tv Washington This Week CSPAN September 6, 2015 11:00am-1:01pm EDT
washington, but that's going to take place in philadelphia because they've been preparing for years with the world meeting with families. that hasn't stopped people from asking, this is part of the challenge we are facing. i don't have to encourage anybody to come to this city, to come to the events. i found that i have far more dear friends than i ever realized i had and for every seat we had -- remember, we only have 25,000 seats at that mass, for every seat we have, i would say we have ten requests, so the balancing act is how do you get equitable distribution of those seats so that representation of everybody is there, that's the
first challenge. and you're right, the responsibility of security, traffic, crowd control, safety. i think are working wonderfully well to try to face the reality that when this pope comes there's going to be people everywhere who want to see him. our problem is simply limitation of space. but that's a good problem to have. [inaudible] >> i don't know the history of other requests. i do know that this holy father seems to be comfortable taking any floor, podium, platform, he
doesn't seem to be molded by the audience. he takes his message and presents it in the hope that that audience will hear his message. so i think when he speaks to congress, he's going to be bring message, spiritual message, and i'm pleased that he feels that comfortable speaking to any group, not just a religious forum. >> let me do a quick follow-up. in new york recently announced plans to have to pope drive through central park and allow people to see him on either side, is there any such plan underway here in washington? >> we hope that when he is at the basilica at national mass, there would be some part of a
route where people will be able to see him. we're also hoping that there will be some time when he is coming or going from the white house, that there will be an opportunity for people to see him, that and all together finalize, part of it is the concern of security that you don't announce too far in advance. one thing about central park, that area is going to be closed off, long in advance. but that's a venue that they have that we really don't have quite in that format. >> religious liberties has become a hot topic in the church and capitol hill on marriage decision, suggested that the
government might ask all religious institutions to comply, if that happened, what would it have to give up and how would it address it? >> the issue of religious liberty as you know predates that particular issues goes back basically to the ages of mandate where our objection primarily was the decision of the government to decide for us what constitutes religious practice and what constitutes religious works that are not part of our faith and practice. we went into court precisely because we thought we feel -- as much religious mandate, you shall not kill, you shall not bare false witness. that's our argument right now
that we really don't think government should be telling us how we should practice our faith and historically in our country, the practice of the faith has been a public thing. when you think of great institutions, health care, social service, charities, when you think of all of the areas have impact on this country, so much grew out of religious faith. these are religious institutions that established first hospitals, orphanages, charities, and we're saying that's invalid for us today as it was centuries ago when we were getting started. so i think part of the concerning is going to be and why the bishops of our country have spoken up, religious freedom shouldn't be determine to affect someone else. freedom of speech determined by
somebody else. you legitimately object to ways who would say these are the thick things you can address because they don't come in the realm of freedom of speech. don't say to us you can't be religious in this area. you can only be religious in your sanctuaries. that's part of the challenge. >> but that's something that we have worked on from the beginning in our country, finding a balance to public order, the law of the land and how we live with them. >> obviously -- i was interested in particularly that the pope is
going to washington, here in the united states, what would an effect to washington policies. how much has it communicated, through expertise have you picked on what he will say regarding public policy of the policy matters in the united states, one area in particular of what, you know, a layperson like me might expect to say something would be on climate change a, given the letter in june and b the letter in december. do you know how much he would say about climate change and
treatment of the poor, immigrant in the u.s.? >> thank you for the question because it allows a response that includes a very, very important distinction. i'm very much aware that public policy is a big part of the interest everybody around this table. i think what our holy father will be doing is addressing issues, public policy is one way of responding to issues, but another way to address issues is to put them in a spiritual dimension, to remind us that these are real valid interests and that they require a response and that there has to be a way to deal as you point out, there has to be a way to deal with issues of environment with issues of human freedom, with
issues of life and the flourishing of human life, but it false to the government to come up with a policy, the government to come up with ways of addressing that, particularly a associate where the voices of all are going to be heard, but to the pope and church to remind us that you need to address these and there's parameters to address the issues. he keeps reminding us that the human person is the center of whatever decision you make concerning any public policy, and the flourishing of the human person from conception to natural death, the flourishing of the person is at the heart of our appreciation of human life and development.
i don't know what he's going to say because i haven't seen the text, but i think he's going to call us to our own very real and, i think, positive history. this country is made up of so many groups, so many institutions and so many expressions of community whether it is religious, whether it's community service, whether it is fraternities, unions, whether it's made up of gatherings of people who work together to solve a problem in our local community, and that's one of the strengths of our country, we are multilayered, we are not mo nol ithic in which decisions are made and carried out by a system of government. our responses to human problems
reflect the complexity and the makeup of our country. it's something that the holy father will be speaking of, history of ours, free to take on respond to go -- responding to human problems. >> thank you. before we go back to subject abortion because that was the big news of vatican this week. there seems to be confusion about what this means, can you explain what the norm has been in terms of absolution in cases of abortion, how will that change this coming admin, and then can you talk about that in sort of context of pope francis where he seems to be presenting a more open merciful forgiving church in areas of divorce,
homosexual? >> i believe that's the secret to the holy father ministry. he, as i said earlier, he does he proclaims the foolness of the gospel. there's no change of the value and sacredness of life and that life can't be taken even when it's in the womb, but what our holy father is saying, all that said, how do we deal now with someone who has had an a abortion and isn't the response of love, compassion, care, he keeps reminding us that we all need the embrace of god's mercy. we all need -- who can say, i --
i don't need, i'm perfect, maybe mother teresa could have, but there are a few others who could say that. in fact, when the pope was asked to identify himself, he said i'm a sinner, but aren't we all but a sinner embraced by the love of god, and that's what he's trying to say. this year of mercy is a time when all of us should be looking at one another with compassion and forgiveness, mindful of god's mercy, but that mercy is also shared through us. we're supposed to -- we pray to be forgiven as we forgive. it has always been the practice of the church that gives them the particular violence of this action, the destruction of a
life and it's a life in the womb that required absolution from that that remind us all of us of how that sin is, they're required special permission. the holy father is saying every priest across the world during this time of mercy should just simply have that faculty, the power to do that without checking with the bishop for -- >> so in the past, permission has had to come from you? >> no, we had granted the faculty many, many places have already granted that faculty, that power, authority to a bishop, to a priest to do that because the idea is that the mercy should be as readily available as possible. the holy father is just saying,
