middle east. let's remember that we bring up the whole domino effect theory every time we're about to make a poor policy decision, and you know, we have leverage in the region. all of those countries that were mentioned turkey, saudi arabia, everybody else, egypt, depends on the united states and other suppliers for their nuclear program and beyond that. they can't do it by themselves so we have leverage over them, can't do it by themselves they need technical experts from the quest to go and help them build their program. ..

i worked long enough for colin poo i understand that. the point is we don't know and one thing we are not doing well these days as a government is strategic planning, thinking about the possibilities in the future and how we prevent bad things from happening and respond to them if they do happen. i think that what we are seeing again in ukraine and south china sea is a good example because a lot of the crises that we are dealing with are not unpredictable. and this would be a black swan if it happened.

how do we we does incentivize it if we think that would be bad for interest. the only way to remove disincentives us to strengthen the nuclear constraints and that's why i think the next president will be thinking along these lines. we've got this deal as the basis of reality that you start in january 2017 that seems likely but how do we strengthen it and assorted address some of these that again even supporters have identified.

we can consider where iran started and when the program over 15 years ago it was known to other countries in the region that iran was developing the capabilities. it is fundamentally to develop an enrichment program while iran's nuclear program was growing. i think that speaks somewhat to their intentions now that the program is limited but it is under severe restrictions. one thing that they are quite cognizant of is if they chose to pursue the enrichment program they would be under the microscope from the agency and the international community. it is something they want? that level of verification and screwed t. and perhaps the sanctions that would go along with it i don't see that within the saudi interest at this

point. >> you have 90 seconds to respond to. >> the funny thing that happened in this process is that until this, we had to a negotiated agreement on nuclear issues in the end state. the iranian tradition is if you negotiate you have an agreement that you start negotiating again so now we are looking at this agreement as a base for future negotiations into the devil is in the details how we are going to move forward. and one other thing, the notion that doctor suggested that after iran for the waltzed around the iaea and the p5+1 and got itself in the threshold statements

somehow we now, the united states and our allies, will stand there and told the saudis and egyptians not to do that. i think that pursues the level of the alliance that is not in evidence yet. >> nine seconds. first, listen to michael zhang and don't tell us about the future with such confidence and such a miserable despicable founder of way because the future is not chiseled into something desirable and certainly bad. it's the nonproliferation in the region and certainly with other parties. it's real. it's part of our one, two, three agreement approach into something that you play games with as you describe it. >> we are going to get to audience questions in a moment. there's one other there is one

other issue i want to survey on the panel since we have a chance to do that. there are two different ways looking at the relationship. one is that they are fundamentally hostile to each other in the long run under this deal therefore strengthens the force that's going to be pernicious to us and to our allies etc.. the other is the separation has been a kind of accident over the last 30 plus years after the iranian revolution and bad feelings etc.. each is an oversimplified view and we don't know the future. >> they were opposed to closer relations with america have the grievances and without endorsing the grievances to support to know what it is because it relates to real events of course the original 1953 the involvement in the cia and

overthrowing the democratically elected government, but then there's more. during the iraq war in 1988 after the revolution when saddam hussein invaded the country america sided with saddam hussein knowing that saddam hussein was using local weapons. and they know that and we knew that and we supported saddam hussein so it makes with the americans say about the use of chemical weapons and mass distraction they hear it a very cynically. the other thing is which somebody else mentioned it to spend 20 seconds explaining that for people that have never heard of it because it's important. >> it's by 1994, 95 i maybe

wrong about the year, the americans who have many ships in the persian gulf but even more so at that time because the warfare. it was on high alert in the aircraft it was a civilian aircraft with 290s civilians aboard, women, men to mitchell plan, copilots. and there was no apology. there was a mission that was a mistake but afterwards, the commander of the shift named will rogers was promoted and given a medal of valor. they noticed us and americans don't because by and large, we have a sense about their grievances. i think part of addressing the relationship with iran is to begin to understand that this is the grievance that would make a big difference. the other thing i want to say is right now looking forward with

this relationship, and the agreement appearing to go forward, there is a big battle that is taking place in iran between those that see the agreement as a gateway to further engagement. it's for the greater engagement and military cooperation hopefully" shall come artistic show, artistic cooperation and engagement in relations. they want this agreement as it is to be put to be an agreement about that and nothing else. the supreme leader has tossed us to this to the parliament without a recommendation and you are about to see it's going to match what we have on our site site. we had the officials at the un just yesterday where he talks about weight on to the until the americans see what we are about to do. americans have a stake in how

this turns off because i think most americans would like this to be a gateway to human rights issues and cultural issues. and right now anything that the americans can do to create this as a gateway to broader issues i think would be for the americans benefit and the benefit of the agreement itself. >> i will be premium and concise. it's important to bear in mind that the regime in iran, one of its core pillars is anti-americanism and i think i would need to change for there to be better relationships. that is quite simple. as of again one question has to be how likely do we think there is going to be this transformation inside iran. that takes longer than nine seconds.

>> that i have written about this and one thing that we can say is this regime is unusual for the iranian history. and one thing we don't know when we think about the future is what is the future ever going to be. and you can bet many people in the regime are getting the survival first and foremost and who won't be seen in the domestic debate in iran to see this kind of warming. the basis of interest if i could see quickly we also need to bear in mind we have conflicting interests. to the extent we are interested in freedom of access and navigation of the iranians quite openly and quite as earnestly talk about wanting to deny those things and occasionally act and demonstrate that. they are not interested in the stability which is a sort of core goal of the united states. we would have said that the proxy support was the primary threat to the goal of regional

stability. so there are deep problems here you >> and the queue is one, two, three and then we will go to the crowd. >> everything is in black-and-white. it's not that all u.s. interests or for the mentally opposed to the iranian interest or that all interests align perfectly. we have interests that align with iran. there are more of those but including afghanistan where the u.s. is likely to be stuck for the foreseeable future. interest the interest actually a line to some extent the iranian and iraqi interests align in iraq as well. so it's important to look at the nuances and all shades of gray in between and not just say we have no interests in common or we have all interests in common. >> to were three things picking up on what has been said.

>> secondly it is in the ronald reagan tradition trust but verify. it's based on distrust and elliott comes to you and says this agreement is based on the presumption that iran is going to become an angelic doctor in the middle east has got to be wrong. they were to find a way to live with them and it isn't going to happen very quickly. and all of those that have hopes that this agreement is quick to make a remarkable shift i would say continue to pray, we needed

all that it is in my view not something that is inevitably going to happen. finally, the regime change is not over strong suit. we really haven't done very well with it because the obvious concerns about that have played a huge role in the problem. it is an internal question in iran and that's where it should rest and the notion into the notion that it has to produce regime change to be successful is another error, nice to have but don't count on it. >> i'm not saying that they should produce regime change. >> it's on the record. >> i'm not going to give the ambassador the last word.

