the reimposition of nuclear sanctions is if they comply with the nuclear agreement, has a very different character than if they don't comply. right now they've agreed to take >> we have a host of very powerful s sanctions. we have tools -- >> we're running out of time, just to follow up on that. if congress was to pass an extension, obviously the waiver would still be in place would the president veto that legislation? >> i think this is not the appropriate time to extend a law before we even had the implementation period begin on t this agreement. >> do you think that makes that weaker or stronger? >> that's what i was try to go get.ke

>> a snap back without the sanctions in place? >> it would be very powerful with or without it.

>> the embargo. >> you're right. >> i can read you. >> no, no. >> wet, have separate resolutions and we have separate regimes that applyth to them, for instance is a very powerful instrument. >> with united nations language,

do you believe israel is safer eight years with the embargo lifted than it is today? >> there's no question in my mind. with the ability to put all other siendz of sanctions in place, u.n. resolutions apply to missiles and other things. >> do you believe prime minister netanyahu is highly critical of this deal and knows what he is talking about. >> i respect and know prime minister netanyahu very well. i consider o him a friend and he and i talk regularly, we're still talking even in the mist of this agreement because we have a lot of of things to talk about. i completely understand the prime minister of is lael. but this iras also a big challenge and i understand the expressions of concerns that he has voiced. we just happen to disagree about

the impact of what is going to happen here and our ability to be able to safe guard israel going forward through the mechanisms that have been put in place. there is absolutely no question whatever indisputable, you can't argue that taking a breakout time from two months to a year taking a 12,000-kilogram stockpile to zero -- you have to look at that. >> so according to there's no -- you believe that prime minister netanyahu knows what he is talking about? he knows what he's talking about? >> he knows the fare that he is expressing absolutely. secretary moniz, i hope i'm pronouncing this correctly. a form deputy, we talked about the agreement that they've entered into to that has not been disclosessed to the

committee or iran reduces detection where the system is weakest, detecting undeclared facilities and missile, is he wrong? >> well, a 24-day is for undeclared facilities and i've already explessed use of nuclear materials in those facilities, we are very confident. we have to know where to look. that's, of course, the traditional roleea of intelligence and those of our allies and friends. >> mr. chairman. >> senator murphy. >> thank you very much mr. chairman, thank you for spending so much time with us here today. one comment on the issue of nuclear sanctions and then two questions, the iranians are worried that we are going to reimpose nuclear sanctions under the cover of some other excuse.

thus your discussion about the sensitivity about when we may reauthorize iranian sanctions act. i just note that what we're talking about here then is motive, whether or not we are again win in imposing sanctions for a nonnorth carolina-related activity or we are doing it under the cover of try to go get around the agreement. i don't know there's know way to avoid the fuzziness of that section of thezz greet. i just think we all have to understand that there's going to be a lack of clarity on that question given the fact that the dispute ultimately is not going to be about the letter of the law that we pass, but about the motive that stands behind it. we can certainly defend inconstituent uiling new sanctions on nonnorth carolina activity, but there's going to be a difficult in try to go define that motive.

my question, though, is -- first question is continuing on this subject of inspections. secretary moniz do iranians mades a commitment that they are not going to engage in any research and development that quote, under item 16 could contribute to the development of a north carolina explosive device.

we know we've got eyes on the full supply chain, but there are a host of nuclear related activities that could occur at other research sites that don't involve material that runs through the supply chain. how do we have an >> there are a number of activity that is are out of bounds that would not involve nuclear materials.al clearly, again almost by definition for any undeclared site it becomes a question of intelligence acquired in one way or another, we have obviously nationally a lot of manes as do others. so once we have the right pointer, then it's a question of getting in there and there can be some smoking guns in some cases, financial neutron initiators that we would detect. in others cases it would be more in the context of the declared activities don't kind of make sense with what we see in there and these all become indicators

for our intelligence. clearly in the end these nonnuclear activities will be more of a challenge than the nuclear materials activities over which we will have a very very strong handle. >> i want to ask secretary lew and secretary kerry about the consequences of congress voting down this deal. i heard senator's frustration that there's no choice. in fact, i hear you say the very opposite. i hear you to say that this is not in fact, a refer endo you mean on this deal, this is a choice between two sets of consequences instead of consequences that float forward and so, as i look at that second set of consequences that we have to be fully cognisant of, i sort

of see it in five parts. i want to give you the analysis and i want you both to tell me where i'm right and where i'm wrong.is first the sanctions are going the fray, russians and chinese likely won'tsa continue to sign on and over time likely in substance fall apart. second iran is going to resume nuclear program. three, inspection that is we have disappear we go blind again inside iran. fourth, this administration's ability today nuclear diplomacy ends in the year and a half. fifth, the potential that internally this rejection of the deal would be rejection making

it likely that the moderates are going to win in the next election, there may not be anyone m to deal with in the next administration. that'sio a pretty severe set of consequences but this isn't ultimately ref er endum. so tell me if this is how you read the consequences of congress rejecting this deal? >> well, senator, i think you hit the nail on the head with a series of absolutely clearly anticipated consequences, and i would agree with what you have said. this is not a case of no choices. there are -- there is a choice. as senator murphy has said, each person with make the judgment of the consequences of their

choice but the choice is really between the assurances we have that come with this agreement the certainty that comes with a 98% reduction with the stockpile, the certainty with 3.7% of enrich meant you can be the make a bomb with just those two items. let alone the reduction of centrifuges. all that goes away. that's a choice. you wipe all that out. what else happens as a result of that? well i urge colleagues who haven't done it to spend time with our intel community and ask for the analysis of the supreme leader and the state politics in iran the spring leader highly distress us, there's nothing in the agreement built on trust. it's all a matter of verification.

the supreme leaderdi has felt in the very beginning, i can't deal with the rest because i can't trust them. i tried it before and nothing happens and then some small discussions that took place in afghanistan a number of years ago, nothing came out of it. i can give you -- i'm not going to go through the whole history. there's ae long history the whole context of revolution of which out the regime comes. if we say no after saying in good faith we're here to negotiate and we can come to agreement, but, we talk away from hit, not because we chose to but you choose to we certainly aren't going to be dealt with. but more importantly he's not coming back. there's no way people who say get a better deal, no way. when they believe they've given up thinks in good faith and

willing to be subject to npt. the npt is the heart of nonproliferation centers. we have 189 nations that live by it. we would be turning away from the npt. basically saying, we don't trust the npt, we don't like the npt. we're not going today this. so the consequences of this are etch more -- even more than what you layed out sir. i know this will happen. i've been around politics long enough, i have a pretty good sense. a lot of people are opposing this agreement before it was announced. a lot of people were opposing it before they even read it. i know what we're going to hear inot the context of this. if this agreement isn't agreed tobe it doesn't meet congress approval and the sanctions are gone and iran goes back to enriching, you can hear the

human cry right now. people are going to be saying, what are we going today about it. you'llig hear the prime minister, time the bomb. whatri are we going today? so when they're enriching like crazy and we passed up d ip lomacy what is left of us? so what is your plan? knock out their entire capacity, erase their memory of how today a fool cycle i heard someone mention iraq that we had huge ability to know what was happening in iraq. folks that was afterwe invaded the country.

that's the only place in the world you had it. no country in the world has anywhere any time. so i just ask people to be reasonable. there arite more consequences than those layed out by senator murphy. >> if i can just respond on the sanctions. i agree that sanctions would fray. in addition, we had a lot of discussion about iranians reserve. those reserves are not sitting in the united states. they are sitting around the world like india and china and if this false apart our ability to keep moneying from iran will fall apart. they get their money and no nuclear agreement and that's very real. i totally agree with you. that voi laits the agreement.

