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 illicit behavior. the former deputy director of

the iaea contradicted that and said while it's true with some of the larger scale operations some things such as manufacturing uranium components and triggers could be covered up in the 24 days. i'm trying to get a clear answer on this issue because i think it's one of the key components when trying to look at this in an intellectually honest way to see if we have a verifiable deal. >> i've spoken with mr. hinanen. he's up the river at harvard these days, but the issue i want to emphasize and what i've always said is that work with nuclear materials we have very very high confidence in terms of finding microscopic amount there is. when go to things like triggers, things that do not involve nuclear materials but are important for a nuclear

explosive that gets into a higher stage of requirement. in a classified environment we could talk more about it, but even there there are signals that are interesting and certainly may be quite detectable. but certainly one gets further away from the nuclear materials than there are more possibilities of both cover up and for at least maybe semi credible explanations for pursuing other activities, for example, any military does work with conventional explosives in chambers. so the question is was that work around hemisphere shapes multi nationering and that requires more and more investigation. but nuclear materials leave quite significant signatures typically. >> i want to--with just a couple

of minutes let me switch to something that the israeli ambassador raised and in my office it has been raised a couple of times and i think it's a legitimate. i realize that some of this is administration and that this is part of politics. but there are those who have concerns. the 24 days is one of them. the other is the question how exactly we bring forward and what we have to reveal in terms of our intelligence to demand or request that a site is being inspected? it has been pointed out why we would have to inspect a site. we would have to reveal our intelligence and why we suspect it. would you talk about how that process would work and how much we would have to reveal to the irans just in order to inspect the site? >> well, that's something that ultimately you need to pick up with the intelligence community

and now having said that, clearly in the past intelligence agencies for many countries have been able to share information i also note that for four of the seven countries involved in the talks are very--work together quite closely namely the europeans and the united states and i think we would do all that we could to provide relevant information to point to a suspicious site no matter where it was. but in terms of sources and methods you would have to go-- >> could i have secretary kerry to weigh in on this? >> i've been through this a little bit on occasion, and we're very careful not to disclose sources and methods

and we have ways of making sure that we don't compromise that. it's not something that our community. >> let me point out that you mentioned that the ambassador is there speaking about these concerns. sandy levin he came out today. >> i read thinks statement. >> he said israel's security has and always will be of critical importance to me and my country. i believe israel and the ring in the world are far more secure in iran does not move forward to possession of a nuclear weapon. i believe this is the best way to achieve that. >> have you read those documents

or agreements? >> s inagreements. >> no, sir, i have not seen them. >> to your knowledge you don't have a copy of those agreements? >> to my knowledge we do not have a copy. in vienna we had a broad oral briefing but i never saw any paper. >> you were briefed in vienna before it was announced? >> shortly before, yes. >> who briefed you? >> d.g. ammano. >> do you have any plans to request those be provided to congress? >> i don't know if it is consistent. i'll check with our folks and make a determination. i don't think we judgeed that it is consistent. but as we said we'll brief the contents in a classified session. >> if you can provide the rationale why you don't think that can--

>> i just said i don't know. >> if you make that determination, if you can provide the legal justification so we can-- >> of course we would do that. >> i would like to take this on in classified session. >> can you confirm the ap story? have you seen it? >> absolutely. and i can't. >> you cannot-- >> i cannot confirm it. >> i've seen it among other things. >> secretary moniz this is a very complex agreement. this is very important and you worked hard on it. but i would like to take a step back and just a few years ago it

had be the general policy of the united states that the agreement is that iran would give up its nuclear program and no enrichment. the president when debating governor romney in 2012 said that the deal they accept would be straightforward. i know you think this is good. let's put that aside but do youageacknowledge that this does not meet their nuclear program and they're able to maintain a significant nuclear program. the international couldn't would be helping them to develop nuclear technology. you say you're confident you'll be able to detect if it's used in a military capacity, but it does change, does it not? from where we were a few years ago? >> congressman i've had conversations with members of prior administration, and it's inappropriate for me to tell you

