program? and finally because of embargo and ballistic missile sanctions are not specifically mentioned, only in the u.n. security council governing the jcpoa, would violations of the arms embargo be considered a violation of the jcpoa? does a snap back in sanctions happen if iran were to continue to shift weapons to hezbollah? >> well congressman there are so many questions in there, obviously we're very happy to come back to you on the record. i want to answer every single one of them. but first of all let me call to everybody's attention here the irgc opposes this agreement. so they are not sitting there thinking they are going to get the whole world and be able to do what they want to do.

and one of the reasons they oppose this agreement, and i invite you to talk to the intel community about that is that they see themselves losing the cover of the nuclear umbrella that they had hoped to have for their that fair rows activities. there's nothing here to prevent us from bushing back going forward. we're all free to work together to build the pushback against the destabilizing activities. but let me ask you a simple question, is iran empowered more destabilizing the region with a nuclear weapon or stripped of that ability with an international agreement it has to live up to, and us coming in underneath with a whole set of other security arrangements and pushback? i think the answer is crystal cheer. you asked what happens with

respect to year 15. under the modified 3.1 code, please focus on what happens. there's not some sudden breakoff at the end of 15 years. they are under remarkable restraints specifically the comprehensive safeguards agreement they have to negotiate with the iaea which goes on forever, provides the iaea with the right and obligation to provide safeguards to ensure that material is not converted to nuclear weapons, all parties have to bring this into agreement. the comprehensive safeguard agreement requires iran to maintain detailed accounting records on all material that is subject to the safeguards operating records on all facilities subject to the safeguards, all public facilities in their program are subject to the safeguards.

it provides for a range of inspections, including verifying the location identity quantity the composition of all nuclear materials subject to the safeguards the design of nuclear facilities. it requires the board of governors to take action without delay, that's a quote, in a situation where it's essential and urgent and provides consequenceing s for non-compliance. there are a whole set of requirements for access and inspection and accountability on the undeclared facilities. so congressman, they are forever undeenormous constraints here. they have to provide accountability for all of the nuclear research and development activities not involving nuclear material centrifuge components

construction of hot cells, uranium mines, concentration plants nuclear waste, all kinds of things. let me let ernie -- >> well may i suggest this mr. secretary. we can respond for the record mr. secretary, to the ranking members questions but if we could go now to the next member. and we'll get that for the record later. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. last week the l.a. times reported that iron's foreign minister told the parliament that under the deal iran can deny inspectors access to military sites. iran's defense minister has always stated that he would not allow international inspectors to enter iran's military sites. yet, president obama stated quote, inspectors will be able to access any suspicious

location. the organization responsible for the inspections will have access where necessary when necessary, end quote. can they really have access to any and all military sites suspected of housing nuclear activity? does the agency need pre-approval from iran to k assess these sites? and the whole point of sanctions, mr. secretary was not to bring iran to the negotiation table, and dismantling iron's nuclear infrastructure used to be the administration's goal. the administration told us it was focus sanctions only on its nuclear portfolio, yet in the deal we have over 60 pages of individuals, companies, vessels, that will be delisted specifically mentioned. many of these sanctions are not nuclear related. the administration has always stated that all provisions within this agreement has to be

agreed upon by all parties, which includes allowing the e.u. to lift sanctions on the coulds force, including its leader. what do you say, mr. secretary to the families of americans who were killed or wounded as a result of his actions in iraq and please explain to them why as part of the nuclear negotiations, the u.s. agreed that the irgc coulds force that is responsible for countless deaths around the globe are going to get their designations lifted and will be getting billions of dollars to support their acts of terror throughout europe. and i'm glad it is only $50 billion. i feel better already. i remain extremely worried about allowing cuba to open a embassy

here in u.s. while u.s. law enforcement vets every official who wants to come to washington and will we reject any cuban official who wishes to be posted in dc. and finally secretary kerry when announcing the deal president obama said -- the iranian deal quote, we will continue our unprecedented efforts to strengthen israel's securery. will you guarantee that the u.s. will veto any action at the u.n. regarding israel? >> so let me correct you on the record on a -- conduct you on

