and, clearly, in a final agreement, we intend to make this failsafe that we can guarantee that they will not have access to nuclear weapons. so i'd just simply put the rest of my testimony in the record, mr. chairman. i look forward to your rest of y testimony in the record. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i think we all agree with you. the purpose of the sanctions imposed on iran was to get them to the negotiating table. i think it is also to important to remember the perspective we had about what we would get in those agreements at the negotiating table. if you recall, the early iran wouldwas that basically keep the right to import nuclear fuel, but that would then allow the dismantling of their nuclear weapons capability. here is the problem. as i said in my statement, we have heard the administration say that iran has no right to

enrich, but the iranians say they do. the joint action plan indicates that the u.s. would accept an iranian enrichment program. iran from our standpoint does not the -- need this technology to generate electricity. we are prepared to allow them to import nuclear fuel, but if they have this technology, it is exactly what they do need to make a nuclear weapon. am i reading this right? in the -- is the administration's position that while it may not recognize iran's right to enrich, iran will retain an enrichment program as part of the final agreement. >> it depends on the final agreement. it is not locked in, no. if you go to the agreement, i will read from the agreement, the last paragraph. that it would involve a

mutually defined enrichment program with mutually agreed parameters consistent with practical needs. that is a very important concept. it has to relate to whatever it is practically that they might have a reason for arguing the need it for, like medical research or whatever it is. that would be very limited. agreed limitswith on scope and level of enrichment activities. and capacity, and where it is carried out. for a period to be agreed upon. i have 1, 2, 3, 4 mutually agreed upons. those are going to have to be agreed upon. if they can't be, no, they won't have one. if it is so limited and so verifiable and so transparent and so accountable, and you have all of the attributes of cradle-

to-grave documentation -- on of the things i didn't mention to you, we got access to their mining facilities so we can trace how much they are mining. we have access to their milling so we can trace the transition. we have access to the centrifuge workshops. we have access to the centrifuge storage facilities. we are building the capacity here to know exactly what is happening in an unprecedented fashion. i will say as i said to foreign minister in our negotiations, , but is no right to enrich neither is it denied. the npt is silent on the issue. is the most important concession they wanted? from our standpoint, the goal explained, if they , they are 80%

there in terms of a bomb. youhey can enrich to 5%, are still 70% of the way there. the question going forward that on preciselycused how we dismantle their nuclear weapons program and that is why we really appreciate this dialogue with you today. there was an additional discussion that i wanted to have on this "managed access." i talked to the director of the inspectors will have certain abilities, managed access as we say, with respect to the locations in which the centrifuges are assembled, where they are produced. does this include access to the military base? iaeailitary base where the

alleged to me that testing for weapons designs takes place? i would ask you also about another point which they have made. iran is out of compliance with respect to their icbm program. what type of access at the end reallyday are the iaea going to possess here? >> mr. chairman, let me answer a couple of things there. in any negotiation, you all know this because you negotiate around here every day, you can have a wish list and you a un securityom council resolution point of view and say, this is where we would like to be. then there is the question of

where you can really be. without what we have achieved here, iran would be progressing towards its nuclear weapon now. the window would be narrowing in terms of its breakout time. israel would be more at risk. that is where we were heading. from iran's point of view, they say to themselves, wait a minute -- there are about 17 countries in the world that have nuclear programs that are peaceful and about four or five of them in rich. why can't we? obviously, the answer is because you are out of sync with the iaea standards, with the npt etc. if they came into compliance, what is it that says they couldn't be able to do it? they say to us, ok, you guys say we ought to completely end enrichment.

yet you are not willing to give up sanctions relief. to them, that balance in negotiation is, if we give up the very thing we are fighting to be able to do, then you ought to give up the thing you are using to get us to do it. their equivalency was, we stop enrichment, you stop sanctions. there isn't anybody here who would've stopped sanctions altogether at that point. we have to build a process. what we did was, we got a remarkable amount. we stopped their program and we have emanated the 20% and rollback their breakout time, enlarged it while we move towards the final negotiation. the final negotiation is going to be in conjunction with all of our partners. whatever we do, it has to make israel safer. it has to make the world safer. it can threaten saudi arabia, the region. we all understand this. it has to be a peaceful program.

we have to know this to a certainty. it isn't hard to prove a program is peaceful if it really is. game. now in the main what we are saying to you is that you should give us an opportunity, working with you, we will brief you, keep everybody informed, to make sure we are all on the same page as we go through this process of proof area mr. chairman, you are correct. there are dimensions of the ballistic missiles that are of great concern. the military development facility that is of great concern. the fact is, we believe this agreement also opens the door for our ability to deal with some of that. the language is, the plan says that iran will work with the iaea to facilitate resolution of past and present issues of concern. past and present issues of concern is formula language for the iaea and iran in addressing

possible military dimensions. it also says that in the final step, they have to have a resolution of our concerns which is understood to include the military dimensions of the program which are on the table. saysdition, that plant there will be some interim steps , additional steps in between the additional measure, the final step including addressing the un security council resolutions toward bringing a satisfactory conclusion. the un security council sought suspension, not prohibition. believe that now in this plan that we have laid out, iran is required to address the un security council resolutions regarding its nuclear program before a comprehensive agreement can be

reached. the un security council resolution 1929, which is contained in that, specifically addresses ballistic missiles. it is on the table. it is part of the discussion. >> my time is expired. i want to thank you. i am very concerned about this iranian regime being allowed enrichment capability at the end of the day. i don't think -- since neighboring countries don't have it, i think it is a problem that might set off an arms race among its neighbors, but i want to go now to mr. eliot engel of new york for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to just follow up on the enriching. i said this in my opening remarks. said that if we force them to stop enriching, they would want us to remove the sanctions right away. i want to talk about both of

those. first, the enriching. if there are security council resolutions calling on iran to stop enriching, the least they could do is stop enriching while we negotiate. i don't really think that is too much to ask. that is one of the things that bothers me greatly. secondly, you mentioned israel -- we have all heard from the government of israel, united arab emirates, saudi arabia, they all guard -- regard iran as a threat to them and they don't like the deal. why are the countries that seem that most affected by it feel an existential threat, why don't they like the deal? >> actually the emirates put out a statement of support for it. i have been there recently and they believe -- cautiously, they

theyoncerned, but i think are completely understanding where we are heading with this and supportive. i stood up with the foreign minister in abu dhabi. he said, i support the agreement. i was in saudi arabia shortly thereafter and i met with the foreign minister and the king and explained to them where we are. they have issued a statement supportive of the direction we are going in. prime minister netanyahu had a view.ent he thought we should ratchet up sanctions and keep the pressure on and somehow they would collapse. we didn't read it the same way. we also felt that by just trying to go into negotiations, you would be allowing them to continue to grow their program while they were negotiating. that is more like the north korea model. you sort of get into this prolonged negotiation but they

are progressing while you're doing it. we wanted to make sure we could stop the program where it is and have an assurance wildly negotiate that it can't progress. we thought it was important to show the world whether or not in the first step a were willing to show good faith in moving forward. they have done so. -- our to implement negotiators are right now in vienna working on this and we hope in the next two days that will happen. we have plans to resume negotiations in short order. >> thank you. let's talk about sanctions. that it wasth us sanctions that brought iran to the negotiating table. i believe we need to keep the sanctions pressure on iran and that the pressure track will actually strengthen your hand. we have been told by the administration and in your testimony here today that if congress passes sanctions now,

even if those sanctions don't go into effect for six months, or only if there is a breach by iran, that we would cause your reversible damage to our diplomatic progress with iran. if that is true, how can the united states send a message to iran that there will be dire consequences if the interim deal does not come to fruition? secondly, why hasn't the administration issued any sanctions designations which involve sanctions that are already in place since the election of rouhani? chairman, i can assure you the iranians are listening to this hearing today. i can assure you they have listened to us and every conversation we have had and every conversation our friends have had. they know we are serious. they know the president is serious. they know we are serious about

diplomacy because we prefer to resolve this through diplomacy and to reach a reasonable accord and to test whether or not president rouhani and foreign ministers a reef and the supreme leader want to move in a different direction. if they do, you should welcome that. we are not naïve. we are not sitting here believing that because somebody says it it is true. you have to work through this process. you have to build trust. when nixon opened china and kissinger went over, it wasn't based on trust. and beginp a process to build a different relationship. same thing with gorbachev and reagan and the soviet union. it was not based on trust. it was based on a process that whips -- was put in place. we are approaching this realistically with an understanding that the sanctions make a difference.

