and had lawyers. i am confident he was read his miranda rights. you think we lost their virginity to gain intelligence that we could have and we handled this in a combat nanette differ way? >> because his case is pending, he is now being tried in the southern district of new york, i don't want to talk about his case in particular. more time is always of a less. >> do you think having less than a couple of weeks to conduct a series of interviews with someone who was a senior member of al qaeda coming to you think that is sufficient to garner all the intelligence information he had about the al qaeda organization and the impact that has on american lines, do you think that was enough time? >> again, i need to stay awake from the particulars. >> generically. you have him for two weeks. is that enough time to get the information that you would like to have? >> again, more time is always

better. there is a particular time limit that leads me back to an individual case which i can do. >> appreciate that. director, this weekend we heard from a number of senior foreign officials who were talking about the j.p. 08. the discussion of what the final agreement might look like including potentially allowing iran to continue to enrich. a number of nations in the middle east have agreed not to. the implicit statement from them was, iran is allowed to enrich, we are probably doing to be looked at as well. you have intelligence that indicates the we will have an increased number of countries that what the right to enrich uranium if the iranians are enabled to continue? >> watching very closely the status for these negotiations. what is going to happen from the . they're concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the potential for ron to get a nuclear weapon. they're most interested in preventing that from happening.

think they're watching mystery carefully. >> to you have intelligence that bears on what these other countries intentions are? we were told by them that they will seriously consider abandoning their commitment if iran is permitted to do so. these are folks who are cooperating with us today. >> i think by definition your question leads us to a closed session discussion on that. >> the key. >> thank you, mr. chair. we have learned of the devastating effects of intentional declassification of material by an nsa contractor which has effectively betray his country. no i'm concerned about an unintentionally of millions of american sensitive data, and this is a new article that just came out that i would like to ask you about. came out last evening from bill

birch wrote the article. u.s. intelligence agencies last week urged the obama administration to check its new health care network for malicious software after learning that developers coproduce the website raising fresh concerns of private data hosted by millions of americans would be compromised. officials warned programmers in belarus suspected of inserting malicious code. the software links millions of americans to sign up for obamacare to the federal government and more than 300 medical institutions and health care providers. the u.s. affordable care act suffer was written in part in belarus bus offer developers under state control which makes this offer a potential target for cyber attacks, one official said. they said a potential threat to the u.s. health care data is compounded by what they said was an internet data hijacking involving belarus and state

control that works. the month long diversion covertly rerouted massive amounts of u.s. internet traffic to belarus. goes on to say officials say there are serious concerns that it contains malicious code that could be used to covertly to route data from the obamacare website to foreign locations. additionally they suspect that bill rescinds planted secret back door openings to the software that will permit surreptitious centuries to u.s. government networks by hackers are spies. the malicious code. reroute obamacare website data to belarus or possibly permit illegal backdoor access. the security vulnerability to provide access all necessary personal affirmation of u.s. residents ride in the theft of privacy violations. the article that the threat of

diversion is compounded by the discovery that they covertly diverted massive amounts of internet traffic, u.s. internet traffic. according to david kennedy, head of the security firm who he said the obamacare website was not designed well. a lot of security flaws it be one major concern is that the system connects the health care network to other sensitive u.s. government now works including the internal revenue service and the department of homeland security. that makes it a treasure trove for hijackers adding that a major concern would be cyber attacks from sophisticated state-sponsored adversaries. the threat of back door access points is a particular worry because the chinese military might technologies is expected of using that technique in its network equipment. also contained in the article was the statement from the

national security council spokeswoman who said an intelligence report on the software was recalled by the intelligence community shortly after it was issued. i am wondering if you can comment on why that until as report was recalled after it was issued. also, could you tell this congress and the american people why in the world health and human services should not immediately shut down and properly stress test the health care are protected from potential security risks from across the globe. >> we will have to get back to you in that. of not familiar with with the article -- >> are you aware of the problem? >> no, not. unfortunately the affordable care act is not my responsibility.

we will look into this, particularly the allegation about the report be withdrawn. i don't know anything about it. >> director clapper, the article says the u.s. intelligence agencies hers the obama administration to check its new health care site. you're the director of national intelligence. you are not aware of this red? and the u.s. intelligence agencies last week carries the obama administration to check the website. >> i am not aware of anyone in the intelligence committee doing that. >> is there anyone at the table that is where this issue? >> director burn. >> i read the report to you are referencing. >> are you aware of the intelligence community alerting the administration? >> will not. >> i am not. >> director, are you aware of this report?

>> no, not. this is the first effort of the matter. >> director, are you aware of this report? >> i am not. >> director also, are you aware? >> no. >> you are not. no one at the table is aware of this report that was issued last week? i find this of rage is considering the fact that we are looking at one of the worst intentional leaks in american history conducted by an nsa contractor, and in the midst of that this is one of the largest and intentionally to that could impact personally every american citizen as we are now required to sign up for health care, what this will mean it be the president of the united states recently stated that 3 million americans assigned a for health care of this website which no is potentially vulnerable to an ally of the russian government. i see my time has expired.

>> think you very much says. >> anything i have learned is not to believe everything every medium. >> thank you very much. we will continue to work in a classified setting of those policy issues that we believe needs of attention. strong bipartisan way. we look forward to working with you. please pass along to the men and women in each of your agency's our appreciation. we get the good fortune to meet them all across the globe in very difficult neighborhoods. the work is exceptional, the kurds is beyond the bounds and their sacrifices for defense and freedom in this country are well respected by members of congress and the american people. faq. we look forward to working with you. you will see you soon in a classified hearing. >> think you.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> congressional budget office director will be in capitol hill tomorrow morning to talk about the latest cbo report.

expected to take questions on the projected decrease in the federal deficit. the health care law could have a number of full-time workers. live coverage from the house budget committee starts at 3:00 a.m. eastern. you can also join the conversation on facebook and twitter. end on c-span three, testifying before congress for the first time since taking office. some of the ongoing virus investigations. coverage from the house ways and means oversight panel starts at 930 eastern. >> it is really finnstrom it of the president. and that is always the case. the president who is always semester ibidem mentioned in the book, the president -- and i served under seven in my time, they can direct you to duties in

secret. they don't have to worry about the normal congressional appropriations process. and the way you know, it is a convenient and attractive to los altos overly subjective to in the president's foreign policy. >> from the shadows to the frequent center of political controversy a look at the cia saturday at 10:00 eastern and senate when:00. part of book tv this weekend on c-span2. and on line, and of last month's in-depth guest. rita women's history and join the conversation. go to a booktv.org and click on book club. >> the new website makes it easy for you to find and watch all of the extensive coverage.

look for our homepage. he stay you will find comprehensive coverage of the house and senate debates, a congressional committee hearings , events with the president and members of his cabinet, press briefings from the white house to capitol hill, the state department, and the pentagon plus selected supreme court oral arguments and appearances by the justices. watch live or on your own schedule. federal focus on c-span.org making it easy to keep tabs on what's happening. >> as the u.s. and other western powers negotiate over the nuclear program, the state department's lead negotiator came to capitol hill to testify about the talks. the foreign ministers said a final deal is possible within six months. senator robert menendez.

