its commitments under this deal. last week i was in the middle east and i had an opportunity to visit with some of our men and women in uniform who are carrying out this strategy. i know how much all of you care for them and like me, you're proud of their impressive work. i will tell you this morning when i told them. we are continuing full speed ahead standing with our friends, standing up to isolate, and standing against iran's malign activity. on isil, as i testified earlier, we have the right strategy in place built on nine synchronized lines of effort to achieve i
sold's lasting defeat. we continue to strengthen execution. today in iraq and other places where working with partners on the ground and the global coalition to enable ground forces to win back iraq sovereignty and peace on its own territory. i saw several parts of that effort last week and spoke with some of our partners on the ground. we have made some progress but we need to make more. on iran, this new deal when implemented will place significant limitations on iran that will effectively cut off its pathways to the fissile material for a nuclear bomb. it is also important to note ont it places no limitations -- no limitations on what the department of defense can and will do. to pursue our defense strategy in the region.
it places no limits on our forces, our partnerships and alliances, our intensive and gone -- ongoing cooperation or the feeling of new capabilities. if iran were to commit aggression, our robust force posture ensures we can surge and -- an overwhelming array of forces, leveraging our most advances -- advanced capabilities married with our ability to put no target out of reach. iran supports the assad regime in syria, backs hezbollah in lebanon who is fighting positions i observed firsthand during a visit to israel's northern border with israeli defense minister. and it is contributing to disorder in yemen. iran still direct hostility and
violence to our closest ally in the region, israel. in the second -- the the face of that activity will come -- continue to meet our commitments to friends and allies in the region and build on and enhance our cooperation in meaningful ways. i made that clear last week. saudi arabia, jordan, and iraq. i also made clear that we will maintain our robust regional ashore and afloat which includes tens of thousands of american personnel and our most sophisticated ground, maritime, and air and ballistic .issile our friends understand that we have an enduring commitment to deterrence and to regional security. i'm proud to say that our partnerships have never
to some of our golf partners. in conclusion, this is a good deal. it removes a continued source of threatened uncertainty and equipment of an verifiable way in preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon. it is a deal that takes no option away from a feature president. this is in important achievement
that deserve your support. now, the u.s. and pregnant defense of the men and women are the world has ever known -- and world defense of the men and women the world has ever known. we need to counsel as soul and iran's malign influence. -- we need to counter isil and iran's malign influence. >> think you members of the committee for the opportunity to address your questions regarding the military implications of the negotiated deal with iran. i will keep my comments brief. i was consulted on the military implications in the course of negotiations and provided my best military advice appropriately. if i, the deal addresses one critical and the most dangerous
with iranian regime. it gives us an original partners concern. this runs to weapons technology to the use of circuits and proxies to enable activity and to malicious activities in cyberspace. the negotiating deal doesn't change the military options at our disposal. in our ongoing efforts to counter that a rainy and's -- iranian's malign activities -- ultimately time and iranian behavior will determine if the nuclear agreement is affect and sustainable. -- effective and sustainable. i will present military options. i stand to subject to your questions. >> i mentioned to my colleagues
we have a vote right now. usually we bounce back and forth . i think this is important enough for us to reassess -- until the vote. i ask the indulgences of our witnesses and i apologize if we could recess for approximately 10 minutes well we are able to complete these2 votes -- these two votes? i think all members would like to your the complete testimony. -- here the complete testimony. i apologize. we will recess for 10 minutes. the committee will reconvene. i want to thank the witnesses for their patience. i'm sure they understand that
from time to time we are required to vote. i went to thank the witnesses for being here. general dempsey, your statement has been completed. is there any other statement? you will begin with questions and we will have five minute. secretary carter, the issue -- there is side agreements that have been made between the iaea and the land. apparently congress hasn't been privy to. could i ask that since these agreements -- side agreements have to do with weapons programs of the iranians and the
inspection and verification of those programs, will we in congress receive the information concerning those side agreements in order to make a judgment as to the degree of verification? >> i think it is important that the content of those agreements in the manner of which they provide for verification of the new their undertakings iran is making in this agreement and the procedures of the iaea be known. i cannot speak for the actual specific documents themselves. i'm sure secretary kerry can. it is an important part of the verification agreement and privacy their vacation is an important part of any agreement. let me as secretary moody if you would like to add anything in this six of the iaea.