,hey know that if this fails sanctions will be increased. we have set it 100 times. you all have said it 100 times. but you don't need to do it. in thectually gratuitous context of the situation. if you do it in a week need to. we will be prepared to do that. you will be partners in this as we go along because we will be sharing a sense of where we are and what is going on. i would say to you, we also have partners in this. europe andners in us go offrussia see and we are hammering in a way that runs contra to the agreements we have made, it really is very difficult for us

to hold the thing whole. i think it is not the wisest approach. >> i think it could potentially strengthen your hand. >> i appreciate your thinking that. i am respectfully suggesting that we think our hand is very strong and nothing is undone in the sanctions. they are going to lose $30 billion over the course -- they normally sell 2.5 million barrels per day of oil. they are down to one million. there are economy is careening. doy know what they need to and the people's hopes and aspirations have been raised. they came back and people were excited and anticipating the possibility they might have different lives. those aspirations can suddenly be put back in a can. lot that ise is a moving in the right direction here. i think we just ought to try to

respect the process. if you couldn't put them in place in a week, if it was impossible to design them, we will work with you. you,e just saying to please give us the opportunity to negotiate along the contours of what we have agreed upon. >> what about the sanctions designations that are already in place? >> they stay in place. >> but there haven't been any sanctions designations issued since rouhani's election. >> with respect to what? >> the sanctions that are in place, if there have been any violations. >> i am not sure there have been. that doesware of one put an additional sanctions in place. >> let me just ask one final question. $7 billion tothat $8 billion in sanctions relief is being provided to iran as a result.

has that been taken into account when we look at the amount of pressure that we are taking -- removing from iran? >> it has been and we also take into account the variations in the price of oil, sometimes a sometimes theynd have had 800,000 barrels a month. sometimes they have more. there are variations. we have taken the entire curve of their revisions into effect. the day after this agreement was made, the stock market in israel was the highest it has been. now tore going to go florida. >> thank you. in stated on 60 minutes that a nuclear deal with iran, a bad deal is worse than no deal. this deal is a bad deal.

i believe the concessions offered to iran will be the death of the sanctions program as we know it. this threatens our allies. it threatens our closest ally, the jewish state of israel. materialtrue that this is just one aspect but there is also weaponization to consider and also ballistic missiles? this deal does not address these. iran has announced a significant advancement on its ballistic missile program. why was it decided to leave these aspects of iran's nuclear weapons program unaddressed in the agreement? the administration's acceptance of iran's a legitimate claim to a right to enrich uranium. iran says this deal does give it that right. i expect the iranian regime to welcome in the entire international community, to show that it has not violated terms of the deal.

both the administration and the media will be effusive in their praise of iran's fulfillment of the deal. we set the bar solo that iran will probably comply and we must not be fooled by that approach. it will be to late to stop them. how long would it take for iran to enrich uranium from 3.5% to 90% with its current nuclear infrastructure with the advanced centrifuges? i was the author of several iran sanctions bills. including the toughest set of sanctions currently on the books. it is discouraging that many countries are now eager to do business with iran, to get iranian gas. we will not be able to stop this cash infusion and get sanctions back to their current levels. jay carney suggested that

pursuing a diplomatic resolution , then wes ruled out would be faced with no other option than war to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. this is a false binary choice. it is not one or the other. we have been increasing sanctions on the iranian regime for a decade. do you agree with this characterization -- do you believe that those of us in congress who oppose this deal and seek an increase in sanctions to force iran to give , that we arem warmongers? ashraf,regarding camp are they in iran or iraq? mr. secretary, sometimes a

handshake is just a handshake. when the leader of the free world shakes the bloody hand of a ruthless dictator like castro, it becomes a propaganda queue for the tyrant. castro who uses that hand to sign order to repress and jailed democracy advocates. right now, as we speak, cuban opposition leaders are being detained and beaten while trying to commemorate today which is international human rights day. they will feel disheartened when they see these photos. could you please tell the cuban people living under that repressive regime that a policyke -- the u.s. towards the cruel and sadistic cuban dictatorship has not weakened. thank you. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. by making clear --

piece ofgave me a paper that informs me that on september 6, the treasury identified a network of six individuals in four businesses subject to the iran sanctions act. they did sanction them. treasury has done at least one instance of sanctioning since then. with respect to your opening comment regarding the death of the sanctions, we have to respectfully disagree. in six months, the world will know whether you are right or i am right. i don't agree with you. i do not believe it is the death of the sanctions because all of our partners are united. we have enormous tools at our disposal. we are the ones who control

access to the financial system isthe united states, which -- for almost any financial transaction in the world. we have huge ability to leverage and have an impact on people. we are going to be all over this. i have great confidence in our ability to go forward. companies know that the sanctions are still in place. the visibility that has been giving creates great uncertainty for them. very few companies are going to go out and try to cut a contract with iran if they think in five months or four months, that contract is going to be null and void because sanctions are going to be ratcheted up or you might be at war. it is not going to happen. common sense tells you that. they want more certainty before they sign any long-term contract. answer theould ashraf for the cuba question.

ashraf, where are they? they are in iraq. >> the seven hostages that were taken from camp ashraf? we have not known where they are. >> i can talk to you about that in classified session. >> on the issue of cuba. >> on the issue of cuba, ladies and gentlemen, today is about honoring notes and mandela. -- nelson mandela. the president said at an international funeral with leaders from all over the world that they are there to honor mandela. we appreciate that people from all over the world and from all different beliefs and walks of life who appreciated else and mandela -- nelson mandela or were friends of his comic and to

honor him. , in hisresident said speech today, honoring nelson mandela, he said we urge leaders to honor mandela's struggle for freedom by upholding the basic human rights -- >> would use a row castro is upholding basic human rights? stro isd you say raul ca upholding basic human rights? >> no. >> we know -- go to mr. brad sherman of california. >> thank you for your hard work and for enforcing the sanctions laws that we in congress passed. we have a number of iran sanctions, statutes on the book. some have waivers, some don't. with regard to those that don't, can you pledge now this administration will enforce the ofs on the books to the best

your ability? >> absolutely. i think we do. are you talking about the waiver on the oil? >> i was talking about all of the sanction laws. some have waivers, some don't. i am concerned as the ranking member points out -- prior to of sit -- first six months this year, we have dozens of companies sanctioned because we discover the information that indicated that they had violated u.s. sanctions laws. since rouhani was elected, one. you have identified it. we have gone from dozens and dozens to one. i am hoping that we are not slow walking things because we are so happy with rouhani. thent to think administration for recognizing the importance of the sanctions bill that congress has passed. the sanctions that the administration logs now, the administration opposed every single one of them then. most significantly, the banking sanctions.

