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

>> ultimately, yes. ultimately they are the iran sanctions act itself. there is the lifting of sanctions. ultimately they would have to vote. >> if we don't do that pursuant to the agreement are there any penalties on our part? we would have broken it, and all bets are off.

>> can a future president choose to abide by the president? >> absolutely. a future president can but it's our adjustment if this agreement is fully implemented and it's working well no future president is going too choose to do that because of the implications. if this is working it's achieving our goal of not having a weapon in iran. >> to be clear the actual repeal of sanctions would be way down the road. it's not something that happens in the year or two. it's many years in the future. probably eight more years. >> i want to get to the troubling issue of inspections. are you saying that there is no limit to inspections by the iaea that it will go on what i'm saying there is a process. >> who pays for that? >> we pray a certain element of

the--we pay a certain. we train the inspectors. that's one thing that we do and do very effectively but it's an independent entity. >> it is--is it a separate secret agreement that we don't see that will allow this continuation of inspections? >> no, that is-- >> no, it is under the additional protocol. >> that's what we don't get to see. >> no, you get to see it, absolutely. you can read every component of it. and it empowers the iaea to do. the kind of kind of accountability is very significant. this is not a life set of

requirements. >> we'll go to mr. mol brooks of alabama. >> i hope you'll cooperate in the context. three months ago an iranian iran jengeneral said that it was not acting. does it reflect iranian goals. >> i think it reflects some people's receipt tick and attitude, i don't know if it's possible for iran to do that, and i think israel has enormous capacity. >> i'm asking whether you an adjustment whether-- >> my judge is not that implemental policy by iran. >> okay. well less than two weeks ago iranian supreme leader led a rally that was punctuated by chants of "death to america," and "death to israel."

do you believe his comments reflect iranian goals? yes, no, or i don't know. >> i think they reflect attitude but i see no policy that has implementing that at this point in time. >> do you believe that iran is the world's foremost sponsor of terrorism? >> yes. >> and that they will use the conventional weapons made available by the iran nuclear treaty to kill americans or israelis? >> well, they may. as you know we've responded to that from 1979 when they took over our embassy forward. we have snacks place specifically because of their support for terror. because of their-- >> i understand that. you've answered my question when you said yes they may. next is the obama administration willing to use military force to prevent iran from obtaining building, testing or using new england weapons? >> yes. >> and what has iran done in the past couple of years that causes

you to believe that they want to become a responsible member of the international community? >> the only thing that indicates to us a willingness to comply to this agreement is the fact that they've complied fully with the interim agreement in the last two years and they have put in place such a strict set of consequences that it is deeply in their interest to comply if they have reduced two-thirds of their enter huges stripped their stock pile concrete and emptied out--there is a lot of intensives to fully comply with this agreement. >> that focuses to the nuclear side. what about the use of conventional weapons and whether they'll maintain their status. >> there are series concerns, which is precisely why we're engaged with our friends in the region. that's why i would be in doha in a few days to meet with them as we layout the plans to push back

out activities we'll be engaging in special forces training counter terrorism, a whole series of steps in order to empower all of us to do a better job of reducing those activities. >> the september 11, proves that muslim fundamentalists are willing to sacrifice their own lives in furtherance to kill non-muslims and other foes. how confident are you that iran will not use nuclear weapons to further death to america or death to israel if iran obtains nuclear weapons j. >> they won't obtain a nuclear weapon. i'm confident that they're not going to secure a nuclear weapon. >> is that in part of your statement that this administration is willing to use whatever means necessary of a military nature to prevent iran from having nuclear weapons? >> that's the backup to it, but

i believe all the elements to this agreement if implemented fully, again if implemented will prevent them from even getting near that possibility. >> on occasion you used the phrase all options are on the table. do those options to prevent iran from having nuclear weapons include the use of nuclear weapons by the united states? >> i have never asked--i've never asked--i know of no president of the united states who has ever taken all military options available to them off the table. but i also don't know of any any realistic situation which that would pre-sent a very feasible strategy given the process i want of great friends of ours in iran, i don't think they have taken--there is no option that has been discussed. >> when you talk about the use of military force is it fair to infer that we're talking solely about conventional weaponry? >> what the president has laid out is a--what the military has

designed is an approach, and i'm not going to discuss that plan in open session here, but a plan that sufficiently meets the task preventing them from having a nuclear weapon. that's the goal, that's the object. >> joaquin castro of texas. >> thank you, gentlemen, for your work and diplomacy on behalf of the nation. i want to imagine for a moment another scenario. a scenario where we don't take the deal and we walk away from it. what would the fall out be from a destabilizeed iran? we've seen other nations libya iraq egypt where there have been destabilizeed regimes secular leaders who have been

replaced by fundamentalists and tourists that have now been franchised almost across the world. what would happen if iran was destabilized in the same way? >> you know, congressman, it's very hard for me to get into the speculative game here. and there is too much talk about the military option this and that when we have in front of us a plan that accomplishes the task of not having a nuclear weapon in iran which they say they don't want anyway, it seems that to be focused on the destabilized side of it, and the military side of it is not the right focus. the right focus is on this agreement that accomplishes the goal that prevents them from having a weapon. now the region is obviously destabilized.