we have reserve it had ability to put sanctions back in place on a -- >> my only point in that -- >> it is a matter of interpretation which a lot of people can say that they have different views but this was heavily discussed in the negotiation, not that this was an accidental provision. >> thank you. i think the thought process that you walked through was very helpful and i -- i do want to say that congress in this case did put in place many -- many of the sanctions that brought iran to the table. what i think to the degree unfair about the presentation is the secretary himself afforded himself the ability to walk away from this deal and save consequences. during negotiation you said no

deal is better than a bad deal and you layed out the percentage. you yourself had to be thinking about going down the very path that senator murphy just put out. what you're doing -- what you did by going to u.n. security counsel, basically even though we put mandates in place that brought them to the table you're try to go paint this picture that basically takes thatha choice away from us and i find that to be uncredibly unfair. >> mr. chairman, can i just say toreh you the choice would have been for same whether or not the security counsel voted. the great distinction with all due respect sir, the great distinction when i was ready to walk away, everybody else would havee come with me, because they understood the walk away. so we would have walked away and

hilledey the unity of the sanctions and we could have done more or if we had to resort the military people would have understood why. problem is now they won't understand why and we won't walk away with anyone. >> and i don't want to put too emphasis but i'll go back to the other, the way you present the options you put congress in the place of being the paraia, taking that away and i think the way you frame it, congress in a very unfair light. senator perdue. >> i'll go one step further i'm outraged. before we had a chance to read the document, in a good faith we are showing the world we don't stand together.

i'm so encouraged that we ended up with a unanimous vote in in this committee. i encourage that senator king is sitting here for four almost listening to this. people are involved, senator. i appreciate what you have done. a huge task. secretary you heard the last few months, thank you for all your efforts. i personally try to make a measured approach in this to try to understand the issues. i heard secretary of state say that our goal is preclude iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state, but i'm very troubled today. i look at this somewhat skeptical because of the -- i'm not sure what i said was humorous, but let me just read

you a couple of quotes here. this agreement will help to achieve an objective and into the threat of nuclear proliferation, 1194 president bill clinton. president obama iran will never be permitted to prepare nuclear weapon. presidentam clinton, compliance by the international atomic agency. president obama what we're going today is setting up a mechanism where shall iaea inspectors can go any place. president clinton, this agreement represents the first step on a road to a nuclear-free korean peninsula. i'm unsettled because we've had bad experiences dealing with bad actors. if i look at this today i hear

secretary state say i never heard you say before, i want to dale into this, we're guaranteeing they won't have a nuclear weapon. i know that's our goal, but i read every page of this document. i've seen the classified documents. i'm very concerned that asia read this -- i understand our objective, intent and commitment is to never allow iran to have a nuclear weapon. does this deal actually preclude iran from building a nuclear weapon today? >> senator, first of all, i really aappreciate your approach to this. i appreciate comments and i know you're taking this very seriously as our other senators and i want to speak specifically to your several concerns. first of all, i believe and i spent 29 years here in this committee back in the early days

with the missile debates and so forth, this, i believe is one of the most extensive agreements with the most extensive ixcess provisions. i believe we have put inst place a highly distwinge i -- destinguishable. and the framework was put in place andt the administrations changed and the new administration came in with a different attitude about how to approach them, but with the discovery of the cheating on and

nortsch korea pulled out of the npt. fully pulled out of the npt. nothing else was happening. theyed blew up nuclear weapons. that should be a warning to everyone because unlike north korea, the north korea experience is what gave birth to the additional -- >> i apologize. >> came into existence to remedy the deafyo kit -- deficit with what happened with north korea. i believe through the myriad of access nuclear program to declared facilities, we will know if they try to move -- >> i understand. i herd you say that last night. i appreciate that. if they do we'll know.

but does this deal, does this agreement preclude iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state the deal itself? >> yes. >> thank you, secretary, with regard to the options what brought to iran to the negotiating table what's atheir motive to come and negotiate in the first place? >> senator, i'm not sure i can tell you the specific thing. we look at the impact of the sanctions over the last number of years. it has crush it had economy. >> we ceded to them the right the enrich, the right bypass

countries and join on a leap group of five countries that have nuclear programs. there are nine countries that actual have nuclear weapons. four out of the npt. they obviously enrich. germany, brazil, afghanistan i'm sorry argentina holland japan, we are putting iran into that group a bad actor like iran what -- the option that i see is doubling down on the sanctions that got them into the table in the first place we know it was crushing their economy, we know it was having an impact on the regime, my question t is, is that not a viable option to the deal itself? >> senator, i think the reason the sanctions have had the powerful effect is that they are not just u.s. sanctions they have international sanctions.

that requires keeping a coalition together. we've gone back and forth with the congress saying, if you do more and it keeps other countries out we are then doing less. we've come to a good place to grow the coalition in the world. if deal the rejected, the other partners will not be of like mind. >> i understand the nuances of the categories of that cash, how much is that relative sanctions on other countries dealing with iran versus eu. i understand. i am try to go make a

delineation. what percentage is due to u.s. sanctions vir sus the -- >> it's hard because they are effective as they are because we get cooperation of other countries. had the other secretaries at this table, we have had for years now ongoing discussions request it's getting harder and harder to keep countries tried to the oil sanctions financial because it's hard on their economy. they have been willing today it because the goal of the sanction was to get iran to the negotiating table. would they be willing today it if iran came to the table and we rejected a deal that other countries have signed onto, that's where our sanctions abilities will start to fray. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you to the witnesses.

president true mane when he proposed to spend billions of dollars to rebuild the economy of germany after they had done two wars in the u.s., that was hard, there were objections and no votes. president kennedy with the soft -- soviet union own, there were no votes. thisa deal that produces a dramatically better position for about 15 years than status quo before negotiations started. when you start the negotiations right before iran had a program that was 19,000 centrifuges and growing you knock to six thousand. you've knocked it back to 300

enrichment level 20% and climbing, you knock it down to 3.7%. they were on a path where they had a huge program and it was growing for 15 years this deal with the inspections mechanisms, et cetera, produces a dramatically better status quo to the united states, for regional allies andan the world. my question secretary moniz, various provisions start to come off certain elements of the program, certain inspections, we get to your 25 here is how i read the deal, the deal basically is iran commits in the first photograph of the agreement founder circumstances will iran ever seek to develop purchase nuclear weapons. they've agreed to all the npt obligations going forward and any program will be civil in

nature, they make that commitment. what we have toy determine that they would cheat would be the intelligence that they would have the knowledge of inspections and the ongoing inspections under the npt specially do additional protocol. is thatde level of knowledge sufficient to detect if iran tries to viollate the deal and acquire nuclear weapons? >> i think it pushes us in a fart position than we would be otherwise. their risk on their part would be enormous to try to break their commitments and i think you put your finger on a very important thing our intelligence commit yes -- committee. we should not forget the tremendous knowledge of the program, what they are doing when they're doing it over 25 years. we will have a lot of indicators

to really amplify our natural manes. >> that's a great segue i want to secretary kerry. they were against that diplomatic beginning if we could go back to status quo u they were raising ahead in nuclear program, we were hurting their economy but the nuclear program, iraq heavy-water moving ahead. if we had just listed with that status quo it seems to me one or two things were going to happen, either they were going to co pi tulate, there were two. i don't know and i'm not going to ask you to assign odds to those two things. there was a significant risk. they.