the record. we will answer them all. let me clarify a couple of important things. and i want ernie and jack to get in here on two things. but quickly, there's a confusion here between the dismantling of the nuclear weapons program, versus the nuclear program. it was never the goal of this administration and not even the bush administration -- the bush administration in 2008 offered -- >> mr. secretary with all due respect, perhaps if you could answer about the solmoney the lifting of sections of the -- >> i want to be very clear we are achieving what we set out to do. with respect to the military sites, yes, they will have providing that is part of the inspection of an undeclared suspicious facility and if it is we will --

>> we will have access to the military sites? >> if they don't provide it, they will be in breach of this agreement, and the sanctions will snap back. >> and we'll consult with iran before we get access? >> there is a procedure in place. >> so iran is wrong when they say we won't have access to military sites. >> they are taking care of a domestic constituency in -- >> thank you. >> i'm going to remind the members, we have five minutes, so ask the question give enough time for response -- >> could i just ask -- >> mr. chairman -- >> and what we're going to do is we'll have the response for the record. but i'm going to encourage the members. >> all right. you just heard from the former chair of the house foreign

affairs committee, the representative of one of florida's congressional district and let's go to libby casey. i'm hearing some of the same themes that we heard in the senate foreign relations committee last week which is concerns about access to sites by inspectors as well as the weapon's arms embargo. what else have you heard? >> we just heard an important exchange with the congresswoman, because she is repeating something we have heard before. is there too much of a -- lag time between when the inspectors want to look at a site and when iran will let them in. and what secretary kerry just said was related to these military sites, and inspections and a time lag, he said what

iran says is not as important as what they do. because iran is speaking to its people, and telling its people that no inspectors will not have access. john kerry making a careful and key distinction, that they are watching how the iranians behave. and we're hearing things ranging from why don't we have a bigger voice in this? why did you go to the united nations last week before allowing the congress the people of america's eventation why did you not let us weigh in first. the message we're hearing from members of the administration from all three officials is that if we walk away we will be the only ones to walk away and we will end up walking away alone, in a way that undermines not only our international credibility, but our ability to effect iran. secretary kerry saying that if

we walk away everything we're trying to prevent will actually happen. so the administration officials say walking away is far more dangerous than engaging in this negotiation, stephanie. >> libby casey reporting from capitol hill. we're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back with our live coverage. ♪ ♪ ♪ get excited for the 1989 world tour with exclusive behind the scenes footage all of taylor swift's music videos interviews, and more. xfinity is the destination for all things taylor swift.

welcome back you are watching special live coverage of the house foreign affairs committee hearing on the iran deal. i want to bring in our professor of modern iran at baruck college. so far what we have heard are concerns, for example, over this

24-day waiting period in which iaea inspectors might not be able to go on to military sites in iran. is that a valid concern? >> it's not a valid concern. i think the people raising the issue are making a big thing of it, haven't actually read the details of the 159-page agreement. in there it's quite clear-cut. the nuclear installations are actually permanent observation both television and 154 inspections. >> that's true of the announced sites, right? but what about the unannounced sites? this >> what the critics want is inspections any time anywhere. which sounds good. but there's no way the iranians would accept that. why? because of the experience of iraq. and this is something that kerry can't bring in because then it

becomes bipartisan politics back to the bush administration. >> yes. >> but what happened in iraq was there was inspections any time anywhere and it became a fiasco. the u.s. inspectors would say we suspect that there is a secret experiment carrying out in colonel a or engineer scientists a's backyard we want to go there. so they would rush there, and there would be nothing there. so they would say, colonel b has it in his kitchen, and then they would go there. and it was a fiasco and they would know also that we know that during this process, the cia was trying to organize a coup which failed and also the cia was using this charade to try to get iraqi scientists to defect to america. >> and speaking of the cia, when

you talk about mistrust between iran and the u.s. that goes both says as a result of the cia-lead coup in iran. >> yeah. so there is no way that iran would accept this. so i think what kerry got was a very good agreement where you would -- if anyone suspects any nuclear activity anywhere in iran they have to present it to a committee, the u.n. committee, and in that committee, if there's evidence or suspicion suspicion -- then there's that 24-period. and the russians and chinese cannot block it. kerry has done it in such a way that they cannot block it. so if there's good sus -- suspicion they can do it.

