mentioned, secretary of state karen -- secretary of state ckerry are in switzerland. the goal of these negotiations are to verify and ensure that iran's negotiations are for peace. mirror to uranium pathways -- there are two uranium pathways. a plutonium pathway. and a potential covert pathway. any comprehensive arrangement must include constraints on the nuclear program. transparency measures that maximize the community's attempt to break out overtly or covertly. we are working to ensure iran would take at least one year to produce enough material for one

weapon. that would provide enough time to detect and act on transgressions. it is iran's job to convince the world the nuclear program is peaceful. that is why we are seeking a time frame to establish such a track record. only then would iran be treated like any other non-nuclear weapons state party to the nonproliferation treaty. with all the rights and obligations including inspections and a binding commitment to not build a nuclear weapon. the bush proposed this concept. dozens of countries adhere to the npt.

some constraints would be removed after a significant time. others would remain in time indefinitely. including a monitoring regime. iran would have to implement the same hard to agreement and additional protocol. even after some core constraints are completed, far more intrusive inspections will be required that before this agreement. some have argued iran would be free to develop a nuclear weapon at the conclusion. that is simply not true. iran would be prohibited from developing a nuclear weapon in perpetuity. we would have a better ability to detect this. they would have a civilian nuclear program.

our goal is to reach an agreement by the end of the month. complete technical details by june. in switzerland, the negotiations have been substantive and intense. we have made progress on core issues. gaps remain on other issues. while the negotiations are taking place, it is vital in our judgment we avoid action that would leave the world to believe we were responsible for their failure. such include enacting new sanctions legislation. new sanctions at this time including through so-called trigger legislation, are unnecessary. iran knows that if they refuse a reasonable agreement new sanctions can and will be passed in a matter of days. do sanctions would undermine our sanctions coalition. -- new sanctions would undermine

our sanctions coalition print it would allow them to blame the failure on us. we must avoid judgments that call into question the president's commitments. negotiating with a foreign nation is the president's responsibility. in this case, such confusion could embolden hardliners in iran. poison the prospects for a deal. make it more difficult to sustain support for sanctions. that international support is critical to the success of the sanctions regime that congress took a role in building. up until now, we have kept other countries on board despite the hardship it has cost some of them because they are convinced we are serious about reaching a diplomatic solution. if they lose that conviction the u.s. not iran could be

isolated. congress has and will play a central role in the evidence. -- efforts. only congress has the authority to list sanctions as part of any comprehensive solution. we have been on the hill dozens of times to update on the progress of times. more than 200 briefings meetings, hearings, and phone calls. if we reach an agreement, we will welcome intense, robust scrutiny. we would also ask why critics explain what is lacking and what would be a better alternative. the dealings do not affect our commitment to our allies in the region. that commitment will not change with or without a deal. we will retain the necessary

tools and determination to continue countering iran's troubling behavior. the most important thing is to deny them a nuclear weapon. we will continue to support those in iran demanding greater respect for human rights and rule of law. we will continue to insist that iran release and help us find certain people. thank you. mr. szubin:? mr. szubin: thank you. this is my first appearance before a congressional committee. in my time at treasury including nine years leading the office of foreign assets control, i have voted the majority of my working hours to building honing, and

implementing sanctions. the executive sanctions and strong congressional bipartisan sanctions. i am appreciative of being able to testify on this vital issue. the global architecture of our sanctions is unprecedented, both in terms of its strength and the international foundations that underpin it. working with our partners around the world and congress, we have assembled a coalition that has altered iran's economic posture. as result, we have a chance of resolving one of the world's most vexing and persistent security threats. at this juncture, it is important to note that iran remains under massive strain and has no viable route to an economic recovery without relief from sanctions. the strain is visible across every sector in iran's economy. the financial lifeline, oil.

in 2012, iran was exporting 2.5 million barrels of oil to 20's jurisdictions. -- 20 jurisdictions. they are exporting less to just six jurisdictions. the losses have been compounded by the drop in oil prices. the chief revenue source is bringing in one quarter of what it brought in three years ago. just as troubling, it cannot freely access the revenues. there is a reduced stream of revenues thanks to congress going into restricted accounts. frozen or tied up in banks around the world. foreign investment in iran has dropped precipitously. from 2004-2013, as foreign capital was pouring into developing countries, iran saw

an 80% drop in foreign investment. the oil minister estimated the petro chem sector will need $170 billion to recover. the iranian currency has depreciated 52% since 2012 and has lost 12% of its value since we have been negotiating. the imf, for the coming year projects the iranian economy will enter stagnation with gdp growth falling to point to ask percent. the lowest projected rate of any country -- falling to 0.6%. this is the lowest rate for any country in the middle east. the banking sector remains isolated and holds a high proportion of nonperforming loans. the economy is under strain. the sanctions pressure cannot be sustained without work.

