destroyed its stockpile reduced centrifuges by two thirds totally stripped the ability to do fissile material that that country that is now trying to build its economy with a population of 50% of the country under the age of 30 who want jobs and a future is it your presumption that they are going to throw this all to the wind and go create a nuclear weapon after saying we'll strip our program down and won't? i don't think it is going to happen. >> what about after 15 years. is iran likely to build a nuclear weapon after 15 years? >> all i can say to you is that they can't do it without our knowing what they are doing, because after 15 years they have to live by the additional protocol, live by the modified code 3.1. they have to live with inspectors 150 additional

inspectors are going to be going into iran as a consequence of this agreement, and those inspectors are going to be given 24-7 access to declared facilities. so if iran suddenly starts to enrich more which we will know all of the bells and whistles will go off, the international community will be all over that. thank you, we want to ask this one additional question and that's the way it goes. >> tell me what you expect will happen if the agreement is rejected specifically, there's been some suggestion, that iran will adhere to it anyway and sanctions will remain in place anyway. i heard that for the first time when i met with an israeli friend who suggested that it

might be possible. it's physically impossible. >> i'll tell you why because of the legislation that you have passed in which you have given yourself the ability to vote and an inability for the president to waive the sanctions and no way for the teal to work, because our lifting the sanctions is critical for the ability to the other countryes it work and get any money. so negative works for them unless this deal is accepted. we have a lot of members who still want to ask questions. >> mr. secretary upstate, we all know what iran has done as far as giving weapons to terrorists to do iran's dirty work. >> what will stop them from giving nuclear tell or more weapons, and how is if you can

lar iran going to make the world and the u.s. a safer place- how is it going to make american citizens feel safer? >> well, the opposite of your question, is to suggest that somehow you or we can prevent them from having any nuclear program at all. you have a responsibility to show us how that's going to happen. >> i'm going to show you how that's going to happen. >> you have answered my question and i'm going to show you. i'm going to take the secretary's words the sanctions have crippled iran, if we ratchet it up, and get them to ranch they it up, you can bring iran to its knees where it cannot financially function. but that's had you to do it. because -- let me just tell you, i

suggest, i really sugg, that you go spend some time with the intell community ask the people who spend a lifetime following iran she whether or not they grow with your judgment, that a increase in sanctions will income bring iran to its knees. they don't believe there is a cap pitch lacing theory, and you will not sanction iran out of this commitment to what it has a right to. it is an mp t. country, there are 189 and we have a right to protect the american citizens, and this country having a nuclear power. sanctions have work, are you going to retract the statements made by the secretary? >> congressman if you will -- let me spec for myself. that's what you said, if you want iran, and it will take them

years to recover. >> the other part of what i said is the reason it was crippling is we had international cooperation and we worked very hard to get that co open operation and the parties reached a treatment- we worked with china and russia, who want iran to be in that position many. >> the power of our sanctions is not going to have the effect. >> i disagree with you. >> the economists disagree with you. and i have head article after article. >> congressman as we have said, gun and again and i want to repeat it in you, we are committed that iran will never get the material for one. in the for one month. >> my original question is how is that going to the citizens safer? >> i'll tell you how it makes the united states citizens safer. because, if iran fully imminents

the agreement that we have coming iran will not be able to make the nuclear weapon and we have created a dream which has sufficient level of inspection, and verification, that we are confident in our ability to deliver, when preventing them from having enough material for the bomb. >> we started in a place where they had enough material for 10-12 bombs and we have rolled that back, and what that -- that made america safer, and it made them safer. everything that we have done thus far, and the inter rim agreement which has been if force has made the world safer. >> i'm going to replay it. and you're repeating it. and but i have -- if you kill this dole. you are not making america safer. i hope you are right, if

not, you, and the executive branch is going to have a disaster on our hands and they they need to let the pale know? secretary kerry, this is a important top% for future of this country oaths security, and our a i looks in the medal east, i want to ask you a simple yes or no question, in accordance with the office of management and budget and the national arkeys and records, along with state department policy, have you ever used a non government personal email account to conduct official business? >> no, i conduct my business on a government account. >> we need to go to the doctor. >> thanks, and, i want to thank the witnesses, i'm going to go thew a series of questions as i try to make a decision with regards to this dole. secretary kerry multiple

times you said, this notion had one objective to make sure they can in the get a nuclear when po, and secretary you're the expert here, wow in your opinion, did you believe this deal makes it less likely within the next decade, 15 years for iran to obment a nawk kle arweapon many. >> far less likely. >> i don't trust iran. secretary kerry, you said multiple times there's nothing that was based on trust. secretary, you have said, there will be no immediate sanctions relief is that an accurate statement? >> they will come after iran complies with all the measures to stop the nuclear program. >> in your estimation is there enough in the verification re-- deal. >> i would defer to the secretary. and i have been persuade had