>> this year will come to order. let me begin by welcoming our panelists. we have two panelists. political affairs. undersecretary sherman has joined this morning by david cohen, the undersecretary of treasury. let me say at the outset that my support the administration's diplomatic efforts. analysts supported a two track policy of diplomacy and sanctions. at the same time i am convinced that we should only relieve pressure in exchange for a verifiable concession that will fundamentally dismantle the

iranian nuclear program it be done in such a way that alarm bells will sound from vienna to washington. in the deal the administration reaches will be verifiable, effective, and prevents a run for ever developing. in my view based on the parameters describing an iranian comments in the days that followed, i am very concerned about their willingness to reach such an agreement. this is not an nothing ventured nothing gained enterprise. we have placed our incredibly effective international sanctions regime on the line without clearly define the parameters of what we expect in the final agreement. as the head of the iranian

nuclear agency said last week, the iceberg of sanctions is a melting well our centrifuges are still working. this is our greatest achievement. frankly it is my greatest fear. the asparagus actions may melt before we have an agreement in place which may in fact be the arena and game. they understand that once the international community's ceases banking sanctions that they will have one regardless of whether and know we had to deal. at the end of the day any final deal must require run to dismantle large portions of its nuclear researcher. in the final drill must address the advance interviews research and development activities that allows for more quickly and more efficiently in restaurants. it must eliminate the vast majority of the 20,000 to

fusions to a close the facility and stop the heavy water reactor . something not directly dealt with by the joint plan of action experts including david albright , for ron to move to a final agreement it would have to close the portal facility and remove between 15 and 16,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges. even then we are looking at the potential breakup time of between six and eight months depending upon whether run as access to uranium enriched access to a 20 reconverted%. breakouts beyond a year more and insist on the long-term 20 year plus regime of montreal and

verification. no, in light of that testimony of we're going to hear today in an interview on cnn he said in response to the question, there will be no destruction of centrifuges, existing centrifuges. his answer was, no, not at all. so who that causes concern for those of us who are concerned about what this final agreement looks like a final agreement that mothballs the of for structure or fundamentally preserves their ability to break out is not a final agreement i can support. if all the chief is the essence of an early warning system of the future brick and ability, the sanctions regime has collapsed and the only option for this or any future president will be to accept a nuclear arms around for a military option, in

my view that is not in the national security interests of the estate's. i know that is not anyone's coal or plan to, but i also think we need to guard about wanting a deal so much that we can see more than we gain. at the end of the day iran can no longer be a nuclear weapon threshold's stake. that made my position quite clear and will continue to do so . and specific questions for all of our panelists that i hope you will be able to answer to help assure us that this is ultimately if achievable and all the type of deal that we can all embrace. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for those opening comments and your lead on this issue for many years. i think the efforts that you have put forth in the past candidly helping to put us in

the place that we are today. i applaud you for that and appreciate the position you have taken and welcome our administration witnesses. after reading the testimony by the witnesses that going to come on the second panel to lay in many ways i wish we had that testimony first so that we could then talk with the administration about what neutral observers are saying about the interim deal have done a good job. want to talk to you about the turkish issue the same thing happens in russia with our acquiescence. yes will find that during this hearing. and again, i thank you for your efforts and want to say that generally speaking i have been disappointed in the rhetoric from the administration.

about congress involvement. on one hand i think that you would readily admit that the position that congress is taken through the years has helped to be in the places you are. somehow because congress was to ensure that we end up with a proper in state, lot of unfortunate things of and said. by as the chairman mentioned support very much the administration's effort to ensure that a rhonda's not have nuclear weapons, and where will to do that in a peaceful manner. a very much support that. as a matter of fact a lot to say relative to congress of los with like to work whopper of lee. rhetoric around the sanctions piece is actually become a red herring. as been a place for the administration can say, well, sanctions will end up keeping

this deal from happening. congress can't keep saying were trying to do something about it. i think it avoids the topic of playing up to us with the estate is. i hope -- i just that your testimony. just given five minutes ago. i hope you will clearly laid out what the in state is because i think that is why so many of us concerned about. this interim deal becomes a permanent deal of. you know, if you look, they're savvy and have a lot of people better educated in our country. they understand us in many ways better than we understand them. if you look at what they're doing and what they've done in the past, of a perfect something and then a pause. a perfect something in the ponds. they have perfected this interviews capabilities.

i think people would say that they want to be a nuclear state, they can do that quickly. we have this pause where we have an interim agreement that does not address all the other areas that they have the ability to perfect. over this next year which administration officials are racing this not going happen, this will probably take much longer. trundle limited to six months. now we end up with a one-year agreement. basically we have an agreement that allows them -- they stopped in an area that they have already perfected. we allow them to continue on in other areas to be able to deliver nuclear weapons cannot even address. you can understand there are a lot of concerns. i hope he will lay out clearly what the administration will accept as the in-state. i hope they will talk with us about it.

pass a piece of legislation that lays of clearly the only thing we will except at the end. again, i think that there are concerns that members of the administration are negotiating to is ruling. the agreement we have no where we have the ability to monitor and yet did dismantle something is actually be in state, some of the people within the administration. i hope your clear today. thank the chairman for having this hearing. i appreciate and letting me talk a little bit about this. no afford to test a million questions. >> they cute, senator. will start off to a tearful statement will be included in the record without objection. ask you to summarize. you're recognized. >> they cute.

they cue, chairman, ranking member, distinguished members of the committee. i would say to both of you, we'll have concerns. and very much appreciate this dialogue and our continued work together on this side most serious issue. to provide an update on the p5 plus one end european union negotiations which, as you know, are coordinated by the high representative of the european union. i also look forward to discussing where we are and other important parts. i come here confident that we, as you both said, share the same goal with regard to run, google that the president reaffirmed just last week to prevent a run from attending a nuclear weapon. thanks to a combination of one of the latest of diplomacy in the most comprehensive targeted sanction resume ever imposed on the country, i am certain that

we're closer today to that goal that we were just a few weeks ago. we are not met that goal, but we have taken a for step toward it. over the next few minutes i hope to explain why that is as well as where we will be heading in the coming months. on november 204th 2013 we and our partners agreed with a run on a joint plan of action. this was an important for step in our effort to resolve the international community concerns with the iranian nuclear program an january 28 the joy plan went into effect. as the president noted, the implementation of a joint plan marks the first time in a decade that a run agree to specific actions that called progress of the nuclear program and ploy back in key respects. the joint plan was explicitly designed this way to create space for further negotiation over a long-term comprehensive solution. specifically the international atomic energy agency verified on

january 20 if that among other things the wrong stop producing near 20 percent enriched uranium , disable the configuration of the centrifuge cascade that iran has been using to produce it, began diluting its existing stockpile of a 20% interest uranium to continue to converge near 20 percent enriched uranium at a rate consistent with past practices and has not installed additional centrifuges, has not installed new components. moreover and transparency and monitoring, the iaea stated that iraq had begun providing some of the information required by the joint plan and is working with the iaea on arrangements for increased access to its nuclear facilities. in order to carry out its responsibilities under the joint plan the iaea will roughly double the size of its inspection team and install additional modern equipment.