>> i think to be clear it isn't me but its that president obama that has said he hopes that this deal will produce a moderation in iran, and that moderation would be. >> first of all, i did not present a view of the future that is despicable or miserable. what i presented is a realistic future and just go back and examine our support to the air spring. so the realism of the middle east, yes it justifies our convergence of interest with iran because the radical threat to the interest in the middle east is just as huge as the

threat and in terms of the iranian national interest, yes they would be interested in the diplomacy going back of thousand of years. but for that they need to examine the view that informs the anti-semitism and anti-americanism and western inclinations and act as real players in the middle east. unfortunately i would argue it is in favor as well as a strong >> question over here and the people with a the microphone will be choosing the questioners >> this question is for whichever of the panelists wants to deal with it. several of you mentioned the

u.s. should be focusing on a long-term the long-term game and then after that what should we do. what do you feel are the specific policies we can do to ensure success of the goals after 15 years of stability in the region had been on the nuclear armed iran in terms of diplomacy or further agreements for the sanction. >> who has short answers to that? >> i would certainly agreed with the comments made by the ambassador that the u.s. should pursue sort of the gold standard ensuring that other countries in the region do not pursue enrichment processing as they build a nuclear programs. certainly worked to strengthen the nuclear suppliers group that includes the countries that also provided the nuclear reactors. i also think that there's a lot that can be done with multilateral control regime's to prevent the transfer of technologies that are related to the weapons of mass destruction development.

there's areas where it can be strengthened in areas where he think you think the proliferation security initiative can be strengthened. there is a lot more that we can do on export controls so the targeted nonproliferation elements and then a sort of wide look at the multilateral regimes that focus on the region and combinations. >> thank you very much. >> you identify yourself please. >> the question is if the prime minister netanyahu invited un after the visit and asked you for advice what would you tell them and i wonder if the deal was voted on this.

>> my advice would be very simple because i would advice and that is so fundamental and not sure what else i would say after that. it's for anybody that hopes to see iran change. and i think that there are others in israel in the security establishment who have some appreciation of that. and that doesn't have anything to say against people that played out the supreme leader in the deep states surrounding him is committed as a kind of definitional sort of thing to be against the existence of the state of israel. he did not pursue what they will make big changes at the time that iraq invaded they took a lot of arms even as they were

dancing israel. but they do have goals and the goals that they want are not the same as the society and that's where the tension is and people should be aware of it. november 24, 2013, 3 days before the prime minister told us it was the worst of any possible agreement we could have ever negotiated. within a year, he was literally on his knees to the president of the united states saying keep this agreement in place. don't go for a comprehensive agreement. that was quite a shift in the outlook on life. one can't predict that it would be the same that one could hope with that. and hoping for that isn't going to necessarily make it possible but my own view is israel will have to learn with the agreement

and the the president's unrestrained commitments to provide them with everything that they are asking for and that they need to defend themselves in the light of the changing situation in the middle east has been the bedrock of the keeping of the qualitative military age in the hands of israel as a fundamental tenet of u.s. policy. that shouldn't change. i think that he made a mistake trying to polarize support between the eric and political parties, not a wise idea. i certainly have in my time in service to israel thinks that wasn't a very wise issue. what is happening with respect to supporting the president would he have to detail and what would come as interesting. it would be even more to see if the democrats would get enough votes to block the cloture.

but the relationship between the u.s. and israel is more in the political personalities and the triumph both sides from time to time of domestic political considerations over national interest which is what we have to come back to and i think there is a good time now in the aftermath of the agreement to look forward to it. i also think the president is wise to do what he is doing taking a hard look at the israel palestine situation. i think that there is time left in this administration did take a hard look at that. they cannot succeed getting the negotiation going for the u.s. to consider outlining his own views. it's what we in the international committee because i think they would join us be

prepared to support and them but they would not be prepared to support along those lines. and i think that in the end solutions to problems in the area are not in permanent occupation, not great uncertainty whether israel has to choose between a jewish state and democratic state. it must continue to be clearly a jewish and democratic state that but it must also obviously deal with all of its people on a comprehensive and open and fair basis. >> i was having to ask a question when you were undergoing your investigation did you know about hillary clinton's private e-mail server.

>> there are a lot of things that have come up since the investigation took place. we were asked to do the best we could take it in for close as michael continues to warn us it might produce other results. we are perfectly prepared to look at other results and we don't exist as a board we ended on december 19, 2012. so it is likely individuals will speak for themselves is that this is the best deal they could get realistically. suzanne recently admitted that they were listed in the sanctions for terrorism and bad

behavior. the united states also has hostages currently in iran. do you believe they could have initiated from a stronger position than would have resulted in a better deal for the hostages and economic benefits in iran? >> this program isn't about its human rights track record or regional ambitions. that said, there's also something to be said about the fact we keep hearing the idea that iran is going to spend all the money it is going to to get for the support of terrorists. that is not true. first of all, the official budget of the country is not where the support of terrorists come from. we can do for sanctions and continue to look at the table it isn't going to stop them from funding hezbollah and doing other things.

if. they want to see some sort of movement on the economic front. >> i think that again with my limited experience is different anyone that tells you a figure she did the best possible agreement is clearly selling you something. >> somewhat resulted in a worse agreement in a somewhat resulted in better agreement. the question is this good enough and i think there are divergences in view and we need to strengthen it. on the question of regional and how they are going to spend the money you are looking into the

crystal ball. but we will look at the past. the president and the first budget did increase funding for the ir gc or the ministry of intelligence and iran is engaged in very costly wars and see reality in iraq. i have no doubt in my mind that iraq is going to use a portion of its money for what it is engaged in overseas. it makes no sense for them to bring it in for domestic purposes. this is one lesson we can say this is the best benefit to outweigh the cons. for the iranian revolutionary guards during the iraq war he later went into nuclear engineering and got her phd and worked in the works in the nuclear industry and then ran for president without success in

2009. for the security purposes" but he gave to keep up with saudi arabia is going to ruin us worse than the sanctions for every $100 that saudi arabia spends we should spend 1 dollar. but no one says that they don't have to spend a lot of money and has to want to make a difference in the capabilities.

