mr. mcdonald began his service at the united states military academy at west point. he graduated in 1975 in the top 2% in his class with a degree in engineering and went on to serve as an infantry officer in the army's 82nd airborne, earning aaron born and ranger qualifications during his military service. his father served in the army air corps after world war ii. additionally, his wife's father was held as a p.o.w. after being shot down over europe. her uncle served in vietnam and still receives care at the v.a. also, mr. mcdonald's nephew is currently serving and deployed with the u.s. air force. in other words, mr. mcdonald and his family have a deep understanding and service with the united states military, and upon hearing mr. mcdonald at the hearing that we held in our committee for the confirmation process, i am convinced that he

has a deep passion to do everything that he can to protect our veterans. madam president, the other quality that mr. mcdonald brings to this job is that he has been the c.e.o. of one of america's leading corporations which -- a company which has tens and tens of thousands of employees. his more than 33 years with procter & gamble gives him the tools to create a well-run and accountable v.a. in other words, he will bring the tools of a c.e.o. in a private corporation to the v.a., a huge bureaucracy which needs a significant improvement in accountability and in management. as we begin debate on mr. mcdonald's nomination, i believe it is important that my colleagues understand the realities that he will face in leading the v.a.

madam president, the v.a. operates the largest integrated health care system in the united states, with over 1,700 points of care which include 150 hospitals, 820 community-based outreach clinics, and 300 vet centers. in fiscal year 2013, the v.a. provided 89.7 million outpatient visits each day -- today, tomorrow, yesterday. the v.a. conducts approximately 236,000 health care appointments. in other words, it is a huge, huge system. v.a.'s problems, which mr. mcdonald will have to address immediately, have been widely reported in recent mont months. acting secretary sloan gibson, in my view, has done an excellent job in taking a number of critical steps to address the problems confronting the v.a.

but clearly there is much, much more to be done. we now know, among other issues, that there's a significant shortage of doctors, nurses and mental health providers within v.a. as well as the physical space necessary to provide timely access to quality care. this is a major problem, because at the end of the day, no matter how well-run the v.a. is -- or any health care system is -- we are not going to be able to provide quality, timely care unless there are the doctors, the nurses, the other medical personnel available to do that work. as a result of the shortages, we know that we have tens of thousands of veterans today in many parts of this country on lists that are much too long in order to gain access into the v.a. we also know that hundreds of thousands of veterans that have appointments scheduled are waiting too long to be seen and receive care.

madam president, i think it's important that everybody recognize that as a result of the wars in iraq and afghanistan in the last five years, 2 million more veterans have come into the v.a. and this is on top of an aging population of v.a. patients who served in world war ii, korea and vietnam, patients who often need a whole lot of care as they age. so you're combining new people coming into the v.a., often with very serious problems, including some 500,000 veterans coming home from iraq and afghanistan with ptsd, t.b.i. and an aging population with difficult problems. that is where we are at and those are some of the issues that the v.a. is going to have to address. madam president, let me just say, while i'm on the subject, that most people understand, and to includes many of the veterans

that i talk to every day in vermont, veterans around the country, and the national veterans' organizations that represent millions of veterans, that once people get into the v.a. system in general, the quality of care is good. and that is not just with veterans and their organizations say that. that's what a number of independent studies show. our problem right now is to figure out a way that when people apply for v.a. health care, they get into the system quickly, and once they're into the system, they get the appointments that they need in a timely manner. that is our job. it's not going to be an easy job but that is the job that we face. madam president, my hope is that tomorrow or on thursday, the united states house and the senate will be voting on a

comprehensive piece of legislation authored by congressman jeff miller, chairman of the house veterans affairs committee, and myself. and i think it's terribly important that we pass that legislation, that we pass that bipartisan legislation with a strong vote in both houses. because that legislation will give the new secretary the tools that he needs to go forward aggressively in addressing many of the problems facing the v.a. i would hope that every member of the house and senate understands that it is unacceptable that veterans of this country are on terribly long waiting lines and cannot get the health care that they need in a timely manner. this legislation that i hope will be passed this week by the house and the senate provides $10 billion for emergency health care so that if a veteran can't get into the v.a., that veteran

will be able to go to a private physician, a community-based outreach -- a community-based -- a community health center, a military base or whatever. but that veteran will be able to get timely care. in addition, that legislation puts $5 billion into the v.a. so that they will be able to hire the doctors, the mental health counselors, the nurses, the other medical personnel that they need so that as soon as possible, when veterans apply for v.a. health care, they will get not only quality care but timely care. in addition to that, this legislation addresses an issue that many veterans around the country, especially in rural areas, are worried about, is that if they live long distances away from the v.a., that they will not have to travel a hundred miles to get the health care that they need, that if they're living 40 miles or more away from a v.a. facility, they will be able to go to a doctor of their choice in that

community. that's an important step forward. and this legislation also will do some terribly important things in making sure that widows, women who have lost their husbands in battle, will be able to take care of -- will be able to get the education that they should be entitled to under the post-9/11 g.i. bill. this legislation deals with an issue passed by the house and that is in-state tuition for veterans who today may not be able to take advantage of the post-9/11 g.i. bill. and this legislation also addresses a very serious crisis within the military today and that is the issue of sexual abuse and -- and providing women and men who have been abused sexually in the military with care at the v.a. so, madam president, we are at a

very important moment in terms of the veterans administration. we have new leadership at the v.a. we will have new leadership at the v.a. after mr. mcdonald is confirmed. we have a piece of legislation, a significant piece of legislation, that will be i hope and expect passed this week to give the new leadership the tools that it needs to start addressing the problems facing our veterans. mr. president, it -- madam president, it seems to me that if this nation stands for anything, it must protect and defend those who have protected and defended us. and when people put their lives on the line and they come back wounded from war, either in body or in spirit, it seems to me

absolutely immoral if we turn our backs on those men as men ad women. and this legislation that we pass this week begins to address those concerns and i hope we will do so under the new leadership that mr. mcdonald will provide. and with that, madam president, i would yield my remaining time to senator brown to hear his comments on the -- this nomination. mr. brown: i thank senator sanders. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i first of all applaud senator sanders for his work on the veterans' conference report that -- i spoke today, i was with the presiding officer of north dakota, at a breakfast today at the air force caucus. and as important as the air force is in north dakota, it's really important at wright patterson air force base in dayton, ohio, outside dayton. and one of the things i talked about at this breakfast was how

proud i was when it looks like the senate does not get as much done as we'd like, what senator sanders and senator mccain especially, with a supporting cast but principally the two of them, were able to negotiate with sometimes reluctant, sometimes erratic house of representatives on some of these issues, that they were able to negotiate a really good veterans' bill that will do primarily three things. one, make those accountable at the v.a. actua actually account. second, would take care of those who've had to wait longer than 30 days for their care in the v. ago,, those veterans that have earned this care. third, we'll scale up the v.a., the most important part, so there will be enough doctors and nurses and therapists, occupational therapists and enough beds and enough capacity at the community centers and at the community-based clinics. the v.a., if you're in the system, you get good care, it's

just too many people haven't been able to get into the system. partly because when we went to war a decade-plus ago, the people that were running the administration in those days in the congress said this war will be short, we don't need to bother with scaling up the v.a. that was shameful, they were dead wrong. unfortunately far too many veterans have paid the price. that's why this legislation is so important. the timing is frot get this reform -- perfect to get this reform at the same time we have an opportunity this week to confirm robert mcdonald. he's from ohio. he ran a company that has more than 100,000 employees. one of the world's biggest, most prestigious consumer companies. he went to west point. he served veterans before. he understands veterans' issues. i've talked with him a number of times, as has chairman sanders, and mr. mcdonald is the soon-to-be i hope -- and ask my colleagues to support him -- mr. mcdonald, as the new secretary will have these new tools because of this conference report that i'm hopeful that we pass this week.