the international community's insight into the nuclear program will be significantly enhanced. this was an important for step. over the next six months brought has committed itself to further actions that will provide much more timely warning of a breakout of the declared in richmond facility. they also add new checks against the diversion of equipment and material for any potential culver gingrich or program. your average fully as to why we should trust to run to live up to these commitments. as the president said, these negotiations do not reliable trust. in the longer term deal we agree to must be based on verifiable action that convinces us in the international community that iran is not building a nuclear bomb. as my colleague will further outline in his testimony, the united states and the you have taken a series of actions to implement the targeted limited and temporary sanctions relief we committed to as part of the

joint plan. let me be clear, the joint plan of action represents really the first up of the comprehensive solution we seek to reach, and we seek to reach it within a six month time frame. .. >> will not acquire a nuclear weapon. so what does the solution look like? welcome as the president said, we know that they do not need to have an underground fortified

facility to have a peaceful nuclear program. they do not need a heavy water your in order to have a peaceful nuclear program. they also lay out basic elements of the comprehensive solution and among other elements the final solution would have a specified and long-term duration and it would reflect the rights and obligations with the nonproliferation safety and iada agreements. a as well as a number of steps before we finalize a comprehensive solution, including addressing the relevant u.n. security council resolution with a geared towards bringing the security council consideration of this to a satisfactory conclusion. iran has included enhanced monitoring and the joint

commission set up includes the eu to oversee the implementation will also serve as a forum for discussion to facilitate this and all parties have understood the nuclear program. indeed, just this weekend on the margins of the security conference, secretary john kerry reiterated the importance of iran abiding by the joint plan and this includes but is with the united states will continue to enforce existing sanctions. one final interest is that under the terms of the joint plan we have agreed with around the the comprehensive solution will be part of an integrated whole. when nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

over whether to accept the terms of a final deal or not. or if we err able to reach an agreement we would ask congress to ramp up his sanctions immediately. and moving forward with them now it will derail the promising diplomacy that i have outlined and risk unraveling the cohesion that has proven cohesion to ensure that it is having that effect. my written testimony includes further information on what we are doing on these issues and

this includes robert levinson and others as well. this was another set of concerns that secretary kerry raised with the foreign minister in unit. i have also personally raised these cases is that the president and we will continue to do so with resources until these men are home with their families belong. in some and to finalize my statement, the negotiations with iran including the nuclear issue and with iran. and this includes the reaction and past behavior as well as the

current behavior. and we did diplomacy a chance to succeed. if iran lives up to this, to the commitment, it will become a safer place. if it does not, then we retain all options. to ensure that we will not obtain a nuclear weapon. this ensures that u.s. national security interests are transparent thank you. >> chairman menendez, ranking member bob corker, distinguished members of the committee. they given the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the implementation of a joint plan of action. in this includes a limited

relief of the joint plan. and this includes the vast majority of the sanctions that are in place. and this includes many of our partners in the international community and we are committed to ensuring that we maintain the same pressure throughout the six-month term including a long-term comprehensive solution that ensures that iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon. and the joint plan went into effect on january 20. we issued guidance that suspended sanctions temporarily on transactions related to petrochemical products from iran and the positions of goods and services to other automotive

sectors and in this guidance we make clear the transactions of the seated with this relief must be initiated and completed and that is to avoid sanctions and it ends no later than july 20. and we have also caused the efforts to reduce further exports of crude oil to the jurisdiction. and there are more and funds that are currently restricted in council receipts. in this includes the humanitarian transactions in all of this relief is reversible. if iran fails meet its commitment, we can talk about

the unlimited sanctions relief and viewed in light of this, proximally $7 billion of relief is offered and will not materially improve around the economy. it will be in a recession for two consecutive years. and it is significantly elevated of the inflation rate. and we will continue to be buffeted by sanctions. especially when this remains firmly in place. we are continuing to implement and enforce our oil sanctions.

in this includes the sanctions and the overseas actions. our banking has largely cut off the iranian banking sector from this. this includes investments in the energy sector around oil and gas production and because these remain in place come iran will continue to struggle to finance imports and its government operations the continuing impact in the keeneland kilted impact means that the iranian economy will continue to continue for the foreseeable future. while we remained to providing all of the things that we agree to, we remain hard at work to enforce a sanctions regime of

the unprecedented force and scope. this includes the negotiations to come. to ensure that this continues, we are engaging in form foreign banks and governmental counterparts. many others from the administration reaffirmed the point that the sanctions and this is narrow and the sanctions that were made in place are broad as part of the effort in this is the united arab emirates to carry this message. iran is not open for business. we have made clear that we will continue to respond to their efforts to evade our sanctions wherever they may occur.

and we will continue to prevent terrorism and human rights abuses. i say this to others and other observers, stay tuned. we are poised to deploy or tools against anyone anywhere. >> thank you, secretary sherman. maybe can answer that yes or no. a final agreement would include including this facility. >> and all of these questions today, i am going to be careful about what i say because i do not want to be direct. but i don't want to negotiate with iran in public so that they know what her positions are going to be at the negotiating table.

and i'm making a statement just in general terms including having further competition in greater detail. the before that in my testimony we see no reason for toyota remain in richmond facility >> i would assume that would not be permitted to go online. >> especially in the type of nuclear program if they are interested in. >> reference with what they have talked about, with other published reports, they have suggested that facility they would need to remove the

centrifuges. i'm not going to get in to a specific number. >> i that we mean that there needs to be a reduction. >> yes. >> yes. >> with reference, you won't give us a number. though you say that this is the most domestic consumption? >> i believe that it is in the position i when expect any less. what we all should care about is what iran does. more commitments they make and which of those commitments can be verified. in this includes the research

and development program. and basically iran can continue with the development of the advanced centrifuges during this period of time including challenging the enrichment level of of the park before it is mixed. >> it is significantly or dramatically part of the development plans on centrifuges and a critical element of a final agreement. >> i would say one thing,

senator. there are programs but first well they cannot work on any advanced centrifuges that are not listed on the november 14 iada report for any they find continue of the report. it was frozen up to november 14, in terms of the centrifuges that were damaged that they could only do with the same type and not more advanced centrifuges and they cannot install any new advanced contributors. >> okay, let me redirect you to david albright's testimony on the second panel.

an area that was not frozen includes the continued development of the centrifuges under this loophole in the interim deal. and this includes the no enriched uranium is deposited in this meet letter of the deal. that alone is able to measure the enrichment letter before remixing. and they can further develop these centrifuges of having result of the progress on the iaea.

and this would allow iran to make up for time more quickly. >> i would agree with you that it is an area of concern on advanced centrifuges and it is an area of concern and something that we will be focused on and i am not in expert and i have our experts sit with you and your staff and go over the specifics. >> it was so incredibly important for the framework under which you are negotiating. it is where iran was weaponizing

and yet in this agreement with the joint plan of action we have no access. it is already gone on this when the world became aware of it. to cover up their weaponization program. if we were negotiating with access to parchin, and others believe it was true with access to this and the framework which we would be negotiating versus a supposition and they will reality. and when you didn't achieve it, it is a joint plan of action and this is part of a final deal. >> senator, we did raise parchin

and possible military dimension. and we require this on its past actions and we will work with the iaea to facilitate with past and present issues of concern and that is a formula to used by iaea in addressing the possible military dimension. in this includes addressing the u.n. security council resolution which were wires dealing with issues of concern and all the sanctions over these individuals and entities have supported the

nuclear program until the concerns are addressed. so to summarize, yes, we have raised it. second, they must be resolved. >> have they rejected any access to parchin? >> they have not rejected at. >> in your joint plan of action they rejected this? >> i hope it is addressed and in the possible dimensions archean central to the agenda. and that will increase the confidence that we will actually get to a final and comprehensive resolution.