>> thank you. first of all, i would not call them side agreements. the agreement is that iran must cooperate for the iaea to complete its process. then the iaea as a standard negotiate a safeguard confidential document to define the protocols. >> those protocols are very important. will we be aware of those protocols? the devil is in the details. >> the documents -- >> it is absolutely astounding. haven't seen the documents? >> all at the tate>> is that the agreement required -- all i could say is that the agreement
requires operation with the iaea this is critical to all of us. >> what is critical to all of us is that we have verification of the inspections of iranian activities. they have a clear record of cheating. we agree that we should see those insurance of verification. otherwise, how could we make a judgment as to this agreement being coerced or verified? this country has a long record of cheating. >> the iaea will take the information that iran must provide by october 15 and complete their report here and that time i think we will understand the iaea confidence in their verification measures. it is a very long history. >> we have the confidence of the
iaea and not the actual viewing of the agreement and verification. i don't think many of us would agree with that assess. -- process. you told the committee "under no circumstances should we believe pressure on iran's missile capabilities and arms trafficking. we are seeing a relief of sanctions on conventional arms and eight years ballistic missiles. >> it wouldn't surprise you to know that my recommendations is to keep pressure on iran for as long as possible. i will say that -- i supported.
>> do you believe that iran will change its behavior as this agreement is finalized? >> i'm not speaking just from my own judgment. i don't perceive that or have any information to see. that is why it is important the agreement be verifiable. it is important iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. it is important we do everything that we need to do. that is why our allies need to remain strong in the gulf. the agreement doesn't limit us in any way.
i see no reason to foresee that. >> i have seen secretary lew's testimony in others. they're doing it now -- and others. they are doing it now. one can only imagine what they are doing with additional dollars. and know the witnesses have very busy schedules. i'm grateful that i testified before the committee today. i thank you senator reid. >> the u.s. hasn't given up any of the military options with
respect to the region. in hasn't given up any of its military intelligence operations with respect to iran. those operations would be -- is that your sense, too? >> yes without going into detail here. we certainly have activities focused on iranians nuclear program. we have everything else. malign activities force. the whole thing. it is a very important intelligence effort. >> it was indicated that he is confident of the ability to detect any significant violation
of the treaties with or without direct contact of iaea. >> yes. they all made statements. it was said that we would have far greater insight in the iranian program with the agreement. it will persist essentially forever. >> your military assessment -- what is more effective putting a stop to the iranian nuclear program? the military strike question mark or the p5+1 agreement? >> military options remain. i think a negotiated settlement requires a more durable and
reduces near-term risk. it buys time to work with regional partners to just the other malign activities. you invited me to talk about the military implications. the first is it does reduce the risk of a near-term conflict with iran over their nuclear program. second second, they hat -- second, they have to be preserved for the future. third, they had revenue for malign purposes. fourth, this will require us to strengthen our relationships and our collaborations in that part of the world. we should maintain and will maintain our forward presence. those are the military implications. >> in terms of the military
expenditures -- it has a capacity to go higher given their revenue.3 is that a fair assessment? >> it doubles average countries for more than that. >> one of the factors who have to work with is making sure those resources are focused and can deter any aggression by the iranians. i think that is the whole point of the collaborations if i'm not mistaken? >> we have a series of initiatives to better position ourselves to address those other malign activities. >> and have a situation where resources are available. we are trying to reorganize in collaboration with original
partners so they are much more effective to respond. we're not ignoring iranians on the ground. we are in a sense and thing up our activities. >> my responsibility is to articulate risk and to provide options and mitigate. this does cause us to increase our military. >> thank you very much. >> we are in the middle of one of the largest bills. i read this morning to see what happened yesterday. this was in "the washington post." president of, promise the nuclear deal with iran would not be based on trust, but verification. it turns out the vision is based
on trust after all. trust into secret side agreements between iran and international agency. apparently no one, including obama's administration, has seen. the only two parties, the iaea and iran, get to see it. further in the u.s. news and world report, by law, that mr. shih-tzu >> to provide congress with -- they are required to provide congress with -- secretary kerry, do you agree with that analysis of the law and with the requirement is? >> let me just say -- let me clarify. congress will be fully briefed on this agreement in the classified session.