on the unsuccessful diplomatic ventures at the very tail end of an administration that has a raucous relationship with israel that has resulted in the war that killed 1,000 israelis and palestinians. i think that would be batting on a proposition that has less than 10% chance of tests. >> the only one we have time for, it's yours. >> [inaudible]

it's like for every russian. which the white house payment described as important. they said a lot of the poor state of the russian american relations. why do you think russia supported the iranian deal in the price of oil for the energy markets what are the implications? think you. >> people around the table will have their views. my sense is that the russians have had a very strong policy on the nonproliferation. they see proliferation is working against their interest as we do, so we agree on that.

on the other hand, it is true despite the messy and difficult relationship we have, there is some legitimacy over ukraine.

it is a situation in which there are places we can also find agreement. my sense is we should not let one particular issue so dominate our relationship that we can take it manage a mining waste to move the question ahead. we need all the leverage we can get an account set of common views on big and important issues when the time comes. >> had a chance to interview president obama two weeks ago. it was able to compartmentalize the other stresses. we have many more questions on your minds. the panelists will discuss them with you. i want to thank cgi for putting on the sessions. thank you ambassador burke for claiming the issues and a six-inch excellent panelists. please join me in gratitude.

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> chinese president xi jinping announced yesterday china will cut its military by 300,000 troops. he spoke during a military parade marking the end of world war ii. this 20 minute portion is courtesy of state red channel china central television cctv. [speaking chinese] >> translator: in commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the chinese civil war of resistance against japanese aggression in the anti-fascist war now begins. [applause] please all rise.

fire the gun salute. >> a 70 gun salute, one for each of the 70 years since the war was one. during the war, entering the call for a nationwide resistance, much of the patient eventually drove out the japanese army and the millions of soldiers and civilians left to see the big jury for

themselves. september 3rd, nate and 45. -- 1945. today's gun salute honor those who gave their lives for peace. [guns firing]

>> the chinese nation of national identities. -- the nation's determination and strength and resolve to stand tall in the world. this is built on a sacrifice that will be handed down through the generations. >> the national flag from the

monument to the post they will take 121 steps, each representing one of the 121 years for the war between china and japan in 1894. >> next, the national flag will be raised at the national antimissile. the infamous called the march of the volunteers. it is written in 1935 encouraging the chinese to fight the very existence of victory for the world against fascism.

>> the national flag and the national anthem of the people's republic of china. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> please be seated. i am privileged to invite general secretary of the central committee, president of the

people's republic of china and chairman of the central commission to deliver it in person address. [applause] [speaking chinese] >> translator: on my countrymen and women, your excellency, heads of state and government and representatives of the united nations and other international organizations to english gas. all officers and soldiers participated in the parade. ladies and gentlemen, comrades and friends, today is a day that will forever be etched in the memory of people all over the world. 70 years ago today, the chinese people heading for 14 years of

work resistance against japanese aggression. the full victory of the world anti-fascist war. on that day the world was once again blasted the sunshine. on this occasion, on behalf of the central committee of the communist party of china and the national people's congress and the national committee and the central military commission pay site treatments while the veterans, patriots and officers in china who took part in the war of resistance and all the chinese at home and abroad who contributed significantly to the victory of the war.

i extend heartfelt gratitude to foreign governments who supported and the chinese people and resisting aggression. i also warmly welcome all the foreign gas and representatives of the armed of the armed forces of foreign countries present today. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, comrades and friends, the chinese people's war of resistance against japanese aggression in the world anti-fascist war were decisive battles between justice and evil, between light and darkness in reaction of the devastating war in chinese people's war of resistance

against japanese aggression started the earliest and lasted the longest. in defiance the unyielding chinese people fought and finally one totaled the jury against the japanese militaristic aggressors by preserving china's 5000-year-old civilization and upholding mankind and made by the chinese nation was rare in the history of four. the victory of the chinese people and wars of the resistance against japanese aggression, and the first complete the jury against foreign aggression in modern times. this great triumph crush the

japanese militaristic colonized in china's national humiliation and suffering successive defeat of foreign aggressors in modern time. they establish china as a major country in the world and the chinese people respect loving people around the world, this great triumph opened up prospects to the great renewal of the chinese nation and sent rhn country on a new journey after gaining rebirth. during the war, was huge national sacrifice the chinese people helped the main editor

and the port and make a major contribution to its neck. in the war against japanese aggression to chinese people receive support of the community and will always remember her what other countries did for the war of resistance. ladies and gentlemen, comrades and runs, the experience of war makes people value peace all the more. the aim of our commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the victory of the chinese people's war resistance against japanese aggression in the world anti-fascist war honor all those who lay down their lives and

open up the future. ravaging through asia, europe, africa, there were conflicted over 100 million military and civilian casualties. china suffered over 35 million casualties and the soviet union lost more than 27 million lives. the best way to honor the heroes who gave their lives to uphold freedoms, justice and peace and mourn the loss of innocent lives brutally taken during the war and make sure the historical tragedy will never repeat

itself. they better appreciate the value of peace. today peace and development have become the prevailing trend that the world is still far from tranquil. wars soared but still hints over mankind. we must learn the lessons of history and dedicate ourselves to peace. in the interest of peace, we need to foster a keen sense of the global community's of shared futures, prejudice, discrimination, hatred and war can only cause disaster and suffering. while mutual respect and quality, peaceful development and prosperity is represent the right path to take.

all countries should jointly ruffled international order and system underpinned by the purposes and principles of the u.n. charter within a type of international relation featuring the noble cause of global peace and development. in the interest of peace, china will remain committed to peaceful development. we chinese love peace. no matter how much stronger they may become, china will never seek hegemony and will never inflict suffering on any other

nation. the chinese people are resolved to see friendly relations outpolled the outcomes of the chinese people resistance and they make greater contribution to mankind. the people's liberation army of china is the people's army. all of its officers are my men and women must bear in mind the responsibility of serving the people wholeheartedly. faithfully sacred duty of protecting the nation's security and people's walgreens. and carry out the noble missions of world peace.

here i announce that china will cut the number of troops by 300,000. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, comrades and friends, as a nation to chinese saying goes after a good start we should ensure that cause of the situation. the great renewal of the chinese nation requires a dedicated efforts of one generation after another. having created a splendid civilization over 5000 years, the chinese nation will soon be ushering in an even brighter

future. [applause] going forward, under the leadership of the communist party china, we people of all ethnicities across the country should take marxism theory and the important thought of the three represents the scientific outlook on development as our guide to action. we should follow the path of socialism with chinese characteristics to pursue a comprehensive strategy and patriotism in the great spirit of resisting aggression and forge ahead to reach our goals.