>> is this a new development? or is this something that we raised with the iranians during the inner negotiations? >> i am not aware of that report rates would have to take a look at it. >> one final question for you, secretary cohen? >> all of the sanctions i have offered with senator kirk and members who have supported us. at least a six-month period of time to give countries and companies the notice required and is that a fair statement? >> i assume so. >> you're enforcing them. >> and i sit here right now and recall the legislation, whether any of them were affected where

there was a phase for all of them. it is as promptly as possible. >> the legislation became law. and it always had a very long lead time. and i went to work to try to pursue it. the problem is to try to suggest the sanctions to not recognize that there is six months from the date of signing for goes into effect. and the only effect that we have was and they got to looking to 16 weeks of the potential breakout period and sanctions,

to enforce them then will be far beyond the scope of the window. and that is part of a problem to suggest that yes, we can pass sanctions at any time. it and it is to have them be effective and to take effect. >> thank you, mr. chairman iaea >> we want to see a peaceful end to this. i'm not sure we want to continue on. we are concerned about the way that this interim deal has been struck. and then protect other things as

well. just curious, why did you all nod in agreement in any way address the military. >> especially when they have reached a threshold and we acknowledge that they can build a bomb, everyone knows that. have advanced centrifuges. they have a major loophole in the research and development area that everyone acknowledges. and that we are going to allow them over the next year to continue to perfect the other piece of this which is the delivery mechanism. >> first of all, and i should've said this. when the chairman asked the question. we see this as a first step so we don't consider the loopholes because this is not a final agreement. this is a first step. >> it would take a year, she said it would take up this to

discuss it. she's one of your partners on those. and we probably have a time longer than six months where they can continue on. and i don't understand why this interim deal would address or stop the perfecting of the rings allow what they have already perfected to be delivered. >> i would say a couple of things. first of all, the joint kind of action does address the fact that their ballistic missiles that can be used as a delivery mechanism must be addressed as part of a comprehensive solution because it is part of the u.n. security council resolution. and so it is true that in his first six months we have not shut down the production of any ballistic missile that could have anything to do with delivery of a nuclear weapon. but that is indeed going to be part of something that has to be

addressed of a comprehensive agreement. secondly i would say that if we are successful in assuring ourselves and the world community that iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon and cannot obtain a nuclear weapon, then them not having a nuclear weapon makes delivery systems almost, not entirely irrelevant. >> let me ask this question of her acting most neutral observers would state that all we have really done since we are not dismantling as both a president and foreign minister has made clear, in essence what you have done is given us 30 days additional time for a breakout. and yet they have a year.

the year to develop the delivery mechanism. i will say that some people may debate about what their encouragement of foreign i don't think many people on the committee think that what they have been doing it solely for civil purposes. but there is no debate on the delivery mechanisms and i'm just curious privately negotiated deal in that way. i do not get it. why do you think that that should be a part of the next deal since they have already perfected the first car. it seems to me that being able to deliver it is an important aspect and it's apparently not so in that case. >> senator, you and i disagree about the conclusion of the joint plan of action. we believe that it sent out a framework for a comprehensive agreement to ensure that iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. we are not through that conference of solution yet. we agreed on a six-month program that freezes where they are and rolls back their program in

significant ways to obtain a nuclear weapon. and in return we have given limited and temporary targeted sanctions relief. if we could have negotiated an agreement, which you would prefer and quite frankly that will be impossible to do that is everything that will use that time to march forward much more rapidly. and this is not perfect but it does friedel back your program and it is relative to where we

were. >> mr. cohen, since it has begun, do you agree that iran's inflation is way down in the economic projections are all over the world and i know that you have traveled around the world and talk to folks about what might happen to them. but is there any question that just the discussions, is that correct? >> i think that what we have seen and it is an octet with what happened with president roh connie in june. the value that we had all

increased with inflation. especially since the joint plan of action since september. >> everyone knew that was underway. do you understand why there is a concern. >> many believe that is the only effect because that is a very big concern. and there is expectation and people are expecting and we understand why the chairman would be concerned. and it is a series of rolling interim deals. and there are many of us are concerned at this point a minimum of a year and add a

point we lose all the leverage, if you will, to really do this. some have said that we need to pass a resolution on the senate floor that says there is a trade embargo or something much stronger. something that indicates that we will do something. you understand why we have those concerns? and do you have a way for congress addressing those in an appropriate way to put the sanctions in place in the first place? >> i certainly understand where those concerns come from and i can tell you from my travels around the world and my colleagues reporting the same. and we need make sure that to make sure that the banking community and business moodier counterparts. and this is how this is

concluded within the six-month time frame. that it is still facing an iranian banking center that is largely cut off from the international financial sector and it is still sanctions. but when we walk through the narrow scope of the sanctions, the extension sanctions and if there is a comprehensive deal. especially in the iranian market. but for the six-month period, the interest but especially the sanctions in just a few economic areas that have been agreed to is relatively like this.

please see the delegations going to tehran and you also see importantly the reflection that those conversations are about what may come in the future and not what is available today. we are as crystal clear as possible in all of our engagements that if these talks turn into something more ordeals that violate the elaborate sanctions remain in place that we will take action. >> thank you, chairman menendez. thank you for sharing this hearing and i would like to think the secretaries for their work and appearing before the committee. as you said in your testimony and as i agree. a strong sanctions regime imposed on iran pass by this congress and enforced by this administration have brought them to the negotiating table and i

remain strongly supportive of the ongoing enforcement and i am encouraged by your characterization of the sanctions enforcement in the joint plan of action as being temporary unlimited and intensely engaged in ensuring that that is the case. as a cosponsor of the bill i believe it is important for us to continue to maintain a stronger more additional sanctions to send a clear message and i have a number of concerns and unanswered questions about the joint plan of action and i will just reiterate that i share the goal of literally everyone on the community of reaching an agreement that verifiably refutable unit denies the capability to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities. i do hope a final deal can be achieved in the next six months and that includes the most comprehensive inspection regime possible and i have a number of questions to ask about following

him. i sent a letter to the president along with several other senators asking a number of questions and in particular focusing on what the administration will need from congress and financial support in what the actions will be and pressing upon whether there is any progress in terms of establishment in the field often than the scope and reach of the inspections and what kinds of capability they may require so we can have some certainty about the allegedly novel inspection regimes that we have with previous examples where they failed to uncover clandestine action as has previously been talked about. so i'm interested on this and what can we be doing to work with you and strengthening this.