>> -- they were going to get a nuclear weapon. that status quo is a dangerous one. let me mention another alternative because it has been mentioned by members of this body. a membermeno of this body who has been allowed voice in this issue, bombing iran would only take a few days. mr. secretary, you've been at war, do you find that to be a realistic statement? >> well, it's a -- i find it to be a facttial -- factual statement that it would only take a few days but i don't find it realistic in terms of policy because the implications of that if you are not at tend of your rope, in other words if it's not last resort, would be

extraordinaril oy complicated for the united states. >> if we were today that, that's an alternative if we were today that right now would we have international support for that? >> not on your life new york city way. >> and would we have an international leagual basis for doing that? we were in israel in january a number of us met with officials that said they have concluded that iran is try to go get to a threshold but they have not made a decision to a pursue and acquire nuclear weapons. would there be an international basis for a war? >> no. and we would be proceeding without any of our allies. >> let mefo flip it around. if this deal is done fanned iran confirms to the entire global community, iran reaffirmses that under no circumstances iran will ever seek to develop acquire

any nuclear weapons. they pledge that to the world. we're all in agreement. they break toward a nuclear weapon, would we be more likely with international partners -- >> absolutely. >> would we have a greater legal basis to stop them from doing what they pledged not to do? >> yes. >> would we a lot more knowledge about how to target military action increasing the credibility of our military threat? >> yeah. >> i don't have any other questions. >> thank you senator. >> thank you for your opening statement and thank you for the way you handled the beginning of this debate that we have over the next 56 remaining days. i am going to be pretty brief because everything has been

said. i do want to make a couple of things cristal clear and i speak for mist. secretary kerry from a stand point of inspection, holding iran accountable, is that correct? >> with the exception of iran war, yes. >> do you recall the debate on the new star treaty? >> somewhat? >> we were involved pretty hawaiily. >> but i know we had shorter period for an access to missile. >> but what -- what got the two-thirds majority to ratify thgre new star treaty with satisfaction to the senate that the regimen was quick. >> correct, on the missile. that's correct. >> but it was a verification. >> i understand. >> this particular agreement as i understand, you can correct me

if i'm wrong the ie is the inspector. >> all of our intelligence communities around the world would be following but they're their principial. >> we pay 25% of the cost? >> yes, it is. >> none of the inspectors can be american; is that correct? >> that's correct. >> those two points that i raised is why people raised questions, i just leave that for you to respond now or later. i think you are going to have to deal with that deeper than today. >> there are a lot of reasons which is one of the principial reasons we can't proceed to have inspectors and so forth.

the start treaty had specific locations identified in it pro located. this inspection is for thing that is we can't prelocate. this is forr. what we suspect at some point in time or what we might have evidence at some point in time, and so what the start inspections iaea visit. we have that. we have the same thing. declared location in start declared location here. i was, you know, pleased we got it is this ability for us to be able to close out the oi aea process. they could never get it finished. they would fight they would go back and forth. nothing closed it out. we have opportunity to vote, go

the u.n. security counsel and mandate that they give us access if they haven't given us access they are in breach. >> ok. senator, one second. i want to get to one other question and then we'll elaborate. the second thing that concerns other people was negotiation of the five year -- when the un embargo goes away. it appears to me that that appeared late in the negotiations and was not something on the table. why and when did that embargo -- the expiration get into the deal? >> they began in almost day one of the negotiations. >> well then -- >> they went on for two years.

>> why in a hearing based on nuclear weapons would we waive a sanction at some point in time in the future on exploiting commissional aurms what would that be part of the agreement to start with? >> let me answer you, it was slid into the un resolution at the last minute. >> the arms embargo provision? >> the arms embargo and missile. it was the last minute, then un --mb then, you know, un representatives susan rice helped write that or wrote part of it and she put it in and in fact the iranians bitterly objected to it, thought it was being rammed at them and had no business being part of agreement, they thought they had

ever right in the world to do it. they had ignored it for all these years. they made it clear from the get-go that one of the primary red license was they had to get all those sanctions lifted. wefr said no. we are not going to lift them. look at what you're doing in yemen. we are not going to lift them. the problem senator three countries out seven that were ready to lift in day one and four countries that said no, we need to keep them. the compromise was recognizing that we had many different ways to coming at the enforcement of missiles and arms with specific resolutions to no arms to houthi. lib yeah, north áfrica, north korea. all of these are existing resolutions.

in fact, we won a victory to get the five in the eight to continue in the context of the nuclear resolution where they believe they didn't belong in the first place. >> i apologize for doing. >> that's fine. correct meng on one thing, you said it was on the table from almost the beginning? >> let me finish. we knew this was going to come down and d be the last issue. >> it was slid at them end. >> at the un by susan rice. it came into the resolution at the very last minute. >> my only point -- i'm sorry i'm cutting you off the inspectionio and the trance parrency of those inspections some satisfaction we didn't give to put israel or other middle

eastern counties general addery that that needs to be responded. >> i gist wantqu to add a small footnote. i want to point out that for decades now all the inspectors are trained have training in the united states, are very confident people, i can get you the exact number. right now we have a dozen americans in the safe guard efforts and they play a very critical n role. >> i would love me if you would get me that information. >> i'll get you a list of all the mechanisms we have that are a threat to israel. >> thank you for your service in the country. >> thank you. >> thank you senator. we are going to take a break when we have the second round.

canbl y'all make it through three morego senators? thank you. >> thank you for your service to our country. we very much appreciate all your great would recollect. secretary moniz, one of the assertions which was made is that in 20 -- after 15 years that all bets are off and that iran can then begin to enrich up to 90% if they want, can you deal with that issue, that is what happens in 15 years, what happens when iran announces that it would go past 3% 20% in terms of enrichment of uranium. what is the law the regulation,

the sense of the world community in terms of what they could do at that point to make sure that it was not a bomb-making program that was now put in place in iran? >> well, of course, senator first of all whether it's 15 years or 20 years, or whatever, they will be required to report all the nuclear activity and clearly if they were to report that they were enriching to 90% every alarm bell in the world would go off because there's no reason today that. >> when the iran bell went off what then would happen? >> i would imagine international pressure sanctions and perhaps militaryro preresponse. >> what would happen?

>> everything i saw in the last month of negotiations is they would be solidly with us. >> secretary kerry, do you agree with that? >> totally, they and china were surprisingly and committed to this effort and very anthony nuclear weapon with iran. >> please continue. >> and then, of course, if they declared this the alarm bells would go off. so once again they would need the entire supply chain which would be difficult today. >> in the early years if iran want today violate the agreement, dismantling the program, how long would it take for them to take the rotors,

romp oants out of moth balls into reconstitute the program in the first ten years if we were successful in watching the dismantlement? >> i say in rough terms two to three years probably today that. that would depend a lot upon conditions of the machines etc. that's a ballpark. >> secretary kerry. >> sir, i just want today add something because you're dealing sort of with a 15-year concept. the truth is, because of the 25-year tracking of uranium, it would be impossible for them to -- to have a separate track so the only track would be through declared facility and we would knowra it. >> and the world would -- >> exactly. >> so let me ask you this sectary, you spoke earlier about

thesp prime minister visiting, can you talk about opportunities that maybe possible in that region? >> i will my colleagues, nothing that we've done in here is predicated on some change or something that's unanticipatable. can one hope that the opportunity provides moment in change yes absolutely. in fact, president both in public statements embracing this arrangement talked about how it could open a new moment in the middle east for countries to be able to come together and be able to resolve some of the

differences that have separated them. i know for a fact that the foreign minister of iran wants to engage with the gcc countries, that this is not the only plan he plans to visit. so who knows where that dialogue goes but i can guarantee you the united states will do everything thatin we can to encourage it and try to help find some kind of specific steps that might be able to begin with yemen and other issues we face. >> you spoke earlier about the saudis, could you expand upon that a little bit more in terms isa there a possibility going forward? >> generally what i would say is they are apprehensive because they see iran engager with the

houthi and yemen they see them also fighting against isis supporting over the years hezbollah is a threat to the region not to mention that there's a support, these things concern us deeply. working with what i talked about earlier, senator gardner about the evolution, camp david process that begins to fill out a new arrangement and how to push back with these activities. >> sectary, did you want to add something in terms of likelihood that there could be a breakout in thees regime that would not be

detected early enough -- >> no, a breakout would be very quickly, i think detected and then there's a question of the response and specially in the first decade or so -- and beyond the first decade, i think we have a very comfortable period ofde time to do diplomatic and other responses. >> thank all of you if your work. >> thank you for your testimony. i continue to support a negotiated solution and i think military solution ending inspections, eti cetera, however it does have to be a good deal. i think that's the debate we have. secretary kerry i guess i would ask, how would you describe iran