[applause] bear in mind the great of history. justice will prevail. peace will prevail. people will prevail. [applause]

>> the committee will come to

order. we have a very important hearing today and we have a lot of attendance. i'll start the year and i recognize my colleague and friend, senator corker because he is tied up on similar stuff. [inaudible] >> do you want to go ahead and ask it now? you want to wait. okay. if that satisfies you, it satisfies me. ..

it will remain a country with a capability to enrich uranium. under these circumstances, i deleted is critical that congress conduct a thorough review on the agreement as required by the iran nuclear agreement act. as a part of this review, the banking committee will focus specifically on analyzing the sanctions relief provided in the nuclear agreement and the implications of taking such actions. there is general agreement about the pressure of sanctions brought iran to the negotiating table. congress must consider carefully now the repercussions of lifting those sanctions on the national security and economic interests.

many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed skepticism over several aspects of the agreement. for example the relief provided under this deal allows us to rejoin the international - allowed to rejoin the national economic system. over time this would give iran the financial means to increase its support of terrorism and regional destabilization. the mechanism for reimposing the sanctions should iran not comply with parts of the deal may prove ineffective accepted the most extreme cases of the violation. many of you that it is the license to cheat as long as such cheating .-full-stop short of a significant violation of the agreement. financial sanctions have become a critical tool of u.s. foreign policy and are an important part of the committee's jurisdiction. in fact over the initial administration objections this committee was instrumental in

imposing the sanctions to iran in the first place. they would continue to beat any new security challenges presented by iran. today the committee will hear from two panels. on the first widget from the administration's lead negotiator of the agreement and its lead sanctions expert. the committee will receive testimony from the experts and will study the agreement extensively including the officials from the previous administration. senator brown. >> thank you for being here for the important service. we will hear from the witnesses that worked in the bush administration and turned terrorist financing to middle east policy. this whole process began in the bush administration with a republican president who was in the wake of the iraq war willing

to engage iran diplomatically. secretary kerry observed and senator corker said to the committee the other day the bush administration will leave the foundation for what became the iran agreement for the strict limits on iran's nuclear program. in june, 2008 president bush national security adviser condoleezza rice signed a memorandum of the p5 plus one which said that in return for iran doing key things to limit its nuclear program the united states was ready to do a number of things to recognize the right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, number two, to treat iran's nuclear program like any other non- nuclear weapon state party to the international confidence the peaceful nature of its program could be restored and three to provide technical financial aid for the peaceful nuclear energy and forth to work with iran on confidence building measures to begin to normalize

the trade and economic relations and allow for civil aviation cooperating. i was condoleezza rice's agreement at the time. this should sound agreement because it was just completed. that's partly why i've been so disappointed, so disappointed in the politicized nature of the debate on the agreement so far including from colleagues coming out in opposition to the agreement within hours of its release, even though it is over 100 pages long and very, very dense and complicated to read. this is one of the most significant national security issues congress will face in a generation. i say that most importantly this will be the second or first post in the vote i've ever cast on the foreign policy. second perhaps only or even more important than my vote against the iraq war a decade plus a go. the political ad war even though it has been congress should give

this agreement due to serious debate that it deserves. iran is a sponsor of terrorism and it destabilizes the region and violates the human rights of its people. that's why western policy makers agree to separate out and try to secure agreement on this one specific issue. a new and iran in a nuclear weapon and the nuclear weapon would be especially dangerous to us to israel into the region. that was the singular goal of the p5 plus one negotiations to keep iran from getting a nuclear weapon since they are the seat of the west verification is is the key is not a question of trust. we must understand how the verification will work. there's a number of questions why they have sufficient resources to conduct inspections not just a declared site but a suspicious cohorts cite. they would be able to detect cheating with the breakout of time extended from two to three months per year for the next ten years when we have time to

respond politically, economically, and if necessary, militarily. if iran makes a break for a weapon and finally what actually happens if congress rejects the deal how would we maintain effective enforcement of the sanctions without the support of the p5 plus one. >> the ambassadors may declare to a large group of us yesterday that we would be isolated. what happens if a country like china blocks away and dodge's distinction by establishing banks with no correspondent relationships in the u.s. and sorts by the way you by in the whale by the whale again what would the rejection and congress do for the united states in the eyes of the rest of the world. we need answers to these questions and other questions questions and some we will hear today and others we have been receiving in the classified sessions. over the years i joined many of my colleagues in supporting round after round of tough unilaterally and international sanctions, which clearly brought iran to the table and to secure

the agreement. some predicted that it would unravel the sanctions regime. it has not. others worried that it wouldn't comply or it would benefit unduly from the sanctions relief and that hasn't happened. we had an unusually grave historic responsibility to assess the consequences without any partisan attacks to assess the consequences of this agreement than to weigh the risks and benefits of allowing the president and allies to test the ability to comply with it. all while some of us have different tactics it is clear that we share the same goals to assure that iran doesn't achieve a nuclear weapon. to do that diplomatically as possible and to recognize the other alternatives remain on the table and are not precluded by this. thank you mr. chairman. >> on the first penalty was reversed from wendy sherman the undersecretary for the political affairs at the u.s. department of state and next people here

from mr. adam occurred under secretary of the treasury for terrorism and financial crimes. both have written testimonies that will be made part of the record today. ambassador you can proceed as you wish. >> good morning. your. chairman shelby, ranking member brown and numbers of the committee, thank you very much for this opportunity to discuss the joint company and plan of action that the united states and the international partners recently concluded with iran, to reserve as much time as possible for questions i will only highlight a few key points. by blocking each of the potential pathways to the employment area will require the deal approved in vienna and chores that the nuclear program will be peaceful over the long-term. under the deal's provisions iran must remove two thirds of its installed centrifuges for ten years, reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98% for 15

years and counting the enrichment of 3.67%, far below the danger point for 15 years. it will be removed and rendered unusable and the facility rebuilt so that it cannot produce weapons grade plutonium. meanwhile spent fuel from the reactor will be shipped out of the country. i emphasized as both the chairman and ranking member did this deal is based on the verification, not trust. before obtaining any relief in the economic sanctions, iran must meet its commitments and will have unprecedented access to the declared nuclear facilities and its nuclear supply-chain to the centrifuge manufacturing. no sites will be off-limits. if iran fails to meet its

responsibilities, we can assure the sanctions snapped back into place and no countries can stop that from happening. if they try to break out of the deal altogether, the world will have more time each year compared to the two months prior to the negotiation to respond before iran could have enough of its material for a bomb. at that point of the potential options that we have today would remain on the table. but we did have the international support that comes from having exhausted all peaceful alternatives. this is also a long-term deal. some traditions would be in effect for ten years. some for 15, some for 25 and some indefinitely. under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, iran is permanently prohibited from pursuing a nuclear weapon. and the access and the verification associated with the npt will remain in place forever. enhanced by the additional