mr. mcdonald understands the importance of v.a. health care, he knows and he said this to me in my office and a couple of of 0 times the times unique mostly to veterans, various kinds of brain trauma, other kinds of treatment. that's why mr. mcdonald makes sense to be secretary of the v.a. that's why this veterans' conference report, this v.a. reform is so very, very important. madam chair, i yield the -- i have ten unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i yield the floor to the -- my distinguished friend from georgia. mr. isakson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i ask unanimous consent to address the senate

for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i want to commend chairman sanders for his leadership. last night at 9:30, i came back to the capitol and executed a conference agreement. and ranking member richard burr worked very hard, pulled together desperate factions to address the needs of our veterans in a bill that will be a tool kit for robert mcdonald who i hope will be unanimously approved as the next secretary of the v.a. under the president's cabinet. i rise to talk about mr. mcdonald. before i do, i want to talk about that conference report. our veterans have been abused in the last 10-12 years because of veterans' medical services that have not performed the services they need to perform for our veterans in america. one of the reasons they did is general shinseki, admiral shinseki who was the former secretary was actually insulate interested a lot of the information going on in his own department by the senior leadership at the v.a. which had become comfortable and passive and not active in terms of the operation of v.a. medical services. the bill that we signed last night that the senate will vote on in the next few days is a

bill that gives mr. mcdonald and the next secretary to come the tools they need to enforce the v.a. and to make it a responsive organization to the 22 million verns, 600 million who use veterans' services, and the 774,000 veterans in my home state of georgia who deserve -- who deserve and demand, if you will, the services they were promised that they went into the united states military. bob mcdonald is an outstanding american. he was president, c.e.o. and chairman of the board of one of the most respected companies in america, procter and gamble. he's the father of two, grandfather of two additional children. he's an outstanding american and his wife dianne is an outstanding lady in support of him in his job at procter and gamble. he is going to need that support now as he heads the v.a. he was a captain of the united states military, graduated from west point. he was trained in airborne warfare, desert warfare and sub temperature warfare, and he is going to need those talents at the v.a. in each and every case

because it's a mess. but the conference committee report that we passed gives him two tools that are essential. it gives him the authority to hire and fire in title 38, and title 5 employees. title 5 employees the senior leadership, title 38 the next step of leadership down which is what the v.a. needs. the v.a. is an organization of 340,000 people, which in the last three years has averaged 3,000 disciplinary actions a year. each of those disciplinary actions meant they were moved from one job to another within the v.a. and did not lose pay. there is no accountability in the v.a. and really has not been. that's why the systemic problems on appointments, veterans' services and everything else going on in the v.a. has not happened. by giving him the authority to hire and fire, he will have the respect and the attention of those who work at the v.a. to understand full well they're going to have to carry out the game plan of this leader. he understands metrics, he understands accountability, he understands leadership and he has taken a job he didn't have to accept, a job he didn't need to have to do at this time in his life but a job he wants to do to give back to the country

he loves and the country he served in the military. i am confident that bob mcdonald will be an outstanding secretary of the veterans administration and i commend him to my fellow senators with my highest recommendation in hopes that he will be approved unanimously, and i yield the floor. mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, i stand today also with high hopes that the new leadership at the v.a. will bring much-needed changes to a department that's clearly, quite frankly, in shambles, failing our nation's veterans. during his committee hearing, the nominee robert mcdonald promised to bring a high level of accountability and transparency to the v.a., two things that are sorely needed. this is extremely important and an agency where under the leadership of the previous secretary would often take months to get answers to routine questions, or in many cases would never get answers at all.

by the end of this week, i'm also hopeful that besides confirming the new secretary, we will send to the president the veterans' access choice and accountability act. this important legislation includes many needed reforms to the v.a., including bringing that accountability to the department and actually providing our nation's veterans with choices about where they can receive care. the bill also, perhaps most importantly for louisiana, finally authorizes much-needed community-based clinics around the country, including two which have been long delayed in louisiana by pure ineptitude and bureaucratic screwups at the v.a. clinics expanded, clinics in lafayette and lake charles. for four years, i have been fighting the washington bureaucracy tooth and nail to get these new, expanded outpatient clinics.

they are vitally important to louisiana veterans who now sometimes have to drive up to four hours to receive services that have been promised to them much closer to their communities. the current clinics in acadian are overcrowded and don't offer the full range of services that these new clinics will. as i said, v.a. ineptitude delayed the clinics in the first place. if it wasn't for their mistakes, these clinics would actually already be built. when they are finally teed up and ready to go, then the congressional budget office made a ridiculous decision that again threw these clinics into limbo because of a scoring issue out of the blue. finally, in december, the u.s. house was able to pass a bill that dealt with these c.b.o. concerns. it passed 346-1. normally when a bill passes with that sort of margin, the senate will quickly pass it by knack

knack. unfortunately, that didn't happen. first, we needed to attach an amendment to address some marginal concerns here. then even after we had done that, even after that received full agreement in the u.s. senate, unfortunately senate democrats led by the chair of the veterans' committee held up the legislation basically as a hostage to try to get a broader v.a. package. i actually have to come down, ask unanimous consent for the house clinics legislation six times on the floor. unfortunately, six times senator sanders denied that unanimous consent. it was only after the v.a. scandal broke that that momentum shifted, and thankfully it looks like we'll finally pass this into law, the clinics legislation along with this important reform bill.

when the authorization occurs, i strongly urge mr. mcdonald and the v.a. to streamline the process, to get these two clinics built as soon as possible, given the long and arduous history of v.a. delays and screwups. the veterans of louisiana have waited patiently, literally for years. these clinics are overdue. let's get on with it. louisiana veterans have had to wait for numerous delays caused by v.a. miss takes. the least the department can do is to make sure these clinics are now built with the utmost haste and efficiency. thank you, madam president. thank you, madam president.

to panels today to give us the status of the talks looking back at what we have learned over the last six months and looking ahead by what might change ultimately gets of a type of deal we are hopeful for. i would like to hear from the of witnesses across the table from the iranians giving the underwhelming concession is achieved today is what you have learned over the last six months that we can reach a comprehensive deal in the next four months.

i think everyone knows where i stand. i have been skeptical of the iranian sincerity from day number one and i cannot say i and many less skeptical today than i was six months ago i do not believe tehran has a change of heart about the nuclear program. if it did i would think that the hold militarization aspect would be a part of something that still has to be negotiated but so that we could define truly the nature of these negotiations so the world is not just suspect was pursuing nuclear weapons but would know it but i do believe they want relief from sanctions that is why there at the table. also we have leverage to use it to get a good deal or no

deal at all. in secretary sherman has on occasions that no deal is better than a bad deal. i hear refrains from the administration if no deal, what? that suggests the fact if you have no deal it is a choice from getting some type of deal or to military action by reject as the choice. there are significant steps in between that is far from that conclusion. i am also concerned when i hear no deal, what? then it implies getting a deal at any cost.