why don't we make it universal. >> this to be clear this was already -- [inaudible] >> it will not change anything. >> as a technical matter, every -- the faculty to do this is part of what our priests are able to do, but what -- i think that piece is only as important as is the bigger message, merciful and generous with the mercy. >> john who has provided me daily encouragement to set up the breakfast can ask you a question. >> thank you. you're certainly aware of current litigation involving the sisters of the poor, very simply, when hobby lobby case came up the family that owned
hobby lobby said that the court ruled against them, they would close their company down rather than comply with the abortion to be using drugs under the healthcare plan for their employees. we don't know how little sisters of the poor will eventually come out. if it does go indeed against this catholic charity. will the church urge them to follow the promise that the greene's made and simply close rather than provide abortion-inducing drugs? the answer is going to fend -- depend on what the supreme court eventually rules. a lot of that, we will just have to wait to see what the court will finally rule because there's -- there are indications coming out of the court that they do make a distinction
between those are -- those that are for profit and those that are really just accommodation that's been made in the case of one that wasn't made in the case of the other. i think we're just going to have to wait and see how the supreme court through those issues. >> michael from the dallas morning news. >> good morning. [inaudible] >> the tone had been used before, particularly on gay
marriage, abortion that had come up. i'm just wondering you felt sort of in the sense of a way the church had made clear the positions -- a change in the way you go about your business, ministry people. >> i felt greatly affirmed by this pope and i felt encouraged, the affirmation was, again, he keeps saying to us the gospel message is what we need to keep proclaiming and that's what you've been doing and keep doing it. but the positive encouraging effect that i also felt was, let us emphasize the mercy of god,
the compassion of god. it's a question of emphasis rather than dock -- expression. i felt encouraged by this father. when you've been at this a long time, this january will be 30 years as bishop, you've had an opportunity to do a lot of teaching and a lot of writing and instruction, and i didn't find anything that i would have to change in what i thought. i also found that it's very, very encouraging to be told keep focusing on the mercy, keep focusing on the compassion aspect as well. >> there was a significant
change. if you accept the idea that there's a significant change that's not subject the emphasis before he sent the message? >> it depends on -- there's always compassion and mercy in the teaching of the bishops in our country, but this time the holy father is highlighting it in his actions in a way that, i think, people are hearing it much more clearly. the -- the fact that none of the teaching has changes, means the only area that there's shading of emphasis is on the pastural apresident-- application. people are seeing in him that there's a strong focus, maybe
all of us bishop and layperson in the church are saying, lets see how well we are doing that. >> demetri. try again on your name. >> irish name. to what extent has the pope's views on climate change -- to what extent has it brought in for liberal members, i know he's trying to reach out to prison in harlem but he's not going to iowa, he's not going to mexican border, he's not going to kansas, is there a sense that he's not seeing the real america? >> let me start with the last part of that. i just watched this morning early this morning because it
was sent to me last night the holy father is videoing in conversation with three different parts of the country. i think this is the first time that we have a pope who is trying to be present without necessarily being physically present. it's very, very taxing to have to fly all over the world to try to be with a flock that is spread throughout the world. this is the first time that i have been an effort to utilize electronic media to be in different parts of our country. coming -- coming to the united states clearly, at least this was my position, clearly you have to stop at washington. i keep saying, if you visit the capital, in a sense you're
visiting representationally the entire country, and then, of course, he is going to new york because of un and the philadelphia because of the gathering of families. we talked about this. it would simply be physically to get to the other places that are asking for his presence in a country this huge. i had -- i had one of the members not that long ago that it took five hours from new york to los angeles. i said, welcome to the united states. the challenge of what i think the holy father is facing. your question i think provides us an occasion to reflect on how
do you today do that. i think it can be done electronically as well as physically. >> could i ask one question? it's going to be in spanish; is that right? >> the mass is going to be in spanish and -- well, i think the significance to that, first of all, it's one of the holy father's mother tongues. i think he grow -- grew up with spanish and italian. he's most comfortable in spanish, but also it's -- it's a recognition of how large the hispanic population in the united states is and what a significant part of the church they are here in so much and
other parts of the country. and also because he is can -- caninizing and coming as a first pope from the new world and the language in this hemisphere is spanish. it will not be soley spanish. he's going to have some things in english. we do intend to have the jumbo trons with english. >> what does the hope plan to achieve specifically in washington? >> thank you for that question. i don't know so i'm just projecting because i want to make that very clear.
i haven't been in any of the talks. he did say some time ago that he was working on his talk for the united states for congress but he didn't say to me, do you have any pointers. [laughs] >> but i would think that among the things he hopes to achieve would be a rebelling in -- recognition by all of us in this country that we really can if we work together make a difference, that it is possible to work together and that working together we need to care for people who have needs. we also need to be able to welcome the less fortunate and to revere all human life, and i think he's going to try to --
from all of us the understanding that we do have a responsibility for each other and also for our common home, this planet. what format that will take, i don't know. i don't think it's going to be by proposing policy. i think it will be by calling us to understand that each one of us has a responsibility to one another and to our common home and that we have to find ways to work together to make that an achievable reality. >> we have about three minutes left. we have a number of people that have questions, we are probably not going to get to all of them. >> thanks for coming. the pope talks to the president,
they talk about the common ground was the pope basically said, i don't agree with your position on abortion and same-sex marriage and try to find things that they agree on and try to achieve goals together? >> one of those reasons those meetings are always in private -- [laughs] >> and then there are the statements, this is what we talked about. so i just as you do, i have to rely on what comes out of those -- of those meetings by way of follow-up speaker. >> in the back. >> a few things. very short. one of them was the pope is meeting with the president and obviously this president has a lot of affectionate for this
pope, in terms of messaging, how, how far can the president go in, for lack of a better word, capitalizing without seeming like it's going too far? how if the president went too far or capitalizing on the visit? >> i think just because we are short on time, lets do one with you. >> i was wondering how to say buy partisanship in latin. >> years of practice, i don't think i would ever be offended by anyone including the president praising this holly -- holy father is that going to be used and understood is being used. i think that's a fact -- that's
just a fact of life. almost anything the pope says is going to be interpreted by somebody in presence of the holy father, maybe the speakers says by thanking the pope, it's going to be interpreted by people in different ways. that's -- maybe that's one of the things that this holy father is getting us can we find some common ground without having to start immediately within interpreting from the vintage point. >> you have a 30-second question. >> will the pope's address be in spanish like the mass? >> the answer to the first question, my understanding is he
will speak in english at congress. he will be reading a text because i'm not sure anybody gets into that without the text. and so he'll be using a text and he will be speaking in english at that event. and the second part of your question? [inaudible] >> he has asked for -- i'm just saying he didn't ask me when he told me he was working on the text, he didn't ask me personally what i thought should be, but he has -- he has solicited from the conference of bishops thoughts, whatever that means. >> i want to thank you for coming very much, sir, we appreciate it. look forward for your return.