particle as a result of the joint conference of the plan of action. the bottom line is that the deal does exactly what it was intended to do when we began the formal negotiations nearly two years ago. after that point, we say that they are facing the enrichment of 20% of the facility built in secret and buried in a mountain and was stockpiling that has installed over 19,000 centrifuges and was building a heavy-water reactor that would produce the weapons grade plutonium at the rate of one to two per year. it would ensure the facilities can only be used for the peaceful purposes and puts the entire program under a microscope. some have expressed concerns about what might happen 15 years from now but without this agreement as the secretary kerry has said, year number 15 would begin today. and if the united states walks

away from the jcp a way which has been negotiated every step of the way with our international partners, we will be left about. that would be the worst of all worlds. iran could push ahead with its nuclear program in whatever direction it chooses. everything that we've tried to prevent could occur. we wouldn't have enhanced transparency required to scrutinize every element of the nuclear program and the multilateral sanctions regime which the president and congress work so hard to put in place by this committee would begin rapidly to unravel along with the senate foreign relations committee of course. as for iran's behavior, the united states is under no illusion. it's never based on the expectation that transformed the regime were called tehran to cease the contributing sectarian violence and terrorism in the middle east. that's why we've made clear that we will continue our unprecedented level of security cooperation with israel as the

secretary confirmed earlier this week, we will work closely with the gulf states to build their capacity to defend themselves and to push back against the influence of the destabilized region. we will continue to take action to prevent terrorist groups including hamas and hezbollah from acquiring weapons related to human rights terrorism and ballistic missiles and we will continue to insist on the release of u.s. citizens unjustly detained in iran and for information from about the whereabouts. every one of the problems would be worse if iran were allowed to have a nuclear weapon. that's why the agreement reached indiana is so important.

some have said if we doubled down on the sanctions we can force iran to dismantle its nuclear program. but politically, ladies and gentlemen, members, this is the purpose of sanctions to get iran to the bargaining table to create incentives for precisely the kind of good agreement that we were able to achieve in vienna. over 90 countries have supported video and data does include all of the countries that were involved in these negotiations. every one of these countries has made tough choices to keep the sanctions in place. we need the support for implementation. it's important to remember that we tried for many years to get here as it was pointed out. we worked on this on a bipartisan basis. that obama and this committee pushed the multilateral sanctions and the unilateral sanctions to keep the door open to negotiations. the sanctions forced iran to pay a high price but were not enough

to make them change course. that requires this diplomatic initiative. congress played a critical role getting us to this point. sanctions achieved the goal by bringing about the productive negotiations. now congress has the chance to affirm a deal that will make the country and our allies safer. a deal that will keep the program under intense scrutiny and that will end shortly international community remains united in demanding that iran's nuclear activity must be peaceful. it is a good deal for america and a good deal for israel and a good deal for the world and i say to you respectively it deserves your support. thank you chairman shelby and distinguished because of the committee thank you for inviting me this morning to appear before you to discuss the nuclear deal with iran and it's a pleasure to appear alongside ambassador sherman. the global sanctions coalition built and led by the united

states across the administration to broad bipartisan support in congress including from this committee gave us the leverage to secure unprecedented nuclear concessions from iran. from the start the purpose of imposing the sanctions was to build the leverage that could be used to obtain concessions on the nuclear file. our secondary sanctions were meant to be for the nuclear club. the three goals were to close off the path to the nuclear weapon to ensure that we have the access to note what they are achieving and preserving leverage to hold them to their commitment and to punish them if there is a breach. the jcp a way obtains these purposes. on the sanctions side of the deal i would like to touch on the four planes that have been much debated. the scope of relief, the sap tax provisions, the campaign that is ongoing to combat the support to terrorism and cuts force and other online groups and finally,

our remaining leverage in the event of the united states walks away from the deal. if iran completed a clear step in this deal which would take at least six to nine months, the united states will lift the nuclear related secondary sanctions. the primary u.s. sanctions the embargo will still be in place with respect to iran and enforced aggressively. iran will be denied access to the most important market and unable to deal with the most important currency. our sanctions list with respect to iran will remain very extensive. we are not really think sentience against the guard in the irg c. or any of those other subsidiaries were senior officials. more than 225 individuals and companies will remain designated including the major iranian

companies and their financial engineering transportation sectors. there's been much discussion of the iranian foreign reserves that are to be released from the accounts under the deal. if iran fulfills its nuclear commitments, iran would receive about $50 billion out of two or three times that much. the most will remain inaccessible. and with that about $50 billion iran will need to try to address an economic hole that is half a trillion dollars deep. this was a president central promise to the arabian people when he ran for office. and he now needs to be that promise. second, on snap back. if iran doesn't uphold its side of the bargain once we suspended the sanctions we could probably snap back the u.s. and united nations sanctions in the position to do the same. for the sanctions this can be done rapidly in a matter of days and we have the discretion to impose everything from smaller penalties to the powerful oil

and financial restrictions. a binary on or off snapback would not serve us well and we maintain maximum flexible but he and leverage. if the sanctions stepped back i want to emphasize there is no grandfather clause, no provision of the deal gives the sign contracts a special status. one step that occurs any new perspective transactions are sanctioned. third, as we neutralize the most acute threat posed by iran and its nuclear program. there is the other allied activities into this deal in no way limits the ability to do so. we have made that clear to iran and to the partners. this means we will sustain and intensify the use of the sanctions against iran in the terrorist groups like hezbollah. we will be using the authority to counter the intervention in yemen and syria. those that are standing up for

human rights will be using the sanctions to block the missile program. while the negotiations are ongoing, we took action against more than 100 iranian targets and we will be accelerating that work in the days and months ahead alongside israel and the regional allies to combat the properties, to interdict funds funds than funds than for its illicit networks i will personally be focused on these efforts. fourth and finally, let me provide my perspective in the sanctions on the implication of walking away from the deal. the sanctions regime generated much of its force because the world's major powers including iran's closest trading partner partners and oil customer agreed and did the nuclear threat to diplomacy. it would be a mistake for the united states to back away from this international consensus on the notion that we could feasibly collaterally escalate the pressure and obtain a broad