there are those with the disarmament community and editorial pages that suggest those of us to make sure we get a good deal somehow have the pension that i find using it as it relates to myself i was a handful of people that voted in the of war in iraq. as someone from my days in the house of representatives of the house foreign relations committee the irradiance have gotten us to a point that by defying the international community we now except the things we never thought were acceptable. enrichment, it changing facility, not closing it, changing the nature of their plutonium reactor. they have succeeded to move

the us well along the lines of what they wanted to defy the international community including the present president of the iran who has boasted while he was moving that program of law and he keeps the west significantly sanctioning i rinceau my skepticism as well founded. sodium believed an extension with the deal that alters the heading the to dismantle the infrastructure to puts us in place with the of long term regime and calibrates sanctions leading to benchmarks' including a resolution. i want to be very clear i am not looking for the state department's talking points

today i want to hear why our panelists believe based on their experience there is a difference. and to is there view if only they had another four months. let me close by saying what i have always said. i support the administration as diplomatic efforts i have always supported the two track policy and sanctions at the same time i have always believed by only relieved pressure on iraq in exchange for a long term verifiable concessions that fundamentally dismantle the program and any deal restructured as such of way should iran restore is program any time in the next 20 or 30 years. someone to be clear i do not support another extension of

negotiations. then it has exhausted its opportunity to part real concessions on the table and we are prepared to move forward with real sanctions. i'm afford for the senator's remarks. >> that is an excellent opening comment than there has been bipartisan concern where iran is. looking back over our notes we look back at the hearing october 2013 where when d and david both word here. . .

continue to move. i know that david's testimony today has been a good job i think with sanctions. he's going to talk about the relief that iran is getting during the next four month extension but i think all of us

are concerned that the right place though i thinwayso i thins that the international community having come together to put pressure on iran the way that we have is dissipating and it will be very difficult to predict together if we end up in the wrong place. so i will close. i think the chairman and comments speak well for most of the committee and i will close by saying i hope that today you will publicly commit that there will be absolutely no more extensions that are fairly are at the end of the former period there will not be additional expansions. we will come to a final agreement or not. they are interim agreements if you will and second, i hope you will commit as john kerry said there needs to be a congressional buy-in.

it gives congress the ability to weigh in on this final deal. this engines cannot be waived without congress. without the congress weighing in. i believe that acknowledging the congress playing a role in one of the biggest issues that this administration is going to deal with relative to reaching the agreement and relative to nuclear issues i think that congress can be an important and valuable backstop to the administration as they negotiate this because the congress has sent out very strong signals as to what the belief, bu but we believe would be an acceptable arrangement. all of us want to see this kind of success but we are concerned about where we are at this moment. >> for the record your

statements will be a good without objection. summarizing about five minutes or so s so is the so so he can e with you. you. secretary, you are recognized. >> good morning. thank yothank you chairman and distinguished members of the committee. i'm pleased to be here along with the secretary to discuss the status of negotiations related to iran's nuclear program as you have the written statement so i will summarize the key point. mr. chairman and members of our goal was to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. the process in which we are currently engaged was designed to achieve that goal peacefully. we have a basic metric for a good agreement, one that cuts off all of the potential path toward a nuclear weapon. weapon. the plutonium path with a current reactor, the path for the underground facility, the path through the breakout of the

richmond plant and the path that would occur in secret that people deal with fruit intrusive measuremeasures and tied the sas relief to the performance only providing relief to iran after it has taken verifiable steps as a part of an agreement and maintain the capacity to tighten the pressure if iran fails to comply. i cannot tell you today that our diplomacy will succeed because i am not sure that it will. i can tell you that in the past six months, we have made significant and steady progress and exchanged ideas and now we have gaps on key issues and identify areas where were hard work is required. we have had productive discussions which reduced the danger is posed by facilities at iraq. other protocols necessary for transparency and about the disposition of iran stockpiles of enriched uranium. no issues have been neglected

and none have been finally decided because nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and on sun and still have substantial differences including the question of enrichment capacity. as you know mr. chairman there's a limit to how detailed i can be in this open session and still preserve the leverage we need and support that we seek. the bottom line is all of those obstacles do remain the art moving in the right direction. for that reason roughly two weeks ago the parties agreed to extend the deliberations for four additional months. we agreed to this extension because we have seen significant progress in the negotiating room, and because we can see a path forward however difficult to get to the comprehensive plan of action. we will use this time to continue working towards the confidence of plan for ensuring that iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon and its program is exclusively peaceful. i noted that a year ago the

program was growing and becoming more dangerous with each passing day. that is no longer the case. last november in the step of the negotiation we reached consensus on a joint plan of action in return for limited and targeted sanctions relief and iran agreed to fullback elements of its nuclear activities. in fact, they've temporarily blocked each of the paths around that we need to go down to building nuclear weapons. many observers doubted whether they would keep the commitments under the plan. but according to the iaea, iran has done what it promised to do. the result is a nuclear program that is more constrained, more transparent and better understood than it was a year ago. a program that has been frozen for the first time in almost a decade. meanwhile as the under-secretary will make clear the sanctions relief for iran will remain limited to announce that will do

little if nothing to heal the deep-seated economic problems. over the next four months the valuable safeguards that freed the program will remain in place as they strive to negotiate a comprehensive plan. i will be blunt and say that we will never rely on words alone when it comes to iran. we will and have insisted the commitments be monitored and verified in the terms of access and inspection be thoroughly spelled out. the goal is to structure an agreement that would make any attempt to breakout of such an agreement so visible and time-consuming that iran would either be deterred from trying was stopped before it could succeed. speaking more generally, i want to emphasiz emphasize an invasin one issue does not require and will not lead to silence on others. the united states .-full-stop hesitate to express its view and put pressure when it is warranted whether in relation to the governments of the human

rights record in support for terrorism, it's outright hostility towards israel or detention of political prisoners, journalists and citizen's. mr. tran and members of the committee, on this issue we are united in our goal and determined to be not obtain a nuclear weapon. it is only because of the leverage created by the executive and legislative branches of the government by our allies and partners into the u.s. security council that iran has come to the negotiating tabltable and what we believe te a serious way. but we know they are a means not the end and for determining whether the end can be achieved through a diplomatic process. that effort is worthwhile because a positive outcome would be preferable to any alternati alternative. a comprehensive agreement with ease anxiety and enhance stability in the middle east. it would reduce the likelihood of an arms race and eliminate the potential threat of nuclear blackmail and contribute to the

security of israel and our partners in the region and make our own citizens safer between now and at the end of november we will continue our pursuit of these ends and it is with those high purposes in mind that i respectfully think you and ask you again for your support. thank you for the opportunity to be here. i will be pleased to respond to every question and be as specific and detailed as i possibly can in this open session. thank you. >> secretary? spinnaker charan, ranking member corker, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for your invitation to appear before you today along with my colleague the under-secretary to discuss the extended joint plan of action. i will focus my testimony this morning on our efforts to maintain pressure on iran to help achieve a successful outcome in the negotiations on its nuclear program and the ever mounting pressure iran will continue to face during the