's compliance, are they generally trust worthy? >> there's no trust into this deal at all. >> i agree. i think everybodyy? sort of understands that. the american say they stopped iran from acquiring nuclear weapon they know it's not true. so we have the history of untrust worthiness, we have verbiage coming saying there isn't limitation with the ability of making a weapon. so it comes down to a good agreement, someone asked will this stop from building nuclear weapon yes f they comply. my f question and my -- i guess my problem is that there's a great deal of creedance given to snap back sanctions lever to get them to comply, secretary lew

talked about a phase reduction in sanctions. they do have today some things, i think they are significant things, reduce enrichment of ewe uranium and getting rid of centrifuges, etc. the problem is that the wording of the agreement is that sanctions are simultaneously with drawn. to me it's the initiatuation of compliance.. i'mth more worried about the compliance after that. i guess my preference would have beenl if there were truly a phase reduction over a many year period of the sanctions and not the in the relief of sanctions and i guess my question is, was there discussion, was it ever our position that we shouldn't have simultaneous release of all

sanks to ensure compliance? >> this was at the heart of the negotiation, which is why we drove such what we consider to be a very hard bargain with respect to what they needed today, that is -- look, it was always the fundamental equation of the negotiation. you folks pass sanctions our passage of the sanctions was specifically to bring them to the table to negotiate. so if that was the negotiating lever, clearly when they came to the table they wanted to lever taken away. what restraints will we get? what insight to their program -- what long-term commitments can we get? they can't get a bomb. how do we fulfill president's

obama plan? they get some relief from sanctions. now, their insistence, you know two years was obviously this notion and all the way to the end, all sanctions everybody's sanctions. we resisted that. we didn't do that. that's not what happened. what we did was we wound up securing the one-year breakout timeth going from two months two one year securing the safety of reducing their operable centrifuges and reducing the research that they can do in their next centrifuges. locking in their enrichment level at allow level. -- low level. they have to undo their piping. they have to undo e --

electrical. i don't know whether it will be six months or a year but when it is done we lift the fundamental component of financial and banking sanctions that were the heart that brought them to the table. >> i guess the point is everybody that is forth the agreement, this will prevent it from having a nuclear weapon -- >> the intel community, i urge you to connect with them. there's no decision there whatever. what he's doinyag is protecting thete domestic turf. >> he's saying the opposite. he's saying that this is not true, thishe does not stop us from acquiring a nuclear weapon. he was saying in march they were saying thcle opposite. it troubles us -- >> let me -- >> i want to negotiate a

settlement. i want to believe that we can have an agreement but it troubles us that the iranians say the opposite. >> in fact, the supreme leaders quote is in this document that iran will never go after a nuclear weapon and the iranians happily put that in and the intel community will tell you they have made zero decisions. >> the. >> they know it's not true. >> you know why he's saying that? hek. doesn't believe the americans stopped us. he has declare it had policy of countries not today it. he is has a matter of sovereignty and pride making a true statement. he doesn't believe the americans stopped him. >> thank you. >> thank you senator coons. >> thankhe you chairman and i

would like to thank all three of our witnesses. i think we all share a simple basics premise, which is that the united states might not allow iran to acquire nuclear weapons. nuclear armed iran will threatened the stability of the middle east. i will review the details of the nuclear agreement and consider ramifications for our nation and region. i will t compare it to the alternative. in any years as an attorney for corporation, i would often get handed a big complex deal that believed they launched a new marriage, a knew partnership not with wedding bells. frankly, no one ever pulled the agreements out again unless there was a violation

disappointment and breakdown in the relationship. i would say as i look, not politics, it is an agreement built on distrust, it is a wedding dacsy you the bride is shouting i hate you and your family. each is announcing their distrust at the out seth. i do wonder what the alternative is given that this agreement i'm sorry inevitable. let me turn to the wedding guests. a key piece of the agreement is th we joint commission that has representatives and the european union own and iran. they will resolve access disputes. they arend a key piece of how we get access. ifut iran doesn't.

votes. and i don't mean to impugn the partnership of our vital allies who've gotten us to this point but i am concerned that ceos from many european nations are already winging to tehran and talking about significant economic relationships. should we be nervous about the votes in the future on that joint commission of the eu or our other allies given what will be i suspect significant economic warm0ñ?ñ?ñ? black access for us.jf how&zñ?ñ? confident can we be that our interestseññ?ñ?ñ in the likely event'zñ?ñ?ñ? of cheating? >> here is the reason whyúeñ?ñ?ñ?. the access issue goes to the

core zñ?ñ?ñ? of this agreement$ñ?ñ? which is to prevent them from getting a weapon if we have sufficient information, intelligence and putmuñ?ñ?ñ shared among usy0ñ?ñ?ñ? commandv÷ñ?ñ?ñ? israel we will be feeding into that cargo states wezyñ?ñ?ñ will be feeding into that feeding into that. when we have any indicator that there is a site we need to get into and we're all shared that amongst each other, this goes to the entire agreement. they will prosecute that. and by the way there's a converse, you know, there's another side to that coin about the economic interests. you have a young generation of iranians thirsty for the world. they want jobs a future. iran has a huge stake in making sure there isn't an interruption in that business and that they

are living up to this agreement. so if in fact even when you're way beyond the 15 years, if we find there's a reason for us to have suspicion under the additional protocol and we can't get in the united states alone for the duration of the agreement has the ability to snap back in the u.n. by ourselves. we always have the ability to put our sanctions back in place. and given our position in the world and that's not going to change in the next 10 15 years economically. we're still the most powerful economy in the world. we will have an ability to have an impact on their transactions and ability to do business. so we believe we are very well protected here, senator kuhns because we created a one-nation stability to have snapback. >> if i can follow up on that mr. secretary. the snapback functions, are they the broad sweeping financial sector sanctions we worked on

together that brought iran to the table? or are they a paler version of that? >> oh, no, they're the full monty. >> because, you know we've had debate among some of the colleagues on this committee whether or not this agreement prevents -- >> well, we have some discretion. i mean language is in there that says in whole or in part. now, if we find there's some minor something and we want to slap the wrist we can fine in part. >> so in your view we have the ability to ratchet back sanctions in pieces or in whole? >> if needed or in whole. >> let me if i might turn to secretary moniz in the time i have left about centrifuge development. if you would just -- i'll articulate the question and then if you'd have an answer for me. how long did it take iran to master the centrifuge? what's the difference in performance between the ir-1 and ir-8? and how long do you think it will take iran give p the

restrictions of this agreement if observed to master the ir-6 and 8 and then what would the impact be on their ability to enrich after years 10 to 15? >> so, senator kuhns first of all of course they've been working on it for quite some time. they have some challenges still. in terms of the r and d in the more advanced machines of course first of all the program does substantially shift back in time, their program plans. where they are today is the ir-6 that you mentioned is let's say seven or eight times more powerful than the ir-1. and they are already spinning small cascades of that with uranium. the ir-8, which is projected to be maybe 15 times more powerful is at the mechanical testing

stage only. that's what got frozen in in the interim agreement. >> so if i might in closing, mr. chairman, it would be perfectly reasonable to expect that on a ten-year time horizon the ir-6 and 8, which they're already testing cascades of the 6, they've already got mechanical testing of the 8 under way, it would be reasonable to suspect from a decade from now they'd be 15 times better faster at their enrichment? >> no, we don't believe they will have -- with this schedule we don't think they will be anywhere near ready for industrial scale deployment of those machines certainly not in the decade and for some years thereafter. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> senator brasso. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here. secretary kerry you mentioned a "the washington post" story related to israelis who know what they're talking about. i'd like to point out to you that wasn't even in the