capitulation from iran. u.s. sanctions are extremely powerful. i have seen it firsthand at my ten years of the treasury department but we are not all-powerful. if the u.s. were to walk away and ask our partners to continue walking up the reserves committing the purchases with unpredictable and risky results. it's easy to see how the consensus and less leverage would help us to obtain a much better deal. securing the far-reaching nuclear concessions iran has made will capitalize on the carefully built economic pressure and denying access to a terrifying weapons to the ability for the foreseeable future. and as we move forward you have my commitment but the dedicated team will continue to pursue the address to the progressive sanctions in the malign activities. thank you very much, and i look

forward to answering your questions. >> thank you chairman. thank you very much. i want to start by addressing the ranking members comment very i couldn't agree more that this shouldn't be a partisan effort. i couldn't agree more. that was senator reid on a day. just to talk a little but about how the debate will take place in september. regardless of how people vote on this, you're not going to hear me make any comments either way. i think this is a very important vote. what we try to do in the foreign relations committee is make sure that people fully understand the ramifications. so, i could not agree more. i do want to say that in one of the details you left out regarding the bush agreement was they were not going to agree to

the enrichment and that is a detail that is kind of been left out. and i think that is the rubicon that has been passed that msn's we have three state sponsors of terror that we left sudan, syria and iran. and with with this agreement with this agreement and essence does is it codifies with our approval via industrialization of the program and that hasn't been debated. for senator schumer, senator menendez, they all know that i have been very open to supporting an agreement. i thought he was listening to what i was saying on a saturday. i was standing in my driveway and i emphasized the importance

of this last piece. and i talked about the inspections, talked about the previous military dimensions. i know it's a possible military dimension and we are involved militarily and how important it that was not just from the standpoint of what it said, but the indication to us that we were really going to apply these things and we were really going to be tough and make this agreement stand. and when i got the documents and i've been through all of them, my temperature rose very heavily. then i saw that we were lifting the conventional band and five years years the missile began in 18 years and on the front end the missile test ban, and on top of the peace agreements already said, i was very troubled. now i want to just get the sanctions first of all into the perspective. i know you said most people have been said 56 overall it's about 100.

but some of the money is tied up in deposits for activities that are going to be taken place but in fairness if it is about 100 billion to put that into perspective a 406 billion. so it would be like getting the last nine months or trading dollars just relative to the economy. they said they would get 400 to 600 million. that would be like us getting $17.5 trillion in the call over the next ten years on a relative basis. but here's the question that i have. i was discouraged in the final round, and i think that maybe i had the temperature when i went through and understood and i apologize for that. but i worked with senator carden, senator menendez over an excruciating period of time to make sure the way that this

agreement worked it so that we got the documents and we got them in a way that was acceptable. he spent all weekend with the white house and others and we were to get into the agreement. now the very entity that we are counting on to do the inspection we can't even get a copy of the side agreement that lays out how we are going to deal with the parks and parks and i would say to everyone here if you want to see what iran is doing today, while we are sitting here you should go look at it or - we can't even see the agreement as it relates to how we are going to deal. by the way all sanctions occur regardless of what they do. all they have to do, the iaea has to write a report that if they don't tell us much or if they eight plus they tell us everything. the sanctions relief still

occurs. so i would ask after this painstaking effort to make sure we didn't ask you to give documents you couldn't give us new with the iaea protocols were. why now will you not give us the documents that exists that are so important to all of us riveted to the integrity of this, why not? >> thank you mr. chairman for all of your hard work with senator menendez and senator carden on this deal in all of your attention to it. i want to come back to another point that you made. you were about to have the director general come and meet with the senate foreign relations committee. you need this decision because the iaea is an independent agency that you you made a bipartisan invitation to him and he agreed to come and i found out about it's this time that you found out about it so he did

this on his own and i think that it would be very useful. >> we don't have the documents in the first instance. we don't have them. and the reason we don't have them is because they are safeguard confidential and the director general explained this to you what that means. they do the particles in the united states and they don't share them with anyone else. so they don't want to share iran with anyone else. they would say to me that ambassador, they didn't tell you about them and indeed they did. and as i reason they did is it was in the middle of a negotiation and they wanted to go over with some of our experts in the technical details so i did see the provisional documents. i didn't see the final document i saw the provisional documents as did my experts and as you

know there will be a classified all senate briefing this afternoon, and i will go over in detail in a classified setting everything i know about the arrangement. >> so again i want to say we spent four days going over every detail with the administration to make sure the documents that we were asking for are ones that could be delivered. >> and you got every single document we have. >> the entity that we are depending upon where the integrity of this deal we don't even have the agreement. let me ask you this. do you have any understandings as to whether there are limitations, whether the iaea actually is going to have physical access to take samples themselves. >> i would be glad to discuss this in a classified session this afternoon and i would say this also on two other points that you made.

what iran must do is give all of the access that is required for them on the possible dimensions of the program. the united states has already made its own judgment about that. we made it in a national intelligence estimate was made public some years ago and that estimate said publicly that we believe they did have military dimensions over the program up until 20003. so, the united states has already made its judgment and we stand by that judgment. but this deal is most focused on is where the program is in where it's headed and i do quite agree that getting access to this is important because it is access in the future. at establishing the credibility of the iaea is also important to this. so i'm very glad that the drug or general is coming.

i would add one other point, mr. chairman, and that is to sanctions as the under-secretary said are absolutely crucial for having brought iran to the table. but sanctions never stopped iran's program when the obama administration began there were about 5,000 centrifuges at at & gents were the most extensive ever during the obama administration. and yet iran went to 19,200 centrifuges. some sanctions will not stop the program. its negotiations or other options options doubled that. >> i would say in closing i want to take this much time at sea to every senator here this is a big decision. but wendy and secretary terry come every other country including iran knew that because we drafted this act regardless

of what is being said, we are going to have the opportunity to weigh in. we will have the opportunity to weigh in. so when people say this versus that especially on these issues that we have been so concerned about and when we saw that they were just put on and negotiated away the issues that we with great sincerity talks with the administration and they were just put on. i think we have to make up her own decision based on whether we think that this is going to keep iran from getting a nuclear weapon regardless of where we feel with the international community. i just hope at some point that on the grandfather in issue, and i will stop. we found the documents to find and we ask the administration

and we're able to say i have resources with staff and others to go through this agreement and it is a huge privilege to do that. so i sent out a quick note. there was one question about whether the gold rush that we are all concerned about is going to occur and that is people that are going into iran immediately assigned contracts and we use the word grandfathered contracts the question i have that is still unanswered and by the way our friends in britain and germany and france have all told me that contracts are grandfathered. now they backed off a little bit. there's some confusion about that and i want to say there is confusion. i think that iran could use it to me that we had it in this document. but if someone spent a billion dollars when the sanctions are led on the oil facility and the