extended joint plan of action period. as the p5 plus one seeks a comprehensive long-term resolution to the international community concerns over the program. when we announced the planned tn n-november wplannednovember we t expect the package to approve the economy, and it hasn't. the depth of the economic distress that resulted in large measure from the collaborative efforts of congress, the administration and international partners to the limited release in the joint plan of action, and so today as we start to implement the extended, iran remains in a deep economic hole. the value of iran's currency has declined by about 7% since the jpoa was announced and iran has lost $120 billion in oil revenue and $20 billion of revenue in the first six months of the jpoa

and stands to lose an additional $15 billion in oil revenue during the next four months alone. iran's economy today is 25% smaller than it would have been had it remained on its pre- 2011 growth trajectory. when we entered in some predicted the regime would crumble and some also argued that the economy would rebound dramatically. neither occurred. the fact is as we enter the extension of the joint plan of action, the sanction regime remains robust and of the economy continues to struggle. we remain confident that the sanctions will continue to fight and the economy will remain under great stress. the three to $4 billion worth of relief the extended joint plan of action may provide iran pales in comparison to what iran needs to dig itself out of its economic hole and we expect

firms will continue to shun iran as was the case in the joint plan of action. firms have good reason to remain reluctant about doing business in iran. the overwhelming majority of the sanctions remain in place. iran continues to be cut off from the international financial system and is unable to attract foreign investments. iran is still shut out of the united states, the largest most vibrant economy and precluded from transacting in the dollar. dollar. they're sweeping the theft of nearly 680 designations developed in concert with partners around the world remains in place. throughout the jpoa period we have also vigorously enforce our sanctions recognizing that a central role that financial pressure played in the lead up to and now during the joint plan of action and how important maintaining the pressure will continue to be during this extended joint plan of action

period. since the plan was negotiated with having opposed the sanction of the entities and individuals around the world for the u.s. sanctions against iran getting the nuclear proliferation and supporting terrorism and for abusing human rights. throughout the short-term extension of the joint plan, i can assure you that we will continue to make certain through the word and the need to banks, businesses, brokers and others around the world understand that iran is not open for business and will not be unless and until it assures the international community of the exclusively peaceful nature of its program. while this extension will provide additional time and space for negotiations to proceed, it will not change the basic fact that the sanctions and induced economic distress has not receded. over the next four months my colleagues and i in treasury and in the administration will continue to echo president

obama's message that we will come down like a ton of bricks on those that seek to evade our sanctions. that will provide the leverage as we explore the possibility of a comprehensive and long-term resolution to the international community concerns of iran's nuclear program. i'm happy to respond to any questions the committee may ha have. i have a question for you madame secretary about the detentions of the "washington post" correspondent who i understand is a dual citizenship including the citizen of the united states and his wife who arrested in the home last tuesday. since the arrest, no one has heard from them and the u.s. citizens working as freelance photographers are also being held and to my knowledge there

have been no charges into the detainees apparently have no access to legal counsel. can you tell me what you're we e doing in this regard? >> it is a great concern to all of us as it is the continued detention of the pastor and our concerns about robert ivins and who has been missing for a very long time and we believe we have in fact used our appropriate channels to make it known our concern about this attention of american journalists and his wife and the additional photojournalist. there is no reason for this to occur. i read the interest of the "washington post" editorial of which i entirely agree we are a country that believes in the recipe -- press freedom.

he called on iran to release all of the people including the pastor and to help us in every way possible to return robert levin sent home as well. thank you for raising this and we will use every channel that we have, mr. chairman and to continue to bring -- >> i am concerned when u.s. citizens are detained by the iranian government. and in the case of the report it seemed rather i won't say favorable but certainly balanced in his reporting how was it that they detained u.s. citizens for what it' is for all of care and services nothing of any great consequence is? i don't get it. i don't get to the ayatollah talking about centrifuges in the time that we are trying to

reduce the number of centrifuges even if they didn't have a time specific 190,000 centrifuges beyond the pale of what we need. i hope that we are going to pursue this with the iranians and i hope they understand very quickly that actions like these undermine whatever negotiating policy they have at the table. with the ascii with reference to something that i think should have been a condition precedent. i think that you and i have discussed this but it is a concern to me which is the possible military detentions of the program. i don't look at this as to understand the path to see what to see. i look at it as a measurement for the future. if you do not know what iran's military program was coming you don't know to what point they progress that will cause us concern that they are at the

point may be further along than anyone suspects in a short jump to its being able to militarize the nuclear program for the nuclear weapons. and i think the world would have looked at these negotiations in a totally different way if that had been established up front. my understanding of the public reports is that they are incredibly reticent to come clean on this issue. so, what options are on the table for addressing the possible military dimensions in iran's program? and will you insist? i don't think that this is giving away a negotiating posture on access to persons, places and documents for the iaea to make this determination. >> thandetermination. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. we absolutely agree that the possible of the three dimensions must be addressed as part of a

comprehensive agreement. as you know the atomic energy agency has a protocol under way to do that. it's been very difficult. iran has been reluctant to come forward with that kind of information about people, places and documents. documents. >> didn't they say they are missing a deadline? >> there is a deadline coming up for some of the considerations. we have been in close touch with the director general because dealing in the convenience of agreement we want to make sure we don't undermine the independence of the iaea but rather use the negotiations of leverage to get the compliance required by to let the same time insuring that they can do its job and that we don't interfere with that given their independence. that said, i quite agree with you. if there is not access to what the iaea ea needs to have about

its past, it is difficult to know that you will have compliance about iran's future. how this would ultimately get resolved, we've had quite a bit of discussion about. we haven't reached a resolution on this issue. it's a very serious issue and it must be resolved as part of a negotiation. >> let me ask you with reference to assuming a good deal that we could all embrace what's going to be critical after 20 years of deception is the monitoring and verification regime which is why i call for long-term inspections and verification regimes. some call that a suggestion of a deal and i don't quite get it. it seems if you deceive for 20 years in advance to the point that we are now accepting a level of enrichment that we accept that was supposed to be closed and we were told that iraq was going to be dismantled

by them or by us and now we are accepting all these things that the monitoring is important, not a dealbreaker but a dealmaker. with monitoring and verification measures beyond the additional iaea protocols are seeking in the final agreement in type of a verification measure is being considered to hold the procurement of the key proliferation sensitive goods as well ask >> thank you mr. chairman. transparency and monitoring is critical to any agreement. as i said, and of the pathways of concern is of course covert action and transparency and monitoring are v. elements that help ensure that if there is a covert program one does to stop it from happening in the first place. the fact we can have access to the centrifuge production and

uranium mills gives the intelligence community and experts that kind of information that allow us to know whether something is being sent over to some other place and isn't in the pipeline as it is required to be inspected. to succumb in addition to the modified 3.1 in the additional protocol which are critical to the contents of agreement, and i believe iran understands that on each of the measures that will be agreed to people decide whether they had additional element of transparency is monitoring and needed over the entire duration of the agreement and the duration of the agreement that we agree with you ought to be quite a long time given how many years of concern have been raised by the international community. so, in some cases, there will be access to the sites. in some cases there will be other technical means of the verification. but, we will go element by