>> all right. let's leave it there, because i want to dip back live into the hearing where christopher smith is right now asking his questions. >> -- several countries missed the mark and a number of countries got absolutely unmerited upgrades including malaysia cuba and uzbekistan. i went back and read the reports from last year and the year before. in china there were 35 convictions of trafficking. cuba 30 convictions for sex trafficking. the narrative gets it right. none for labor trafficking. which is nuts. a year ago there were ten convictions, so we're talking about absolute minimal. thailand by contrast had 151 convictions, they are still tier three. and malaysia had three convictions, a decrease from

nine from last year and they were tier 3. did the narratives get it right? the designations missed it by a mile. >> well i'm going to deal with the tip, i would be happy to sit down and talk that through. since time is so pressure i want to stay on iran and i want my colleague to be able to address a couple of key issues. >> mr. chairman if i could just respond to a couple of the issues that have been raised. >> this is my time. i would really like to know -- >> mr. smith, let's -- we'll get answers here to everything. let's let the answer -- >> on the question of the flow of money to iran there have been a range of estimates. the money is locked up because our international partners worked with us to take iran's money and not let iran get it. the highest number that we see there's $115 billion that is theoretically available.

in reality, 58 to 59 billion is unavailable. roughly 20 billion is tied up in contracts like china. and the balance is things like non-performing loans. i'm not going to say $56 billion is not a lot of money. but it's not $150 billion, and it can do not all be used because they need some foreign reserves to run their economy. if you look at the demands for the use of that money we see at least $500 billion competing demands for that money. under sanctions, they have managed to put several million dollars a year towards maligned purposes. we can't say there will be anymore money going to maligned purposes. but the amount is way, way smaller. you compare that to an iran with a nuclear weapon the biggest threat is iran with a nuclear weapon having the same kinds of

objectives. the congresswoman's questions about the irjc there are a few entities who's identity and leadership have changed over time. we're privately happy to go through the individuals. but we have kept in place our sanctions on terrorism. >> thank you. we have three questions asked by the gentlemen from new jersey. if i could have a succinct answer on those. >> congressman the greatest incentive for an arms race in the region to try to get a bomb will be if this agreement is jekted. and the reason will be that iran will go back to enriching. we will not have inspection we will not have incite and they will say, oh my god, now they are going for a bomb now we have a reason to have to get

one. they have in fact told us these countries, that they are not going to chase a bomb providing the implementation of this agreement continues, and providing that we are working with them on the other pushback issues for the region. with respect to the issue of parchin, yes, there will be access. and that is an agreement normally entered into confidentially tween those countries. >> americas held captive and north korea conveys a bomb to iran. what happens there? >> i believe i heard you say that iran set off a nuclear bomb at parchin that is not true at all. >> i didn't say that at all. >> it will be appropriate. >> but, again, how is that

designed. >> congressman we have didn't [ overlapping speakers ] >> my last conversation with foreign minister zarif and the brother of the president was regarding the four american citizens being held. we are in direct conversations. that's all i'm going to say here today. but i hope they will be returned to be with their families. >> north korea and a bomb if they convey bombs to iran what happens under the agreement. if north korea were to provide nuclear weapons to iran -- >> well they can't do that. and they would be in gross violation of the non-proliferation treaty. and iran would be in violation of this agreement. >> we have [ inaudible ] from new jersey. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for being here. you know there are deep

divisions in iran evidenced by the comments made by the hard liners and the prime minister and the foreign minister and the supreme leader. are these divisions likely to resurface during the implementation of this agreement? and what are the consequences of these disagreements for the implementation. because i keep reading that they are going back and forth. and i'm concerned -- >> congressman that's a very very good question. and appropriate understanding the dynamic here. we saw the exact same divisions of things that were being said regarding the interim agreement, if you recall. and what we have learned is it's not as important what they say. it's important what they do and make sure that their actions are held accountable. every aspect of the interim agreement has been lived up to notwithstanding denials that