sanctions attack you realize they have been a clear snapback binning up with the sanctions in place the agreement states that they can walk away. they have all of the sanctions they can walk away so it is a nuclear snapback and we have the sanctions attack. but if somebody enters into a contract over the next year when the sanctions are related, they will expect them all to be relieved regardless of what the report says can that contract continue on in other words it was put in place during the free time. can it continue on if the sanctions were put in place afterwards? that is a gray area and i think that it is a detail but i think that it does create concerns about people rushing in to establish contracts that we see

happening right now with europe. >> i don't think that is an unimportant issue and i wouldn't describe it as a detail at all i think it is pretty central a few are talking about snapback and the leverage that we have the companies could enter into contracts and have them protected against the snapback with a couple weeks back in deed and we would intend we were not going to let that happen. they understand this as well. obviously when the sanctions were lifted that can occur. if the sanctions are snapback come any inspections of the previous contract on a new contract are sanctioned. it's not clear. our friends understand that in france and germany understand that and if there's there is any doubt i want to remove it today. >> can we get a letter from the

other parties that agree to that that would be helpful to us if you can get the other parties even including china and russia to agree that is the case because we are getting very next - would help us in some degree but might still be on the bubble about the issue. >> if i may just add, i spoke with the uk ambassador to the united states this morning. i know he's talked with many of you. he shared with me an e-mail that i believe he sent to your office and he said i want to clarify the position on our ability to up my sanctions to iran for other activities in snapback and said in fact he is committed and europe is committed and the eu as other forms of unacceptable activity and he also said to me on the phone this morning that

he absolutely understands all europeans understand the deputy of the european union representative office just had a meeting with all of the services and the european union to affirm the question that is indeed the companies have no grandfather clause whatsoever. >> senator corker, thank you. senator brown. >> it's important as we appreciate a seriousness and gravitas about this issue and thoroughness that he talks the sanctions that fact and the military is always on the table. i appreciate the comments. i don't know the analogy of what these versatile discussions on 50 versus 100 plus. i want to get into that.

i don't know that an advertising that is very compelling. what the sanctions really since this is the jurisdiction of the committee. i know that you posed a paper performance model on the agreement and i would like you to discuss generally the steps iran will have to go through before we receive any new sanctions relief on the implementation if you would walk through that with us. iran has has to install two thirds of its centrifuge and has to get the stockpile about 98% from 12,000 to 12,000 kilograms to 300. it must take the core of the iraq reactor out and fill it

with concrete so that it is rendered unusable. it could set up all of the verification processes and the iaea will have access to the declared facilities on a 24/mexican basis into their roles of the real-time data transmissions and there will also be of atomic fields. and they will know about it in real time and put in place a surveillance of the centrifuge productions which means they are the active parts of the centrifuge. the iaea will have eyes on uranium from the time it comes out of the ground to know to the mining to the conversion so that they will not be able won't be able to divert 1 ounce of uranium so it always goes where

it goes. so they would have to create a new supply chain covertly in order to get to a nuclear weapon. a nuclear weapon. in addition to all of these measures that have to be put in place, iran would take the steps that it requires a. on the implementation they even sooner all of these things have to take place in all of these are details and an annex five of the agreement before there is any sanctions relief whatsoever at that point, all sanctions relief is a is electing a determination. a lifting of the determination. the determination comes many years later or when the iaea reaches what is called the broad conclusion. the broad conclusions mean that they have no undeclared facilities and indeed they can certify that the program is completely peaceful.

>> if you would describe the sanctions remain in place that will help us manage, combat, eliminate as much as possible on the various activities and terrorism in the region, it was in that answer if you would talk about the $50 billion figure why it is 50 and about 100 in terms of obligations. using a $500 billion i think that you used the term hole in the iranian economy. what that means in terms of pressure on their government i assume you are implying to me to some domestic needs. >> the sanctions regime on the activities and the question that

there is support for the ongoing violence in yemen and support for the militants in iraq and support for the assault regime in syria. that fully remained in place it is a very expensive one so it's not just the companies that we have listed so far. but it's an ongoing authority that we have dot europeans maintain and that many of our allies maintained to go after these actors. you are confident that our allies stay with us on those sanctions unlike those that we hear from ambassadors and others at that china and russia won't be there with the broad deep sanctions that are still in place overall. >> one does need to distinguish when it comes to the activities there is a coalition of countries that are highly concerned that are working alongside us increasingly we are seeing a lot of cooperation from the gulf countries who for

understandable reasons are increasingly troubled by their own activities and i would note, and i think it deserves highlighting is all saudi arabia sanction a number of hezbollah leaders just a few months back, and in doing so, the terrorist organization is very high. but our concerns about hezbollah i don't want to mislead a our shared worldwide. we are not able to obtain a security council resolution with respect to the proxies in lebanon. and i don't think we will see china and russia are stepping up in the way that we have seen our allies in europe and israel and the gulf with respect to one of these regional interventions. >> the singular goal as we have discussed off the negotiation is to make sure that iran did not obtain a nuclear weapon. that many of the opponents of this agreement have talked about the dollars that have been

available because of the lifting of sanctions and was iran could put in the region. speak to the broad strategy outside of the nuclear issues in the middle east sort of where this money goes into the administration is doing to combat that. >> thank you very much senator. indeed, we share the concerns that this committee has into the senate hasn't the country has about iran's activities in the region. not only what we have will we have the sanctions and tools the undersecretary laid out, but as you know, president obama provided more security assistance to israel then any other president to be fair and he presented democratic or republican is built on the previous president. but this president has also commissioned technology that

allows us to take actions if we need to in iran and in a way that no president has before to deploy those options and in addition. to talk about how to develop the security in the regional strategy that's been followed up in which case they supported the plan of action. it will bring security to the region because iran will be able to project power and will not be able to have a nuclear weapon that acts as a deterrent. but we are focused very much on helping to better improve its capability whether that is in the special forces training, intelligence sharing for having the right armament to deal with

these regional efforts and working in the coalition. so i think that we are all in common cause. this is quite critical and we will be following up on a dalia basis to make sure that these new strategies and efforts go forward and finally as you know, the secretary of defense was recently in israel and we are ready whenever the prime minister of israel is red e. two discuss further enhancements to security assistance. >> on the last question. >> -- elected to answer. so the answer is and we have a high degree of confidence that it's about $50 billion. i can go into more details on the itemization and i know that we have a classified session with you and all members of the senate later this afternoon. >> that's important to do. thank you. >> the reason the 100 billion figure has been out. we have been speaking to for several years is that there's