element and make sure that there is in fact a specific monitoring and verification measure that matches up with the bad. >> let me ask a specific question i asked before and then turned to senator corker. persons, places and documents. is it not a reasonable expectation to have the verification both of the possible military dimensions are prospectively for three years before we found the underground facility i don't know that file the agreed to something that allowed them to do the capacity it would be too late? >> we will do whatever is required for verification. they have required persons, places and documents. i think they see the places and documents as the most important because they want to go and have direct access and look for themselves. a person's issue as i think you know is an issue for iran but it

is one in the table that is of a great concern and that is to be very blunt and open about it it is if you need individuals that those individuals might find that their lives are quite sho short. >> the individuals and facilities would guarantee that their lives would be extended. >> i agree. >> is the administration in agreement that november 24 is the end of these negotiations and there will be no more extensions that we either reach an agreement by that date or this negotiation is over? >> senator, i've learned in negotiations that it is very difficult to see what will happen at the end of any given period of time. if you ask me where we would be at the end of this six month but

has stressed preceded it, it would have been harder to predict that we are exactly where we are today. our intent is absolutely to end this on november 24 in 1 direction or another. but what i can say to you is we will consult the congress along the way. i greatly appreciate that the congress has permitted classified briefings during the negotiation to maintain whatever leverage we have and we will continue those classified conversations. and when november 2 24th comes with every decision we make will be a joint one with the united states congress. >> and you understand the concerns? >> i do. we made a very conscious decision not to go for six month extension which was possible under we thought that we would just get to month number five before anything would happen. so we were concerned about talking for talking sake as you

are. >> and the regime as the chairman and he alluded to and many others have alluded to, have the inspection and period is something short of 20 years or so, we've really not done much right? if this agreement doesn't last for a long line we have dissipated all of our leverage for something that doesn't matter. what is the minimum length of time that is being discussed for an agreement of this type? >> and the duration should be double-digit and we believe that it should be for quite a long time. i'm not going to put a specific number on the table because that is a subject of the very sensitive negotiations but i'm happy to discuss that with you. >> i think you understand the concerns we have to something that isn't very long-term. >> and we share that. >> are they agreeing to all of

the obligations? spinnaker they have verified which is more important in my judgment. >> in one of the areas we have disputed and we talked about it back and forth is they agreed there was an agreement they were not going to export more than 1 million barrels per day. they are above that number significantly, and i guess i just ask if they are significantly above the number they've agreed to howard e. in agreement? we believe they are 1.4 million. i think you all can verify that to be true so how are they an agreement? >> i talked with our experts yesterday and imagined that it would get asked today and it is our assessment having most of the data not having the last 20 days of july that we will be in the range of 1.1 billion barrels per day which is what in fact we

had said would be the aggregate amount. some of the public data that is published includes two elements that are not a part of that assessment. for those countries that are still allowed to import the ordeal at the aggregate amount at which they were at the time that does not include some of the public data pushes up the number and some of the public data includes the loyal that is headed to syria and that pushes up the number and iran gets money directly from the oil so they get no economic benefit is that if you take out -- >> we are at about 1.1. >> i think for what it's worth, the subtraction -- i forgot what

they called the new math when i was a young man but it's a very creative way of not counting all of their exports come and we disagree strongly with those numbers. but think about what you just said. they are shipping label to his -- to syria. they are working against us in that regard, and you don't count that as an export. i just find that to be -- and >> of the do have other sanctions through other channels of the export. we do take advertisement actions on that. >> secretary terry said on april 8 the administration is obligated to come back to congress for any relief of the statutorily imposed sanctions on iran and in the agreement they

have to pass muster with congress. can you confirm that is the case and will you come to the congress prior to any relief associated with a comprehensive agreement? not, why not? >> senator, we believe strongly that any lifting of sanctions will require congressional legislative action. >> i heard you talk about the war it is tough to result. resolve. i want you to clearly state to me will you or will you not come to congress before lifting there is a way of contemporary wave, escaped down the road in no way will you let any kind of release on iran, period after the next agreement isn't reached were not reached after coming to congress. >> we cannot left any sanctions without congressional action.

we can suspend or wave under the current legislation. we will not do so without conversations in congress. if you are asking the senator, whether we are going to come to congress for legislative action to affirm a comprehensive agreement, we be leave as other administrations do that the executive branch has the authority to take such executive action on this kind of a political understanding that might be reached with iran. >> i want to go back to what you are saying. you can't our representatives tolhad your representativestolde agreement. i want to go back and you told me you didn't have to come back

to congress and i would like to find a way that you do. it's been unsuccessful so far. but on the waiting and suspending of any kind of thing should because you have the right to do that use a you will have a conversation. again, the conversations have been this is what we are going to do. and that is a very unsatisfactory place for us to be. you are telling us what you're going to do. >> the united states congress and the senate has oversight authority, has legislative authority. you are free to decide what action you think is appropriate for any executive branch decision by any administration and i understand those prerogatives quite quickly and i will commit to you you will not be surprised by reading in the newspapers decisions or judgme

judgment. >> i know my time is up and i think the world understands the disease euro commitment. it's not in keeping with what secretary kerry said on april 8. and i know they keep moving and i think that you can continue this hearing as evidence of why so many of us have the concerns we have ended and we wish you well. >> both of the individuals that are with us for your continuing to service to the country these are extremely challenging issu issues. going back to the start of the negotiations for the original agreement i think we got off to a rough start in congress and

the administration. and i think it caused more division band was in the best interest of the country. i wanted to thank you and acknowledge that particularly in recent months the cooperation between the administration and congress has gotten stronger. the openness of the briefings i think have been of higher quality and we thank you for that and being put. i did the administratio had thes done a commendable job keeping our partners together in unity despite the challenges of international events. i think we have made a lot of progress and i just want to acknowledge that. i couldn't agree with you more that the objective of the visible mobility assuming we have an agreement, but the visible mobility to determine if

that agreement is not being adhered to and as you point out, the ability that it would take time consuming to get back to the ability to produce a nuclear weapon that's certainly the goal and i think we all acknowledge that a bad agreement is worse than no agreement at all and the language we have been using has been clear about that and that if there is a failure here it will be tougher sanctions and tighter isolations. i just really want to follow-upp on one of senator corker's pointing to that is november 24 wouldn't be the end of the process because if i understand you are successful congress and the administration have to work together and it does end and the process of november 24 of sanctions aren't going to be removed at one time. there is going to be a transition to your code that will require them to be on the

same page. i would encourage you to use the same process that you've used during the last few months which i think has been a much healthier process between the two branches of government to share the same objective. i hope that you will continue to do that. i want to trust talk about the one part of your statement that you mentioned and that is we've also put pressure on iran when it is warranted whether it is a relationship of the human rights records to support terrorism or hostility towards israel or its detention of political prisoners. and this is going to be a lengthy process and of course we are focused on an extremely important priority for the united states, and that is a non- nuclear weapon iran but at the same time, they are doing other issues that are