that's another reason why i think we should think carefully about the consequences of turning away from this deal. >> let me point out secretary carry, that, you know, so that i'm not coy here. i'm inclined to support the deal. but one of the questions that i have though, is a concern that we find out that they're cheating and then a decision has to be made if we're going to hold true to our position, which is we're not going to let them have nuclear weapons. >> that's the easiest decision in the world for this interest and for all of us. >> here's my question, secretary, what is the tipping point where sanctions will no longer work and you have to take military action if you're going to keep them from-- >> the tipping point is a clarity with respect to what effort is being put into breaking out, if that's the choice they've made, and where they are in that process. the tipping point is how much time you make a judgment that

you have with respect to where they're starting and where they can wind up. but we're convinced that with the the depth of the accountability and verification built into this agreement we'll have enormous tip off here. that's why a year was built into this agreement for the first ten years. that's why the region is protected and we're confident about our accountability going forward. i would say to everybody. if this is rejected then you have no inspections, you don't have a regime in place. you don't have the sanctions. iran may undertake not immediately, but they've certainly indicated they would consider themselves free to do so and as they do it what are the options that are then available to us?

it seems to me when you compare the two scenarios this becomes not that complicated of a choice. >> my final question is to put this in context can you go over again--i missed some of the discussion can you go over again the deal offered in 2003 by the bush administration? >> in 2003 there was discussions. there were about 163 centrifuges. but the p5+1, the same p5+1 made an offer to iran for enrichment and processing, that the united states and the p5+1 would recognize right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and treat it as any non-nuclear

state party once confidence had been built. provide technical and financial assistance for peaceful nuclear energy including state of the art power reactors, and fuel supply guarantees. improve relations with iran and support iran in playing a constructive role in international affairs. cooperation on afghanistan steps towards normalization of trade and economic relations and it goes on. all of these things we're offering in exchange for suspending enrichment and so forth. now they didn't suspend. they went up 19,000 centrifuges. that's one of the driving factors in our coming to the conclusion that we needed to arrive in agreement which recognized their ability to have nuclear power under a safeguards

agreement under the npt with our ability to know what they are doing. >> randy webber of texas. >> thank you mr. kerry we appreciate you being here. you said that we would be briefed with the iaea agreement with iran. correct? >> that's correct. >> i would employ you to use your power to not use the same power that briefed susan rice on bengahzi or bowe bergdahl. make sure that we get a decent briefing there. mr. kerry, you say frequently this is the strongest negotiation that you could get you felt like it was that he would walk away from a bad deal. i would summit this. you say there are 535 secretary secretary of state but if you were going to get a strong deal i have it from the get go that i think there is a stronger position you should have taken.

i'm going to layout some pre-drugs. and you tell me if you operated from this base. i agree with senate duncan who said the american hostages should have been released first and foremost. number two demand should have been for iran to dismantle all of its centrifuges. number three give the iaea unfettered 24/7, 365 day access. number four, stop the exporting of terror to syria to iraq and everywhere. number five, denounce terrorism and prosecute those who purpose traited, restore civil rights in their own country. number six stop the death chant to america and israel and the need to recognize israel's right to exist. and number seven, secretary kerry, they've been a bad actor going back to 1979. if this is not based on trust. if this is based on action,

shouldn't we have required them to show by their own actions since half of the time since 1979 fourth of the time, how about just two years. shouldn't we have required them to show their actions. you said in that iran came to the table with enormous suspicions about the united states. who cares we're not the bad actors here. they're the ones exporting terrorism. did you start from that basis of strength? if you did how did we get here number you consider this to be a good deal. >> well, congressman plain and simple. all the things you listed there never would have been an negotiation. >> my heart pains for iran. these are bad actors in the area. >> congressman what you need to think about is our security. we're better off with iran not

having a nuclear weapon. >> no question. >> our prime primary object was here--they were already enriching at 20% and a step away from a blew tomorrow yum reactor that could produce one to two bombs a year. >> you said that, i understand that. how long before we knew about that. >> i beg you pardon? we discovered. >> how long was it there before we knew about it? >> i don't know. >> ten years. >> but congressman we discovered that a--and in you 2003 we discovered that they were trying to make a bomb, and we did it without inspectors, without this regime. >> you said all that. this is about the trust. >> there is no trust. >> you're implying that we can catch them at what they're doing. yet it went uncovered for 10 or

12 years. >> that's not trust. >> let me do this. >> classified environment. >> i'm running out of time. are you aware of the fact that today, today iran to the united nations new sanctions could kill the nuclear deal. they're still uttering threats. we're not the bad actors here. in a member to a 15 help 15 member body. may we consider it's recommitments under the nuclear packet if u.s. european, quote impaired by continued application or the imposition implementation irrespective such new sanctions super introduced on nuclear related oregon if the issues were remedied within a

reasonbly short period of time. today they're threatening to walk away from this deal if we implement other sanctions. you're saying that the hostages are different. >> we have to go to it willcy gabbort of hawai'i. >> to support this nuclear deal with iran. the toughest global sanctions will be dismantleed. >> you're living to our continuing coverage of the how's fairs. they're discussing the nuclear program. we're going to take a break and we'll be right back.