newspaper. that was a blog post. and it was written by someone who's been described as a left wing political activist. and if i have to choose between them and the prime minister of israel prime minister netanyahu, i'm going to stand with the prime minister of israel. but if you want to start talking about the newspaper let's look at yesterday's "new york times" a real news story. some experts questioned verification process in iran accord. first paragraph, the obama administration's claim that the iran nuclear accord provides for airtight verification procedures is coming under challenge from nuclear exports with long experience in monitoring tehran's program. several experts including a former high ranking official at the iaea said a provision that gives iran up to 24 days to grant access to inspectors might enable it to escape detection. quote, a 24-day adjudicated timeline reduces detection probabilities exactly where the system is weakest, detecting

undeclared facilities and materials. so i would just say to all three of you, i find it very telling and very disturbing that the president of the united states decided to go to the united nations on monday before coming to the american people. i think the american people have a right to have their voices heard. we expect to hear from them in august as we head home and listen in town hall meetings across the country. i think congress has the right and the responsibility to provide oversight. secretary kerry, our nation's highest military commanders have very clearly warned the president, have warned you, have warned congress that lifting the arms embargo and current restrictions on ballistic missile technologies to iran would be wrong. on july 7th this year, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, martin dempsey testified before the senate armed services committee. he was unequivocal. he said under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on

iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking. under no circumstances. that's what he said. defense secretary ash carter also testified about iran. he said, we want them to continue to be isolated as a military and limited in terms of the kinds of equipment and materials they're able to get. and just seven days later you did the complete opposite of what our military advisers very clearly warned against. you disregarded the views and the advice of our top military commanders, negotiated away these important restrictions on iran getting deadly military technologies. u.s. negotiators i believe capitulated, surrendered, agreed to lift the arms embargo to get this deal. and russia, i must point out, can gain about $7 billion from arms sales to iran. this administration repeatedly ignores the advice of our military leaders when it comes to important national security decisions. the administration ignored

general odearno's recommendations to keep u.s. troops in iraq after 2011. president obama withdrew all of the troops. the administration ignored secretary leon panetta's chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and martin dempseys recommendations to arm vetted syrian rebels. the administration is now coming to congress once again ignoring the advice and recommendations of our military leaders. this time it's about iran. mr. secretary how can you justify ignoring this advice and the judgment of military commanders responsible for securing the safety of the american people? >> well, senator, we didn't. i work with marty dempsey, i have great respect for him. we heard what he said very clearly. and i respect what he said, which is why we have the eight years and why we have the five years. in fact, we held out very, very strongly to keep them. and the fact is senator during those five years and those eight

years we have all the options available to us in the world to strengthen or find other means or deal with those very issues. so they're not gone. they're there. we respected his advice. moreover, we have additional capacities to be able to deal with missiles. we have the lethal military equipment sanctions provision in the foreign assistance act. we have iran's 1996 iran's action act. we have the iran and arms proliferation act. those are unilateral tools, by the way. we have a bunch of multilateral tools, proliferation security initiative with a hundred countries which works to help limit iranian missile-related imports and exports. we have the missile control technology regime, which does a lot to prevent the growth of any missile capacity. so there are many things we will continue to do but it didn't go away. we actually kept it.

and we kept it notwithstanding the fact that three out of seven of the negotiating parties wanted to get rid of it altogether. we can i want. next thing on the u.n. you know we fought for the prerogatives of the congress. but you know, six of the seven countries we were negotiating with are not beholden to the united states congress. if their parliaments pass something and said you got to do this or that and you were being told what to do, you'd be pretty furious. they were negotiating under the united nations. and their attitude was we finish negotiation, we ought to be able to conclude our agreement and put it before the u.n. and we said wait a minute, our congress needs to be able to review this. so we got them to accept a 90-day provision in the agreement for nonimplementation.

they're respecting our desire and we're respecting your desire. for 90 days there's no implementation of this. if they had their way they'd be implementing it now. immediately. but they're not. so i respectfully suggest that we have to have a balancing here of interests and equities. i think we have preserved the prerogative of congress. the same consequences will apply if you refuse to do this deal with the u.n. vote as without it. same consequences. and none of us have sat here and thrown the u.n. vote at you. we're simply saying this is a multilateral agreement that's been negotiated by seven countries. i'd say the same thing if i was here without the u.n. vote. >> you know, it's interesting secretary lew you said a deal our partners believe is a good one. and secretary kerry, you had talked about the p5+1 and you said and they're not dumb. well, i agree with that. they're not dumb. and it makes me though wonder if

russia truly is our partner in this. we've pressed the reset button. we saw how that failed. we sue putin's belligerence around the world. i believe russia and tehran teamed up against the united states during these negotiations. >> actually, the iranians were furious at the russians on any number of accounts. the russians they felt were not cooperative with them and didn't help them. you're exactly wrong. >> well, that's -- time will judge us on all of that. but just coming back from ukraine and seeing what's happening as well as from astonia, and i can see the be belligerence and aggression of russia. thank you. mr. chairman, my time has expired. >> it's my understanding you guys want to keep rolling for a while and not take a break. is that correct? >> i didn't know that. i don't know. >> that's what julia mentioned to us. but if you want to -- why don't

we take a five-minute break. y'all are -- five minute break taken. >> i have to be over at the house is my problem. they don't have to be there, i have to be at the house. you have to be at the house also. supposed to be at the house in 20 minutes. >> you want to keep going then? >> well, i'm happy to try to get whatever we can in those 15 20 minutes if you'll allow me to hobble over there for a minute and then come back. i'd appreciate it. >> hobble away. thank you. >> you guys go ahead. >> we'll take a break. accidentally transferred to several labs across the u.s.

now we'll take you back live to the hearing room. senate foreign relations committee secretary kerry coming back into the room. >> -- each of us i think will be very brief to try to finish up before you go over to the house. i want to make just a couple points and move to senator card in in. on the pmd issue, it's my belief whether that is resolved in an a-plus fashion or d-minus fashion, the sanctions relief will continue. and i will say that salahi today stated by december 15th at the end of the year the issue of pmd

should be decided. the iaea will submit its report it will only submit it joint comprehensive plan of action will continue independently as a result of this report. that's exactly the way that i read the agreement. i don't see any debate there. secondly again i believe that the secretary continues to create a false narrative about where we are. i would just like to remind him of the letter from secretary geithner to senator levin on december 1st 2011, when senator menendez had an amendment to the ndaa regarding the cbi sanctions. and here's what he said. however it's currently conceived this amendment threatens severe sanctions against any commercial bank or central bank if they engage in certain transactions with the cbi. this could affect negatively affect many of our closest allies and largest trading

partners. and highlighted rather than motivating these countries to join us in increasing pressure on iran they are more likely to resent our actions and resist following our lead. a consequence in that would serve the iranians more than it harms. and obviously that wasn't the case. obviously through u.s. leadership it actually calls them to come to the table. again, i think that you unfairly characterized where we are in that i do believe with your leadership and others if congress were to decide this was not something worth alleviating the con gregsly mandated sanctions a different outcome could occur. but with that senator carden. >> i want to follow up on that point with secretary lew. because i'm in agreement that we have in congress been the strongest on sanction-type of legislation whether it relates to the nuclear activityies of

iran or whether it relates to terrorism or the missile program. and whether it's the obama administration or the bush administration or any previous administration, they'd prefer to act on their own rather than having congress provide the framework. in reality it's worked to america's advantage. and what's given us a strong position to go internationally to get sanctions imposed. so it's worked. bottom line the system has worked for u.s. leadership. so secretary lew, i am concerned. and i started with this question, i'm going to come back to it. paragraph 26 says we will refrain from re-introducing or reimposing the sanctions that have been terminated. you've gone through some of the things we can do for nonnuclear related activities, but if it's an institution say the central bank of iran that is getting relief fund under this jcpoa, and we have clear evidence that they've been involved in sanctionable activities that are