who or speak for them, but if you talk to them you'll learn that they had come to the conclusion by the end of that administration that that policy wasn't working and that they were going to need to, in fact, have some structure of enrichment, some structure of the program. there is a distinction here between iran's nuclear capacity and a peaceful program. iran is still the signatory in the npt. iran has not yet gone forward to make a weapon even though they have enough material for 10 to 12 bombs. so iran is stating in this agreement it's willingness to comply with and live within the non-proliferation treaty. under the non-proliferation treaty countries have a right to a peaceful nuclear program. >> you're acknowledging that there has been a reappraisal in

the goal post one shared both in the bush administration and the obama administration. >> i don't think they share it in public. but they shared it with us privately. >> may i just say that the construct going in, then, this was among the p5+1 that our basic construct would be to get the one-year break out time. >> because this is not ratified as a treaty there are a lot of states in florida in particular where state legislatures have enacted sanctions against iran in various capacities. do you acknowledge this will not effect states' ability to do it because it's not approved as a treaty or supreme law of the land. it's an executive to an executive agreement. >> that's accurate but we would religion those states if iran is fully complying with this agreement we would take steps to urge them not to interview with that. >> mr. ted yoh of florida don't feel compelled to use all your

time. >> i appreciate it. i appreciate you being here. mr. secretary, i want to ask you a simple yes or no question. the iran sanctions act expires on september 31, 2016, will this support legislation simply extending iran's sanctions act so nuclear-related sanctions that provides for will be snapped back if iran is caught cheating. >> i don't think any decision has been made on timing or which steps the president will make. >> can we do the snap backs without those? >> yes. >> according to this we can't because of the iran sanction act expires, and those are necessary to have snap backs. >> we have other existing authorities that we can snap back. >> can you guarantee this body that those acts are facilities

are going to be in place so that snap back does work without acts of congress? >> yes. >> and i have a problem with the secret deals that are going on and you're asking us to support this deal without being able to read it. it kind of reminds me of the healthcare law. i don't want to be in that ways. you're asking us to vote on something and we don't know what is in that deal. >> youel congressman. >> that's disingenuous to ask us as representatives of united states citizens to vote on a deal without knowing what is in it. >> well, we're not. >> i heard that. it's not clear that the information is going to be forth coming. we're going to have briefings but that's not the same as being able to read the actual agreement. i realize it's iaea with iran, but we're paying 25% of the budget of that place. i think we as representatives of the american people we deserve that. and i won't support this without that. >> congressman, can i add two

things? first, it doesn't expire until the end of 2016. it's premature to take action. i think respectfully we know if there is a problem in 2016 it won't take very long for congress to act. >> and you know, it's premature to take action, and this will be my last question or statement. you say this is the best deal we get. if we walk away from the table we walk away alone. i feel that you this negotiating team put america in that situation because of the way you negotiated this from the very beginning. if we go back to the beginning iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. you said, mr. secretary i heard it come out of your mouth anywhere any time, any place that has been passed on. it's beyond that point. it's beyond the point of trying to prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon. we're trying to prevent something that we can't instead of preparing for that which we will have. and we've been boxed into a bad

corner because you guys negotiated from weakness and instead of the superpower and go into the u.n. to get their approval first so that we look like the bad guys. this is a bad deal, i think if we operate from a level of strength i think if we come back to this a year or two from now that is a fallacy. >> i urge you, you urge you congressman, with all respect to spend time with the infell the intel community. i think you'll hear a different judgment. >> we get these people in here all the time. we hear from them, a and they're telling us this is a bad deal. >> secondly-- >> and if you say president obama said this is going to make america safer. >> the intelligence community supports this deal. >> they're telling us to build movies defensemissiles defense