>> welcome back. i'm del walters in new york. we're going to take to you

capitol hill, the questions being asked right now are coming from the tussye gabar democrat from hawai'i. >> we have the arena in terms of being able to detect very small amounts of uranium there would typically be a strong significant. >> if iran fails to allow inspectors in that 24-hour period. what would they face and under what timeline? >> if they failed to do it they are in breach of the agreement. we can snap back all the sanctions and obviously all options are cable to us that are cable today. >> immediately after that 24-day

period-- >> if they fail to live up to the 24-day period and provide access they're in material breach of this agreement. and if we had cause to have gone and asked for access to an undisclosed facility about which we have deep concerns everyone will join with us in ratifying that concern and we'll we will we will unity because of non-compliance. >> and after termination day when the snap back mechanism will no longer apply iran will still be subject to the additional protocol. >> what are the consequences, if they violate that additional protocol after termination day? >> we still have the power of bringing unilateral sanctions the congress and all of us can join together. we can go back to where we were in square one.

>> i think the concern is that time that it takes for those unilateral sanctions to apply. will it be from the united states or what other immediate on againsts would there be-- >> if they are immaterial non-compliance in a way that is threatening, obviously we're in a much more serious kind of situation and confrontation with the potential needless to say with the president taking the most dramatic options. >> i would add it would depend on the motivation, what they're doing. certainly in my view anything that shows movement towards a nuclear weapon would have to be responded to quite forcefully. i would also add going back to something that congresswoman ming asked. is that the p 5 by definition

have a special role and a very strong interest in seeing its integrity maintained. >> thank you in the context of these statements is how i would like to ask my questions. from 1994, not too long away. we're talking about 11-15-year context for this deal for the most strict portions of it, so from 1994 the entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons as one statement, and also the united states and international inspectors will carefully monitor north korea to make sure it keeps its commitments. we all know that are quotes from president clinton that none that have happened. north korea is what it is, and we are where we are. we're in that context secretary

kerry, reading your quote, i don't know how interpret at this point in time except to take it at face value in relation to chants of death to america death to israel we'll continue our policy. then it's very troubling. it's very disturbing, very troubling, and we'll have to wait and see. what will we have to wait and see? before you answer, 19 of the u.s. postages, 193, the u.s. marine barracks 231 americans killed. 1992 the u.s. embassy in argentina bombed. the killings and maimings of hundreds in iraq and afghanistan not to mention support of hezbollah, iraq, syria and yemen. what will we have to wait and see?

>> the implementation of the plan. look you and i could have a speech off. >> i don't want a speech off. i want the comments. >> we could have we could have a competition of who is angieer. we understand that they killed americans. we understand all of this. but they were matching towards a nuclear weapon. >> mr. secretary, you must understand-- >> you must understand the american people see iran as a crocodile or a shark that does what it does. we're going to give the crocodile or a shark a few more teeth and see if it does something accurate something. >> that's not accurate. >> you're saying we don't have a better option. people say we have not offered a better option. it's not congress' job. this is the administration. if you would use the treaty process as provided by the constitution maybe we wouldn't be in this situation furthermore

you know, you say well, this is the only deal we could get. there is no better deal. congress has a long history of instituting better duels p 200 treaties including 80 multi lateral accorded modified by congress including the arms controls agreement salt ii and the treaty that failed to reach a vote and were modified. there is a history of getting a better deal. if the ayatollah does not like it and doesn't want to negotiate it boo-hoo, you represent america. with that having been said, in another interview, if you don't get the majority in congress support this dealers doesn't that undermine the deal. they don't care over there. i mean you assume iraq, if the deal is implement: that's what we care about. that this deal being implemented. so do you care more about this deal or the u.n.'s approval or

american sovereignty? and the approval of the american people through their dually elected representatives. >> i don't think i don't need lessons from you who i represent. i represented and fought or four country since i was out of college. >> god bless you for your service. >> don't give me lessons about that. now let me make it crystal clear to you this is america's interest. because america is the principle guaranteeer of security in the region. and with respect to some of our closest friends we believe that iran was marching towards the weapon ands pats ands capacity to a weapon. >> that's your opinion. >> no, that's a fact. >> is it to be that they will acquire missiles to protect-- >> say that again. >> will iran acquire russian air

defense missiles to protect nuclear sites? >> knows are not in the agreement. >> in relation to the arms embargo lifting. >> no, they're not banned by the arms embargo. they're outside of it. >> we're going to brandon boyle of pennsylvania. my intention is to keep going to give our junior members an opportunity to ask our questions. >> i want to direct our questions to secretary moniz and i'll be boring here. but very technical question when i asked the white house and the president specifically he directed it to you saying that you're the top ten experts in the world on this. with that build up there was a report six days ago in "the new york times" that really question this issue of the 24 days. and there are some that as you said earlier look, 24 days is not exactly like you're flushing a whole program down the toilet. that certainly wouldn't be enough time to hide