nonnuclear related can we sanction them under this agreement? >> absolutely. >> senator carden i've tried to be clear. if there are nonnuclear sanctions being imposed, we have retained all of our -- >> including an institution -- >> including institutions that are delisted. it can't put pretext -- >> i understand. if we have clear evidence that iran has used its crude oil sales in a way that has furthered nonnuclear sanctionable type of activities can we go back to the crude oil issue if we have clear evidence that that would further provide relief in regards to a nonnuclear activity? >> i think in principle we have not taken any of the means that we have of applying economic pressure off the table for nonnuclear purposes. >> so it could be sectorial to

the types of relief they receive under this agreement? >> it would have to be justified based on a nonnuclear basis. >> okay. that's very helpful. so we are going to be free to have some interesting discussions as we move forward. second point and this is secretary kerry, quickly. i'm very happy to hear you say about our strong commitment in the region. these security issues are changing. they're changing for israel. they're changing for our allies. no question with isis and north africa, in syria, in addition to iran. if you'll just quickly, how we are committed to making sure that israel is secure in that region with a true and trusted partnership with the united states to meet any challenge that they may confront as a result of the changing circumstances? >> thank you, senator. first of all i begin by saying that i'm proud i had 100% voting

record for 29 years here on the subject of israel. and i have worked as hard as anybody here. i think you know over the last years to try to meet theeds needs with respect to peace and stability demands for israel. we are completely -- i mean i think it's fair to say that even with this disagreement we are constantly in touch and working with the intel community with their folks. and we continue to dialogue about the threats of israel. we understand those threats. they are real. they're existential. and there's no debate in this administration whatsoever about our willingness to commit anything and everything necessary to be able to provide for the security of israel. now, we believe that security of israel will also be enhanced by not only this agreement but by bringing the gulf states together in a way that can deal with some of the problems of the

region and particularly dash, assad, syria and so forth. that's very much on our agenda at this point in time. >> thank you. i'll yield back my time. >> i do want to say there's a significant disagreement among our allies and iran over the issue that was answered relative to reapplying nuclear sanctions in other areas. i'd love for you to develop a letter. i'm sure iran wouldn't sign it but one where great britain, france and germany and the eu agree with the statement you just made. because i just met with them and my impression, maybe i don't understand things correctly was they are in strong disagreement with the statement that you just made. senator johnson. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think it's abundantly clear from this hearing is that this is obviously complex. this agreement is subject to different interpretations. which kind of leads me to believe, and i'm not blaming you or the administration, i blame iran, i just believe this is going to end like our sanctions

and the program against north korea. i think in the end iran will have nuclear weapon with ballistic missile technology. so that's why i want to quick go back to secretary moniz. i was surprised, i'd say disappointed, that you weren't aware of the recommendations from the 2008 emp commission report. by the way -- again, i guess i caught you by surprise. you weren't expecting that for this hearing. just so you know that was commissioned by the 2001 national defense authorization act. they reported in 2004 and 2008. and this is something certainly i'd heard about before i ever came here and this is "star wars" stuff and couldn't possibly happen. but again you've acknowledged knowing dr. richard garwin correct? a brilliant man. >> yes. >> worked with enrico referred to as one of the true geniuses he'd ever known. >> dick is a national resource. >> he testified. and my ranking member during the

hearing said he looked into this and somebody said it was it's a growing threat when you have north korea, potentially a state like iran if this thing turns out like north korea, we have multiple threats of this. particularly in light of the fact we know iran has been testing a potential emp attack using a scud missile off of a ship. which would be one of our threats particularly on the southern border where we have no defense or particularly a satellite orbiting. so i want to make sure you're fully aware of that because the 2008 emp commission pretty well tasked dhs and department of energy as the two lead departments to enact their 15 recommendations. again, they're pretty basic recommendations. evaluate and implement quick fixes, assure availability of equipment, replacement equipment. again, what dr. garwin report --

and this is what i thought was actually pretty encouraging, is if we would just protect 700 transformers to the tune of about $100,000 per transformer, that's only $70 million. but again it's been seven years, seven years since that recommendation and the secretary department of energy didn't really know anything about it. i'm just asking you -- >> can i clarify though, senator? >> go ahead. >> i know something about emp. i don't know that specific report. and including the effects and as i said -- and also by the way i will dick garwin also does a lot of work with our osdp, i will talk with dr. holden the president's adviser maybe this is an administration wide thing we can do and consult with you on that but i want to emphasize in april we did our energy infrastructure report. and the issues of transformers and emp and other threats were there. and furthermore we have made a

recommendation about going forward in a public-private partnership to potentially establish a transformer reserve in addition. so i would love to discuss this. i just don't know that particular report. i know the issues. >> we'll probably call you in for a hearing in front of my committee homeland security. these remgcommendations issued in 2008, it's seven years later. of the 15 remgcommendations we've done virtually nothing. this is a real threat. america needs to understand certainly the secretary of department of energy needs to be aware of these recommendations and working toward their implementation. and there's a relatively quick fix quite honestly add is an amendment to authorize spending $70 million -- it's imperfect, but it goes a long way toward protecting some of those transformers. i hope you'll be supportive of that. >> senator menendez. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. secretary lew, i basically

understood your answers to my previous question. that you have no intention of seeking reauthorization of the iran sanctions act, an act that in october 3rd of 2013 entitled -- in a hearing entitled reversing iran's nuclear program heralded as critical. negotiation on iran's nuclear program, another hearing, they both said the same thing and talked about the important congressional sanctions. so seems to me that if you want a deterrent, iran has to know consequences. maybe it will never be called into play. that's fine. that's good. hopefully they won't be called into play. but they need to know what the consequences are. and so as far as i'm concerned i think we should be moving to reauthorize the sanctions that congress passed. and that expire next year. and let the iranians know that if they violate those are one of the things they're going to have to go back to.

so i'm going to move to reauthorize them because i think it needs to be part of the deter deterrant. do you believe iran will be and should be a regional power? >> do i believe that they should be in the future or something? >> will be and should be a regional power? >> well, i think to some degree there's an element of power in what they're doing now. i don't know about the will be. do i want them to be? not in the way that they behaved today. no. >> i'm glad to hear that because, you know, the president in the column with tom friedman said that the truth of the matter is that iran will be and should be a regional power. but that's a pretty bold statement about a country that is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world as defined by our government.

it would have to be a dramatically different iran to have any aspirations. >> and the president knows that. >> let me ask you one final thing. you're an excellent, excellent lawyer. and when you can get to argue something both ways, if you can achieve that that's great. so i've heard you argue we will have everything on the table that we have today. we will have the sanctions. we will have a military option. then i've also heard you say sanctions is not going to get iran to stop its nuclear program in terms of -- and a military option will only deter them for three years. so isn't really what you're saying that at the end of the day we hope that iran will change its course over the next ten to 15 years? that if they violate we'll get notice from three months that we had to 12 months, a year.

but at the end of the day neither sanctions nor military option is going to if i listen to you your arguments, no military option is going to ultimately deter iran if they decide to do so. so doesn't that in essence say to us that we are reconciled at the end of the day if they want to? to accept iran as a nuclear weapon? >> absolutely, positively not. not in the closest of imagination. i'll tell you why. they're not going to be sanctioned into submission. we've seen that. they have what is called their resistance economy. there are limits to what our friends and allies are able and willing to do. you know the challenge we've had in just bringing people along on ukraine. bringing people along particularly the russians and chinese over a length of time is going to be very very difficult.