came out publicly from certain politicians or leaders. we have seen the same thing here. we have heard that xor y or z couldn't happen but the agreement is the agreement. nothing in this agreement is based on trust. nothing is based on an expectation of some change of behavior. this agreement is 109 pages or whatever because it is specific in declaring what is expected of whom and when. and that is what gives us confidence we'll be able to hold them accountable. >> thank you. and secretary you said there's only 56 billion for them to really -- >> that's accessible. >> accessible. but really they do not need a lot money for some of these groups to start them up again? i mean they don't need billions. they can't absorb billions some

of these groups. >> the problem is even with all of the sanctions in many place, they are finding the relatively small sums of money that it takes to do terrible acts of regional destabilization and support of terrorism. so they are doing that now. and what i'm saying is i don't think you are going to see the shape of that support change though there will be some more resources available, it will be on the margin and along the lines of what they are already doing, but puts the burden on us and our allies to shut down the flow of money and material to maligned forces. one of the issues we discussed with our gulf allies was how to work more effective together to shut down some of those flowings of money thanks that are happening today with the sanctions in place. the problem exists today with or without an agreement. and the challenge on this money that is locked up overseas is it's not in the united states.

a lot of it is in china, india and other places. if the p5-plus-1 agreement is rejected by the united states i don't think we can rely on those other countries on keeping that money locked up. so i think we have to keep it in perspective, it is a serious issue. we have made the commitment to continue designating like we did last week additional hezbollah actors, we will continue to do that, we have sanctions and secondary sanctions in place. we will double and redouble our efforts on that. but that's not a reason not to have an agreement to make sure that iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. >> also i would underscore if you look at their activities they are not capital intensive. what they have been doing with the houthi and what they have done over the years, so i think that our objective here was to make sure they can't have a nuclear weapon and secondly to

work with our allies and friends in the region in order to do a greater job, a much better job of pushing back against those activities. and i am going at the end of this week i'll be meeting in doha with the gulf states. we're lying out the very specific steps with respect to that pushback and what we'll be engaged in in order to increase security. but it's impossible to brew them all in one pot at one time. first step nuclear weapon now we have the opportunity to press for the changes that we want. >> thank you. >> thank you. we go to mr. dana lowbokker. >> thank you. and thank you for providing such leadership on this issue. and mr. secretary let me note while you are receiving quite a gruelling today, let us note

that we appreciate the hard work that you and others in the administration are making. we know you sincerely are looking to make this a more peaceful world, and some of us realize in the past we have seen people who are very sincere in seeking peace, creating a -- unfortunately setting things off in a direction that lead to war, more repression and didn't create a more peaceful world. one of the efforts i noted is how ronald reagan succeeded in ending the cold war, and during that time period we reached weapons agreements with the soviet union, and -- but let me note while we were making those agreements with the soviet union to put a lid on nuclear weapons and -- in europe et cetera we ratcheted up our support for the

democratic elements who were struggling against soviet domination in various parts of the world, whether it was in the soviet union or nicaragua, or afghanistan, we were increasing our efforts to support those people. we also denied them hard currency, much less had any agreement that would have bolstered the soviet economy. and because we had that approach the soviet union fell apart, and that is what made a more peaceful world, the elimination of that regime and i'm afraid that without fighting by the way, i'm afraid that this treaty that you are talking about and promoting today will do just the opposite than what we saw succeeded, and that is it will actually impower them rather than make it a more peaceful regime and make peace more likely empowering them in the long run will create

more chaos, more likelihood of war, because they are the main proponents and supporters of terrorism, and of course hatred towards the west that we have seen coming from their regime. we all know in this body -- we have been aware, for example, the repression and the brutal retreatment of people within iran and -- like the mek who are suffering, and you noted this in the past yourself the brutality that these people who oppose the regime have had to face. did you confer in any way with the people -- the democratic elements in iran or these other people who are struggling for a free iran and how this agreement will affect their long-term goal for a democratic iran and thus a more peaceful