indeed one of our key negotiators was briefed on it. we are where and what the basics are. it is standard procedure in the countries that have an agreement with iaea. >> are we entitled to all of the materials? >> yes. no country has access to the confidential agreements directly of the iaea. >> i don't mean to interrupt you, but my time is limited to i cannot imagine this would not be a part -- that we would all be briefed. yesterday there was a deal and
she is -- she has seen the deal and would share with congress. would be part to the time that secretary rice saw it? >> national security advisor rice as not seen it. >> she said she had seen it pretty >> no, she said -- >> she said you had seen it. >> no, she had been briefed on it. >> i will give you her quote. she said she did see it. she did evaluated. she said six days ago, that is 10 days ago now. she said she had seen it and reviewed it and that congress will get to see it in a classified -- >> you are quoting another senator. her quote says that she has been
briefed. she has not seen that. >> i have not seen that. that was specific on something that happened 60's before. -- six days before. the hill magazine -- it s seven days ago today that we had a classified briefing, right? i was there. you were there. in a classified session, you cannot say what was said. was that addressed at all? >> it was. of course congress will be briefed with respect to contents. you need to be briefed. everyone needs to be briefed. >> my point is that it was a classified session where we were in a position to be briefed at that time and we were not. >> i don't think we have the
full material too brief. i didn't have it anyway. but we are prepared. what we did provide and can provide is the actual roadmap that the iaea put out. they have issued a full roadmap of -- >> i understand that. >> it is a confidential agreement. it is a confidential agreement. a standard procedure of the iaea . we have relied on the iaea for years and years. historically the iaea creates what is called a comprehensive safeguards agreement which they negotiate with a country. we don't get that. it is not shared with the world could the reason is it is confidential is it has to do with what you can get out of the
country. we do get briefed on it. we are aware of it. there are some recommendations made to the iaea. they tighten it up a bit. there is certainly confidence in it. >> my time has expired. we didn't have full access to that. i think the people would agree with that. i time has expired. >> -- my time has expired. >> thank you for the public service. i want to go down a different road. we have heard different commentaries. the german speaking of 50 or 60.
-- chairman is speaking of 50 or 60. basically sanctions relief of what has been withheld is about 100 billion. in that 100 billion, there are some contracts role -- contractual obligations of iran to pay some 50 billion. therefore the net that would approximately come to iran would be about $50 billion. not -- 50 billion. is that somewhere in the ballpark? >> that is roughly correct. >> i'm trying to get concepts here. >> one thing i would add is that money is not sitting -- >> that is where i wanted to go. that money is sitting in foreign
banks, is it not? >> it is sitting around the world. china. india. >> china. india. japan. even taiwan and uae. those things? >> correct. -- those banks. >> correct. >> if we denied the lifting of economic sanctions, that money is in the hands of foreign banks . but in your professional opinion is the likelihood that the money would be released? to iran? >> it is iran's money that is tight up because of sanctions. these moneys have gone into foreign accounts and it is sitting there. this deal were rejected -- what do those other banks do? i don't think they would feel bound to hold that money the way they have held it in escrow away from iran.
without a nuclear agreement, some of that would start going back to iran. >> if the agreement is rejected. >> to recapitulate, if we were to reject it, the money is likely to flow because it is in the hands of foreign banks that would not be compelled to adhere to the u.s. wishes at that point. is that correct? >> correct. we will have sanctions that we could impose in other ways. this money is not sitting in u.s. banks. we cannot lock it up directly. just add one more detail, i think the notion a check it's written is wrong. they can spend all this money. this is the foreign reserve they need. they are using -- doing
transactions in some countries that have -- they still need to buy things overseas. they can't just spend all of this money. as i said before, and have hundreds of billions of dollars competing domestically. i cannot say not a penny will go to malign purposes. i think the magnitude is highly exaggerated by the notion of thinking that there is some $50 billion transfer. >> can you explain to the committee that insight that the u.s. government will have as a result of this agreement on their iranian centrifuge program?
there have to be modifications and/or dismantlement of the plutonium reactor? >> yes, senator. they will have daily access and the use of advanced technologies to make sure that all of the idle ones are locked up. they had confirmed that they are broke in. -- that they have broken. it is as general clapper said we had tremendously enhanced insight into the program. on plutonium, they will be required to take out the core part of the reactor and fill it with concrete. and with international collaboration -- we will make sure that the replacement reactor is the one that