it is the administration, not just anyone cabinet officer that makes policy. speaking forthner the administration at the time said that he strongly opposed those banking sanctions and that they might benefit the regime. fact, all the administrations have opposed all these sanctions. they are the reason we didn't pass any sanctions 2001-2008. the administration is the reason we didn't pass any in 2009 or 2013. now you are here saying, don't do anything now because we will be with you and urging sanctions if this deal doesn't go forward. fear is that we won't be able to act in a week because the only way we can act in a week is if the administration is with us. every administration has been opposed to every sanction since before i got here. as to the importance of

sanctions relief, when international companies know no sanctions in 2013 or 2014, that is enough of a window for them to exploit the loopholes in the existing laws. insteade geneva deal, of the iranian economy careening , it is rebounding. chinese oil companies, turkish government, japanese banks all saying, now is the time to do business with iran. -- which isich does members in all of our districts, announces an international business conference in tehran. deal and ied on this was impressed a little bit less after i read it. halts and rolls back the program. they have got 9000 centrifuges turning now and they will turn throughout.

they will spin throughout the term of this agreement. the centrifuges are literally rolling forward. you have told us they can't increase their stockpile of enriched uranium. yes they can. they just have to convert it to uranium oxide. -- itoesn't neutralize creates a new stockpile of uranium oxide which can be turned into uranium hexyl fluorine in just a few weeks. the wisconsin project on nuclear arms control calculates that they will during the term of this agreement create enough enriched uranium for four nuclear bombs. the one issue before congress is whether we should adopt sanctions that go into effect in the summer or instead that it is safe to wait. as you point out, we can pass sanctions in a week if you are lobbying for them. as everye

administration has, trying to prevent them, you are asking us to be asleep and do nothing. ande 9000 centrifuges turn a new uranium stockpile is created. as a practical matter, this agreement doesn't start for many weeks. six months after that is late july. anyone who has looked at the congressional calendar knows, we will not be able to pass a controversial bill opposed by the administration if we don't start -- unless we take action well before july. are we in session in august? september or october? a couple of weeks. it appears my time is about to expire. [laughter] the one thing i would like you to focus on is, why are you kilosced that the 16,000

of uranium oxide that iran will create during this agreement is not a threat? do you disagree that it can be converted? >> it can be if you have a conversion capacity and iran doesn't. they are not allowed to build one. congressman, you are really setting up a strawman. it is not a hard one to knock down. there is just no reality to the scenario you're drawing. first of all, i was chair of the hearings on the iran sanctions. i was working with the administration. the administration opposed to the timing that they had a timing issue. they thought they had the prerogative to be able to negotiate as i am now arguing. the senate in its infinite

wisdom decided, no. it went ahead and passed them. the timing was decided for the administration. i don't know any administration not conductingke foreign policy on its terms. i don't know any congress that doesn't like to weigh in. for us to get the best of both worlds. i have come here representing the president telling you that he is committed. if this fails, he is going to want to ratchet up. we are going to have to do what we have to do to make sure they don't get a nuclear capacity. this is important. you have to have a chance to answer some of the questions here. >> we are giving you the chance. >> i want to make this point because it is important. to asking youed for additional sanctions if we fail. we will need them. i am asking you, work with us.

we will work with you now in support. let's frame what they might be, how they might be. we will certainly be ready. i am asking you not to do it now because of the relationship with our p5 plus one and the message that it sends. you are wrong when you say that the administration is not going to come and ask for them. we are telling you, we will. to ther, with respect facilities that exist -- if they started to spin more centrifuges , it is clear to us they are not serious. that would be such a flagrant violation of this, it would not only invite more sanctions -- >> they are spinning 9000 now. >> but they are not allowed to hook up the ones that are -- they have been restricted in that. they are not allowed to put

additional centrifuges in place. they have 19,000. they could be hooking them all up. they are not going to do that. let's say they did. they say, to help with you, we are going forward. our inspectors see what they are doing. ,e have the absolute capacity deployed now, to deal with that if we have to from a military point of view. we could not only terminate those facilities, but we could obviously set back their program for some time. that comes with a whole different set of calculations, but that has not been taken off the table. >> we're going to go to mr. smith of new jersey. i would suggest -- asked your question. we will get the response and move along. >> thank you, mr. chairman. spring -- last

testified that the state department had told her there was nothing that could be done. she was shocked and dismayed. we were all grateful that in response to her testimony and her appeal, you wish you'd -- issued a statement on behalf of her husband. on thursday, she will testify and from subcommittee her advanced testimony, she will until the been beaten pain has been so great he cannot stand. i fear for the worst. mayar that our children never see their daddy again. she goes on to say, my husband is suffering because he is a christian. he is suffering because he is an american. his own government has abandoned him. don't we owe it to him as a nation to stand up for human rights and for his freedom? say, while i am

grateful for president obama's willingness to express concern devastatedand, i was to learn that the administration didn't ask for my husband's release when directly seated across the table from the leaders of the government that hold him captive. my first question would be, is that true? this case directly with iranians in the negotiations on the nuclear issue? the answer is that is not true. i personally raised the issue with foreign minister zarif when i first met him. directlyot linked it to the nuclear issue because we them andhat prejudices also prejudices the negotiation.

we don't want them to become hostages or pawns of a process that then gets played against something they want with respect to the nuclear program. we want them returned because they are american citizens. they deserve to be returned. that --t me, i am -- believe not at liberty to go into what is happening on it. that is the difficulty in some of the situations. there are back channels and other kinds of efforts that are engaged. we have never stopped trying to secure their release. we are raising the issue with our representative nations in tehran, with the swiss, the swedish and others. it is a constant process and we are engaged in that. >> i do appreciate that. it seems there is a window of opportunity when they wanted something and wanted desperately

, to raise the issue at the negotiating table. this opportunity is huge and still exists but we are not going to link them to nuclear because of prejudices them. >> but he is at risk right now of death. he has been transferred to and even more on it risen. -- dominant ominous prison. >> i am happy to sit with you on a classified venue and i can tell you what we are doing. it is an ongoing and constant effort. >> do you have expectations that he and the others will be freed? >> i can't speak for what they will do or not do but i am constantly -- trustraises our sense of though you say trust and test. i didn't say -- >> i didn't say trust. i said test and verify. even moreit raises

serious questions about their credibility. when an american is being tortured and we are conducting a negotiation and he is not -- in order to be central. >> we have to make some very tough decisions about what affects what. we believe it would disadvantage them. they would become pawns to the process. it could prolong it, make it more risky or dangerous. >> i have one other question. it disadvantages them according to who? they are in charge. they don't care about public opinion. israel reports that four .ranians were released was that in any way linked in terms of the nuclear negotiations? >> no. this, we have on

a lot of problems with iran. they are supporting hezbollah. hezbollah is in syria. they are supporting syria, assad. they are purveyors of terrorism. -- there was a plot taking place to blow up an ambassador here in a restaurant in washington. there are a number of different serious issues that exist. they are not tied either to this because the nuclear file is the most critical, most pressing, most urgent with respect to israel, the region and us and the world in terms of proliferation. to be disciplined and focused and targeted on that program and get that under control. meanwhile, we are continuing to put to test all of these other issues. >> we go now to the gentleman from new jersey.