problematic to the relationship of the united states and we have to use every tool that we can do detour them and put a spotlight on the things they are doing. you say you won't be silent and i assume that means more than just words and we will take action and other areas and nothing would compromise our ability to speak out about these other issues that are critically important to the united states. >> i couldn't agree more. when it comes to the sanctions on terrorism and on human rights, they will continue in place and we have been quite clear with iran that if we get to a comprehensive agreement there might be a suspension and then ultimately after a period of time and after verification by the iaea in a variety of benchmarks after perhaps lifting

that when it comes to the sanctions regarding the human rights they would stay in place. it is quite concerning the actions they take in the arenas that you just mentioned, human rights, and stability - and as e chairman said, who can imagine detaining a journalist hopes the negotiation? in the past i know it's been in the news as of late although hamas creates many of its own rockets of these days a lot of the original supplies came from iran so that security is not only tied to this nuclear agreement but also to the rain of rockets that are coming down today so all of these areas we need to continue to have the endorsement of the existing shank--sanctions and continue to

condemn these actions and insist that they stop. >> and i might point out that at the end of the day we must be together on this. it is like the preferred practice to use the authority that you have rather than changing the law in the event that we have to act quickly if there are problems in the compliance rather than having to wait for the congress to pay the new law in getting back to the administration so i would point out there are advantages that are used at the end of the day that i would agree completely with senator corker and i think senator kerry it is critically important that we are together on this at the end of the day and i hope that -- and i know that you would agree we have to take sure that occurs. i want to ask you one question about the challenges you might be having today considering that europe and the united states are

working for sanctions against russia and with regards to iran does that caused colleges for you? i hope that you are able to have more than one relationship at a time and this committee has been on record strongly supporting additional sanctions with regards to those against ukraine. but is that affecting our ability to speak out as a unified voice in regards to ir iran? to staciran? stack the answer is not in the least. the efforts to address the destabilizing activities in ukraine and its invasion of the sovereignty have not been impeded one iota by the very important work secretary sherman and the team have been undertaking in vienna. we have been pursuing a powerful

calibrated strategy to impose pressure with its activities in eastern ukraine and we have been working very closely with our counterparts in europe and elsewhere to coordinate these actions and i think there've been press reports in the last 24 hours or so of it is of additional sanctions to come that we have not encountered a difficulty in terms of working with our partners or ourselves to impose pressure on russia in relation to the activities in ukraine. >> thank you mr. chairman. i haven't had the years of experience as the chairman has come about the chair was talking about moving the goalpost and i have experience in the negotiation and certainly when i sit down to negotiate, i want to know and have an understanding

of both my goal is and i would like to understand what the goal of the party is that i'm negotiating with. so, my understanding is the goal of the community in the united states has this all began was well expressed in the united nations resolutions. can you state what that was? >> there have been more than one a security council resolution regarding nuclear program to ensure that iran cannot obtain and that its program is exclusively peaceful. >> "-begin-double-quote those resolutions also wasn't the go goal. it enriches that they suspend the enrichment until there is

assurance on behalf of the international community that the program is entirely peaceful. it's that we can resume. the preferences that iran don't have enrichment programs and that remains the case every negotiation i remind them that is the case. they can get anything they need on the open market. they don't need an indigenous program. at the end of the comprehensive agreement there is potential for a limited enrichment program that updates t the date for practical specific date on the mechanisms verification.

there is no reason to have enrichment correct? >> that is true in every country in the world that do have indigenous programs into some of our closest allies in fact i want to get back to the motivation of iran. they suffered in terms of economics and they will continue to enrich what would solve this problem to stop.

let's look at a peaceful nuclear program. but the show clarity in what the objective is. >> senator if we all were not concerned about iran wanted to obtain a nuclear weapon we wouldn't be in these negotiations. they would then have been going on for some time. up until 2003, the united states and a public intelligence estimate said in the pdb that iran had been attempting to get a nuclear weapon. the intelligence community's assessment which they can discuss further is that after 2003 for that particular program ended but of course we have that concern. >> why do we continue to pretend publicly that iran will enter

and agreement where it will be a peaceful program that will be exclusively peaceful as long as they can enrich their doing it because they want the threat of being able to weaponize their program correct? play not t be clear about what e motivations are quick >> i don't think that we dilute ourselves at all. as i said what they are trying to do is cut off every pathway to a nuclear weapon, to cut off the pathway through plutonium in the current reactor, to cut off the pathway of the highly enriched uranium through and to cut off the pathway to the covert program by using intrinsic monitoring inspections of this is not about trust. this is not about being some have a lucia and some kind of evolution about them. this is about verification. this is about monitoring and ushered into the international community and about inspections

so this is not about trust, senator. >> in the negotiation you want to maintain leverage. now i will stipulate that secretary there is still pressure from the standpoint of not as much but also just the fact that we agreed to be enrichment program also gave up enough on the negotiating defended? >> senator, we made a judgment, ththe president of the united states made a judgment that we could say that there was a possibility for a very limited program mutually agreed under strict limitations with monitoring for a long period of time to impact to deal with the concerns about iran's nuclear program. as a result and that ability on

the table brought about the joint plan of action. that joint plan of action has ensured -- >> let me ask my final question, and i will say if this fails on november 24, but then? >> i think we will have very serious decisions to make and we will have consulted with you all a long way. a lot of that in closed sessions so that i can provide a great deal of detail to you and we will decide what judgments we need to make. there is no question. we said that if iran will not reach an agreement that cuts off all of the pathways to the nuclear weapon and that gives the assurance that we are looking for then we will step up to additional sanctions and to consider all of the options which the president of the

united states remains on the table. >> wouldn't it be smart to declare what happened in the negotiating leverage so that they get more serious as opposed to the serious decisions are even worse they be serious consequences? a >> in our negotiations with iran, we are quite correct about what will happen and what could happen if we cannot reach a comprehensive agreement. they have no doubt about the united states results. absolutely none. >> thank you for being here today and for your efforts to reach a comprehensive agreement with iran. you talked about the economy and shortly thereafter there were a number of publications in various countries many of our allies that went through iran to iso talk to them about prospects

for business either in the interim or after a deal was reached and i wonder if you can talk about what we know about those discussions and whether we are still seeing the number of delegations continuing to go to iran. >> we are not seen in the delegations going to iran in the initial days after the joint plan of action was reached. at that time the partners around the world and others talked if it moves into deals that cross the sanctions lines that people take action and we did take a series of actions in the joint plan of action to make it very clear this wasn't just an idle threat that we were serious about continuing to enforce the

vast sanction architecture that remains in place. >> cacan you delineate a couplef dozen details of that we have an idea of exactly what was done x. >> in response to the delegation -. >> we didn't think this was a great time to be engaged even in the conversations. many of these delegations were from private businesses and not government sponsored and the way that we convey the message to those with both public messaging as well as the sanctions designations. i don't think anyone was confused that we were going to sit back and allow the sanctions to occur in the joint plan of action without responding.