[laughs] >> david, thank you very much. thank all of you. ," shecer: tonight on "q&a talks about her book, "the trouble with lawyers." it takes a look at the high cost of law schools and a loss of the adversity in the profession. >> i think we need a different model of legal education and we need that it includes one-year programs for people doing routine work, to your programs as an option -- two year programs as an option who -- for people who want to do something specialized, and a filter years for people who want a full and generalized legal education that have now.
but it is crazy to say -- train in the same way somebody who is doing routine divorces in a small town in the midwest and somebody who is doing murders and acquisitions on wall street. we have this one-size-fits-all model of education that is extremely extensive. the average debt for a law student is $100,000. you can assumes that train everybody to do everything in the same way. unless it is to practice in two states, and i wouldn't trust myself to do a routine divorce. announcer: tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific. now, a senate armed services committee hearing with secretary ashton carter, martin dempsey, and negotiators discussing the ever and nuclear agreement. this is an hour and a half.
committee will reconvene -- >> the committee will reconvene and i want to thank the witnesses for their patience. i'm sure they understand that from time to time we are required to vote. witnessesto thank the for being here. and general dempsey, your statement has been completed. is there any other statements that would like to be made? we will begin with questions and we will have five minutes aired secretary carter -- five minutes. secretary carter, the issue has arisen that there are set agreements that have been made iran thate iaea and apparently the congress has not been made privy to. theseuld i ask that since
secretary carter: -- it is an important part of the verification. verification is an important part of any agreement. let me ask secretary moniz if he wants to add anything specific. secretary moniz: thank you. i can certainly add to that. to be honest, i would not call them sat agreements in the sense that the agreement is that iran must cooperate for the iaea to complete its process on pnd. then the iaea, as is standard, negotiates a safeguards confidential document with the country to define the protocols -- those protocols are very important, mr. secretary. are we going to be aware of those protocols? the devil is in the details. secretary moniz: all i can say is that -- well, first of all, i have not seen those documents. mr. mccain: which is astounding,
to be honest with you. you have not seen the documents about -- secretary moniz: all i can say is that the agreement requires the cooperation with the iaea, and this is the standard practice of the iaea, whose independence is very critical to all of us. mr. mccain: what is critical to all of us, mr. secretary, that we have verification and inspections of iranian activities because they have a clear record of cheating. secretary moniz: we agree. mr. mccain: so we agree, all of us, i believe, that we should see those instruments of verification. otherwise how can we make a thisment as to these -- agreement be enforced and verified with a country that has a long record of treating? -- cheating? secretary moniz: the iaea will then take the information that iran must provide by october 15 and complete the report. and at that time, i think we
will understand the iaea's confidence in their verification measures. so we are -- i might say -- mr. mccain: so we are then dependent on the confidence of the iaea, not the actual viewing of the agreement and verification. i don't think many of us would agree with that process. general dempsey, you told the committee just a few weeks ago, quote, under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking. now we are seeing after five years a release of sanctions on conventional arms and, of course, eight years ballistic missiles. how does that comport with -- in terms of this agreement -- with the statement you made before the committee? general dempsey: it won't surprise you to know that my recommendation was to keep pressure on iran for as long as
possible, and that recommendation was made and then it entered into the negotiating process. i will say at think that time works for us, as well as iran, in this regard. so with the agreement made and having had the opportunity to give my advice, i supported. mr. mccain: do you, secretary carter, believe that -- that iran will change its behavior as a result of this agreement? and have you seen any indication of that? secretary carter: i have not, mr. chairman, speaking for my own judgment, i don't foresee that or have any reason to foresee that and that is why it is important the agreement be verifiable, that is why it is important iran not have a nuclear weapon, and that is why it is important that we keep doing everything that we need to do. the friend -- defend our friends and allies, remain strong in the
gulf, freedom of navigation, ballistic missile defense, all the things we are doing. we need to keep doing those things, and the agreement doesn't limit us in any way. obviously, if iran changes this behavior, that would be a welcome thing. but i see no reason to pursue that. mr. mccain: i see no reason to pursue that and i see them now with about $60 billion with which to pursue those maligned activities. and i have seen it secretary ,ew's testimony and others that don't worry, they will be using it for domestic purposes. they are doing it now with the assets they have. one can only imagine what they $50ht be doing with 50's -- billion or 60 billion additional dollars. i would like to say again got -- again that i know the witnesses have very busy schedules and i'm grateful that you have sought to testify before the committee
today in order to help us understand this issue. and i thank you. senator reid. mr. reid: secretary carter, you it -- noted in your statement that -- i would presume also it has not given up its military intelligence and national intelligence operations with respect to iran. and those intelligence operations, i presume, would be focused in great detail on potential violations of this treaty. is that your sense, too? secretary carter: yes, without going into detail here. certainly, we have intelligence activities focused on the iranian nuclear program, but we have on everything else they are doing. maligned activity cuts force, ballistic missiles, arms transfers, the whole thing. it is a very important intelligence effort.
mr. reed: and i understand that the general yesterday indicated that he is confident, i think is a reasonable explanation, of the ability to detect any significant violation of the treaties with or without the direct contact with iaea. is that a fair judgment in remind? >> yes, in fact, he and i collaborated, the national geospatial intelligence agency, all made it statements. he in particular said that we would have far greater insight into the iranian program with the agreement. and i would add that are greater insight would persist forever. mr. reed: general dempsey, your what is more effective in stopping the iranian new to the program at this time or in the near future? a military strike or this p5+1
agreement check a general dempsey: first, senator, i would like to point out that to the military options remained. i think a settlement provides a more durable -- and reduces near-term risk, which buys time to work with regional partners. to address the other activities. but there are about five military implications that you have invited me here to talk about. if you would allow me, the first is that it does reduce the risk of a near-term conflict with iran over their nuclear program. secondly, another military implication is we have to sustain those options. they have to be preserved into the future. third, there is clearly the opportunity for iran to use some of the revenue that they gained four maligned purposes. and that bears watching and collaboration with our regional partnerships. fourth, this will require us to
strengthen our relationships in that part of the world. and a derivative of that is, fifth, we should maintain and will maintain our forward presence. mr. reed: the gcc, in terms of the military expenditures, roughly double what the iranians spent and has a capacity of going much higher, giving their revenues. is that a fair assessment? general dempsey: double is probably the average. certain countries, far more than that. mr. reed: and one of those factors that we are going to have to work with our allies in the region is making sure that those resources are focused and can deter or defeat any aggression or proxy aggression by the iranians. and that is the whole point, i think, of the collaboration you are undertaking? general dempsey: we have a series of initiatives, both with the israelis and the gcc, to
better position ourselves. mr. reed: and so we have a situation developing where the resources are available, we are trying to reorganize in collaboration with the regional partners so that they are much more effective to respond, so essentially we are not ignoring these hostile threats by the iranians on the ground through proxies or anything else. indeed, we are in a sense and being of our activities. general dempsey: well, what i would say, senator, is that my responsibility is to articulate risk and provide options. this does cause us to have to increase our military. we have to pay more attention to the maligned activities. mr. reed: thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am right now in the middle of one of the largest those of the year. therefore, i haven't been in on all this fun. sorry red this morning to see
what happened yesterday. this was in the "washington post ," president obama promised that his nuclear deal with iran would not be based on trust, but rather unprecedented verification. now it turns out obama's verification regime is based on trust after all. trust into basic side agreements negotiated exclusively between iran and the international atomic energy agency that apparently no one, including the obama administration, has seen. it goes on to say that it turns out only two parties, the iaea and iran, get to actually see it. however, -- well, then further, in the u.s. news and world report, the administration is a to provide required congress contents of the nuclear deal and all related matters. secretary kerry, do you agree with that analysis of the law? what your requirement is? secretary kerry: senator, let me just say to clarify on the
earlier part of the question. congress will be fully briefed on this -- on this agreement. in a classified session. and, indeed, one of our key negotiators, the day-to-day lead negotiator, wendy sherman, was briefed on it. and ernie moniz was likewise briefed on it. so we are aware of what the basics of it. it is standard procedure. there are 189 countries that have an agreement with the iaea. not that many have agreements. mr. inhofe: my question is, are we entitled -- to all the related secretary kerry: correct. yes, those that are part of the agreement per se. this is, by reference, and we -- no country has access to the confidential agreements directly. mr. inhofe: yes, i don't mean to
interrupt you, but my time is limited here. i can imagine this would be a part of what we would all be briefed on. yesterday, when congressman powell asked a question, secretary rice said he had seen the deal with the iaea and she is going to shared with congress. if you have seen it, that is the question. -- at the same time or prior to the time that secretary rice sought to secretary kerry: national security -- saw it. secretary kerry: national security advisor rice has not seen it. mr. inhofe: she said yesterday -- secretary kerry: no, she has been briefed on it. the exact quote is that she has been briefed on it, she hasn't actually seen it. mr. inhofe: i will give you her quote. she said she did get she did see it. she did evaluate it. she said she did six days ago. that is seven days ago now. she said six days ago she had seen it and reviewed it and that
congress will get to see it in a classified session. mr. inhofe: "the hill" magazine had something about that. it was seven days ago today that we had a classified presidential briefing. most of the people at this table were there. and now it's a this -- and i would say this, but was not addressed at all? secretary kerry: it was. the question came up about it. and the answer was given that of course congress will be briefed with respect to the contents. and of course you need to be briefed. mr. inhofe: my point is, mr.