>> thank you. welcome, mr. secretary. , you statedement that there are no guarantees and that you have serious questions regarding these negotiations. obviously we are all skeptical for the very reasons you stated to mr. smith. , we have this window of negotiations. who determines whether negotiations are going well? are we going to have a scenario where you come back to us and say, we are moving forward -- i need another six months, another three months. who determines whether we are making progress or not? or if we are going to come back to congress and say, we tried, let's do this in a week. >> congressman, we will obviously.

of the united states, my team, we will make the initial judgment. we are accountable to you and to the american people through you. we will obviously have to confirm. we will come up here. i am sure you will want to hear from us somewhere in the middle of this. we will brief you in the appropriate laces and in the appropriate manner. you will join us, i hope, in making that judgment. interests all of our to get this right. >> do you see a scenario where you come back to us and say, we need more time? >> i am not going to say that it won't happen but it is not our preference. my hope is that this can be resolved sooner rather than later. my hope is we could move faster than six months. i think there is a chance that that might be able to be possible. i can't tell you today.

we left a provision that you could extend the six months but it has to be my bejeweled consent. -- by mutual and cents. -- consent. if we think we are on track, we may come to you and to describe that to you and you may concur in the judgment that it is worth a few more months. my hope is that will not have to happen. >> that would send a terrible message if we keep extending these negotiations. >> i said my expectation is it will not happen. it could, but i don't expect it. my hope is we can get it done sooner rather than later. >> ok. reading about the resolve of the iranians to get this nuclear program done. know frankly, i just don't

if this diplomatic effort on their behalf is really serious. their sincerity in this? >> it is not my job to measure sincerity. it is my job to lay down a process by which we can measure it. far, they have indicated they are ready to do things that make a difference. they haven't done them yet. so we have to get the implementation moving and start moving down those six months. i just said, we are not going to go by virtue of words. this is based on actions. it is test and verify. we need to verify and put it to the test. that is what we are saying to you. >> i really don't think they care what their people think. thatnk this is a regime

the leader makes the decisions and whether the iranian people are happy that we are negotiating, doesn't mean anything to them. >> i think your comment speaks for itself. the supreme leader is the supreme leader. >> all right, thank you. >> we go now to mr. rohrabacher of california. thank you, mr. secretary for being with us. i know it is growing -- grueling but we appreciate you being here with us. i have a few housekeeping questions to ask before i go into the issue of the day. i am introducing a bill today that will allow 3000 refugees from camp ashraf and camp liberty refugee status and permit them to come to the

united states. hundreds of these people have been slaughtered. they live under constant threat of being murdered. will this administration be supporting my legislation to prevent these people from being slaughtered by this regime that we have in iraq now? i have gone to the lengths of appointing a special representative to work exclusively to get -- >> i am just asking you about -- >> i would need to see the legislation. in principle you would agree with letting these refugees have status, refugee status so they can come here? >> we are trying to find a place for them to go now. >> but in principle you agree. >> i would like to see the legislation but i can't speak for the president. >> all right, i am trying to get the answer but i understand.

it has been reported that there was live footage two hours into the attack in benghazi. weres reported that there closed-circuit cameras on the outer walls of the counsel it -- consulate. one state department official has been quoted as saying that the main gate camera revealed large members -- numbers of armed men flowing into the compound at 9:40 that night. we have not seen those videos. first of all, do the videos exist? if they do exist, will you make them available to this committee? >> i haven't seen any drone video footage but i have seen video footage of the facility itself. i have seen those people pouring in. we all saw them. we saw them in the senate. i think they are available to the house. >> are you aware of any videos that have not been made --

>> no, i am not. thank you -- >> thank you. when we are talking about the issue at hand today, we all should recognize that you are trying to deal with a threat that you did not make and that was around while the republicans were in charge of the government. they did not succeed. that being considered, i am going to ask you some tough questions. i do understand that you didn't make the problem and you are trying to do what you can to solve the issue. about -- we are not going to trust but verify, we are going to test and verify. you refer to the leader of their government as the supreme leader. quite frankly, that is groveling but verify. the fact is, he is not a supreme leader. he is not some democratically

elected governor. he is a vicious man with a bloody background and we are treating him like the supreme leader. isn't that groveling before a group of people who do not deserve? of course they are not going to -- they're going to think they have got leverage and they can do things if we treat them with that type of respect, the same way we would a democratic government. >> it is just his title. it is his name. >> that is what they call him. are we going to treat it off hrher? as the fu this is a man who holds power through brute force. instead of test but verify, it looks like it is grovel but verify to me. you.just don't agree with the point i am making is, there

is no issue of trust involved. we are going to protect our interest by testing what they are doing. i don't consider anything that we have done here with respect to this to be anything except acting in the interest of our nation and our friends in the region. i think we are better off today than we were the day before we made this agreement. they were progressing to do whatever they wanted in this program. now they are not. because of the sanctions, they are negotiating with us with respect -- >> we will look at your proposals very carefully. thank you, mr. secretary. >> we go to mr. ted deutch of florida. >> mr. secretary, thank you for being here. i want to thank you for your efforts on behalf of my constituents. on behalf of his family, they really appreciate your efforts in the state department. we hope you will continue to press or his release so he and come home safely.

i wanted to talk about sanctions. i take some issue with your premise that we put sanctions in place to get to negotiation. i don't think that is why we put sanctions in place. we put sanctions in place to get to negotiation on our way to getting the iranians to give up nuclear capability. that is where we were going. the concern that a lot of us have is that if we don't set some marker -- you asked us to work with you. we ask the same back. if we don't set some marker that says if you don't -- if there is , then these additional sanctions that we passed during the summer when many told us not to because rouhani wouldn't negotiate if we did, if we should put those in

place so it is clear what will happen if there is not a deal. i do think that we can work with you on this. that the suggesting legislation imposed those additional sanctions this afternoon. , thenis not six months let's figure out what it is. is it seven months? is it eight months? point, why wouldn't it be in our interest and the interest of our allies to make clear what will happen if the iranians continue to push and extend and there is no deal. can't we work together in the interest of a negotiating diplomacy, help with to strengthen diplomacy in order to do that? >> we have made it clear to them what the implications are of not being successful. they know what the stakes are.

them there will not be new sanctions of any kind imposed while we are negotiating. if congress votes for new sanctions, congress is going off on its own. question -- most importantly, i am not as worried about how they interpret it as i am how our allies interpret it. they are part of this. if the united states just lumbers off on its own and does its own thing when we are working with those partners, they have a right to say, we are in partnership. let me just finish one thing. the other thing is, i never suggested -- at the beginning of my statement here i told you that the reason -- our whole policy is that iran will not get a nuclear weapon. we are not in this for the sake of negotiations for negotiations' sake. we are here because those

negotiations are to prevent them from getting the program. if we don't negotiate in a way -- i don't want to give them an excuse or any other rationale for upping the ante, -- >> we are limited in time. i agree. , they are know listening to us now, they know there are going to be more sanctions, we have told them a hundred times, what is wrong with working together for what we think might be appropriate if there is failure? >> i completely agree. upshould to get up -- tee it with a date certain. have a date certain until you know how negotiations are working. >> my concern is, we have heard the argument before that sanctions undermine international unity. when the senate voted

unanimously on the iranian central-bank sanctions, it was the same day that the apartment of treasury sent a letter to every senator telling them not to vote for it. it passed unanimously and it was vital in changing iran's nuclear calculus. they had to make a decision about whether to do business with iran or with the united states. i would like to make -- work together to try to tee something up. i have one other question. you said that oil sanctions continue as they are in place with no diminishment of oil sanctions. yet the sanctions relief provides that one million barrels per day is now a fixed amount during the six months that the iranians can export. sanctions,xisting there needs to be a significant reduction in the amount that they can export. it seems there is a contradiction. >> what we did is we put in

place a pause for the few nations, china, india, south korea, japan, a number of nations who are working with us very closely in the sanctions enforcement who have been reducing their consumption of oil over this period of time. they have reached a point where it is very difficult for them to further reduce without serious impact on global economy and their economy. effect, we worked a way that we were able to release some of the money against giving them a pause for the six months because of that difficulty. that is not a change in the sanctions regime, it is simply a pause in its application. it will applies and apply after the six months are over if we don't have an agreement. >> we go to mr. joe wilson of south carolina. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you ranking member, eliot engel for your leadership. mr. secretary, thank you for