>> if we don't reach a deal with iran to what extent do we expect our allies and other partners that have been enforcing the regime to continue to be willing to comply with that effort? to make it difficult to predict the future and exactly how this would play out. but i don't have any doubt on the two scores. one if we do not reach a deal we will continue to enforce the sanctions vigorously and truth of the matter is because of the significance of the u.s. economies and financial systems and sanctions if there isn't a deal the sanctions pressure on iran will be maintained and intensified to the actions of the u.s. alone. i'm also sure that we can continue to rally the international community to the

objective that people have subscribed to, which is we are all working together to try to achieve a resolution to the concerns of the nuclear program and there was a complete by the end to the notion that this dual track approach on the one hand with the opportunity to negotiate and we will be able with necessary to regenerate that effort. >> i certainly agree we are committed to seeing those sanctions. i just am concerned about where the rest of the international community is particularly europe and turkey into some of our other allies. >> what i can say is that in the run-up to the negotiations we were quite successful in persuading the reluctant allies to the wisdom of the approach, and if we are not able to reach

an agreement, i think the utility of the sanctions approach and the opportunity to negotiate will begin to be persuasive to the partners around the world particularly compared to the alternative of iran developing a nuclear weap weapon. we will have work to do but i am optimistic that we will be able to if necessary bring together the international community to impose significant pressure on iran if that's what is necessary. >> are we seeing you refer to the russia ukraine situation and respond to that but are we seeing any fallout from what's happening in israel were also what's happening in iraq having an impact on the negotiations?

>> we have not to date. i can't say that it won't in the future but so far all of our negotiating partners have been very focused on what's happening in the negotiation room, and it's not to say that on the margins. since discussion of ukraine, iraq or when we go back together what's happening horrifically in gaza or most importantly to the israel security. but so far everyone has stayed very focused on what's happening in the negotiating room. >> you talked about monitoring and continued inspections. what other metrics are we looking at in determining whether this is going to be a good deal for us or not. hispanic as they mentioned, senator, the metric is whether

we have cut off every possible pathway to a nuclear weapon and whether there is assurance that it is exclusively peaceful. have we cut off a plutonium pathway there are two pathways to the material for nuclear weapons. weapons. one is coming in and what is highly enriched uranium. so in the uranium boat and iraq and about having them come and then third whether in fact we have cut off the pathway to the covert program there is no way in any country to 100% guarantee that there will be no covert effort but what you can do is have enough intrusive mechanisms to assure yourself that there is a covert program you are going to know about it in time. >> thank you mr. chairman. in the terms previously i had

urged that you do something about getting pas custody of thr two americans released. as you know, i was incredibly critical of you because you cut billions lives without demanding this tiny little thing as far as iran is concerned. i want to ratchet that up a little bit. you did it again. you cut billions lives without getting them released. do me a favor. do america a favor. tell them next time you're not going to give them any more money unless they keep them loose. i can almost guarantee they are going to do that. you are talking about billions of dollars and about three people that we really, really need out of prisons in iran. try it and see what happens. i'm willing to bet you they are going to cut them loose in return for the money that you have available to give them.

i want to move to the -- from that to talk about sanctions. there are a lot of us who were pretty critical about the temporary and partial relief from sanctions, and we have lots of concerns about it and those concerns have not gone away. you made a statement i found very interesting. no problem that sanctions alone will be able to do what we need to do to impose the difficulty. with all due respect i think that is incredibly naïve. if they come up to the indians and chinese and russians and turks they will do fine regardless of the factors u.s. sanctions. and i don't know how you are going to get the genie back in the bottle.

i can't imagine what that conversation is going to be like between president obama and mr. putin regarding putting those sanctions back on. i hope this does not fail and that you are incredibly successful and that in november they say we've changed our ways and we are going to be good people and we are not going to pursue these things. i hope you get there but given the history that we've got with this country i have reservatio reservations. i wish you well but i think you need to think more deeply about how you're going to put that genie back in the bottle. ..

>> we also called for full array and disclosure on the nuclear program and enforcement mechanisms and i am convinced if there is success with negotiations in november or after that we

imposition of the next page we will be in a very difficult period where over many years we have to sustain sanctions with the intrusive inspection regime to keep our allies engaged over five or 10 or 20 years the temptation to cheat given their history or destabilizing efforts will be very strong. secretary kerry recently spoke to find a different purpose that could be used for a nuclear weapon in purpose. could you explain it could have for a facility in that location? >> i will say as much as i can in this session. this is an agreement that the only enrichment facility

if there is one at all. and under discussion is there are several ideas put on the table. some of them we could agree to. said is the subject of negotiation and to tell you what those options are. >> under the additional protocol what progress has been made with iaea or assurances iaea has the funding and thus get -- and the staff to carry out over the long haul is intrusive reliable inspections and had they been denied access? >> the iaea just issued a report recently that iran

had complied with all obligations that iaea had all the access the past four and could verify that the obligations had been met. indeed when the j.p. 0a was finalizing close consultation with iaea to meet those additional obligations the community came forth quite quickly to supply all the money that was needed in fact, if we are able to get the comprehensive agreement and i am not sure if we will or not i am sure the iaea will need additional resources for the international community to come forward because any additional budget the iaea needs is small potatoes compared to the cost of iran having a nuclear weapons. >> i suspect you could sign

me a buzz enthusiastic with that regime possible with that iaea distrusted and verify given the past and current unlikely future activities like cheating on the nuclear efforts in the past we should invest heavily into a proactive inspection regime. undersecretary:that turns to a subject when you testified before the of british services subcommittee i asked about the burdens facing your group within treasury. the number of sanctions programs expanded from 17 through 40 with even more recent developments with the complexity that we are taking on against russia the

course the largest is against iran and i want to commend you to make this possible. i asked if you need resources you said the budget request was fully sufficient we advocated for additional resources but d you currently have the resources and the staff that you need? i it really concerned we will have great difficulty to keep together the sanctions regime over the long haul with the temporary belief after the interim agreement you have done a great job so far with those allies at the table don't you need more resources to

do this? >> let me express my appreciation of the folks that treasury for your support. it is noted how much you appreciate and supports our work. we do have sufficient resources that we not in this alone rework very closely with the state department and with respect to iran or russia the sanctions programs is the inter agency efforts to have the lead and enforcement of these programs that we draw of the resources to do this. we are stretched.

the last time we spoke with knowledge people are working flat out to and they are. but we do think we have the resources we need to ensure the programs are effectively implemented and will continue to do that. >> i would like to see we have invested everything we can the you're not here in one year to explain the sanction regime became unglued because we did not invest enough for the iaea inspections failed to catch the cheating because we did not invest i feel we will have tougher sanctions and want to make sure we have the skills and resources to do that. >> thank you for holding this hearing and for the work you do. but my opinion is this is a

disaster not just an embarrassing diplomatic failure by the national security failure in my opinion. examine going into the negotiation with the goals were and ours are transparent to prevent a nuclear arms to iran why we had sanctions with the hopes they would say we would walk away and prove to the world we have changed our behavior and try to become a responsible member of the community. and i said this in the past i believe that you believe they went into this negotiation with a simple goal to achieve the maximum allowed to of sanctions relief without agreeing to any irreversible concessions with their nuclear program. but what we gave up to get a joint plan of action we agree they now have a right

to enrich headed the level. we will always argue we can pull that back the we have walked away from multiple resolutions that have implicitly agreed iran has the right to enrich that is a baseline for any negotiation moving forward they have the inherit -- inherent right and they have enjoyed real relief not just the direct sanctions but the in direct relief the increase of consumer confidence. third is stopped momentum there was real international momentum that brought them to the table the it has been stopped in its tracks. it has now made it more difficult to reimpose sanctions for the future to say you violated this the task of doing that is now more difficult. and we have left completely