secretary, is that that was a classified session. we weren't briefed. secretary kerry: i don't think we have the full material to breathe. i didn't have it, anyway. but we are prepared and i think wendy sherman is going to be briefing very shortly on that, senator. but what we can provide is the actual roadmap that the iaea put out. and they have issued a full roadmap of what their expectations -- mr. inhofe: i understand that, but i'm talking about the deal, the secret document. secretary kerry: it is a confidential agreement. it is being postured as -- mr. inhofe: it is a -- secretary kerry: it is a confidential agreement, which is the standard for seizure of the iaea. we have relied on the iaea for years and years. historically, the iaea always creates what is called a kind prints of safeguards agreement, a csa, which they negotiate with
the country. and we don't get that exact -- that is not shared with the world. and there are reasons that it is confidential having to do with what you can get out of that country, but we do get briefed on it. we are aware of it. secretary moniz has made some recommendations to the iaea for them to actually tighten it up a little bit. secretary moniz, you certainly have confidence in it. mr. inhofe: my time has expired, but i would say to the chairman, it is encumbrance about that we didn't have full access to that. i think most of the people would agree to that. thank you. mr. mccain: senator nelson? mr. nelson: thank you for your public service. secretary lew, i want to go down a different road. we have heard so many different commentaries about how much of a
windfall the sanctions relief would be for iran. we have heard 100, 150 billion. the chairman is speaking of 50 or 60 billion. the town if this is correct that basically sanctions relief of what has been withheld is about $100 billion. but in that $100 billion, there are contractual obligations of $50 billion.ome and, therefore, the net that would approximately come to iran would be about $50 billion. is that somewhere in the ballpark? secretary lew: senator, that is roughly correct. i am happy to walk down the numbers. mr. nelson: you don't need to. i am kind to get concepts here. secretary lew: the one thing i between $50s that --
billion and $60 billion is excessive all. mr. nelson: that is where i wanted to go. in foreignis sitting banks. is it not? secretary lew: it is sitting around the world in countries like china, india, and many other countries. mr. nelson: china, india, japan, even taiwan and uae eight. those banks? secretary lew: correct. secretary lew: just to be clear, it is iran's money because it is tied up. the money has gone into these for an account and it is sitting there. this deal, orent,
to be rejected, the question is what to those other banks do? i don't think they will feel bound to hold that money the way they have held it in an escrow away from iran. i think without a nuclear agreement, some of that money will start going back to iran. mr. nelson: so two recapitulates then, if we were to rejected, the money is likely to flow because it is in the hands of foreign banks that would not be compelled to adhere to the united states' wishes at that point, is that correct? secretary lew: we do have sanctions that we could impose in other ways. we cannot lock it up directly. we need the cooperation of other government, other central banks, other banks in order to give this money from iran. just to add one more detail, i
think the notion that somehow a $50 billion, $60 billion check gets written is wrong. doingare already using -- transactions in some of these countries, using therefore reserves as exchange. they will still need to buy things overseas. they cannot just spend this money or their ability to connect international commerce goes away. haves i said before, they hundreds of billions of dollars of competing domestic needs. while i cannot say a penny will go to malign purposes, i think the magnitude of research available is highly exaggerated by the notion of thinking into some $50 billion transfer. mr. nelson: secretary moniz, can you explain to the committee the insight that you, we, the united states government, will have as a result of this agreement on to their uranium centrifuge
program, number one, and number two, on their plutonium program as a result of the agreement stating there has to be modifications and/or dismantlement of the plutonium reactor? secretary moniz: yes, senator. on the uranium centrifuges, we will have -- well, the iaea will have access and the use of advanced technologies to make sure that all of the idle ones are locked up and used only as replacements for broken ones, and they will confirm that they are broken. in addition, for 20 years, we will have containment and surveillance of all manufacturing of key center views parts. -- key centrifuge parts. as general clapper said, we have tremendously enhanced insight into their program. on the plutonium, we will take -- they will be required to take up the core, part of the
reactor, and fill it with concrete. then with international compilation -- collaboration, we will be a part of that and make sure the replacement reactor is the one that reduces plutonium production by about a factor of 10. so, it is way below the amounts needed for a weapon. but secondly, they have also the spent -- will be sent out of the country. so we have very, very good containment there. mr. nelson: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mccain: senator sessions. mr. sessions: thank all of you. i have been a member and a turnout of the strategic senate committee. it has been the unified view of the world's developed nations that iran not have a nuclear
weapon. it is a grave threat to peace in the world. secretary kissinger said, sitting where you are, that if iran gets a nuclear weapon, turkey, egypt, saudi arabia would get nuclear weapons. that is why the whole world and even the u.n. has been firm on this. so i'm very worried about where we are and i believe that our initial error was the commencement of negotiations in 2009 after president bush had pulled back from that because of the behavior of iran. and experts in that region warned us that the iranians thatdingly patient, talking can be a trap, and the deeper you get into this talk, the less able you are to take corrective action and to alter the situation as we see it. so, now we are at the end. iranians see long-term, and i am
afraid that we have endangered the goal that we had a pretty well unanimous nation world behind. secretary cutter, do you believe that iran represents the world's -- secretary carter, do you believe that iran represents the world's for more stuff -- for most sponsor of terrorism -- for most -- foremost sponsor of terrorism? secretary carter: there are lots of sources of terror, but i think for spate -- mr. sessions: secretary kerry testified yesterday question yesterday in the house. i wish you weren't -- [indiscernible] -- the goal and dream that somehow iran can be brought in from the cold and we can work with them, but i believe it was former advisor to president reagan, but mcfarland, who said
revolutionaries don't go back on the revolution. do you believe the supreme leader remains committed to the revolutionary goals goals of the iranian revolution? >> i only believe what he says. that suggests he does. >> i think he does. andas recently at an event chanceally in which punctuated the rally, "death to america your coat -- death to america." >> that is a reason to be so concerned about iran possibly blind activity.