being here. this is a bipartisan concern. there are excellent questions on both sides. that thes believe policies of this administration are putting the american people at risk. arabiaies, israel, saudi -- in fact, with the missile capability that iran has, our nato allies, turkey, bulgaria, greece -- there are great concerns that we have. i agree with prime minister netanyahu that this agreement is a mistake. i agree with ambassador john bolton in the weekly standard, he wrote "this interim agreement is badly skewed from america's perspective. iran retains full capacity to enrichment. thus abandoning a decade of western assistance and security council resolutions that iran stop all uranium enrichment activities. allowing iran to continue enriching and despite modest and

inadequate measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure lays the predicate for iran itself to fully enjoy its right to enrichment of any final .greement indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a solution will involve a defined enrichment program. the exchange -- in exchange for superficial concessions, iran achieved three critical breakthroughs. bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear weapons program. the agreement does not cover centrifuge manufacturing and testing, weaponization research and fabrication. the entire ballistic missile program. indeed, given that the agreement contemplates periodic renewals, iran may have gained all the time it needs to achieve

weaponization, not just simply for a handful of nuclear weapons, but dozens more." with senator robert menendez of new jersey. "he arguedted out, it was harsh sanctions that had brought iran to the negotiating table in the first place. he added that he found many additional flaws within the agreement aside mr. secretary, again we see how bipartisan this is. personal ourng allies are concerned. or rede the baselines lines are markers of success. >> iran's inability to ever have any kindur knowing it

of weaponization or nuclear weapons program. bottom line. you said decades of resolutions that they abandoned. what did they get you? >> what they does decades of resolution get you? >> they've gotten the people of iran hopefully to the point -- this is the great culture persia -- hopefully for the people of around to have a green revolution, for to finally succeed. thought, andhful meanwhile israel was more risk. had 164 my friend, they centrifuges. now they have 19,000. do you know sharif said to me? do you know what your sanctions have gotten you? 19,000. click they are not dealing in

good faith. it --ith tests to verify >> i never sat here and said the words good faith in terms of what they are doing. everyone knows that you do not build a secret hole in a mountain to have centrifuges and working inou are good faith. you do not sign additional protocols. you do not deny access. we all understand that. the issue is, what will we do about it? we need to have a sudden breakout that threatens israel -- the truth is you went further that they will continue all aspects of weaponization. in order to weapon eyes, you need to have highly enriched uranium. goingour plan, they are the opposite direction. they are destroying their highly

enriched uranium. congressman, we would know immediately. the representative from california. >> they a secretary kerry for joining us today. we do not agree on a lot in this town, but certainly on this committee and in congress, i believe that the administration, and to quote your words, we all will on one issue, iran not agree nuclear weapons. there is general consensus on that. presidenty, the described what the final agreement might look like. it wasn't agreement that might allow iran to enrich nuclear material for energy, but enough restrictions to ensure that the united states will not allow it to produce a nuclear weapon. one of the chances of success at getting to that agreement, to quote the president, i would not

say it is more than 50-50. but we have to try. i agree that we should try it. if failure is one that we do not want to see. usen iran's history, many of on this committee and myself personally remain very skeptical, certainly as you approach negotiations, i think you have expressed a healthy skepticism as well. we have to try. any agreement that we have turned to, and i think to quote you, it has to halt their progress and roll it back. time too lengthen the nuclear breakout. with this model of test and verify, how can we guarantee , you know, they are not continuing to enrich? they are not continuing to

enrich above the 3.0% threshold. , do theye context understand how skeptical members of this body are? backsliding, we have already in a unanimous way supported the pre-sanctions and the senate will be close to you and their progress. got how close they are? >> how skeptical we are within the body about their intentions? that thethe answer is purpose of our first up is to know with certainty what they are doing. , that is said to us part of their promise to us, that if they say it will be a peaceful program, they will allow us unlimited access.

we will make these things happen. that is what we have to put to the test now. thisll now have access to secret underground facility. that is a big deal. and knowow have access what they are doing there. we will have sufficient access to the heavy water reactor. as we go down the road here, there will have to be built in, very significant intrusive verification mechanisms. certainty,know to a and when i say "to a certainty," that people will sit there and say to us, they will look at us and say, are we really protected? we have a responsibility as an administration where we can come to all of you and withstand appropriate scrutiny of what the

framework of this agreement is. does answer the question that we know what they are doing. does that give us accurate insight? is it possible for them to somehow be cheating on you and you don't know it? is there way that you can that there'santee no hidden enrichment taking place? is there a guarantee that you are able to save this program is to a certainty, a peaceful program? as i have said, there are other countries that engage in peaceful programs. we have inspectors and inspection and a level of intrusion. it will take iran a. of time -- it will take iran a period of time. the record here, the history, it has raised the sanctions to the level that they are. it has brought the global community together in this effort. it is up to a ron really to

decide how fast they want to prove this and how far they are willing to go to make it clear that they are certain. if it isn't clear, we have a problem. >> the representative from texas. >> mr. secretary, thank you for being here. as president kennedy once said, let us never fear to negotiate out of fear. heartfeltwish you my sincere wish that your negotiations are successful. i think every american wants that. i think the stakes that you are dealing with have never been higher. from a national security and homeland security standpoint as well. i have some concerns about this deal. we worked on these thing since for a decade. we have gotten to the point where we can negotiate with 70

members of congress to continue and vote on the sanction bill that we passed by 400 votes in the house. we can strengthen your hands and strengthen your leverage in these negotiations. this deal is that violates six un security council resolutions to give iran the right to enrich. it sends a message to our partners in the middle east that is ok for state-sponsored terrorism to enrich, but not for them. i am concerned that this could spark a nuclear arms race in the middle east if not done correctly. i have concerned that it feels nothing with the technology go aspects, as we know they have the capability to hit israel and europe with these missiles currently. the pentagon predicts that they have capabilities of hitting the united eighth by 2015. by 2015. states most disturbingly, president

rouhani said this week that iran's centrifuges will never stop spinning. i've talked to officials in the bush administration who complain that one of the best claim that one of the biggest mistakes they made with north korea. playinge that iran is the north korean playbook, if you will. they are playing the united states. chairman, isecurity am concerned about the billions havellars of relief and we had no insurance -- assurances that that money will not be used for terrorism and weapons programs. we should negotiate, i believe that lifting sanctions should not be done until they have dismantle their nuclear program. are you willing at the end of the six months in the final deal to say, look, we are willing to lift the sanctions, when you stop enriching uranium. >> let me state from and into the question of never stop

spinning the centrifuges. if there are less than 1000, or 500, or whatever they are, they will never stop spinning, but they are limited in what they can do. the outlines of this have to take shape now. we are very clear. --s agreement envisions a they have accepted this. it envisions a -- a severe restraints. mutually defined programs with mutually agreed-upon parameters with practical needs. what are the practical needs? to have the medical research maybe, to feed enough fuel into a legitimate power program which may be done in consortium with other people, with intrusive knowledge of what is going on as a result.

there are a lot of things here that are yet to be filled out. the answer is, at the end of this, i cannot tell you that they may not have some enrichment, and i can tell you to a certainty that it will not be possible for them to be able to turn it into a weapons program without our knowing it so far in advance that all the options that are available to us today to stop it. what if we were not talking about this? and they were proceeding down the road? wayave to stop at the only we know how. that is still available to us. but it will be available to us with much greater foresight and much greater knowledge of what is happening and much greater restraint on whatever their program is between now and then. and saudimake israel arabia and the emirates and egypt and all the other countries concerned much more secure. >> i think you would have more confidence in israel and numbers of congress if you came back in six months and said, you know,

we cannot have a peaceful program. they cannot enrich uranium inside iran. that can be done by providing that enrich uranium to them, outside of iran. i would urge you to pursue that. >> that deal was on the table a number of years ago, but i am afraid that deal is probably lost. quite the gentleman's time is expired. we go to the representative from virginia. >> mr. secretary, when is the last time that we had a negotiated agreement of any time with iran? >> 10 years ago. there was restraint on some level of their program. >> it is on a frequent phenomenon. >> we had not really talk to them face to face since 1979. >> some of the critics of this --eement frame it as