in alaska because this is a great deal? >> the intelligence community supports this deal, congressman. once more, they were an integral part of shaping it. the reason why we were able to get the deal we got is because we did deal in an opposition of strange which is why they're undoing their stock mile, dismantling their stock pile, and accepting the additional protocol as well as 25-year restraints on their uranium and so forth. >> so we'll go to mr. -- >> just add to mr. congressman the agreement is that iaea and iran the iaea will complete it's wn been pnd. that's the agreement. >> secretary kerry earlier in the hearing today you said that

countries in the future if the congress rejects it, countries in the future will not trust negotiating with the u.s. state department because they're now negotiating 553 individual members of congress. for 228 years the constitution provided a way out that have mess by allowing treaties to be with the advise and consent of u.s. senators. why is this not considered a treaty? >> well, congressman, i spent quite a few years trying to get a lot of treaties through the united states senate, and frankly it's become physically impossible. that's why. because you can't pass a treaty any more. and it's become impossible to schedule. it's become impossible to pass. and i sat there leading the charge on the disabilities treaty which fell to basically

ideology and politics. so i think that's the reason why. >> yes well, okay. i may not disagree with that. political can be challenging for both parties and the president. one concern that has been voiced to me in the fact in the press conference he threatened to veto the congress' action if we didn't agree with it. there is this arrest by terror poke in the nose of congress when it's unnecessary. my folks back home are saying, i want to have say in this and my only say is through you. that could have been handled differently. >> i understand that. >> yes secretary muniz is it not millions of dollars cheaper

to build a gas power plant versus nuclear power plant? why do you think the irans have gone down the nuclear road when they're so carbon rich. would it not have been cheaper for them if it's peaceful electricity to go that route? >> well, a natural gas power plant has lower costs but nuclear plant has lower running costs. >> well, in this case it would be free to them. >> well, i'm not sure its free. but i'm not arguing one way or the other but what the argument is that it's more valuable than an export product where of course with l & g prices in parts of the world there is quite a bit of rent to be captured. >> secretary i appreciate your patience today. i haven't been called on that much but in light of penalizing the economic sanctions have been

on this economy it still strikes me odd that iran would continue to move towards this very very expensive construction project as opposed to other alternatives. does it seem odd to you? billions and billions of dollars to build a nuclear power plant. >> which? >> the expense of building nuclear power plants. they've been under great stress economically. >> i think that they have been under enormous stress like any other government they make decisions based on their short- and long-term needs. i can't request why they chose one form of power plant over another. but i do know that their infrastructure is highly inadequate. they do need nor power. and that's going to require investment. that's one of the reasons why they have domestic needs that far exceed any relief they're going to get. their domestic infrastructure is in pretty bad condition right

now. >> if seems to me one of the possible solutions in this whole deal would be for the p5+1 companies to assist them-- >> you're listening to the house foreign affairs committee hearings taking place now for the better part of two and a half hours on the iranian nuclear deal. we're going to take a brief break. we'll be right back and wrap things up. stay with pups that's important. it's especially important, i believe

>> i'm del walters in new york. we want to bring you up-to-date on breaking news coming out of washington. attorneys for jonathan pollard convicted spy, has been granted parole. he is a former intelligence worker who bleed guilty pleaded

guilty in 87 spying for israel. israel has been pushing for his release. but they are not considering it. pollard will be eligible for parole in november. >> libby, as we have been listening, one of the issues that came up deals with what happens if the republicans win the white house. will they roll back the iranian nuclear deal? from what you're hearing on the political campaign trail what are they saying? >> some of the republicans known for president are saying they'll definitely try to well roll it back and kill it. others are being more circumspect. officially if a republican wins in the white house before any democrat for that matter in sufficient they can change the course of this deal. this is not a treaty. there is nothing sign, sealed or