world. >> as you know this was a nuclear negotiation, but i have on many occasions met with folks representing different interests and -- and aspirations within iran. what i would say to you, congressman, and -- you know, you have to make sort of a hard judgment here about where iran is. president rouhani, and foreign minister zarif are both individuals who have expressed a very different point of view from the past leadership -- >> so -- i have a limited amount of time. so your answer is no that you did not confer -- >> that's not what i said. >> but you are conferring with their oppressors instead. >> no -- >> listen the fact is -- >> i don't think i said that at all congressman. >> secretary, during the reagan hears when we talk about only $55 billion, all right. we'll figure out if there it's

150 billion or $50 billion, but the fact is part of the effort that worked under reagan was supporting the elements and undermining the economy of the soviet union. in the long run what will bring peace to this part of the world is not for us to have short-term arms deals with the regimes and the others who hate the west but to try to support those elements in those societies that want peace with the west and aren't preparing some sort of holy war against us. this -- i'm sorry, mr. secretary. i appreciate your sincerity, but i believe this treaty will empower the mu las, and make conflict more likely. >> mr. jerry connelly of virginia. >> i thank the chairman and my friend from california i find his words ironic. ronald reagan was quite capable of compartmentalizing

relationships for the sake of the greater good. and his relations with the soviet union were the quintessence of that kind of progress matism exactly what is in front of us tide. something is overriding nuclear capability in the region. shall we deal with it or not? samuel taylor described fiction as the willing suspension of disbelief. i find a lot of function the willing suspension of disbelief, in some of the criticism of this agreement. it's not perfect. it will hurt israel. it will give them a nuclear capability some day. it does don't enough. it doesn't deal with ancillary and horrendous behavior. who said it would? and here is the bottom line

valid though many of those criticisms may be imperfections we can find by the score. what is your program? and you know what i have heard in the series of hearings here? let's go back to the p5-plus-1 and iran and say we just couldn't sell it let's start over. that is one of the most monumentally naive statements i have ever heard, and it came from a former member of congress who knows better. it's not true. it won't happen. at least let's stick to the facts. but know this willing suspension of disbelief is at work. it's alive and well here. including the issue of the existential threat to israel. talking away from this agreement, you need to take res penceablety for the consequences to israel. and you have to weigh it real carefully. what will happen? what risks am i willing to take

before i cast that vote on behalf of our country and our allies like israel? mr. secretary, i think it's an extraordinary job you have done and i would like to give you the opportunity to talk about two problems and you too mr. secretary -- secretary muniz. if we walk away what is likely to happen in your analysis? and secondly mr. muniz, one of the real problems i see in this is that 24-day problem. that is not quite the robust inspection we had hoped to. >> i'm going to be very quick. but it's not speculation it is clear, if congress rejects this iran goes back to its enrichment the ayatollah will not come back to the table. anybody who makes that judgment has not talked to the -- to the

intel community, there is no way, given his feelings already about the west and his mistrust of us and his reluctance to even have engaged in this discussion that he is going to reenter. more over the sanctions regime completely falls apart, the folks we relied on to provide a united front here go off, and we will have set ourselves back folks. i don't know how i go to another country, if that happens, and say, hey, you ought to negotiate with us or talk to us about any issue with a reliance that we can deliver? because they will sit there and say, well you have 535 secretaries of state in the united states we don't know who we're negotiating with and whatever deal we make always risks being overturned. that is not the traditional relationship that has existed between the executive and the

congress. and finally, iran will say, we're free. we can go about -- back to our program, and what i said earlier about bringing year 15 to today, it happens. year 20 whatever it is. they will take their 19,000 centrifuges. they have the ability to enrich and they will feel we backed off. >> first let me add from my five months at the table, i got our p5-plus-1 partners would be anymore interested in going back to the table than iran. on the 24 days again, let me emphasize, all of the regular access -- for declared sites it's constant. the 24 days is a new tool in the sense there has never been a limit at all, so the key is getting enough of a compressed process where we feel confident in being able to detect any use of nuclear materials number one over that time period and we could provide even more evidence than i have already discussed