>> let me reframe it. there have been a couple of meetings where people have top. -- wouldl critics have have one believe that an alternative to what you and your team, working with our allies, have hammered out here really could be approved upon -- improved upon and made into a confidence agreement. the only agreement that counts is the complete dismantlement of , sites, andckpiles processing facilities. our so-called friends have criticize the interim agreement. why didn't you get a comprehensive agreement that meets all of our concerns? >> it is not an interim agreement. let me phrase is very carefully for everybody.

an interim agreement. it is a first step towards a comprehensive agreement. why did we do that? for the simple reason that we wanted to make our friends ourselves safer. there andply sat negotiated toward a copper heads of agreement, then you are getting sucked into the north korea syndrome. then they go explode something and it is too late. we definitively did not want to fall into that trap. to take ad on trying step where we could holdings where they are what we put to test the sincerity and willingness of the whole thing. if they are willing to do the whole thing, then we have lost nothing. if they are not willing to do the whole thing, we have not allowed into progress} we're -- -- we have not

allowed them to progress to a point where we put people at risk. int's what our capabilities terms of inspections? can we go in any day and inspect what they are doing? >> we cannot at all. the iaea is allowed to get into some facilities on a once a week -- they can get into to facilities. we are going in daily and they have been going into iraq on a sporadic basis. >> the agreement that you all have negotiated allows for daily inspections? >> daily. >> on all of these sites we have discussed? daily on some sites and monthly on a rock. -- iraq. a significant change in our capacity to look at and view what is going on. >> very much so. in addition to that, we have access to their centrifuge

storage facilities, or centrifuge workshops, production thelities, and we have plans that will be given to us with respect to iran. we have a much greater manifestation of the kind of willingness to open up and put this to the test. >> it is an adage in negotiations, mr. secretary, that you want to try to let it be a win-win, not on i win, you lose situation. often that requires face-saving measures to allow someone to step back from the brink. what is in it for iran? tot motivates iran to want reach this agreement and reach the ultimate part of this agreement? >> i think iran mostly wants to get out from under the sanctions. their economy is in shambles.

there people are hurting. there is enormous pressure on president rouhani to deliver. rouhani was not the choice of the supreme leader. rouhani was really a reflection of votes that were cast and it was a surprise and then he promised the people of iran in his election campaign that he was going to deliver change. he was going to try to reach out to the west and change the relationships and improve the economy. i think that is really what has been driving him. >> mr. ted poe of texas. >> thank you mr. secretary. i want to make it clear that i do not question the motives or the interest that you have, that the administration has, in doing what you do for the united states. i believe that you want to make

the world safer for us and everyone else. agreement,ticular and this proposal, i disagree. it seems to me that we are giving away the farm and the rights as well. them dismantlee their nuclear weapons program, we are freezing the program which could be thought out at any time down the road. iran are my concerns about and the situation. i have two questions, if i do not talk too long. i first concern is of course, they are continuing to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles. met with president netanyahu in israel a couple weeks ago, he said, they are not us,loping those ibm's for they can reach us with what they

already have. they're developing them for you, the united states. i am concerned that they continue to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles. it seems that they would want something on the tips of those further down the road, like weapons. a second concern is the terror groups that they sponsor all over the world. hezbollah, there are activities in the middle east, but also in other parts of the world. the irgc, they are causing mischief as you know, everywhere, including in syria. mr. rouhani is a smooth talker in my opinion. job --ifferent from a ahmenjad. there is always the situation that we continue to talk about.

attacks andw five no one has been brought to justice in the iraqi government and the criminals have not been brought to justice. excuse my partner here. onn they were attacked september 1, the murders occurred in iran. 50 people were murdered. many of them were murdered while they were wounded in different locations. they were tracked down and murdered. i believe iran was behind this attack. one was held accountable, not iran, not the iraqis, not the criminals themselves. there are some other examples. picture, has the supreme leader changed his position that iran wants to eliminate israel and iran wants to eliminate the

united states? >> congressman, let me begin by saying that i agree with each of the concerns that you have expressed. thee is no question that icbm missile program operon is a serious concern. in certain language in the agreement and in understanding the agreement, that is one of our concerns going forward. it weapon aviation. likewise, the support for terror that i raised earlier, i will let the record speak to that. with respect to the stated positions, the public positions, , no.an and its rhetoric it has not changed. it is very inflammatory and threatening. secretary, domr. you believe that it is still the goal of the supreme leader to

destroy israel and to destroy the united states? believe, -- >> what do believe about that position? >> i believe the rhetoric is anderous and threatening you know, incredibly counterproductive and damaging to any potential rational --ationship >> i'm reclaiming my time. my other question is this mr. secretary. if iran gets nuclear weapons, will saudi arabia and egypt also rush to get nuclear weapons as well? >> if iran got a nuclear weapon, there would be an arms race in the region for certain.

that is one reason why they will not get a nuclear weapon. >> thank you mr. secretary. >> i also want to finish that there are lots of people in the world who use outrageous and outlandish rhetoric. they play to their constituents. they have no means of actually implementing what they are saying. we take seriously the threat of iran and the potential for nuclear weapons. that is why the centerpiece of the president's foreign policy is that they will not get a nuclear weapon while this president is president of the united states. >> a california representative. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. thank you mr. secretary. i want to promise my remarks by saying that i have nothing but the highest respect for you professionally and personally. one of the biggest disappointments politically with that you did not become president. i think you would have been a magnificent president.

i am a believer. however, when it comes to this deal, i am completely against it. i think it is naive. i do not think it makes us safer. i do not think it makes our allies a for. those who say that sanctions were working. we need to ratchet them up more. we should've tighten them down even more. the choice becomes whether the rainy and decide that they want a functioning economy, -- the iranians decide whether they want a functioning economy. say that we will not agree to anything until everything is agreed to. we need a comprehensive deal first. changed its nuclear calculus? we do not know and we should be skeptical. i am not skeptical at all. i do not think it is change anything. he continued to want a nuclear weapons program. i will give you plenty of time to answer those questions so i

will not go over. know, it seems to me, to be frank -- >> i am pleased that you think i would've made a good president. i appreciate your soup or not effort. i hate to disappoint you that i have come up with something in conjunction with the administration that you think is naive. i think it is anything but naive. anything but. i think that for many reasons. i have been thinking about and working on the iran file so to speak for a lot of years. whoe are a lot of people have made different calculations about what iran may or may not do. it is all well are good -- well and good to sit here and say we must ratchet up the sanctions and drive them into a place where they are crushed. you know what?