policy decision of the united states. doesn't the agreement allow after eight years, they have been known to cheat. they have purchased on the open market, items that would help assist them, items capable of reaching the united states. i think we all need to be concerned about their missile activities. ballistic missile is so important. about defense in israel. ,> i think the administration you say they shouldn't have this capability and this agreement allows them to purchase anything they need on a world market after a fixed date in the agreement? >> it does not.
the eight years represent the realities that we were able to negotiate. we were comfortable accepting the idea of the eight. which still leaves us eight years with chapter seven. we were comfortable because we have a number of other tools available to us which we can apply to be able to prosecute their efforts. technology missile regime. we have the executive order of the president of the united states. have the proliferation with 100initiative countries which allows us to block the transfer of materials, -north koreairan nonproliferation act.
have huge tools available to us way into the future. that thiss amazing agreement would trump that. this is already existing. these are additional agreements that we have outside of this agreement which allows us to continue to protect missile development. we have additional you and sanctions that prohibit the flow to iraqi shia. are flowing now, are they not? >> indeed. because they have not been enforced. which is precisely why the administration has decided we need to deal more directly.
we need to deal with the specifics of how we are going to deal with the proposal. adequately pointed to the rhetoric. if that is what they want to do, are you better off preventing them from having a nuclear weapon? or do we go back to 12,000 kilograms of material, and a for 10-12 bombs. right now, they have visibility and we are stopping it. we're taking it away from them. >> the time has expired. senator, i can give you the complete -- mccaskill.
>> general dempsey, is there anything that would constrain anything that we would think was necessary against iran? >> no. deal, alternative to the one of the things that isn't ,overed enough in the testimony i got the point that senator nelson was trying to make. the money is not in our control. it appears that all of the other countries could walk away from to get thee ready money, one way or another. moneyre going to get the because we can't control it. but i don't know that that is completely accurate. this is not about is this a good , what happensout if we don't do this deal.
i can't help but think about the power the united states would have if the deal was projected as opposed to the countries who hold the money. are nato allies. i think it is fair that we shouldn't just say, if we walk away from this deal, they are going to get all of the money. i think it is time to drill this down. assume thatwant to this deal is rejected. but let's assume it is. at that point, what power do we have to protect the money. >> that is a very fair question. nobody can give you a fair answer.
there are legal ways for them to use the money now. the decisionse that they were going to acquire the things they need to acquire and chip away at the reserves. the question of what unilateral sanctions versus lateral sanctions, they are powerful. the united states is the world's banking system. it is within our grasp. doesn't keep us from reaching out. if we are enforcing unilateral sanctions, that's the rest of the world are projecting. over the last few years, we have because otherally
countries have agreed with us on stopping iran from getting a nuclear weapon. cooperation goes down considerably. what has made the sanctions regime so great is the fact that we have had the cooperation. it would have been good for their economy. how do you enforce bilaterally with countries when it goes against their interest? >> i appreciate that answer. but i think it would be helpful for those of us who are trying to analyze those scenarios if you all would try to put in writing what would be our best effort in keeping iran isolated if the deal is rejected.
because i don't think it is fair to assume that we have no power. because clearly we have a lot of power. i am almost out of time. this is an important question for secretary moonies. do you believe that if we walk away from this deal, iran would have a nuclear weapon by christmas? >> i can't answer that. >> do your best. generateould certainly nuclear materials within months. which is before christmas. what is unknown is the degree to which they have completed other weaponization requirements. iaea has beenhe building up for many years.
identified labels for iran as having a structured in the past. it is a threshold straight. the deal will walk them back from that deal. anyas more insight into weapons program that they might pursue. they are a nuclear threshold state and they have denied all -- i think senator mccaskill might be onto something with regards of all of the options in front of us. with abetter off negotiated supplement? those are not the
only alternatives. western allies had not been so eager to leave the sanctions regime, but they were. out, weecretary pointed do have unilateral tools that would be an effect. making people choose between banking with america and i wrong . service, and iur appreciate the many times that you have come before this committee. we have disagreed and agreed. does the opening statement --
you mentioned that there are six areas in which iran is a actor. they give us a real concern. -- ultimately, i romney and behavior will determine whether it is affected. that does not give me the confidence level. your brief ,ndorsement of this agreement with regards to the traditional , as late as the spring, we were not hearing about this. aware thatu become leap from the
conventional arms embargo, and did it catch you by surprise? i would ask you not to characterize my statement as tepid or enthusiastic, but rather pragmatic. i have said before that it is superior to doing it militarily. as to your question about timing. i was consulted and asked for my advice about when military implications became part of this probably about a final,fore this became -- >> that was very late.
within the country of israel is opposed to the agreement. it is striking that the israelis are alarmed by this. -- shop it thesenior senator says that team has destroyed the sanctions mechanism. he points out that the united union and the european have recognized again and again i ran's centrifuges which can bigger than the old ones. means that the international community is enabling and ensuring a new
iranian nuclear program which will be more dangerous than its predecessor. >> thank you for your efforts on this negotiation. carter, you are in the middle east last week, can you tell us what you heard from our allies? arabia.ally about saudi mr. carter: prime minister netanyahu was very clear and has been clear publicly in his opposition to the deal. we discussed that, but we discussed many other things as well. hezbollah's activity on the border with lebanon.
in fact, i visited there. our missile defense activities, our cyber security cooperation, our intelligence cooperation, lots of other regional issues. we discussed many topics. he was very clear. senator: would you agree with the characterization that the israelis were united in their opposition to the agreement from left to right? mr. carter: i only spoke with the prime minister. he was, as he has been publicly, very clear. senator: what did you hear from some of our arab allies? mr. carter: i spoke to the king of saudi arabia who repeated to me a statement he had issued a few days before supporting the agreement. he referenced, i don't think
this is violating confidence, that the verification and the snapback revisions were important to him. he referenced those things. then we went to on to talk about other things that were more related to the defense agenda, including his air forces and , and something ,hat we started to discuss saudi arabia's role with isil. did you hear from any other allies in the middle east that they support the agreement? jordaniansto the upon it.