today in a classified conference. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. and thank you for being here mr. secretary. this administration the president specifically called isis famously the jv team. that clearly wasn't true. this administration cited yemen as the model approach to u.s. counter terrorism, and that was shortly before yemen's near total collapse into chaos. so that wasn't true either. president obama declared al-qaeda to be decimated, very weak on the run, those are all quotes by the way. but that certainly isn't true. why should the american people trust the administration now on this deal? >> we're not asking them to truth. we're asking them to read the deal and look at the components. nothing in this deal is built on

trust, nothing. it is on very specific steps that have to be taken. for instance iran gets zero relief from the sanctions until iran has implemented, the one-year breakout time by destroying the clandria undoing their electrical -- >> i have limited time so i'm going to move on. >> all i'm say -- >> but when you say that doesn't depend on trust, that just strains credibility, i think, so say there isn't trust on both sides involved. there has to be or there's no deal. >> no there's not -- >> let me ask you this relative to anywhere any time inspections, you said and i quote, this is a term that honestly i never heard in the four years that we were negotiating. in april this year deputy secretary advisor had said that

the international atomic energy agency would have immediate access to any site the agency wanted to inspect. immediate access sure sounds -- sure sounds like any time to me. and also in april, energy secretary muniz who is the gentlemen sitting next to you there, he said and i quote, we expect to have anywhere any time access to places that are expected of out of bounds activity end quote. so again, why should the american people trust what they are being told by this administration about this deal? >> may i say, my quotes any time anywhere in the sense of a well defined process and well defined time scale, and that's what we have. >> thank you. >> but let me go further than that -- >> that really clears things up. so thank you.

go ahead. >> we never had a discussion in the context of these negotiations that we talked about anywhere any time. nowhere on the planet earth does any country under the npt have anywhere any time what we have is managed access. >> this 24 days -- >> let me answer -- >> that's months actually. >> 24 days is an outside period of time during which time and for 24 years or longer 2400 years, they would not be able to hide the remanents of nuclear activity and ernie muniz will tell you that. >> i only have five minutes. let me ask you this -- >> you are not letting me answer. >> if this such a good deal why is israel so opposed to it? >> not -- well first of all, i understand when you say israel. there are people in israel who

support it -- >> and the prime minister -- okay he is the representative, just like president obama is the representative of our country -- >> i understand and you agree that president obama always talks for everything in the country, right? >> well he seems bound and determined to go forward with this, whether the majority of us are for it or not. >> as i said earlier, we fully understand, every israeli has fears. there are concerns about the region they live in about the nature of theet rhetoric that is used. everybody is concerned. which is why this is not based on some element of a dream that they are going to change. but i will tell you there are people in israel who -- >> you are going to name a couple of people. >> the prime minister is against it. and i'm almost out of time.

this is one of the main reasons i am so concerned. because israel could be effectually effected but with these icbm's -- >> excuse me sir. we have got to go to mr. ted deutsche of florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thanks to the witnesses for being here. mr. secretary kerry thank you as well. on behalf on mri constituents family for continues to raise robert's plight and the three other americans that are held. i want to talk specifically pmd, because if we don't address that it is impossible for us to believe that the iaea will have the conditions they need. under the terms of the agreement, the nuclear actives set forth that need to be satisfied refer to the road map.