the russians and the chinese won't be with you doing that. ultimately the europeans may not be either. as he wrapped them up, and they think it is unreasonable, they stop their willingness to explore diplomacy and you lose them too. you actually undone the sanctions. them.e reinforcing there are a lot of people in the intel community who will sit and wholeou that there is a school of brought in iran -- the hardliners -- who welcome the idea that the united states might sanction them. they will be here as to the street and true to the revolution. as a result, they think they will be stronger as a regime. there are many people who believe that if the regime got into real extremists on the happened is that the supreme leader would say, i am not surrendering. we are not ever going to surrender. now we are going to go to the

weapons since that is the only thing we can do. we will dig deeper and we will take whatever it takes, but we are going to get it. that is all the united eighth of america understands. that is an alternative theory to this notion. you can go out there and razor sanctions and you're going to win. we are in a good place now to negotiate. we are in a level of reasonable capacity to get an agreement. navy we will not get the agreement. maybe we will have to do the other thing anyway. one of the things i learned a long time ago is that if you take a nation to war, you better have exhausted all the other possibilities of trying to get a useful resolution for you to it. we are doing that right now. we are going through the testing and testing to see whether or not they are serious. if not, we have all the options available to us. there's nothing naive about what we are doing. it is calculated, and it may be wrong, and you may find it is a

miscalculation, but it is not a miscalculation based on naive it's a. we understand the dangers, we understand the risks, we understand how critical this is and how high the stakes are. i believe absolutely that no question is in my mind, if we were just negotiating and pressing further, we would be inviting a process that would drive them to want to get the youons even more and then would be at a place where you might get to a negotiation where they are >> for my last eight seconds, i pray that you are right. he you are a man of great courage. >> the chairman from arizona. you, mr. secretary. i have three questions. they all deal with the issue of accountability. i will ask them and then turn to you. it is an alarming fact that this

agreement that you struck gives inm access to $7 billion cash. can you assure the american people but not one single dollar of that money is going to be used to kill one american soldier? the second question is, i don't feel like the obama administration has a stellar record on the issue of accountability. examples all dismal where we don't have answers to wedding happened or who is ultimately accountable. where does the buck stop with iran doesn't if work as it promised? are you going to be held accountable, or who will it be in the administration? the administration claimed to not be in negotiations when they were. they have admitted that they misled reporters when they

flatly denied the existence of talks with iran. your department miss led the american people about the negotiations that were taking place behind closed doors. how can we have the confidence that the information that you are giving us now is about level, particularly since they have a different interpretation of the agreement than we do? those are my questions. i am very interested in your answers. honestly, i would have to go back and check. i became secretary of state february 1. i am not sure what was said there or not said, exactly, or what the state implied. when we find out. ,ith respect to accountability i am hanging out there. i will be accountable. i have absolute confidence that you'll hold me accountable. i said to the gentleman a moment

ago, that i think is of help. she said this is the death knell. we will know soon. the new money that they are getting, and i will take at face value the amount that you have speculated, $7 billion, with that money coming in, can you assure the american people that not one dollar of that money will be used to kill an american soldier? >> i wish i could give you that kind of assurance, but i have no ability to tell you exactly what accountability there is with he goes iran or where or what happens. my prayer is that no soldier will be killed as a consequence of anything that iran chooses to do. our hope is that as a consequence of this process, we can get at some of those issues

that are significant between our two countries. finally, i think this boils down to a disagreement of whether or not we want them to be able to continue any kind of a nuclear , versuswithin iran being able to go forward and not have a nuclear program. >> you mean power program? program.nd of nuclear any kind of enrichment, whatsoever. they can get kind of -- all of the nuclear material they need by purchasing them from other countries. they don't need to and recep themselves. the way that i look at this deal, and i understand that there are a lot of components, but you mentioned earlier in your initial remarks that one of the big successes of this interim deal, or the six-month deal, is that they have to waylay their 20% enriched

uranium. that is very insubstantial. that is a small quantity. they have a far larger quantity. it doesn't take a lot to get to the next level. i think that we all understand that. -- it seems to me like not a great deal to get a small quantity of 20% enriched uranium for $7 billion. >> they don't have the ability to enrich it. they cannot during this. they are not allowed to put in any enrichment facilities, any additional facilities. they are not allowed to do that. it is relative. if you think it is not worth the six months trying to negotiate, while you hold the program where it is, then you make the but we have proven in the last years, as we went whatthose 164 centrifuges

you get for not talking. you get closer to a bomb. we believe it is important to try to sit down and see if we can resolve this. >> mr. davis of rhode island. >> thank you, mr. secretary for being your. thank you to the administration and for the important information you have served -- shared today. thank you for the good work you are doing. each person reaffirmed our commitment to ensure that iran not develop right -- a nuclear weapon. everyone is asking of this makes us safer. question is is it more likely or less likely that it will prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon. i think the question is, doesn't make it more likely we will achieve this objective?

there seem to be computing time eyes one timeline is doing nothing and the development of a nuclear run. the other timeline is official sanctions so severe that either iran abandons the nuclear ambition or the regime is rundown. the other timeline is negotiate -- negotiation. we act as if nothing will happen if we don't pursue some alternative. ike everyone on this panel, hope that you are successful in leading this effort. i think something great will be achieved if we prevent a nuclear iran as expeditiously as we can. have some questions. iranianstrue that the are certain that if they violate this agreement that additional sanctions will be imposed, if they are certain of that, speak to what would be the consequence of additional sanctions that

would not be triggered until a default of some kind in the agreement, or an effective date a year from now, or some other mechanism, if they already expect it. what would be the impact on negotiations? what would be the impact on our allies? why would we do that as a mechanism? >> we told them we would not do that while we are negotiation -- negotiating. our partners don't expect us to passing ships while we are negotiating. themartners, if we pass now, could get squarely on the whole idea of the sanctions. they will figure that we are doing our own thing and that we are not part of the team. evenu take that same view if the sanctions are not imposed. >> even if they are not imposed. it implies bad faith in the process and an unwillingness to play by the rules that the other

partners are playing by. is, and ier question think this is an important point, the intermec room and reaffirms that under no circumstances will they seek or develop a nuclear weapon. as you well know, there are very that they in research may undertake that are important steps to nuclear capacity. iran has taken some of the steps and argued that it was for civilian use. is that an issue that you intend to address in a final agreement? >> it has to be. absolutely. that is part of what we're talking about, about resolving our concerns in dealing with the larger security council. >> thank you, mr. secretary. it seems to me that the outline

of the first step is creating a window of opportunity. of noternative proceeding aggressively would allow the iranians to proceed unchecked. it is my hope that you will be successful and that it will provide greater security to this country and its allies. and i thank you. >> we go to soccer line up. >> it is quite a feat to have the secretary of state in front of the committee twice a year. it has been 15 months since the benghazi attacks that killed americans. no one has been dismissed at the department of state to have culpability in the death of these great americans. the administration chose to ignore the plight during the to haveions and decided

a nuclear scientist to please the iranians. that just baffles me. mr. secretary, in negotiating with iran, you say to give them the benefit of the doubt. i agree with the canadian that,n affairs minister pat sections best predict future actions. earned the right to have the benefit of the doubt. iran is a bad apple. we all know that. numerous members of the committee appointed that out. people in the western hemisphere, and even the leaders of israel. builttes that they have an average searcher of terror to have a base from which to attack the u.s.. these are the guys that we are negotiating with. the bombings of

and the 1990, and the latin american administration has chosen to abandon u.s. foreign policy by declaring that the doctrine is over. what kind of message does that send? -- it sendswrong the wrong message to places like china and russia. trust iran?k, why there is been no accountability for past acts of terrorism. i have a series of yes or no questions. still listed by the department state as a state sponsor of terrorism, correct? >> yes. >> are they still supporting has blocked? -- hezbollah? >> yes. >> what impact you think that this will have on assistance to

terrorist organizations? if we lift the sanctions and they have a $7 million of u.s. money, what impact do you think it will have on their state sponsor of terrorism? >> i think very little if any. they are a $1 trillion economy. this is a tiny percentage of that. they are not banking on this money in order to engage in nefarious activities that they take place in, which we disagree with your all of it. i said at one moment ago. manyve a concern about other issues from ballistic missiles to support for terror. obviously, all of these things concern is a lot, congressman. nowhere, nowhere, not once today, nothing that i said intimated a benefit of any doubt. i sat here and said, we are skeptical. i said here that we have to