what they said, the subject was not our meeting. senator: thank you. general dempsey, is there a military option short of invasion that would roll back iran's nuclear program more substantially over the next 10 years than the jc boa does, in your opinion? general dempsey: i would have to make assumptions about how often we would be compelled to conduct airstrikes. the military options could disrupt the program by several years. there is nothing to say we could not repeated if necessary. senator: is there any intelligence to suggest what iran's response would be should we engage in an airstrike against them?
general dempsey: the analysis suggests that they would counter our presence in the region at every opportunity and use what they have available to them. senator: thank you. secretary moniz, there has been a lot of discussion about the 24 day delay. could you clarify the extent to which we would be able to detect nuclear activity, so, uranium, in an extended time beyond the 24 day? what if the activity does not include nuclear material? to what extent do you believe we could detect other activity other then uranium related or nuclear related activity? mr. moriz: first, let me
reinforce that having the 24 day timeline is new, again, to repeat, nuclear materials, we have very sensitive capabilities and historically those can be proved, and we can add more classified context. with regard to nonnuclear materials, it gets more difficult. when one has nuclear weapons specialized activities such as explosively driven neutron initiators, we would not be without tools to detect activities in that kind of time, but clearly, as one gets farther and farther away into just conventional explosive testing, which is what militaries do normally, then it is a question of putting together context. in the end, you need the nuclear materials to get to the weapon, and that is where we have extraordinary techniques.
if i may add one more comment, if you permit, just to go back to the comment on advanced centrifuges. i don't know the particular article you quoted, but it appears to have forgotten to mention that their most advanced machines are already operating at full cascade level, two different machines, and those are going to be dismantled before this is implemented. senator: i have been informed that senator ernst is required to preside over the vital proceedings on the floor of the united states senate, critical to her presence, so i would ask the indulgence of my colleagues to allow her to proceed. senator: thank you. thank you for being here today. this well be one of the most significant votes we take as members of congress moving forward. i think it is imperative that we get this right.
not long ago, the united states discovered that we had had a data breach at opm. simple. data, personnel records had been tapped into. so, that's just laying the groundwork of where i'm going next. secretary carter and secretary moniz, i am very concerned regarding the government's ability to detect and prevent cyber attacks on our government. particularly by china, russia and iran. with regards to james clapper, i ran has conducted cyber attacks on u.s. officials, hacking which compromised the marine corps internet, sans las vegas casino, and attacks against u.s. banks. in relation to the iran deal,
these attacks, along with recent successful attacks against opm, leads me to have less than full confidence in our own cyber capabilities, let alone the cyber capabilities at the iaea. it is vital iaea has a lock tied ability to protect its equipment and technology, vital to ensuring effective monitoring of iranian facilities under this agreement against cyber attacks. simple yes or no, secretary carter. are you concerned regarding iran's ability to impact the effectiveness of iaea monitoring equipment through cyber? mr. carter: i am sorry, i cannot give you a yes or no. i am very concerned about iranian cyber activity. you name three countries. i could go on. this is a big problem, and
sadly, i share the lack of confidence you have in the adequacy of our defenses. in the defense department, you would think we would be secure, but we are not, and we know that. it is not just iran, but others as well. that is why we are trying to make investments in that area and pull up our sock's on cyber, but i cannot reassure you. senator: secretary moniz, do you share that concern? yes or no. >> i absolutely share a concern. >> they are more advanced than the united states? carter: ciber is tough. we have to develop our capabilities. senator: i have no confidence that we would not be able to
know if there were tampering involvement going on as we monitor these activities. or if the iaea tries to monitor these activities. i hope they improve those measures. i believe we are vulnerable as we have seen with our own infrastructure. general dempsey, we have heard some other discussion today about the choices that the president has with this agreement. two weeks ago, many news outlets, usa today, others had quoted president obama as the choice is the iran nuclear deal or war. this seems to be a military decision. i understand that you advised the president on these issues. is that what you have told the president? we take this deal or we go to war? martin dempsey: no. at no time did that come up in our conversation or i made that comment. senator: who is advising the
president? that we must go to war if the deal is not signed? martin dempsey: i could not answer that. we have a range of options. i always present them. senator ernst: it is imperative everybody on this panel understand there are other options available out there. a multitude of options. we are taught in the military about dime. diplomatic options, information operation. military operations and economic types of sanctions and opportunities that we might have. for the president to reject everything the war is outrageous to me. i do hope that you are able to better advise him that he needs to be careful with his language because that seems to be the rhetoric we are hearing is that we either go to war or we accept this deal. i reject that premise.
martin dempsey: as long as we agree that military strikes is an act of war. but there are things between here and there. senator ernst: i agree. thank you very much. senator: general dempsey, you answered -- first of all let me thank everyone at this table for your service to our nation and the hard work and dedicated service that produce this agreement whether we vote for it or not. i have -- i have made no decision for myself. the nation owes you its gratitude for the hard work that you have done. say, general dempsey that the breakout time , for iran to produce enough material for a nuclear weapon will return to what it is now 2-3 months after the 10 year
period. martin dempsey: i don't know that it is fair to say that because i think that some of the additional protocols which are out of my area of expertise could inhibit them for a longer time. senator: let's assume for the moment that in fact the breakout time is reduced at the end of the 10 years to what it is now. will the united states be in a stronger or weaker position militarily if the military option is necessary? martin dempsey: the chairman earlier pointed out that it will make it more difficult but not make it more impossible. the answer to your question is that 80 pence on how we use the time between now and then.
-- it depends on how we use the time between now and then. we have to plan with our allies in the region to increase their capabilities over that time. if we use the time wisely and have the resources necessary to do it we should not assume we are in a weaker position. senator: the iranians will use that time to build their conventional forces. at the very least they will have more revenue from various sources if the sanctions are lifted. martin dempsey: they are starting from an extra extraordinarily -- from an extraordinarily weakened position. senator: where i am going is what changes do you think the united states has to take both , to make sure that our national security is assured and that our allies -- what specific changes should the armed services committee be supporting in the near and longer term?
martin dempsey: that is almost a separate hearing. i would suggest we need to have the budget certainty that the secretary of defense has articulated and secondly that we should not at this point in time consider reducing our force presence in the middle east area of responsibility. senator: secretary lew, let me turn to the economic sanctions that could be available. which my colleague from iowa has mentioned. can those be put back in place? can the united states even without our allies use its finance system and its bank to implement a severe sanctions system? jack lew: senator we certainly have significant tools that we could use again unilaterally.