>> thank you very much, senator. thank you for your support. thank you along with all of the members of the committee for leadership on supporting our efforts to make sure that iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon, which i quite agree is an objective that we all share. in terms of monitoring and verification, i will find out where that is and we will get it to you, senator. i apologize that it is not appear yet. the iaea is going to double the staff and it will have a field office as you know. the joint plan of action gives us unprecedented access and before when that fordo inspectors have daily access this includes the monitoring vegetables that will be worked out with iaea.

and they are getting this in assets for rock. they are getting access to the centrifuge production facilities with the mills, so it is an unprecedented verification and monitoring of the regime. the director general has said that there are some increased cost and we have increased the amount that we will make available out of our budgeted funds and other countries have come forward and we greatly appreciate your willingness for congress to take a look and ensure that the inspection monitoring verification act can go toward because they are quite critical, as you point out, to verify that iran does what it has committed to do in a comprehensive agreement will be even more crucial.

>> asking one question. and then in your opening testimony, you hired the efforts to holding iraq accountable with public executions and supported for the assad regime and has blood and i appreciate your hard work and holding them accountable. one of the most important accomplishments i think is an interim joint plan and the commitment to dilute the 20% highly enriched uranium. apparently they will take the steps when it has completed facilities improvements. one is the scheduled to be completed and what steps are being taken to ensure the ratings are not driving the reader using this as a way to covertly enrich some other vehicle and location? >> a couple of comments. first on human rights. we agree with you. the human rights report will come out and we will detail as clearly as we possibly can how we view the human rights abuses which you have rightly pointed out are of grave concern to us.

in terms of the dilution and conversion both on the 20% and ensuring that the 5% stockpiled this market larger than the amount agreed to. by the end of the six-month period, the iaea will be monitoring all of these actions and on the dilution the conversion will take six months to come is because the technology only allows us to move that quickly but they will provide a rope toward him on the monitoring and verification activities that they will share with the joint commission we will be glad to come up and greet the classified session about those unclear points. and so that will be one way that we will verify and the second will be on the dilution to these payments of repatriated frozen on, the first on march 1, the

second on april 15, so iran will not get this unless it is completed on schedule agreed to. >> thank you. i look forward to the classified briefing. thank you. >> [inaudible] >> supporting this committee for the efforts of the administration, don't put me in that column. i don't want to be in a column because i do not work what has been done. i think this thing is a disaster. i think that i was stunned when i saw what the agreement was and i have been disgusted as we have gone forward and i hope you approve me dead wrong. but i don't think i will give in the history of these people. but in any event i want to focus on just a couple of aspects.

number one is a constituent of mine. his only crime is being a christian. and why can't we get this guy out of jail and can you tell us the substance of that conversation what was? we completely agree with you. nothing i can say today will be satisfactory to you or to their families and i would agree with them and agree with you in that regard. secretary john kerry raised the situation with the minister and

insist that this be addressed as quickly as possible and there is no basis for any of the three of them and indeed we are doing whatever we can in whatever channel we can to bring him home as quickly as possible. >> you know, that is not good enough. these are just words. somebody needs to look these people in the eye and tell them that they are not getting another penny and they're not getting anything until they do a very simple act of letting three absolutely innocent americans go free. i hope you will convey that and i would hope that secretary kerry would convey that the foreign minister as well. this is absolutely outrageous everything that we have given and still to hold this. this is absolute nonsense. let me change horses here for just a second. now that the sanctions have been

relaxed and this has been something that has been a concern of mine from the beginning, now that they have been relaxed our partners, most, if not all, who are unwilling partners are now flooding in there with business people and the french and the time and the irish and the canadian and you have political people and you have business people flooding in there. ready to do business, and back to business as usual. his job is going to be to put the genie back in the bottle. >> as the under-secretary says, every single member of our administration talked with every country with whom we need about keeping the sanctions on board. with the conversations i've had with many including the french and secretary kerry has talked

about the trade delegation and it was a private business delegation and not a government delegation about how this is not helpful in this regard to ensure that it is not business as usual as the secretary said. toronto's not open for business and it's quite temporary and quite limited and quite targeted and that in fact most of these delegations were going because we talk to them all and we have told them what are the limits of what they can do that we will in fact go after them and that we will nation them. it doesn't matter what if they evader sanctions, we will sanction him than we have all delivered that message. and that includes every department in our administration and the executive branch and indeed most of these appear to be going in line and the comprehensive agreement is reached if it is reached we have told them all that they are putting their reputations in themselves and their business

enterprises at risk if they jumped the gun. >> is exactly why those of us were critical at the beginning were so critical. the optics are such that the rest the world says that it is back to business as usual could tell them what you want to tell them that their acts indicate that they believe that there is business as usual. including how we are making certain that our partners around the world understand that whatever interest they may have in the iranian market someday, that is not the market today. what is available today in the joint plan of action is extraordinarily narrow and limited to exports in the auto sector and trade in precious

metals and even that is essentially constrained and very limited with economic potential today in the iranian business that are not at the point we have made over and over again in these engagements. that point is getting through, i do believe terry at we have not seen deals being done. but even more internally what we have been an absolute thereabout is that we will continue to enforce the sanctions in the implementation agreements on the joint plan of action, recognizing that we have the right and that we will olein force the existing sanctions and i think that that message is one that we have communicated over the years and more recently in a credible fashion. >> i understand that it sure doesn't look like they believe it.

>> senator coons, has been the robust part of the sanctions that has led us to appointed a in which we have an opportunity and a chance to achieve a peaceful resolution to the crisis. as you know i was in munich this week on a panel and the foreign minister made the laughable contention that iran was at the table today for reasons having nothing to do with the sanctions policies. and having said that no one in the audience believe that, there was a discussion there about the different trade missions mainly of a private nature and secretary kerry was there pushing hard as you mentioned on our partners to make sure that

those were simply connected to future activities rather than undermining the sanctions. so let me give you my impression and you tell me if i am wrong. the fact that there are groups going were thinking about their potential future opportunities is to me to have nothing to do with the interim agreement. and to me if we were to have entered into negotiations right away on a final settlement, the same thing would have happened. once there was a window into potential allies trade relations with iran, they're going to be private entities. this includes about future trade opportunities and a negotiation

and i just wanted to, for both of you coming to understand that those are your impressions and as i was saying earlier, what we have been hearing from these various agencies and governments and to see what might come in the future. because there is some hope that these negotiations will produce a comprehensive agreement that brings a substantial sanctions relief. >> i would agree with you. and one other thing is a little counterintuitive. we hope people don't go to tehran. that's her preference.