untouched and let me explain if you're watching at home with that missile program is about their developing a long-range rocket to reach the united states and other places and that is what they are headed towards. that is to put a nuclear warhead. there is no nation on earth that uses terrorism more than they do. so let's back up to look at iran point of view. they have achieved the acknowledge right to enrich and stop the sanctions make future sanctions even harder. they're not concerned about carrying out any military action. i know we hear this talk this is contingent upon

other things but in a nuclear weapon in program has three critical components enrichment, a weapons station and delivery. we have now given a big knowledge right on weapon is station that has been outsourced said iaea said there over the having trouble getting into the sites they wanted even show us what they did in the past and the missiles are not touched but if you do reach a deal if they violate any component to find a violation and punishment. and the finding of that we deal with the government that has a secret program. you thank you have inspectors crawling all over the place? hopefully the the world is distracted by another crisis on the planet and a rope and

a dope on the inspection. when we tell you how hard the separatist russians shot down a commercial airplane killed almost 300 is and civilians we had to drag our allies kicking and screaming to do if sanctions just a little bit more. >> the danger is quite frank we will wake up one day with this administration is long gone with the future administration or president and realize they had a secret weaponization program all along they just now have to flip the switch with a long-range weapon they can arm there are nuclear power and at that point what do we have? the country that has spread their influence to asymmetrically attacks those

who seek sanctions against them the regime that fell apart and is impossible to put together with europeans and others invested in their economy and will have a nuclear weapon think of north korea but motivated by radical islamic beliefs with the capability to hit major u.s. cities not to mention the allies in europe and israel. by the way all those rockets landed in israel? where did they come from? every and. we all hope and wish this will work out but there are very few that thing get well and i hope we are wrong. and if anyone criticizes the deal as a warmonger we just want to go to war but here's what i don't want to seattle like to see is all into a situation where it is no longer an option. war is a terrible and horrible thing the only thing worse is a nuclear

weapon. i hope i am wrong but i don't believe that i am and i fear mr. chairman someday soon they will do in north korea on us. and there is very few or the little we can do about it. mr. chairman. >> would you allow me 30 seconds to make a statement? i have to go. it has become obvious to me today that with every aspect it is a treaty being considered and i believe it requires advice and consent of the united states senate and i hope we move forward with legislation that would require that. thank you.

spending aphakia for holding this hearing. i don't have questions because my staff had spoken while i was that another hearing. but i have to say some of the language digester heard bringsptxtñ&í

the benefit of our kids and in the interest of our allies. like this -- israel. and our language should reflect although we are very skeptical we are supportive of this opportunity. is real security is threatening us, so many fronts through the tunnels and what we know about we

also know the rise in syria as a terrible threat as the world moves in the direction to focus our attention i don't think it should be lost. i know how hard our negotiators have been working and i know it is tough is incredible and complex why we have another extension. i want to be on the record those that have the preferred outcome with sanctions we have lots of time to do that. it with that strategic partnership act that should

not be burdened by incredibly sensitive complicated narrative and i want to be clear and i have said any final agreement has to be airtight and verifiable and long-lasting we cannot accept anything less because we cannot trust the rand. we know that if they walk away from negotiating table with is a sad day for them also because we will all come together with the robust response and includes some immediate restoration of any suspended sanctions on iran the that would go further to make it clear that all options have to be all on the table.

so the next four months are critical to help them pray they would result in the a agreement that is acceptable that brings a peaceful end to nuclear program. we could lead it pass us by is worth a chance. we see how easy it is to go to war. that is all over the globe. and in six or 10 cases go to war america. we need to resolve the issues anwr is a last resort not the first is an opportunity that we have. i do not want to gloss over

how hard it is a share to 50/50% but then to go the right way. but it is important to keep congress informed and the complaints are legitimate. we know there are details q are working 24/7 but with the kind of government we have been here in this together and it used to be stopped at the water's edge but it isn't that way for whatever reason. that means more important you let us know every twist and turn because at the end of the day there isn't anybody to turn away from a

solid verifiable agreement at the end of the day any of us that can i use the tools of our disposal so how important for you to keep us informed. think you. >> i appreciate this hearing and testimony this is an opportunity and may not bear fruit but it is incumbent to do test to do so but i just want to clarify a couple of numbers with the amount of sanction relief that was taken advantage of the three or $4 billion figure is that expected with the jpoa war what they have realized so

far? will initially it was eight or 9 billion tell us how much they have taken advantage of over the next couple of months. >> that figure that i referenced is the top end estimates what it's iran may enjoy over the next four months comprised of the 2.a million dollars with its own restricted assets and then some of figures for additional sales and auto imports which we estimate will be about $500 million altogether so that low estimate precisely how iran can take advantage of that

suspension of the sanctions we see how it turns out. the initial jpoa period the estimate going in was that iran would have $67 billion as a maximum relief that estimate was actually overstated the best figures that iran enjoyed a little over $5 billion worth from that period with no relief on the petro chemical suspension because it is difficult to take advantage that the one key fact is that it cannot be saved to have petrochemical sales it is difficult to find

financial institutions to do that work but iran is at the table because of the effectiveness of the sanction is largely because it is the reverse is the west versus just the u.s.. it is important to keep the allies on board. do you have a concern mrs. sherman that to not extend your continue these negotiations they may cut their own deal or move on without us? >> i wrote down which is exactly our point we would not proceed if we didn't think there was significant progress but having seen

some progress heading in the right direction with the possibility of a comprehensive agreement, we thought it was critical to take diplomacy to the last possible point to get that agreement because the international community united in the enforcement of sanctions our partners are those who are not saw that we would cut it short but then those sanctions enforcement would have frayed more quickly. we have no guarantees we would have a harder time i

am concerned with those sanctions for a with the unilateral sanctions to keep the community together to explore diplomacy as much as making and. with the ability of u.s. to deliver what members of congress have said will the administration come back for statutory relief would is the mechanism if it is reached? >> i can assure every member

of the united states senate and of the house of representatives that congress is a constant topic of conversation by the iranians. they are well aware not only in terms of oversight or legislation but we have been clear initially there is only suspension of our sanctions regime and the international community to lift the sanctions we must return to congress will only come when certain benchmarks reached because this has to be the agreement and only if the united states congress and governments believe the compliance is real and sustainable over a period of

time. >> if the agreement is reached it is verifiable we will follow through i hope they also understand if we don't reach the agreement fits existing sanctions will be enforced and additional ones added ambles sides need to be interested. >> in the course of the joint plan of action we have committed to use certain sanctions as well as in good faith to fill our commitments on the release side to take seriously what we have committed to so the iranians can understand there is potential light at the end of the tunnel with the steps necessary so we have been working hard on both sides of the coin.

>> embassador sherman with those nonproliferation experts in the middle east it is critical if it succeeds to prevent iran from developing a weapon but even under the final agreement it has the capability i am concerned it could still raise fears in the region to prop up the states with there contingency plans in their posture will saudi arabia and jordan are looking to agreements with united states had we convince them not to a demand to enrich uranium