except they leave out the most important point, which is the one that the iaea has to get permission for. the first question is will we have access -- will the iaea have access to parchin. the second question is am i right that satisfaction of pmd will not be a prerequisite to iran getting sanctions relief? >> it is a prerequisite. if they haven't complied with the iaea and lived up to the dates laid out in the program, they will not get relief. >> mr. secretary, i acknowledge that, but by october 15th they have to have activities that they need to set out what they are going to do, but it's december 15th, by which the director general and the board

of governors will access whether or not they have complied. and that's not a condition of the deal. >> actually it is. it's a material breach. >> i would point out it is specifically omitted in the list of past and present concerns. >> well if you are talking about the outcome, it's not dependent on the outcome, because the outcome we have no way of knowing -- >> but that's the issue -- >> no it's whether they comply or not. we know what they are doing. we have already drawn our conclusion about 2003. >> so that's my point -- >> so it's not the outcome -- >> so you are saying that -- >> it's a compliance. >> so if they comply with the iaea, but they ultimately conclude that -- that they have not -- they are not satisfied on pnd because they didn't get access -- >> then they are not in compliance. >> because they didn't get

access to the scientists. >> that would be a breach. we would not do sanctions relief. >> then i would respectfully suggest it is not at all clear in the agreement. we can talk about that. i would like to move on to the issue of specifically the sanctions. but it lists lots and lots of individuals and entities that are getting sanctions relief. many are involved in not just proliferation activities but they are also involved in terrorism -- support for terrorism. they are involved in human rights abuses. they went on this list because it was easier to get our allies to go along with the sanctions. i appreciate that we are going to continue to sanction hezbollah, but what i really want to note is will we be able to -- and are we going through the process of scouring this list not just for individuals, but for banks and shipping lines, and state-owned companies

to reimpose sanctions if they are subject to sanctions for terrorism? >> congressman first we have not listed for relief many entities -- >> i understand but i'm asking about this list. >> there are institutions that were designated for their acts of terrorism or regional destabilize that we have not relieved -- >> i understand that. will we be able to reimpose sanctions on all of these individuals and entities if they find they should be because of terrorism? >> we have retained all of our rights to designate individuals -- >> including everyone listed -- >> including entities on the list. but what we cannot do is just put in place the nuclear sanctions -- >> i understand. i understand. >> we have given up no ability to target individuals orentities -- >> including -- i hope we're going through the list and scouring it now. i would just ask for some

acknowledgment that when we say that -- that iran is engaged in all of these terrible activities now and it doesn't cost much money. it has been reported that $200,000 a year is used to fund hezbollah. so that would double the amount of support for five years at which time the arms embargo comes off, and they are considerably more dangerous. >> congressman we can put the arms -- there are plenty of opportunities to deal with the arms. there is a u.n. resolution preventing them from taking weapons from hezbollah, there's a resolution preventing them -- >> at this time we have got to go to joe wilson of south carolina. >> thank you, chairman and ranking member for hosting this hearing. secretary kerry i share the concerns of an op-ed of the times of israel where he

presents 16 reasons the nuke deal is a catastrophe for the western world. i'll present these for the record for you to answer during the coming month. we need these as response to the american people so that as we vote in september, the american people will know as you stated a few minutes ago the correct facts. one was the iranian regime required to disclose the previous military dimensions of its nuclear program in order both to ensure effective inspections of all relevant facilities? no. two, has the iranian regime been required to halt all uranium enrichment including thousands spinning at the enrichment facility? no. has they been required to shut down and dismantle the iraq

heavy reactor plant? no. as the regime been required to shut down and dismantle the facility it is building at fordo? no. five has iranian regime been required to halt its ongoing missile development? no. six, has the regime been requires to hult -- amount and research the program that will enable it to break out a bomb far more quickly? no. seven, have they didn't required to dismantle our enrichment facilities? no. eight, has the international community set out how it will respond to different kinds of violations to ensure it can act with sufficient speed and efficiency to thwart a breakout

of the bomb. no. has iranian regime been required to surrender for trial the members of the leadership placed on the interpol watch list for the alleged involvement in the bombing by the hezbollah suicide bomber of the amia jewish community center in argentina in 1994 and resulting in the deaths of 85 people? no. has the iranian regime undertaken to close its 80 estimated cultural centers in south america from which it allegedly fostered terrorists networks? no. has the iranian leadership agreed to stop inciting hatred against israel and the united states? no. has iranian regime agreed to hult executions currently