$100 billion of the central bank of iran's foreign reserves have been inaccessible. some of it is due to the sanctions congress put in place and some of it is already obligated and some of it is because it is gone. it's been kind and so one can list it on the books but it's not fair. so obviously those funds that have been spent and are not a bear and are obligated and now in place of collateral can be recovered even when the sanctions were lifted. what remains is this about $50 million that can come back to iran. and with that, one needs to keep the perspective of the about $500 billion or more that iran needs to be able to meet fundamental needs in the unpaid military tensions in salary and in terms of the needed infrastructure in the oil sector which is crippled. the final point i want to add with respect - >> how much of that would be

required for them to get their oil sector up and produce so they can bring the world into the country that we all think about and worry about and they obviously aspire to. >> they've publicly estimated they require 160 to $200 billion just for the oil sector repairs alone. that's not to take the oil sector forward into the future it's the future it's to get it back to the baseline to undo the damage that was done by the sanctions over the last few years and across the economy rape large we see a seven-year lag due to the sanctions sanctions beating up on the sanctions relief would say the middle of next year the major economic sanctions of iran are believed it will be seven years before iran comes back to where they ought to be today. >> what happens if they invest 16,200,000,000,000 would take them that long. >> that wasn't a comment on the oil repairs.

it might have been in a shorter amount of time. i'm not certain i need to get back to you on that. but if you look at the gdp curve and where it ought to have been, it had a radical break and it only gets back into the nearest where not have been today. so i couldn't have been unstated and coming back to them doesn't begin to meet the needs. that's not spending money. it's all of the foreign reserves. in other words, no country is going to exhaust its foreign reserves down to zero. it's risking huge instability to do so. so, we estimate that iran is going to use that money for its domestic economy and it's going to need to leave some in reserves in the way that any country would. on the un embargo in iran listed

in the five years on the ballistic missiles in eight years i know all of us would have preferred to retain these embargo is much, much longer. outline of people briefly. first of all, we will still be able to rely on other resolutions that let tv arms embargoes against the areas of transparency in north korea. so all of those remain in place. the countries have re-signed the proliferation security initiative to help limit of the iranian missile imports or exports. it also remains in place and will play a critical role in that regard.

we have a lot of unilateral and bilateral cooperative tools. we have ongoing sanctions in place as add-on has pointed adam has pointed out we have executive orders 12938 and 1382 which authorized the sanctions on foreign persons that contribute to the proliferation of the nuclear capability weapons and we will make use of those executive orders. it is connected to the ballistic and cruise missile back to these on the arms proliferation act it all imposes the sanctions on the individual entities. i would also say that the un security council resolution that was just recently passed does

not let iran's ballistic missile program off the hook. the current prohibitions on the supply of the ballistic missile related items technology and assistance will remain in place under this prohibition in the states are still required to present transfers to iran of the ballistic missile territory or by their nationals created they are still required to present the provision to the technology technical assistance and other related services. they are still required to present transfers of the ballistic missile items that might have passed through their territory. they are still required and i could go on there are about ten things that still continues to require states around the world to do so would we like them to go one forever in the un security council resolution? of course. but we've kept them far longer than iran, russia or china wanted them to stay on. we have kept them on under article 41 after number seven which means they are enforceable and more importantly, we have

other un security council resolutions and other tools will utterly to make sure that we are armed with concerns and the missiles are concerned and we can keep moving forward in every way that we need to. >> thank you mr. chairman. and thank the witnesses were appearing today. i want to go back to the issue was raised that was raised by senator corker. ambassador sherman, the iran nuclear review act of 2015 is abundantly clear i think that the congress is supposed to receive all of the documentation and agreement and annexation and all of the related materials. it says in the beginning referring to the transmission of agreements president shall transmit to the leadership agreement as it is defined in the subsection number one in putting all of including all of the materials and at the subsection 81 specifies that this agreement includes, and i

quote the most part of this, any additional materials, the materials related thereto including annexes and agreements come implementing the materials, documents and guidance or understandings. yet we discovered that there is a secret agreement between the iaea which contemplates the previous dimensions of the iranian activities which strikes many of us as a very, very important information to have, to evaluate. whether or not the future activity is in violation of the agreement or not. >> senator corker asked why you haven't given us the document and if i understood correctly he said it's because we don't have the document. i question is knowing the statute and knowing the intent of the statute and the letter of the law why didn't you insist.

why wasn't this disclosed? >> thank you very much for the question. as you point out we don't have the document and the senate has every single document that the united states government has. secondly, the reason we did not insist is because we want to protect the u.s. confidentiality this is a safeguard protocol. the iaea protects or confidential understanding and/or confidential arrangements between the united states and the iaea. i know that you will see this as a different situation. and i grant you that this is an international understanding to try to stop iran from having a nuclear weapon, and that is a different circumstance. so in the development of where the iaea was going, they did come to us for technical expertise as they came to every other member of the p5 plus one and in a classified briefing

this afternoon, i will share with you everything i know about this. i'm also very grateful that the director general on his own cognizance is meeting with the senate foreign relations committee in an informal setting which is extremely unusual because they wonder why it is. did i understand you to say that you personally did not see the final document? >> what i said as i was shown documents that i believe to be the final document. but whether there are any further discussions, what this is about are the modalities, the technical modalities that the iaea uses. and i will share with you this afternoon in a classified setting every single thing i know about that and it will give you great confidence that the iaea is doing what it needs to do. >> i look forward to that but frankly it is still extremely disappointing. we are being asked to vote in

agreement that seems to me the enforcement of which depends in no small part on a very important document that not only are we not allowed to see, it's not clear to me that you've read the final document or anyone else in the government actually. and you don't have it in your possession. >> i've seen the document, as i've said. as we were going through the technical discussions with the iaea, but what is important here is, senator, ultimately what we are talking about here is the credibility of the international atomic energy agency, whether in fact we believe they are credible, independent verification organizations, which it is. they have done a superb job on the joint plan of action which is the interim step. all of those reports because we have had to report to congress under the compliance have come up here. they have a very fine job and i trust and confidence in their ability to do a fine job of the joint comprehensive plan of action.

>> i'm glad you do that is a document we ought to have before us. but we ask we ask a separate question thirty-six of the jcpoa grains to either party the opportunity to walk away from the agreement. anybody can raise an objection about what the other side is doing. and after him and adjudication process that seems to me that lasts about 35 days of this objection is not resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, the complaining participant can simply walk away. either side. so iran any reason they are deemed inefficient they can walk away from this and of course that would be after they have the 50 or $100 billion, whatever the figure is. ..