delivered. this is an agreement. however, the price of changing course would be pretty steep not only would it call into question that new president's standing on the international stage would california that president be negotiated with, depend on, iran is going to open up democratically over the next couple of years and this could have a business impact and then if iran is following in on its end of the bargain. if it is it could be the president of the united states looking like a bad roker or the guy pulling it back in. they say it's far more likely if a republican came in to office, if a republican won if 2016 they could start building the case that iran is not living up to its end of the bargain, but in the end that could take a pretty long time. this is not a deal written in stone, but the momentum that the white house hopes to gain over the next couple of years will

set a stone and set it on a particular course. >> on the issue of stone, it's at times contentious and at times informative. if you could offer up a percentage of which was which was it more contentious than informative or more informative than contentious. >> they're trying to assure congress that deal is the best way to insure that iran does not get nuclear weapons but you've heard political fireworks. take a look at this exchange between tom moreno and secretary of state kerry. >> how is that going to make the united states citizens safer? >> i'll tell you exactly how it makes the united states citizens safer, because if iran fully implements the agreement that we have come to, iran will not be able to make a nuclear weapon. we started in a place where they

already had enough material for ten 10 to 1 bombs. we made they will roll that back and that made us safer. if you kill this deal-- >> i hope that you're right. i hope you are right. if not you the executive branch in congress will have a disaster on our hands and we need to be accountable to the american people. >> you get the sense of the tone and concerns from congress and administration officials are raising. >> libby casey from capitol hill. thank you very much. professor, we're watching this hearing in the united states. they're watching it also or will be hearing reports of it on the streets of tehran. how will it play there? >> well, they will be intrigued because the rhetoric from--especially the republicans, it will reinforce

some of the worst elements in iran who said that we can't trust the united states. their people--they're in the hearings talking about nuking iran. >> how should americans react to the fact that the supreme court leader does do a speech in which there are chants, once again in the audience with death to america? >> i think that the american public should separate what the iran government negotiates and the iranian supreme leader. he is in some ways a symbolic leader who panders to some in the country. but the majority of the public and the government represents the majority, i would say 70% are very eager for basically this. i would say there is 30%--

>> is it understandable that there is american skepticism when you say they should pay more attention to what is in the document as oppose to the words? after all there was the generation of ayatollah khomeini and the hostages. >> well, that brings back history. you have to remember on the other side of this bad history in iran they also resort to, well the cia the destruction of a civilian iranian plane with 300 casualty assassinations of nuclear scientists by the u.s. or it's allies. but to separate those things out and focus on the nuclear issue. >> on the question asked right towards the ends of the hearing why does iran want nuclear

energy for power? it is the largest oil producer in the world? why do they want nuclear power as opposeed to natural gas? >> that is a very good question. the nuclear program started in 1973. and the shah started it, and his argument was that basically oil petroleum, is running out. we'll eventually run out and therefore we need an alternative method. so the nuclear issue was posed as an efficient way of preserving oil because you can always sell the oil abroad. but added to that, and i think the real issue in iran is this fascination with nuclear technologies the cutting edge of modernity. modern countries western countries have nuclear technology. if we're going to be modern we have to have nuclear technology.

i think this fascination existed in the west in 1950s-60s. i think part of the thinking of the obama administration-- >> they wanted to be part of the new century. >> yes exactly. in this thinking of 10, 20 years iran will realize that nuclear technology is cutting edge and something that you don't really want. >> professor as always, thank you for being with us this afternoon. we are as we mentioned following that breaking news coming out of washington. attorneys for jonathan pollard say he has been granted parole. it will be begin in november. he is the former intelligence worker in washington, d.c. who pled guilty to spying for israel. israel has long been pushing for his israel, but administration after administration has said no. you've been watching our continuing live coverage of the iran nuclear negotiation in the

congress committee. committee member after committee member expressing skepticism and at times it became down right contentious. we'll follow that throughout the day. i'm del walters. ♪ this is the al jazeera news hour warm welcome from me, david foster and looking at in the course of the next 60 minutes. they are shoulder to shoulder nato backing turkey's fight against i.s.i.l. as the first air strikes with the kurdish. africa is on the move. a new africa is emerging. >> praise and warning as barack obama