but those who go raise hope that they were on the administration to have to deliver on and the only way they can deliver on those hopes is a comprehensive agreement that we will agree to. and that means a verifiable assurance that they are not developing or creating or will have in obtaining a nuclear weapon. and so although we don't want people to go because we think it does send the wrong message, if they do go it puts pressure perversely on the ronnie administration because as far as we have seen today there are not deals giving done but rather people getting for someone in the hopes that someday there will be a deal. >> to the extent that there is enormous economic opportunity today, it is because of the crippling nature of the sanctions that have undermined the economy that there's room for improvement should they be

partially or fully lifted. until we do have to pay attention to the political dynamics because it dictates whether or not they're actually going to be able to get a deal. and so is there any new information about the link of this that they have been given by the supreme leaders and any evidence of the hard-liners since this agreement had been signed are winning or losing the internal battle to be able to allow for the domestic political support for a deal that is amenable to the united states to be achieved in this? >> we asked our intelligence community to access that and that is one that we will share with you all on an ongoing basis. i think that there is no doubt that there are hard-liners and sometimes it's overstated for negotiating effects. but it is real and substantial.

and so i think we find a fine line. one thing is not to increase this for the hard-liners and not allowing tehran to overstate the politics that they have to deal with. >> thank you. >> let me decide this and i don't think it takes secret intelligence arrive at it. i was due this in our meetings before to go see what sanctions relief you can get without giving up a we believe it is the inherent right to enrich great if they can keep that in place, they are always having a few steps away from a nuclear armed power. and so according to the administration we have not recognize the rights for the iranian government nor do we

intend to. the document does not say anything about recognizing the right to enrich uranium. but in a letter he states that the agreement includes the formal recognition of the nuclear right in implying that they have a right to enrich. is that under no circumstances will there ever be a deal in which we agree to dismantle our nurturing capabilities and that is the one hand he has gone on the enrichment issues or do we have a line in and on enrichment issue cannot. >> are lying on the sand in the enrichment issue is any comprehensive agreement should give us assurance in a verifiable manner for iran not to obtain a nuclear weapon. >> my question is then the capability to enrich, it is not in and of it self a significant -- this the fact that you have the infrastructure to enrich at any level. in a mad a critical capacity for

a country to have a plan to have the option of going nuclear one-day? >> every country has the potential for that capability and if we dismantle and i would hope that we can. every piece of the infrastructure that they have, they would still have the knowledge and they cannot unlearn what they know. so they would be able to reconstitute and their scientists can't unlearn what they have learned how to do. and the plan in place by the verifiable assurance. >> i understand how they need to do that and the facilities to enrich and many countries though

i do a ago but they don't do it. including many of our allies. so now the concern is that we are going to leave in place that when the world is distracted on some other things, they can move really quickly. multiple countries have the ability to enrich, but they don't. because they obtain from elsewhere because they don't have this in few countries who enrich also have a ballistic missiles program. let me ask you the question. the security council resolution 1929 contains a provision referring to the ballistic missile program including commercial activity in many other states involved in technology related situations which you only build for the purposes of delivering a nuclear warhead. so how will that be addressed? because is not a key component in if they retain an infrastructure to enrich up 5% of their building ballistic missiles, the only thing missing here is the enrichment

capability in the nuclear power. >> senator, i hope that tehran listens very carefully to what you said. because we agree. it would be better for iran if they wanted to build a nuclear program to bring the fuel in from the outside and not have a nuclear enrichment program and they would get better nuclear cooperation and lots of things might be better for them and that will absolutely be on the table with the negotiations that we had with them. there may have countries that do this and that have dignity and pride and everything else that they need for scientific and technological advancement. but we have said in the joint plan of action by depending upon where we get in the contents of the agreement we are willing to consider a very limited and inclusive and heavily monitored small limited enrichment program.

and on the point about holistic missiles. incapable of delivering a nuclear weapon and if we can get to the bear that they cannot obtain a nuclear weapon we know that they cannot have a nuclear weapon, then a delivery mechanism important as it is is less important. >> senator coons? >> thank you, mr. chairman. when the interim deal was announced in november it was timed an interesting way in the same weekend when america was commemorated the 50th anniversary of the death of president kennedy and i was with many of my colleagues at a security conference in nova scotia when it deal was announced in a great speech of

senator kennedy's was running surmise that weekend and was discussing his career and a graduation speech that he gave at an american university a few months before he died in 1963 and he had started aggressive diplomatic efforts to try to reduce nuclear weapons between the united states and soviet unions. and he made a very aggressive cave for the fact that part of american strength is diplomacy and one of the phrases that he used in that speech and i would recommend it to anyone because it is interesting even when it was rewritten today is that with all appropriate skepticism and this is a direct quote, we can reduce tension without reducing our regard. it's needed to reduce this and it's needed to solve thorny

problems and we don't have to relax our guard. and we want around have exactly the same. we want them not have nuclear weapons greatly with her for that we can get to that diplomatically rather than having to use military orders. as a member of the committee recently cast a vote to use military force to enforce what i felt was a very important international watch. ..

problem. the diplomatic solution is the preferred solution. i'm very clear eyed about the iranian threat. not only the history of past events but current event. human rights violations have been mentioned and history of current practices that are bellicose in the reaming and beyond. it is the case that the sanctions that congress has put in place and so -- i haven't been part that have legislation. i came here after the

legislation was passed. i can praise those who have been here for putting tough sanctions in place. the vote was 100-0 in the body. the and the administration has been able to utilize sanctions to bring iran to the table because it is crippled their economy and isolated them in the international community. but the sanctions are not enough to stop an iranian nuclear program. one thing it crippled the economy. if anything it's making iran isolated accelerated their path to try to develop nuclear technology for whatever purpose. if we're going to stop that nuclear program, and that quest for nuclear weapons, we have to do it diplomatically or do it militarily. i support the sanctions and i'll easily and gladly vote for more if we cannot find an agreement. i have some ideas about a-- i want to raise either with the panel or the second one. but i think that this joint plan of action and the diplomatic

effort of the administration give us a historic opportunity we can't afford to put a cross on. the joint plan of action and the interim agreement, with in my view from analyzing it and reading analysis done by many who are smarter than me that slows and reverses aspects with not all aspects but critical aspect of the iranian nuclear program, which sanctions alone has not been able to do. and it also provides this country and our partners and all of our allies and the entire world a better early warning system about whether iran is cheating. we get more time on the clock and better early warning system because of the deal. we have to give diplomacy a chance. we have to. i think aggressive diplomacy has been an underexercised american muscle. in the last 15 years. we have to return to the kind of aggressive diplomacy the nation embraced when teddy roosevelt

broke end the end of the war, won a nobel peace prize. since that time, our strength has been measured not just by military strength, the strength of our moral example in the strength of our diplomatic effort. we can be appropriately skeptical. the president has been can dit in talking to all of us it's maybe 50/50 or whether we will find a deal we will take would be sufficient. if we don't, of course there will be greater sanctions we put in place and that will support. we have to give diplomacy a chance. not only in this instance. we have to return to the tradition of aggressive american diplomacy has been the core element of our power in the world. it has been the exercise. and i'm glad to see we're getting back to it. last thing quickly. there may be a deal when the deal doesn't work. we are to contemplate military action to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