which everything that i have read and seen, that it is the toughest that we have ever had. >> secretary, there is no signing bonus? >> there is no signing money us in. >> moving on then, secretary of defense, ash carter is not here, but i'll direct this to secretary kerry in your opinion, would you say that secretary carter as well as our join the chiefs are satisfied with the provision of no missiles for eight years as well as the arms embargo for five years, that they would be okay with this? >> yes. >> moving on, secretary kerry are you pointed out your timing history in the senate, you are a very strong defender of israel,

and have a strong support of israel. do you believe this deal makes israel safer or less safe? >> i am convinced beyond any doubt it makes israel safer she and the region, and world. >> would you say that president barak obama shares that opinion? >> yes. secretary, we have talked about the 4 her framework, is it accurate that you believe as a expert you're back one that 4 her framework. >> we'll be able to detect any active tus. i'm sorry. 4 days. >> nuclear material. >> that there will be no cheating that we will be able to detect it. >> work with nuclear materials. over non nuclear work might be

more difficult. secretary, if income, there's no nuclear activity going on, and iran is complying with the terms of this deal, i do have serious reservations that they will fund tear railroad groups, and organizations, that de stabilize the region, and that's worry some. in your opinion, do you believe that if we acted in a unilateral manner, to impose new sanctions oreimpose sanction, not based on breaking the nuclear deal that we would be able to impose sanctions strong enough? congressman, we grow that the actions we have been putting actions in place and if, in

fact their violating it, the provisions, i think that we have powerful tools, and i think the world knows we're willing to use them and i believe that our credibility has to be for real. it has to be that we're lifting people for a reason. you feel that we have the tools. yes. >> we definitely have powerful tools. >> i will yield back.- we'll go to jeff duncan in south carolina. >> secretary kerry there are still 3, 4 american, in iran, you put their peculiar sures of them it remind you, i understand not using them as pawns in negotiations and what should have happened, is they should have been released as a precondition before ever sitting down with iran for anything. and that i yield.

thanks secretary kerry for these side dreams. you can at least confirm that one of the agreements is about the military site and the other is about the military site of the military program. i believe it's just one basic agreement which contains the approach to the p.m. d. >> can you confirm that the congress -- i think two apen dizzies. >> is it your testimony that congress will not get to review those agreements. congress will be briefed order those agreements. we will not be given the actual agreements. >> i don't believe we'll get the actual agreement. the problem is that the iran nuclear review act that the congress passed, required executive branch to provide all

documents, to include any side agreements. so the executive branch has a finding legal obligation under the act it provide all documents. >> we don't have a side agreements. >> doesn't matter. it's a then de ten don't agency, and makes an inde punt den -- >> nuclear review act any agreement that iran would any other parties any related agreements whether entered or to be entered into, in the future. so if there's a dprement between iran and the i.a. ea, that needs to be provided to congress. so if you're not in complies with that act how is the clock starting to run for the 60 day review period. [laughter] >> congressman, i'm not sure, legally, the congress of the

united states has the power powerful as it is, to be able to dictate, a change in its procedure? we passed the law bill, the president signed it. and the conditions before we would. we toapt have the agreement. >> you're not going to request the agreement so we can review it? >> congressman. >> these are protocols worked out to satisfy the agreement on resolving it. >> very importanters. we need to know the p.m. d. >> and we want to be able to evaluate the agreement that you you have agreed to. it will be evaluating -- >> which is after the window that congress has to review the agreement, so we're not going to be privy and cast a vote on this. >> let me ask you this, you had alluded to in previous questioning about the ability

that if iran cheats we can snap back the sanctions. it says that iran states if -- iran will see that as ground to cease its agreement the so if you have a situation where iran is doing cheating, and then there's a movement to have those sanctions imposed iran, it will walk away from its commitments. it is structured in a way to allow them to get away with small violations to impose the sanctions would be to blow up the deal. >> congressman, with all respect, it's a misread of the paragraph, and misread of what we have here of the paragraph was requested which iran because they were afraid, and congress were talking about more sanctions and they said, what guarantee to do we have that

congress isn't going to pass more sanctions. and excuse me, more, just take the sanctions and bring this back. so that paragraph merely says that we are not going to re-agree re-impose the same sanction and put them back. it is it not prevent them from bringing any other sanctions for other things. sanctions language also says, in whole or in part. so we're allowed for any minor infranks, of bringing the whole thing, we could bring a small amount. also remember, the reason iran is coming to the table to make this grem, they want the relief from the sanctions. and if indeed they were in violation, all of our friends who helped negotiate this, are going to be standing with us, all in agreement, that we have to put sanctions back. >> we must go for new york.