they're sort of a half-life if you will to keep the sanctions pressure in place. in addition to that on the military option we all know as it's described to us by the military it's a two or three-year deal. now, that option that is real. it's a last resort option. if you can't make diplomacy work, if you can't succeed in putting together a protocol they have to follow which by which they live, guarantees they won't have a weapon that's sort of your last resort. but it shouldn't be the first resort. it shouldn't be the place you force yourself to go to. given the structure of this agreement we have a much better option. because whatever it is, 15 years, 20 years whatever the moment is that the alarm bells go off on a civil nuclear program which has 24/7 access, which has inspectors which we will know has suddenly moved from 5% to 10% to 20% enrichment, all the alarm bells go off. we'll have the ability to bring

those nations back together. the question is do you have the sort of readiness and willingness of those countries to come together because you've honored the process and worked through a process? or are you start pushing them away -- sanctions obviously brought them to the table. >> or come together for a military option, which at the end of the day will deter but not end it? i just don't understand the proposition. sounds like your proposition will be there whether it is today or whether there's a violation in the future. >> no, senator because i believe this deal in fact achieves what we need to achieve now. we wouldn't have come to you. we wouldn't have signed this. i assure you, germany, france, britain, would not have signed this agreement all of us together on the same day if we didn't have a sense of confidence that this is doing the things we need to do shutting off the iranian path

shutting off the plutonium path, shutting off the covert path and so forth. and we believe it does that. that's why we're here. we believe it does that. now, the proof will be in the implementation. we all know that. but we have a sufficient cushion here of those years because of the very dramatic steps iran has agreed to take and to implement. we have a very real cushion during which time we have a chance of building up confidence. i'm not going to sit here and tell you that's absolutely going to work 100%. i believe it will. but if they don't comply i do have confidence we're going to knownoncompliance, and then we have the options available to us that we have today. >> mr. chairman i know secretary kerry said he had to leave at 2:30. >> we do i'm afraid. >> we have a couple more witnesses. so if that's a hard time i think -- >> it is a hard time. i actually have to be at the house right now. >> okay.

listen, obviously this is a serious matter that the three of you spent a tremendous amount of time over the last two years. we appreciate your patience with us today in testifying the way you have. we appreciate your service to our country. julia, who i know is having a heart attack as staffer we thank you and hope you have a good meeting with the house of representatives. thank you. >> thank you very much.onnell:

madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president, the hard work to pass a bipartisan fiscally responsible multiyear highway bill that doesn't raise taxes or increase the deficit continues. it hasn't been easy. we always knew obstacles would lay ahead at every turn, and

they sure have. but our country needs a multiyear highway bill, and we'll get there if we'll just continue to stick together. perhaps the most challenging issue now relates to amendments. supporters of the ex-im bank are demanding a vote to reauthorize it and they've made it clear they're ready to stop all other amendments if denied that opportunity. they have already proven they have the votes to back up the threat as well. this presents a challenge for the senate and to opponents of the ex-im bank, like myself, in particular. but i believe we can still move forward, and i believe the more equitable or balanced proposal i just offered will allow us to do so. so let me explain. it provides for votes on two long-sought, nongermane amendments. first, it allows a vote on an amendment to reauthorize the ex-im bank, something nearly

every democrat wants. second it allows a vote on an amendment that would repeal obamacare, something nearly every republican wants and something we'll continue to fight for. ex-im shouldn't be the only vote we take on this bill. and under the compromise i just filed, it won't be. that's a much fairer way forward, madam president. i would urge my colleagues to join me in voting against ex-im and i urge every senator to take this important opportunity to join me in voting to finally give the american people a fresh start they deserve on health care. i know we'll engage in a robust debate on all of these issues. we should. and then we'll take a vote. and while the clock demands that we file cloture given that the highway trust fund will expire at the end of next week, i hope we still have a robust amendment process on this critical bill. so i would encourage every one

of my colleagues to work with the bill managers on their germane amendments. senators should also note this -- yesterday i circulated bill language to both sides of the aisle that i intended to use to modify my amendment number 2266. that language contained technical and conforming edits as well as the removal of a provision related to fugitive felons that was not needed to fully offset the bill. i wanted to let my colleagues know that the amendment i just offered contains one additional modification. it removes provisions that would have terminated the 1.7 billion hardest hit fund mortgage programs several senators on both sides of the aisle and in particular senator portman on our side of the aisle have been a real champion on this issue expressed their opposition to its termination. so we have reduced spending levels in the bill to accommodate this change while ensuring the billnsent that the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: is there

objection? without objection. mr. cruz: madam president today is a sad day for this institution. the senate operates based on trust. whether we are democrats or republicans, these 100 senators have to be able to trust that when a senator says something he or she will do it. even if we disagree on substance, that we don't lie to each other. what we just witnessed this morning is profoundly disappointing. i want to describe the context of two preceding discussions. a number of weeks ago when this senate was considering trade promotion authority a group of senators gathered on this floor and blocked t.p.a. for many minutes because they were pressing for the export-import bank. they huddled on this floor and negotiated a deal in front of

c-span in front of the world. then when they had their deal, t.p.a. had the votes to pass. shortly thereafter, we had a senate republican lunch where i stood up and i asked the majority leader very directly what was the deal that was just cut on t.p.a. and was there a deal for the export-import bank. it was a direct question. i asked the majority leader in front of all the republican senators. the majority leader was visibly angry with me that i would ask such a question, and the majority leader looked at me and said there is no deal, there is no deal, there is no deal. like st. peter he repeated it three times. he said the only thing i told the proponents of the export-import bank is like any

other senator in this body, they could offer any amendment they liked on any amendable vehicle but i gave them nothing, there is no deal, i gave them nothing. he was emphatic. and he was repeated. following that republic discussion, senator mike lee and i approached the majority leader afterwards in which he emphasized again there is no deal, i will do nothing i oppose the export-import bank. all i said is they can offer an amendment like any senator can to any bill. madam president, i went back to my office and i sat and had a long discussion with my staff. my staff told me that afternoon he's lying to you. that's what my staff said. we have been around the senate a long time. he is not telling you the truth. and what i told my staff that afternoon, i said well, i don't know if that's the case or not

but i don't see how when the majority leader looks me in the eyes and makes an explicit promise -- and by the way looks in the eyes of every other republican senator and says that to every other republican senator, i don't see how i cannot take him at his word when he makes an explicit promise. as a result, i cast my vote in may in support of t.p.a. because i support free trade and i felt i had no choice but to assume that when the majority leader spoke to 54 republican senators and made an explicit promise that he wasn't lying to us. well as t.p.a. moved on, as it went to the house it became abundantly clear, there was a deal. there was a deal in the house for the export-import bank. and so the second time t.p.a.

came up, i voted "no" because of that corrupt deal. now i will note top the public the majority leader and the speaker of the house have repeatedly said there was no corrupt deal, there was no corrupt deal. we made no deal, we made no deal. that's one element of the background context. let me tell you a second element of the background context. a number of weeks ago when we were debating the corker-cardin bill the iran review act, there were a number of amendments that senators had filed. i filed an amendment that will actually put teeth in the iran review act by requiring affirmative congressional approval before sanctions on iran could be lifted. other senators filed very good amendments. senator marco rubio filed an amendmenliuiñ?ñ? filed an amendment calling for a ran to recognize israel's right to exist as a

jewish faith before sanctions to be lifted. our friends on the democratic side did not want to vote on that amendment. and in response the majority leader cut off all amendments. i sat in the majority leader's office and urge the majority leader invoke cloture on senator rubio's amendment. invoke cloture on the amendment calling on a ran to recognize israel's right to exist and setting that is a precondition. i argued was a freshly with the majority leader that if the democrats were so opposed to voting that was all the more reason because

it was important substantively and the majority leader said he would not do so. invoking cloture was an extraordinary step and he would not do so. he cut off every amendment. it was striking seeing the democratic leader calling out the majority leader for filling the tree, engaging in the same procedural abuse that harry reid did over and over again now the republican leader is behaving like the senior senator from nevada. what we just saw was not madame president what the majority leader told you and i and every other republican senator, not that the proponents of the export import bank to stand up and offer whatever amendment they want. he called up the amendment.