prove it. trust them.annot i said we are not going to mention the word trust. this is about testing and verification. i don't know where you get the idea about benefit of the doubt. there is no benefit of the doubt here. this is a very skeptical, tested, and focused process of verifying a program that we have the account to the world for. >> let me ask you this. does north korea have nuclear weapons? >> they do not have a program yet that is capable of explosions or devices? april, theyry and agreed to abandon all nuclear weapons and return to an earlier date to a treaty for nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. that was supposedly a significant achievement. to anitted six parties agreement of a dean nuclear rise -- de-nuclea

rized peninsula. we gave them fuel to stop the nuclear weapons from. one of the general into my life said freeze. that is exactly what happened in north korea. they froze it. they got what they wanted out of the deal. they restarted. i'm afraid we're going to see something similar happen. >> we are going to go to florida. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> we all agree. thank you, mr. secretary for your service, residents, and fortitude. we will agree that iran should not have nuclear weapons. i have a few questions. be, in listening

to my colleagues, a lot of skepticism in the room. the sense of it is, it sounds to me, is the believe that pushing more sanctions will eventually bring iran to full capitulation. really, as to you the timing, why do you think the timing is right now for these talks, and whether you disagree with the premise that more sanctions force more capitulation as possible? number two, are we getting pressure from our partners to stick with this agreement and with bringing the agreement? like they are forcing us to enforce the sentence? the $7 million, you

seem to imply that it is more or less a drop in the bucket. i know it is a drop in the bucket compared to what stays in place. so what is iran getting from this that would lead us to progressing in the talks? last, in talking about the final deal, are you going to be looking at putting back automatically, if the benchmarks are not met. >> say that again. i'm sorry. >> are you looking at sanctions automatically being put back it certain benchmarks are not met? >> let me go through each of your questions, congresswoman. thank you very much. is the timing right?

is capitulation possible? and what is the timing him? the timing we believe is right for a number of different reasons because we have the unity. ,ecause we believe that iran because of the change of the administration, wants to reach out and see if they can achieve a different relationship. or all of the mistrust here, i have to tell you that there is an equal amount, if not more, mistrust from iran. they mistrust us. they have a complete lack or sense of confidence that we are willing to make a deal, or that we will keep the deal. these things were two ways. they have a perception that we are out for regime change and that what we want to do is hammer them and bring more sanctions. there is a lot of doubt about whether we are going to negotiating good faith, which is why there's a question here about what we wind up doing

after we enter the negotiations. is capitulation possible? that it is.eve it depends on what you engage in. does the united states have the power, alternately, militarily? is that where we're headed? if that were americans want to go? as that with the situation calls for? that is a whole different set of questions. i doubt that the answers are very affirmative. basically, sanctions are not going to produce habituation -- capitulation. that is part of the cap chelation your. when you have a country ready to negotiate and they step up and say, we are prepared to do this, ,nd we are partners in the deal it those partners perceive that we are not prepared to do it, then they will go off and do it they need to do. -- cohesions unit

that we have today. that is part of what makes the application of the sanctions a powerful. we do not want to lose that. isaddition, you asked what iran getting? they are getting a roadmap to a way that they can get rid of the sanctions. that they ultimately can't strike a new relationship. what does that require? it requires things beyond the nuclear program. ever requires dealing with missiles, ballistic missiles, with terrorism and their support for it, with a wide range of activities. you have to begin somewhere. and the most immediate threat to us and to our friends in the region is the nuclear program. that is where we have begun. mr. brooks of alabama. secretary formr. sharing your thoughts with us on

a very important and high risk issue. in 2005, the president of iran stated that israel must be wiped out. in 2000 and six, the president , israel is on the road to being eliminated. also in 2006, the iranian israelit said the regime will be eliminated by one storm. they have decided that a nuclear qualifies asael being eliminated by one storm. the united states, and the rest of the world, disregarded hitler's threats, resulting in the holocaust and murder of millions of innocent jews. and as much as israel appears to

be their number one target, i give great weight to israel's opinion. netanyahu hasin not been favorably impressed, having said, what was achieved in geneva was not as sore but -- historic agreement. it was a historic mistake. is --arge degree, a risky and allows them to continue their nuclear program. is it a bad agreement. it seems to me, mr. secretary, that the key to any agreement is with united states can or will enforce it. the chairman of the house armed services committee and the chairman of the armed intelligence center president obama and you a letter that , in part, since october

we have written you twice with our concerns about a massive, russian violation and circumvention of a arms controlled violation of the united states of great significance to this nation and to the nato allies. given the obama administration's failure to enforce this with say to ourt can you allies to convince them that america is still a reliable ally , that america will enforce else,ents with iran, or and that america will not repeat history and repeat the pattern of appeasement and retreat that triggered world war ii and the death of tens of millions of people around the world. congressman, by in the strongest language , saying that those

apressions of hate and sheer , asking ansanity country to be wiped off the face language is the most a borat kind of language you can find in public life. it has no place in a reasonable world. it is unacceptable. we should never hear that kind of language again. secondly, with respect to benjamin a non-who and his attitude about this ash benjamin netanyahu and his attitude about this, i have had many conversations with him about this. i respect his leadership.

he and i are working very effectively together on a lot of things. he knows, and they think that israel knows, that nothing will come between our relationship. our security relationship. our security and commitment to israel, that is ironclad. we have a difference of tactics. we have no difference in what our goal is. our goal is to make israel safer, make the world and region favor, and we are committed iran to not allowing to have a nuclear weapon -- committed to not allowing iran to have a nuclear weapon. forave done more to provide the security of israel than any other administration in history. >> let me ask you one thing. >> i am going to exercise the privilege of answering your question.

>> we have 10 seconds. >> i think there is time for him to ask a question and for the secretary of state to answer that question. that has made certain israel has iron dome. weaponry that no other nation has. we have a aid program. we have a day-to-day collaboration, day-to-day. even this week, the national security adviser was here collaborating and talking to us about how we approach this question and deal with iran. i will tell you that we have taken no backseat to any administration ever in our support and our friendship and commitment to the state of israel. that said, i think that the united states engaged in many efforts in the region that make it clear that we have a

determination to be friendly and supportive. we are removing weapons of mass destruction from syria. we are in major discussions about syria and other issues. i think that those countries understand that when the president says iran will not get a nuclear weapon and he actually develops the military capacity to guarantee that, which no other president did, they can trust that the president means what he says. >> thank you, mr. secretary. in april of 2009, president obama said, wills may be binding. words must mean something. if there's anything i can do to assist you in that regard, please let me know. >> have slowly. we are focused on those. we take them seriously. absolutely. we are focused on those. we take them serious lay. >> i am sorry we did not get to

-- we take them seriously. >> i am sorry we did not get to everyone. everyone fornk attending today. >> mr. chairman, we did not have time to do this earlier. i would like to put something on the record. i keep hearing this, and i don't think it reflects the record. the fbi is currently conducting an investigation and working through a lot to try to apprehend identifiable people, with respect to what happened in benghazi, but it is absolutely inaccurate to suggest that nobody paid a price in the state department for what happened. . report was delivered to me i have acted on the report, as i said that it would. two people were devoted and retired. to retired. two careers were ended over it. they left the department.

two other careers have seen demotions as a consulate of what happened. i think it is simply inaccurate, and i hope that you will stop repeating something as a mythology that has no basis in fact. there was accountability. there is accountability. we need to go forward with that, frankly. >> thank you, mr. secretary. we have made requests for a lot of data, some of which we don't have. a lot we did not. we look forward to continuing to work with you to ask the questions. on getting focus those questions answered by the department of state. we thank you again for your testimony to get -- today. adjourned.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> later in the day the banking committee chairman said that the committee would hold off on passing a new bill.