but we have seen over the last several years is the impact of sanctions that have had a crushing impact on iran's economy. it has brought them to the table. they have reached the agreement we are here discussing. the notion we can unilaterally surpassed that is something that is inconsistent. senator: we can certainly make a significant and also severely damaging effort if we choose to do so. jack lew: we can. what i would say, the snapback provisions that are in this agreement if iran violates it, the sanctions will be back in place. senator: the challenge will be to mobilize. jack lew: i don't think there is a challenge. the way it was constructed, it is a very strong snapback provision. in a way that weakens, that we
can work out will by exercising a veto if there is a disagreement with us. senator: did you have a comment? mr. kerry: there is a surreality here. with all respect, the president of the united states is not mandating war. he doesn't want to go. it is not his choice. he is not advocating war. what he is saying is that if you analyze the alternatives here, and this is what i mean by surreality, could the united states continue sanctions? to what end? to negotiate? with whom? do you think the ayatollah is going to come and negotiate? senator: please shorten your remarks. mr. kerry: the reason the president talks about the possibility of war is iran has made it clear that if this is rejected they consider
themselves free to go back to where they were with the 10-12 bombs. the inevitable consequence of that would be what are you going to do about it? we will have lost the international support because the international community is ready to enforce this deal. if we are not unilaterally, they walk away. you have huge difficulty with sanctions and you lose your capacity to have the support for the military strike if there had to be one. it is not a choice the president wants to make but it is the consequence of them moving to assert the furtherance of their program. senator: senator. senator: i want to thank the witnesses for being here. i want to take this opportunity. it is probably going to be the last time general dempsey testifies. i want to thank you for your service and the service of your family.
when you appear before the committee i was the person who asked you about -- there had been floated some views in the press at that time iran was pushing for lifting of the resolution on ballistic missiles and the resolution of arms, which we now know are at the agreement -- are in the agreement. when you can before the committee, you said we should under no circumstances relieve pressure on iran and those issues. was it your military recommendation that we not agree to lifting of those sanctions? martin dempsey: yes. i use the phrase as long as possible, and that was the point at which the renegotiation continued. that was my military advice. senator: thank you. i want to ask about an issue, i know senator ernest had talked about. the iranian cyber activity.
a number of years ago we saw there was an interruption of iran's nuclear program through some other cyber activity. that was reported in the press i believe. in this agreement, according to 10.2 of annex three of the deal, the united states is obligated under this agreement to help strengthen iran's ability to protect against sabotage of its nuclear program. it might be hard for americans to believe that we would agree to help iran protect against sabotage of its nuclear program in light of its prior intentions. general dempsey, i wanted to ask your opinion on that. you think it is a good idea for the united states to help protect its nuclear program against sabotage? martin dempsey: i had not thought about that.
i would like to have the opportunity to do so. with respect to the cyber question, next week this committee and the senate will consider some cyber legislation that we have been eager to see past for some time so we can get ourselves better protected. senator: when we know iran continues activity on the cyber front, the idea that we would agree to help them protect its nuclear program against sabotage, i assume that would allow us to inform the israelis, inform iran if the israelis were taking over activities that would undermine its activities. i wanted to also ask about this idea we have heard a lot about, sanctions. sanctions as i understand, iran has written the united nations on july 20 about sanctions regime.
one of the issues that has concerned me about this agreement is that once the sanctions, the long list of mainly congressionally mandated sanctions that will be listed under this agreement are undertaken, if iran, for example, engages in terrorist activity, which it is known to do, separate from the nuclear program, iran seems to have taken the position in its letter to the u.n. -- and i have read the agreement and i have been concerned that the agreement provides the same -- that in fact iran says it is understood that reintroduction or reimposition including four extension of the sanctions will constitute significant nonperformance which will relieve its commitments in part or in whole.
my question is, i am concerned that if we want to reimpose the toughest sanctions on issues related to their terrorist activities and support for terrorism, another tool in the toolbox aside from military options, iran can walk away from this agreement. if the answer is you disagree with this characterization please tell me where am i wrong? >> the language says we can't reimpose the nuclear sanctions if they agree with the nuclear agreement. we have never given away our other sanctions regimes. senator: with all due respect, the nuclear sanctions are the toughest sanctions that we would impose in other contexts, including on crude oil, oil and gas. jack lew: we reserve the right, if there is a financial institution that is engaging and financing terrorism to put
sanctions back on that institution. that is not a violation of the agreement. it is not a nuclear sanction. senator: iran seems to take a different position. jack lew: we can't take the sanctions and put them into place. what we would have to do is make the case as we have on many occasions that institution should be sanctioned on their behavior on terrorism. we will continue to do that vigilantly. all of our sanctions that apply in that area still stand. senator: thank you. every time we say goodbye to you you come back and another week on another panel. i know it is not by choice. thank you for your service. mr. secretary, secretary of energy, if a year from now we have suspicions that something
is going on, does the iaea have access to go inside that building and see it or not? jack lew: we certainly have through the initial protocol in this agreement access anywhere. that there is suspicion of nuclear activity. the protocols, i would have to see -- it is certainly a different forward-looking -- different from resolving the possibility military [inaudible] senator: we need to know whether it is -- does the iaea have access. mr. moniz: they must have the access granted to resolve the issues that they need to resolve. we must have integrity in the process. senator: and if they do not they will be in breach of the agreement. senator: this is different than what has gone in the past. mr. kerry: it is different for there are different mechanisms
to bring it to a close. under the additional protocols, the lesson of north korea produced the additional protocol. now there is an initial protocol which has huge new requirements for access. senator: secretary lou, one of the proposals put forward is to say no to this deal, then to tell the other countries who are involved in regards to sanctions that a viable alternative is to say to france, germany, and others, choose us, choose them as you move forward economically, that if you are going to continue to do business with iran you can't do business with us. do you see that as a viable, moving forward? >> we do have powerful tools that make it dangerous for
foreign business to violate u.s. laws. if they do business and violate our sanctions we will enforce. whether we can do that against the whole world effectively without doing damage to our own economy is something we have to have serious considerations about. it is one thing -- it is another thing if we are standing on our own. the ability of a technical sanction to work is not the same as it being effective. senator: secretary carter, have you -- i know you are talking to the gcc countries, it seems to me one of the challenges is confidence. confidence that they will be safe, that israel will be safe. that is where this comes from. making sure your child can be safe and sleep safe that night. that is what mr. netanyahu is trying to ensure. as you look at it, is there any
putting together a plan that says to iran, not one more inch? as we move forward you will see from year to year that in yemen, not one more inch? that we will stand with the sunni tribal leaders to make sure they have success and will be viable and strong against whatever efforts iran has in iraq. to lay out the plan, let people know, let iran know in advance would help create a better sense of confidence that there is a reason, that there is a reason to stay with us. mr. carter: i think that is extremely important. that is what the gcc countries are looking for, namely the continued commitment of the united states to help them
protect themselves so they can sleep well at night, maintain our regional role, counter iran's malign influence, and activities. at the same time they recognize perfectly well what has been set up here, iran with nuclear weapons would be an indoor miss -- would be an enormous problem. at the same time, they want to make sure we are there. that is what the gcc countries were told at camp david by the president. my trip was impart to solidify all of the things. senator: i just want to finish by saying i think it is important to publicly state, not one inch more policy. i am not at all comfortable with our people who are still in iran, they have to come home. i wish they had come home as part of this agreement. i know you do too.