>> grace. >> thank you to all of you for being here for your time and dedication to an important esche, and for spending so much to time with us it discuss so many of our concerns. i to ask during the negotiations did this law of the land, that iran nuclear agreement review act signed by president barak obama and known to all parties of the notion, was it known to all the parties? >> obviously, the other parties became aware of the fact that congress was requiring a review period. >> i want to bring up one example, during the cold war congress played a very important role in the development of non proliferation of agreements of nuclear weapons. >> the treaty, which i never was

atredty and we have our law here and it was initially blocked by the senate because of concerns over soviet complay and it was not submitted for two years after signing and wasn't ratified until after they reached tbreevment, 14 years later, on additional provisions to enhance american's ability to verify complies. so this all leads me to believe that congress should be, and we are, and we have the ability to compel a better deal should it choose to disapprove of this one. what are the key differences between the this one and the cold war other than the fact that it was a treaty and there were multiple parties. >> one of the principal dcheses is that we have not had any dialogue with iran since 1979.

the lack of dipploy mathematic relations which is different. it makes us a very, very commr. indicated situation. >> so, you have to take and analyze what is achievable here in the context of the threat, the nuclear program and i believe, given the nature of the political system in iran, the challenges, with respect to their own politics, the notion that we're going to be able to go back to the table, is just, it's a fantasy. there is no latitude here. because iran came to this table with enormous suspicions about engaging with the united states, there was a huge debate about whether or not they should, whether or not we could be

trusted. and they thought this was worth the risk. and many people in the country suggested that we would not act in good faith. if indeed, all of a sudden, we stand up, and 7 nations strong, and embrace a dprement, the u.n. has supported agreement and we say we're not going to perform, i think the intelligence community will confirm to you, we will not go back to the table certainly, in the near feature she and i would think not with this government or leadership. well, one final question, you also inserted that if congress does it is approves the international regime will go will. fall arpart. i then that rsh sha's and clean na's interest may not be the

same as congress. >> what is the basis for the view that these two countries would just allow iran to violate the deal, why won they hold iran to their commitments set forth in the agreement? >> if they allow that, to do that why do we also believe they'll be there with us, in any sort of snap back scenario e? i think that iran, russia, and china, are very, very serious about the non proliferation of this. russia has agreed to exsport the spent fuel, process it in russia, in order to help make this work. china has accepted major responsibility to be the lead, on a committee that will work to redid he sign the iraq reactor in a way that is acceptable to

all of us. so china, they both have huge interests. and they both believe that the other componnorthbounds of the resolution, with respect to the arms thrown in, as a add on, as punt initial meant not because it referred directly to the nuclear part of the resolution or agreement. >> the resolution of the u.n. was a nuclear agreement and, in that regard, i think they would have serious reservations, about continuing. >> we'll go to daryl isa. you're listening to our live continuing coverage of the house committee hearings on the iranian deal. >> libby the executive branch has always the purview of that's treaties and as i was listening about the testimony, i was thinking about the nixon and

reagan, and the professor as we were going into our last commercial break said something that i was interested in, he did not get the feeling that there were a lot of members of the house chambers that had read the agreement because it doesn't seem that they understood the particulars of that agreement. is there a as soon as in washington, that the partisan ret torrig, is so intense that they are los vegas this in terms of politician, instead of history? >> he think as a member of the both of house senate, they have to think about the present and iran and the larger political situation and the nuclear cape about the at the. whatever hearing members trying to separate out the nitty-gritty part of the deal. and members of congress wish this was a formal treaty, they would get a say, they would get

it vote to ratify a treaty will but because if was a negotiation, with interest partners congress wasn't at the negotiating table. it has been frustrating. and so, right at the beginning of the hearing we heard the chairman say, you know, you went to the u.n., to talk to them about this it, before you came to members of congress, to let us weighing in. congress wasn't at the negotiating table and they're having to do their work after the fact and play catch up. and all they can do is vote to approve or disapprove. the sanctions that congress is able to effect are the sanctions that u.s. has put on iran. not the global and that's why he keeps selling if we bow out here, and we're left behind, the international parties go on. everyone else continues forward except for us. and we're left weak and out of

the action. >> now you are hearing a lot of ret tor rec and angry commens and you have to ask them, if these if this is just for political show or if they have important questions. >> we're going to take a brief break and we'll continue our questions and listen to the testify money. this is the house foreign affairs committee. the news continues in just a moment. stay with us

>> thank you for being us with, as i watched the debate taking place, there's a question that i want you to clarify because you study, modern iran, does iran want the bomb or do they want the deal? >> i don't believe they ever actually wanted a bomb, what they wanted was the nuclear knowledge and capability of making a bomb. but, at the present time, what they want most important is actually this deal, because all they it satisfies all the american remarks it also gives them what they want, which is exceptions a scientific nuclear research capability. >> you heard me ask the question nixon and china and

reagan and this is a deal that is on the table that is historic regardless of which way it goes. if it succeeds it will be historic, if it fails it will be historic. as you watch the debate unfold, are you convinced that polyit is are getting in the way of policy here? >> yes because it is so serious, i think, most of the congressman should taken more care and looking at the document before asking a lot of questions, that are not permanent. a lot offers, are spelled out. there are places that you can say you can investigate more, and, make generalities, it's only ten years or 15 years and

those issues are taken care of very well. >> in iran there is a generation that cannot forget it and in the united states they cannot remember the iranian hostage crisis and my daughter's generation, and the younger generation and can't remember either. which has the numbers and which is thriving policy on both sides of the issue? i don't think it is so much generational. >> i think young generation in iran. what they want is