i don't think it's hard to contemplate we might be at that day at some point in the future. as i said, i'll say it now, if there this was no other way to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon then for us to engage in military action hopefully with others i'm going vote yes on that. in order for us to vote yes, we have to be able to look our allies and our citizens especially the men and women we ask to fight that battle we would to be able to look them in the eye and tell them we have exhausted every diplomatic effort prior to undertaking that significant step. we may have to undertake that significant step. we shouldn't do it if we -- if we leave diplomatic avenues unexplored. let's make this negotiation about iran's good faith. let's not make it about our good faith. let's demonstrate our good faith

and put them to the test whether they're serious about ending their nuclear weapons program. >> let me thank the senator for his thoughtful comments and maybe the administration can be enlightened to understand differences between tactic and war monogopherring and fear morningerring. >> senator flake. i appreciate the comment of my colleague from virginia. i share many of the sentiments. i've not signed on for the new sanctions bill here. i believe that diplomacy can work, we ought to allow it to work. i haven't appreciated some of the comments from the administration describing those who are in favor of the sanctions bill or implying they're war mongering or have anything but the best motives. i think that everyone here wants the same thing. for the administration or others to describe people who have a

different view i think is unfair. for myself, i hope these negotiations will work. there some concerns i have just in terms of the specifics. one of the criticisms of the joint plan of action is that it deals with known nuclear facilities in iran. it's a little bit unclear as to what will happen if we discover ore facilities that were not known prior to this. how are they covered? the term any new nuclear facility, is that a new one or newly discovered and what means do we have to try to find other facilities out there? >> thank you very much, senator. thank you for your comments, senator cane. thank you for yours. let me say for the record, i don't believe any of you in any senator, any member of the house

are war mongers. i don't belief anyone prefers war. i understand how, as a senator described in the excellent piece on iran case against new iran sanctions describing how one gets to military action and the concern we have tactical considerations may lead us to the choice. but that is an issue of tactics, as you have pointed out, not an issue of intent and not a characterization of any individual. so i quite agree with that. in terms of new nuclear facilities. we meant what the joint plan of action says. there can be no nuclear facilities either declared or une declared. if we find undeclared new nuclear facility, that's a cause of grave concern to all of us.

it would be against the compliance require forked the joint plan of action. i can't today tell you what our response would be. i would imagine it would be quite, quite concerning and we would to respond in a very forcible way. >> do you have concerns if we were to impose new sanctions that our partners p5+1 would strike their own deal and leave us out is that a possibility a concern that the administration has? >> i think that's a possibility, of course. i think more broadly, senator, our ally and partners in the world are concerned, one of the reasons the captions regime has been as effective as it has been is because people have climbed on board with us particularly in our unit literal sanctions even when they don't believe in unilateral sanctions and tell us

at every opportunity. they have, in fact, followed them. dealing with the american banking system is so crucial to the economy of virtually every country in the world they have complied even though they don't like them. and so if we in fact don't give negotiations a chance, they have less of an incentive to stay on board with that sanctions regime. and we could unwittingly create a rupture in the sanctions enforcement and sanctions regime which is crucial to the kind of aggressive diplomacy that senator was outlining. >> thank you. that's always been my feeling unilateral sanctions rarely work. there are certain areas central banks on the financial sector where we can lead there. we run the risk of getting ahead of our allies or partners where where they won't go and the sanctions regime will unreally a of. anybody who thinks that unilateral sanctions work very

well. i'll give you cuba as exhibit a for a long time of unilateral sanctions have not produced the desired outcome. we need p5+1 partners and others to participate with us here and the stakes are obviously much higher in this regard. newtthank you for your testimony. >> senator. thank you very much. i won't associate with myself -- i thought he articulated my point of view in term of the important -- importance of the these negotiations. let me ask you a specific question on the issue of enrichment capacity. it appears at least at the outset, there is a divergent point of view in term of whether or not iran can retain enrichment capacity at the end of a successful negotiation

process. any enrichment capacity. the weapons grade level but any enrichment capacity. would you address that? >> sure, senator. there is no question it would be far preferable if iran didn't have an indynel use enrichment capability. they will have the capability, as i said earlier they can't unlearn what they know. in term of actually having a program, it would be preferable if they got any fuel from outside sources. brought to on the open market, had international cooperation, international consortia. they would be preferrable roots to go, but it may be at the end of a comprehensive agreement we have allowed for consideration of a very small limited enrichment program to meet practical needs that would be highly monitored. highly verified with intrusive inspections over a very long duration of time.

potentially as part of a comprehensive agreement. but what is very critical in a joint plan of action is nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. >> there is no prospect that iran scrolled a small limited and highly monitored program without us agreeing to all of that verification monitoring and all the other aspects necessary for comprehensive agreement including addressing the u.n. security counsel resolution. we have a long way to go here. >> going back to ronald reagan's famous "trust but verify." it involves aeae inspectors now currently on the ground. i believe you testified before i arrived reports coming back from at least encouraging in term of their access. can you elaborate on that a bit? there are those who say there are things going on they'll never be able to see and never be told about and those things

could be the most dangerous and threatening. there will be no way even with military action to ensure that we know everything that there might be to know. both with -- our national technical means and other ways we work to know as much as we possibly can know. and the vertification and monitoring we put in place with the joint plan of action increases our ability to know whether there are covert activities going on that we may not have been aware of. not only because we have greater access daily to -- greater access to iraq, at least monthly. their plans for iraq. access to uranium, access to the centrifuge protection. all of which provide clues as to whether something is going on somewhere else when we can look at the guts of all of these

facilities. so i think we have greatly increased our ability to know if there is something that is covert that is going on. i'm not going to kid this panel, this committee, or the world to know there is any way ever that any country can give you 100% guarantee that we know everything. >> thank you. mr. chairman, since my colleague from illinois, senator kirk, has been part of the effort on enhanced sanctions along with senator menendez. i want to join the course you have joined on, mr. chairman. i don't question for a moment the motives of anyone engaged in this. we have had the same goal. stop a nuclear iran. keep israel safe. stabilize and bring peace to the middle east. these are goals we all share. and they approach may be different. i haven't signed on this bill.

my feeling is if the negotiations fail, there are two alternatives. a nuclear iraq or war. or perhaps both. i want to say at the end of the day we have exhausted every reasonable opportunity to negotiate an alternative short of those two outcomes. i will also say those on this committee may have a better appreciation for the public sentiment in america on the subject the most. it wasn't that long ago senator men menendez convened us to discuss president obama's request for military authority when we believed -- and subsequently learned to be true, that there were mass stores of chemical weapons in syria. i recall the debate and the public reaction to the suggestion with the president would even have the authority. not boot on the ground but the author to use any military action. the public sentiment was overwhelmingly negative. the vote on the committee was

10-7. it was never brought to the floor for obvious reasons. i'll back up senator's comments earlier. if we believe, god for bid we're going reach awful alternative in the future the american people standby us or listen to us, we have to convince them we have exhausted every available reasonable conflict opportunity to avoid conflict and war. that's why we should believe we should give the negotiations an opportunity even with the president's admonition it's a long shot or a 50/50 shot of success. i thank you for your work. thank you, mr. chairman. >>.