running at an average of three a day? no. does the nuclear deal shatter the main stakingly constructed sanctions regime that forced iran to the negotiating table? yes. will the deal usher in a new era to revive the iranian economy and releasing financial resources that iran will used to bolster its mill mill stair forces? yes. i'm going to be submitting these for the record and i look forward to receiving them during the next month. in the meantime the american people need to know there is bipartisan opposition to this deal. two weeks ago we had senator joe lieberman here who addressed my concern and that is that the secretary of state designated

iran a state-sponsor of terrorism terrorism. and i asked him has there been a change in course in his quote directly this regime has the blood of a lot of americans on its hands. incidentally, hundreds of american soldiers were killed in iraq by shia militias that were trained in iran. so your question is a good one, has the government changed? there is no evidence of change. mr. secretary has there been evidence of change? >> yes in that the president of iran sent his foreign minister to negotiate an agreement to which i could pose you a lot of questions that i could give you the answer to that are yes too. does iran have to ill nile

late -- >> and those are words -- >> yes -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> if the gentlemen will suspend, your time has expired. >> yes, sir. >> i have suggested ask the questions and leave time for response. we're going to brian higgins of new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the snapback provisions in this agreement -- >> you are watching our continuing live coverage of the house foreign affairs committee on the iran nuclear deal secretary of state as well as two other cabinet secretaries there in the hot seats trying to defend this deal. let's go to our correspondent on capitol hill libby casey. libby it was interesting to hear a democrat from florida, ted deutsche criticize this deal asking about the past military dimensions of the iranian deal. how many democrats are there on the hill like him who have serious reservations about this? >> reporter: i would say there

are a lot, stephanie. the question is when push comes to shove in september, how will they vote? we are hearing from some like jerry connelly who is from a region right outside of d.c. who are supportive of this. but the top democrat on this committee and others are raising concerns. will the administration be able to allay those concerns enough to get votes? will they be able to gain traction here in the house and in the senate is the question. there will be a cooling off period of sorts because the house goes on recess for a full month. so they'll be able to hear from constituents we'll watch how the polls reflect the american public's perspective on this deal. so while democrats are raising tough questions now, that doesn't necessarily mean they will definitely vote against it come september. florida has a lot of fewjewish

americans. there is a lot of concern of israel's perspective on this. but a poll came out just this week that really didn't reflect that awong the jewish american population. >> you are referring to a poll which is getting a lot of press today in light of this hearing, that 60% of jewish americans support the iran deal. and former israeli ambassadors have supported the deal two former chiefs of the masad have supported the deal. so also struck me is how there are two different paradigms. secretary kerry keeps emphasizing this deal only had to do with constraining a nuclear weapon. but we're hearing all of these

other ancillary issues come up. how much will the american people be swayed by those other issues. it is continuing to detain journalists and other americans as well as well as the revolutionary guard and their participation in regional security. >> that's right. and we heard ed royce say we are hearing the iranians chant death to americans. a nuclear iran is far more dangerous than an iran without nuclear weapons, so you can't tease those issues totally apart, but what the administration is pushing for and hope to convince congress and the american people of is we have to look at this issue on its own, because it's integral to the safety not just to the u.s. but globally that they

keep iran from getting a nuclear weapon in whatever way they can. >> libby casey reporting from capitol hill. you are continuing to watch live coverage. we'll get more analysis right after this short break.

welcome back. you are looking live at the hearing room. an important hearing on the iran deal. i want to bring in our guest. let's talk about some of the issues that have been brought up that are ancillary, perhaps to the nuclear issue, and yet may be important to the american people, which is that iran remains a state sponsor of

terrorism. one of the congressman brought up the fact that even with the release of $50 billion that that could get funneled into the irgc. what do you make of this debate? >> the word terrorism is a very loaded word. it stops conversation. when you look at really the data what was the terrorism, iran has in the past supported hamas. it doesn't give much support anymore. the saudis are more a supporter of hamas. >> you are saying there is a double standard. >> exactly. >> of course iran is accused of supporting hezbollah. >> okay. hezbollah is the closest, you could say of