hehe called it up himself. as majority leader it has priority of recognition. when he calls of an amendment no one can stop him. he filled the tree just like harry reid. he filled the tree blocking everyone else's amendment command i agree when the senators of the obama care amendment is cynical of course it is. it is empty showmanship. we will have a vote. the republicans will vote yes. the democrats will vote no. it will fail. it will be an exercise in meaningless political theater. when we had a fight to stop obama care the majority leader an empty show voteúñ?ñ?ñ is aa good way of distracting from what is going xhñ?ñ?ñon.

you know%?ñ? they're is a profound disappointment)uñ?ñ?ñ among the american peoplegíñ?ñ? because we keep when electionsfpñ?ñ?pgñ?ñ? and we keep getting leaders who do not do anything that the promiseuñ?ñ?ñ2lñ?ñ? the american people werep?ñ?ñ?ñ told, if only we have a republican majority in the house things be differentjgñ?ñ?ñ. well, in 2010 the amez'?ñ?ñ?ican people showed up and we got a republican majorityzcñ?ñ? in the house. very little changed.h?ñ?ñ? the american people were told the problem1jñ?ñ? is the senateérñ?ñ?ñ if only we get at[ñ?ñ? republican majority in the senate.bñ?ñ?ñ they arose an enormous numbers do exactly thatnzñ?ñ?.lñ?ñ?ñ

majority done? first thing we did in december is we came back and passed a $1 trillion cromnibus plan filled with pork and corporate welfare. that was the very first thing we did. then this republican majority voted to fund obamacare voted to fund president obama's unconstitutional executive amnesty. and thun leadership rammed through the -- and then leadership rammed through the confirmation of loretta lynch as attorney general. madam president, which of those decisions would be one iota different if harry reid were still majority leader? not a one. not a one. this senate operates exactly the same. the same priorities.

and let me tell you why. it's not that this majority doesn't get things done. it does get things done. but it listens to one and only one voice. that is the voice of the washington cartel, of the lobbyists on k street, of the big money and big corporations. you know, if you go to the american people and ask is reauthorizing the ex-im bank a priority for you the standard response for most of them would be, the what? they don't even know what this is. let me tell you what this is. it is an egregious example of corporate welfare. it is the american taxpayers being on the dime for hundreds of billions of dollars in loan guarantees given out to a handful of giant corporations. it is a classic example of cronyism and corporate welfare. and, by the way among others, you know one person who had the

clarity of thought on that? then-senator barack obama who described it as a classic example of corporate welfare. that was when he was in the senate. now that he's in the white house, corporate welfare sounds pretty good. now just about all of the democrats are supporting the corporate welfare with the exception of bernie sanders. i'll give credit to senator sanders for standing up against corporate welfare. but every democrat who rails against big money and corruption of washington, every democrat who styles himself or herself a populist their actions on this matter speak far louder than their words. and when it comes to republicans, republicans also are listening to k street and the lobbyists. why? it's not complicated. the giant corporations that are getting special favors from the taxpayers hire an army of

lobbyists that write campaign checks after campaign checks. by the way these checks go to both democrats and republicans. it is career politicians in both parties that are kept in office by looting the taxpayer to benefit wealthy powerful corporations. the single-largest recipient of loan guarantees from the ex-im bank is the boeing corporation. the boeing corporation had an earnings call where their c.e.o. said -- and i'm paraphrasing -- but we'll be just fine without the ex-im bank. it's not impacting us. there are plenty of private loan alternatives out there. but you know, even though the market could provide it's a lot easier to have compliant lawmakers rob from the public fist to enrich giant corporations. you know who doesn't have

lobbyists? a single mom waiting tables. you know who doesn't have lobbyists? a teenage immigrant like my father was washing dishes making 50 cents an hour, struggling to achieve the american dream. you know who doesn't have lobbyists? a factory worker who just wants to work and provide for his or her children. they don't have lobbyists. and so what happens? career politicians in both parties gang up with giant corporations to loot their taxes to make it harder for people who are struggling to achieve the american dream. coal miners, madam president in your state they don't have lobbyists who are representing them here, the individual miners while the majority leader teams up with the democratic leader to

take from their paychecks to fund giant corporations. it is wrong and it is corrupt. madam president, it saddens me to say this. i sat in my office, i told my staff the majority leader looked me in the eye and looked 54 republicans in the eye. i cannot believe he would tell a flat-out lie and i voted based on those assurances that he made to each and every one of us. what we just saw today was an absolute demonstration that not only what he told every republican senator but what he told the press over and over and over again was a simple lie. was a simple lie.

this institution should not operate at the beck and call of lobbyists in washington this institution, the majority leader arm in arm, again should not team up against the american taxpayers. it's why our children are going bankrupt. now, we're facing an enormous threat with this iran deal. a nuclear iran poses the greatest national security threat to this country. and yet the majority leader refused to do what he just did for the export-import bank on iran refused to invoke cloture. that was an extraordinary step. madam president if he was telling us the truth when he said there was no deal, why

would he do what he just did? well, we now know that when the majority leader looks us in the eyes and makes an explicit commitment, that he is willing to say things that he knows are false. that has consequences for how this body operates. if you or i cannot trust what the majority leader tells us, that will have consequences on other legislation as well, on how this institution operates. there are a host of amendments that the american people are focused on, things like defunding planned parenthood after the gruesome video. majority leader doesn't want to vote on that. that's actually something the american people are focused on. he brought up his obamacare amendment as a smoke screen, because it's intended to fail, but do you know what he didn't bring up? my amendment to end the congressional exemption from obamacare, the corrupt deal that harry reid cut with president obama to exempt members of

congress. we ought to live are under the same rules as everyone else. the majority leader doesn't want to vote on that, because he doesn't want to end the cronyism for members of congress any more than end the cronyism for giant corporations who enrich themselves at the expense of the american people. there are a host of priorityies that the voters who elected you and me, madam president, i would ask you to think about when you were running for the senate not too long ago. do you recall any of your constituents ever saying we want the export-import bank? no they want other things, they have other priorities, but those are not the priorities of republican leadership. sadly today, we have government of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists and for the lobbyists. that is not how the united states senate is supposed to operate. a far more important amendment

than bringing back this corporate welfare and cronyism is my amendment that provides that sanctions on iran cannot be lifted unless and until iran does two things. number one it recognizes israel's right to exist as a jewish state. and number two it releases the four american hostages languishing in iranian prisons. that is a far more important issue than enriching some more lobbyists on k street and getting a few more campaign contributions. that's what we should be voting on. and accordingly, madam president, i call up my amendment, number 2301, to the mcconnell amendment 2266, as modified.

[inaudible conversations] >> the amendment is not in order to be offered and is inconsistent with the senate's precedence with respect to the offering of amendments their number, degree and kind. >> madam president? i appeal the ruling of the chair, that the amendment is not in order. >> the appeal is debatable. >> the u.s. senate is holding a rare sunday session to vote on what's called the highway bill. it sets the federal portion of highway, bridge and mass transportation projects nationwide for the next six years. funding runs out at the end of this month. senators will consider amendments to bring back the export-import bank and to kill the health care law. watch live coverage of the debate sunday at two eastern. >> c-span2 brings you the best access to congress live debate and votes from the senate floor hearings and current public policy events. and every weekend it's booktv

with nonfiction books and authors, live coverage of book festivals from around the country and a behind-the-scenes look at the publishing industry. c-span2, the best access to congress and nonfiction books. >> today transportation secretary anthony foxx announced an investigation into alleged airline price gouging following the amtrak derailment in philadelphia. he also discussed the administration's transportation priorities and the highway bill making its way through congress. this event hosted by the christian science monitor, is just under an hour. >> anthony foxx's last visit was a year ago this month. our guest earned