this cannot rest, we do not leave anybody behind. thank you mr. chairman. senator: thank you mr. chairman. secretary moniz, i would like to follow-up on what mr. blumenthal was asking you about with regards to the breakout time. what are the main factors you consider when you calculate that breakout time? mr. moniz: the key factors are the enrichment capacity and the stockpile of enriched uranium. there are many other factors as well which come in such as the rate at which additional capacity could be built in during a breakout time. all of this comes into our national laboratory evaluation. senator: that would include the number of centrifuges as well? mr. moniz: correct. senator: after 15 years what limits do you think will be in
place on those things that you just mentioned? mr. moniz: after 15 years they will probably expand their capacity after those restraints. that is why such a key element is the verification measures that we put in place for all time. senator: we are talking about tracking the nuclear material to make sure it is not diverted from the civilian programs. mr. moniz: for 25 years. senator: we are basically just checking in iran's math, correct? mr. moniz: checking the math. we are checking our math, if you like. the idea is to follow -- for 25 years we follow the manufacturing. it is the supply chain that we follow. our intelligence people will tell you to reproduce the entire supply chain in multiple places would be very difficult to conceal. senator: we are just looking at
of course the declared facilities. mr. moniz: no, we have of course , strong measures in the facility's, which by definition rests on the actions of our allies and friends intelligence capacity. senator: do you have confidence in that capacity we will locate any undeclared facilities and pressure iran to allow us to make sure that we have verification in those as well? mr. moniz: i would go back to the statements of general clapper and cohen. general clapper said specifically that this will give us greater insight into what they are doing. that leads us and other intelligence agencies we work
iea point -- to point in the right direction. senator: are you concerned on the discrepancies between statements made by our administration and compare those to what is being -- statement being made by the advisor to the supreme leader when it comes to access to -- allowing the iaea to look at the military centers in iran, where i believe i have heard our administration say that we do have access to those, they are declared facilities. yet the advisor to the supreme leader says the access of the inspectors from the iaea or any other body to iran's military centers is forbidden. who is correct?
mr. moniz: we are correct. i might point out there were many statements made before the vienna. senator: this was made july 21. mr. moniz: they were many statements. you can check them against the agreement. they don't square out. senator: how do you reconcile that? mr. moniz: those statements were clear. first of all, the aim is not to go to military sides. it is not us, it is iaea. the aim is to go to where there is suspicion of nuclear activities. if they are in a military site it doesn't matter. they are still the iaea access to those sites. senator: i own have a few seconds left. i would hope that you would reconcile those statements for the public. mr. moniz: we cannot control their statements. senator: you have stated the 24
day waiting. will not allow the regime to conceal any illegal activity. as i read the agreement many people have pointed out the inspectors requests to visit those sites could be delayed more than 24 days. i know that you are not concerned about the 24 day period. you believe that iaea would be able to handle that. if you look at different parts in section q of annex 1 of the agreement, we have the the potential of an 89 day delay. do you think that would be possible? how confident are you -- mr. moniz: we certainly cannot allow for that. i did not say any illegal activity. i spoke specifically as activity with nuclear material. as my real focus. number two, the iaea has any
-- has at any sign of noncooperation they have to launch the process with the request for access. then comes the 24 days. there is classified literature of a six-month delay an attempt to conceal which did not work. they were caught red-handed. senator: you said you would not allow the 89 days. how many days after 24 days would you allow? mr. moniz: it is that the process to launch the formal request for access has to be prompt. that is the end. senator: you would not allow anything past that? mr. moniz: i would not. senator: thank you. senator: thank you for joining us, thank you for your intense work on this. we care about the national
security of the united states and our allies. secretary moniz, you and i had a long conversation. what i would like you to discuss with the committee is the nuclear capabilities that iran has today are considerable and most experts have given it a 2-3-month time period to have one bomb. i would like you to talk a little bit about their nuclear expertise, and if left unchecked, how quickly can they ramp up to greater production, to more highly enriched uranium. excluding this deal arrangement. after that, i would like you to describe what they ramp up time would look like post 8-10-15 years. from what i understand is that you spent a lot of time identifying what can be changed and modified in the three existing facilities so they don't run a military risk. i would like that more fully described. and the last point, my constituents are concerned about
clandestine operations. to the extent you can talk about that in this sitting them i would like you to discuss a clandestine enrichment facility during the agreement. mr. moniz: quite a few questions. in terms of their current capacity, they have demonstrated the capacity to enrich uranium. that is clear. i want to emphasize that they have also demonstrated, they have enriched to 20% enrichment and 20% is the cut off that the iaea uses for uranium. the amount of work needed to get to 20% is nearly all the work you need to get to 90%, which would be weapons grade. they have the capability. they are already have full cascades running of the next generation, five times more powerful.
this agreement will have those dismantled at the time of implementation. what is critical is that we are rolling them back in every dimension of the program for a considerable program. clear,sident was very and our partners work very clear that a quantitative criterion was that there had to be at least a one-year break out time in terms of material for at least 10 years. we have accomplished that with this agreement. our lab scientists are fully behind this. as are other countries. then, that will roll off. after 15 years, then we can revert to the current kinds of breakout times for vision of all
material. we still need to keep the lid on weaponization activities, make sure those are not taken. that was a notable improvement. senator gillibrand: so they cannot make those steps for weaponization. secretary moniz: right. -- modifications, is there >> in this to -- language, it would be a breakout time of years. once it is online, they would need years of operation to get enough plutonium to be relevant. and the iaea would detect their
change in operation within one or two months. senator gillibrand: if they breach the agreement and get it up and running again would that take a significant , amount of time? secretary moniz: most of the centrifuge will not only be stripped out completely, but they will not even stored there. secondly, we will have a major international, not only daily iaea presence, but new science opportunities. if they kick everybody out, alarm bells go off. secretary gillibrand: monetary -- do our military options become better or worse after the agreement? >> if it is implemented, they become marginally better, for
the reason that under the --eement, the facilities are we learn more about them. many of them are dismantled. so in that sense, that purely technical military sense, it becomes easier. senator cotton: i want to discover the two secret side deals. i traveled to vienna to discover there are side deals. there are still some lack of clarity about the content. secretary kerry, have you read either of these two side deals between the iaea and iran? secretary kerry: no, i haven't. senator cotton: have you read any drafts? secretary: i have been briefed through our team that met with the iaea.
senator cotton has anyone on your team read these agreements? secretary kerry: i believe one person may have read it at the facility, but doesn't have it, possess it. secretary cotton: what is that person's name? secretary kerry: it's possible i don't know for sure, but it's possible wendy sherman, but i don't know for sure. senator cotton: secretary moniz, have you read the text ofof>> these agreements? >> i have not seen them. >> have the you read any prior agreement? >> nope. >> has anyone on your team at the department of energy? >> i'm not sure. i'm not sure about that. i can ask in terms of the technical team, maybe someone saw something. >> please do, get back to us. >> ok. >> besides undersecretary sherman, has anyone else in the united states government reviewed the depth of these agreements? secretary kerry: i don't think