tv Senator Roy Blunt R-MO on the Iran Nuclear Agreement CSPAN September 3, 2015 10:00pm-10:14pm EDT
expert knowledge to make sure that whatever they do can be technically authenticated. i can't go through every hypothetical situation. i know the director general working ask these questions i your colleagues in this informal meeting. i would rely on his answers more than my answers. what i am assured of is that whatever they do in every circumstance where they believe the need to have access, it will be technically authenticated and will meet the standards that they must have and they require for ensuring verification. sen. cotton: it sounds like the answer is no we cannot verify that iaea inspectors will be physically present on every site. undersec. sherman: you don't
have to be present on every site in this technological world to get done what is necessary. sen. cotton: who will decide what is and what is not a military site? undersec. sherman: the better way to respond to your question, if the iaea has justification to have access to a site, we have a process to make sure they get access, whether that is military or nonmilitary. if they have justification to enter any site, regardless of what it is, and the axis agreement, they will get access. the u.s. would not have agreed to an agreement where access was not assured if the iaea believed it had to happen. sen. cotton: are you aware of any actions iran has taken it to sanitize any sites? undersec. sherman: there is an all senate briefing this afternoon. that is classified information.
we will be prepared to answer these questions. sen. cotton: let's move to the side deals for iaea and iran. you acknowledged to senator scott that you read the side agreement between the iaea and iran. did anyone else read these side agreements? undersec. sherman: some of our experts at it as well. as it all of the p5+1. sen. cotton: can you give me an estimate? undersec. sherman: a handful. sen. cotton: you said earlier to senator corker that we have to honor the agreement between iaea and iran. undersec. sherman: it is the iaea in every country with safeguards protocol. sen. cotton: the fact that you read them, doesn't that undermined the supposed evidence reality? -- supposed confidentiality? undersec. sherman: we were shown
it in a private setting. i will share my confidential understanding and keep it in a classified setting. sen. cotton: how long are these documents? undersec. sherman: very short. sen. cotton: why are these documents classified? it's not a u.s. covert document. it's not sensitive to the methods of our intelligence community. you know what's in it. why are these classified? undersec. sherman: the reason is that they are called safeguard confidential. under the comprehensive safeguards agreement, to which we are also a party, we have confidential documents and protocol with the iaea, as do all of the countries that are under the csa. the iaea has committed to keeping them confidential.
and so therefore, they are committed to keeping these protocols under csa confidential as well. sen. cotton: i'm aware that is the statement you also gave to senator corker. i assume you're not implying any kind of moral equivalence. undersec. sherman: i indeed said, that i understood that this was a very different circumstance in the sense that we are trying to keep iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that this was an international understanding negotiated amongst 6 parties and iran. so yes, i understand this is a different circumstance. which is why i believe the iaea at an expert level shared the protocol arrangements, understanding they would be classified. and i made clear to the iaea under our system, i would be required to share, in a classified cover initial
setting, with members of the u.s. congress what i had seen. and i will do so this afternoon. sen. cotton: did you make clear to iran that these laws required congress to receive all of the texts? undersec. sherman: our understanding of the legislation passed by the house and senate is that we must give you every document that we have. and we have given you every document that we have. sen. cotton: it says it doesn't matter whether the u.s. government has it in its possession. undersec. sherman: it's very difficult to give you something that we don't have. iran and the iaea are well aware of our legislation. i can assure you they follow what you do every cycle day. sen. cotton: fascinating new interview from secretary kerry today.
secretary kerry says that if congress rejects the bill, it would show iran "america is not going to negotiate in good faith. that would be the ayatollah's point." you made it clear to iran that covers would have to confirm on this deal before he could move forward. undersec. sherman: of course they knew that congress was going to vote on this. everything was very public. everything that happens here in our country is transparent, democratic, and public. sen. cotton: are you concerned about congress screwing the ayatollah? undersec. sherman: i will not comment on that. i can say that secretary kerry, secretary moniz, myself, the negotiating team that has been working diligently on this for over two years, having briefed the u.s. senate and congress countless times, hundreds of
times quite frankly, did everything they could to ensure the safety and security of the u.s. that is our solemn obligation. that is what we did. sen. cotton: thank you. >> we will have more on friday with a panel of middle east analyst and diplomats. you can watch that live at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two. next, some of the senate floor debate on the iran agreement that happened earlier this summer. we will hear first from a republican opponent of the deal. then, democrat bill nelson, one of the deal's supporters in the senate. this is 35 minutes. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] yesterday's announcement about our ongoing stature and status with iran is, in my view, a dangerous step forward in advancing not only the illicit nuclear program that they've had until now but the clear nuclear weapons capability they had under this agreement. i think the agreement confirms the president was too willing to get a deal with iran at any price. the concessions made by the administration based on the starting point of these discussions, i believe to be stunning. all we have to do is go back maybe and just review a little bit of recent history to see that today iran's advancement of instability, of terrorism, of violence in the world continues
unabated and not hampered by the agreement that has just been announced. in the not-too-distant tomorrow we see all of those things still continue unabated and unfortunately much better positioned and much better funded than they are right now. supported by iran, assad and syria has been massacring his own people resulting in the deaths of at least 191,000 people in syria. that's according to the u.n. and that's according to u.n. numbers a year ago. assad stepped forward to praise this agreement, supported by iran, shiite militias are continuing to support assad and promote division and violence throughout the country of iraq. supported by iran, houthi rebels have seized key territory in
yemen and continue to work to destabilize that country. supported by iran, hezbollah and lebanon wages terrorism and calls for the annihilation of israel. supported by iran, palestinian terrorist groups in gaza continue to lob mortars and rockets into israel. last april, iran's islamic revolutionary guard navy stopped a marshal islands flag ship as it tried to go into the straits of hormuz. and this is at a time when iran is strieg to get major -- is trying to get major countries in the world to negotiate with them. iran continues to hold its hostages within any reasonable way of finding hostages. three americans: abedini, former u.s. marine amir kontaki.
"washington post" journalist jason rezaian, they remain totally uncooperative in helping to locate former f.b.i. official robert levinson. when the secretary of state is asked about why these people weren't part of the negotiations, he says, well, this was negotiation about nuclear weapons but not about people unlawfully and wrongly detained. well, it quickly became a negotiation about not just nuclear weapons but all kinds of other weapons that we have prevented the iranians from having access to in a worldwide marketplace, that that quickly was added to the topic but we couldn't get three americans released and find out more about one american than we know now. the concessions laid out by yesterday's announcement were also, i thought, pretty stunning. on the idea of uranium enrichment, the obama
administration said a year and a half ago that iran didn't have the right to enrich. in november of 2013, the secretary of state told abc news -- quote -- "we do not recognize the right to enrich." it's clear in the nonproliferation treaty, it's very, very clear that there was no right to enrich." end quote. under the agreement, iran is allowed to enrich. inspections, the president said we would have to be able to verify iran's compliance or iran's cheating through anywhere at any time inspections. it's widely understood that any good deal must allow inspections trust but verify. the president may say that's there but it's clearly not there. in fact last p april the president's deputy national security add -- add advisor
proudly proclaimed under this year we will have anywhere any time 24/7 access to iran's nuclear facilities. as a turns out, under this deal inspectors will be forced to wait up to 24 days for access to suspicious sites once they ask for access to suspicious sites. that is a brand-new definition of "anywhere, any time." possibly you can have access in 24 days, and obviously lots of things can and would change in 24 days. militarily, the president said we would disclose and find the possible military dimensions of the research and where iran's illegal nuclear program headed. the president said this information is critical to knowing what iran's true breakout potential and their true intentions would be. under this agreement, however, the option