>> thank you for your testimony. does the administration consider itself bound to the comprehensive iran sanctions of 2010 and 2012? >> if you're talking about legislation that has been passed and signed by the president, of course. >> this those sanctions, they allow for termination of sanctions once iran has verify belie dismantled the chemical baa list l missile launch technologies as well as in longer being a state sponsor of terrorism.

the waiver is 120 days. i would expect and hope it's not going to be out con luges you ask to waive the sanctions and do whatever you want and you're working all for negotiations working on negotiation within the parameter of legislation has been passed. my concern is, it's a concern for the way these legislation is written and has been written for many things is that we carve out exceptions and waivers for the presidency thinking that's the only reasonable thing to do. but the waivers become so large you can drive a truck through them. they end up having no teeth and lose all teeth in the legislation. for example, i give you egypt, you know, we said, well, we're not going give them unless democracy. it turns out they're not close to a democracy. the administration stamps them as an democracy. it happen before the coup when it wasn't much of a democracy. it's not much of a democracy

now. we say you can't get money when there's a military coup we passed legislation basically expanding that waiver to make it really have no death at all and then we end up passing something no restrictions at all basically on continuing military aid after a coup. i think really that this is a big question. it should be a big legislative question when we consider how we write legislation and grant waivers. because i believe -- i fully believe that no matter the testimony the administration has shown the propensity just to do what they want. and we may well go through waiver after waiver after waiver in the end we may get a negotiated settlement that really does not comply with the sanctions that have been written so if we want sanctions to have -- legislation to have it we need to be concerned about how wide and expansive we make the waivers. that's just a point i would like that make. i like your comment you say you feel bound legislation and i

hope they will continue to be true. >> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, both, forking being here. under secretary cohen, recently you said iran is not open for business. pointing out that the majority of the sanctions remain in place. but yet we have seen -- i think people have e -- alluded here a great deal of interest on the part of the european partners in opening trade delegations with iran. i sent a letter last week to kathy ashton, the u.n. high representative and ambassadors of all of those country which is had expressed an interest in trade delegation expressing my concern about the kind of message that sends to iran about where the international community is relative to the lessening of sanctions.

i wonder if you can speak to whether these trade delegations actually do risk undernining our international sanctions regime and is the appetite europe wayneing to continue to enforce the sanctions that we have in place? >> senator, i have seen your letter. appreciate your letter, and gre with -- agree with your letter. encouraging our counter part in europe and elsewhere to show restraint. to recognize that the sanctions that remain in place are so comprehensive, so precollusive of doing real business with iran today that the not worth the effort to go to iran to explore business deals now. no. we see, of course, some of the trade dell divisions are going.

what we have seen is they are exploring the possibility of deals if a long-term agreement is reached and there is substantial sanction relief that come as part of that. we have been clear about with our partners is that our preference is that businesses, trade delegations, government show restraint right now. that in all events no deals are struck now. that violate the sanctions and that if any of that occurs we will respond vigorously in enforcing our sanctions. >> excuse me for interrupting. can you also speak to what kind of a message it sends to iran? these trade delegations and whether that lessen their interest in continuing to negotiate at the bargaining

table? >> i am weary of trying to get inside the psych key of the iranians. i will say there's a -- perhaps a mixed message that gets to the iranians on this. on the one hand, it shows that there is an interest in the world in doing business and for sure the iranians are try to ill illicit the interest. convey the message interested in business in the future. that not today but if there's a comprehensive deal. i would cite the remarking of the ceo of the italian energy company who before he met with president robert byrd -- the best way for sanctions to be lifted is sanctions to be applied now. we're not doing business in iran now. we are looking potentially at the future when there is

comprehensive deal. i think it can create within iran the dynamic where the iranian business community, which is desperate to reengage with the world. they have been cut off from the world. i think senator murphy made a good point. part of the interest in europe and elsewhere that the iranian economy is perform soggy far below the capacity right now because of sanctions there's a pent up demand. that demand -- >> excuse me, again, for interrupting. i just want to get in a final question, which is about russia. and the suggestion they would do an oil for good deal with iran and what we're doing to try to discourage that and to discourage other potential countries who might be looking at that same kind of a deal. >>. >> we are across the administration working extraordinarily hard to ensure

that there is no such deal that occurs. >> if i may, senator. on the oil for barter goods deal that was in the newspapers, at all levels of our government including at the highest level we have raised our concern quite directly with russia about this. and secretary kerry raised it directly with iran. my own sense is after a fair amount of clarity about this matter, that nothing will move forward that the time. we are very crystal clear that anything like such an agreement between russia and iran might have potential sanctionable action, and would likely create tremendous risk within the p5+1,

which would make coming to a comprehensive agreement all the more difficult if not impossible. so we have been very clear. my own sense it's not moving forward at this time. and i think that if that is indeed the case we can continue to verify the fact that is a very good decision. >> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. i understand during the six month period that began january 20th, the they plan to issue reports each month on iran's compliance. i recall during the months leading up to the 2003 war in iraq inspectors reported on the activities much more frequently. sometimes as often as daily. is it possible for you to -- to provide public updates on all activities within iran at least on a weekly basis. i think would give everyone more

confidence. there is no deception taking place on the part of the iranian government. >> thank you very much, senator. we will certainly discuss your ask with the aeea. it's a different circumstance than iraq in term of the extend of the program and particular of the situation. the -- they will have have daily access as well as other surveillance means available to them as well as at least monthly access to iraq and access to uranium mines centrifuge production. i think they'll have great increased visibility way beyond anything today. we will convey -- >> i think it would be important for confidence building in the united states and around the world. it would be more frequent than the iaea announced it intend on making public. i think we all have a right to

know that since we are running the risk and the iaea works for us a and the world. i think we should have that information on the ongoing basis. i think it would be helpful. it they determines if there are compliance concerns, will you ensure such are reported promptly to the american people and the congress? >> we will certainly take our responsibility seriously. >> you will -- >> we are make you. as i said earlier in the monthly report we get will be glad to do -- might be comprehensive. i think it's important we get much more frequent. the interim for the purpose of replacing broken one. they will be able to verify that particular centrifuges are in fact broken. will the broken centrifuge be

removed from the facility and provided iaea inspectors to confirm they are actually no longer functioning. i don't know the exact mechanism, senator, i i'll have the expert come up and give you the briefing what they will do. since indeed one of the details of the agreement they can only replace damage centrifuges with centrifuges same kind, we have asked the iaea to verify that is -- >> i think it's important the ratio stay one to one. ..

you were talking about the practical leaves of the iranians earlier. a country that flares off 13 nuclear power plants come equivalents of natural gas each year. obviously it does not have many practical means for multiple new nuclear power plants to generate electricity. our you going to determine that, what is practical? because obviously there is a very high prevarication coefficient historically in iran, and if they plan on building ten to 20 nuclear power plants the practical means will be vastly expanded nuclear enrichment program in their country, even if it is under tight safeguards. >> your point is very well taken, senator. as i