we have worked very intensely to enforce our sanctions. in the past 15 months, we have targeted nearly 100 actors. individuals and companies either helping iran as they'd -- iran of aid sanctions or other misconduct. we have imposed penalties on companies undertaking illicit transactions. we will not soft and our enforcement. negotiators are hard at work trying to secure a joint comprehensive plan of action. regardless of whether the negotiations succeed, i want to assure the committee we are prepared for whatever comes next. if we are able to secure a comprehensive understanding, we will suffer sanctions relief in a way that is phased,

proportionate, and reversible. we will need to see verifiable steps before sanctions are lifted. we believe powerful legislative seanctions should not be terminated for years to come. if we determine a comprehensive deal cannot be obtained, the administration, working with congress is prepared to ratchet up the pressure. we have developed subtle insights into the financial flows, economic stress points, and how it attempts to work around sanctions. we stand ready to raise the costs substantially should they make clear they are unwilling to address the international community's concerns. while we must prepare for every contingency, we remain hopeful we can achieve a peaceful resolution. thank you for inviting me to appear. i look forward to taking your questions. >> if i could go to my first

question. it goes to the sunset, deputy secretary blinken, a major concern is the expiration. iran's nuclear program is going to be treated as if it were the equivalent of the mayor learns -- the netherlands. white 10 years does the administration believe or hope the iranian regime within that timeframe? mr. blinken: thank you mr. chairman. there is no agreement. all that is the subject of current negotiations. whether some aspects are 10 years or more or less, that is to be negotiated. looking at this is a sunset is not an accurate view of what

we are trying to achieve. we are looking at a series of publications. some will continue after that. some will be indefinite, in perpetuity. the bottom-line is, even after certain obligations are completed by iran, it cannot become a nuclear weapons state. it will be legally bound and not to make or acquire a nuclear weapon. there will be safeguards on material. it will have to sign and implement a comprehensive safeguards agreement. royrep. royce: but that is why you we are here today. they have had those same commitments. they have an by letting them for years. that is why this process, i would just point that out. 10 years or whatever the timeframe is, they are going to

be treated as any other non-nuclear weapons state. that means no sanctions, restrictions on procurement. no restrictions on the stockpile or centrifuges. 10 years out. or on the purity level to which it may enrich uranium. i will give you an example of where this would put iran. they would enrich uranium to levels near weapon grade, i am presuming. claiming the desire to power a nuclear navy. that is what is ill is doing. that would that that is what -- that is what brazil is doing. that will be permitted no matter who is in charge of iran in 10 years. that is why we have a letter going to the president signed by 350 members of congress demanding the verifiable

constraints lasted decades not a shorter time. i want to make that point. let me go to my next question. that goes to the one-year break out. the administration has set a benchmark. is a year sufficient to detect and reverse potential iranian violations? why not insist on 2-3 years? mr. blinken: we think a one-year break out time is not only sufficient but conservative. we think with the verification, inspections, and monitoring, that would give us more than enough time that only two detect any abuse of the agreement but to act on it. many experts have said a lesser time would be sufficient to detect and act on violations. let me add to this quickly, mr. chairman.

one year is very conservative. that is the most, if everything went perfectly for iran, -- the idea that any country would break out for one bomb's material is unlikely. rep. royce: let me go to this question. will you insist the inspectors have access to all facilities in iran including revolutionary guard bases? well iran have to satisfy all questions that the iaea has regarding covert research on a nuclear warhead including access to scientific is now and paperwork? mr. blinken: we will insist that the iaea have the access it needs. rep. royce: i understand your perspective. mine is a specific list of criteria based on my discussions.

i want to make sure those are followed. lastly it seems the administration plans to push the security council to adopt a new resolution to bless this agreement and relax sanctions. at the same time, you are pushing off congress. why push for you in action -- f or un action but not congress? mr. blinken: we are not pushing off either. congress will have to exercise its authority to lift sanctions at the end of an agreement if iran complies. keeping that to the end, until we see iran is complying, is the best way to sustain leverage. rep. royce: our concern is, if you push us off for 10 years and this is consequential enough to go to the un security council at the outset a resolution under

chapter seven, which by definition deals with a threat to peace then it would certainly be consequential enough to be submitted to the senate for advise and consent. mr. blinken: this is an international agreement, it would be made with the other members of the security council. it would be normal for the security council to take note of any agreement. to create a basis for lifting the u.n. sanctions. that is what congress will eventually have to -- congress will eventually have to decide whether to lift u.s. sanctions. rep. royce: suggesting congress has a role to vote on sanctions relief years from now, once a deal has run its course, that is disingenuous. that is my view. rep. engle: let me emphasize that the capitation involving

these negotiations involves any deal we are very obviously concerned about it. we want to push back as much as we can. we do not trust iran. i think the chairman is right on the mark. in terms of our concern with the sunset in 10 years or more. another thing that has bothered us again as the chairman mentioned, he and i had legislation that passed the house. which involved strong sanctions. which had been signed into law. -- had it been signed into law

i think we would have been in a stronger position. we are sitting in negotiating -- and negotiating over the nuclear program at a time when iran is a bad actor around the world. take a look at capitals that iran essentially controls. yemen being added. damascus. this is not a regime that looks like it wants peace. iran continues to fuel terrorism around the globe. the number one state supporter of terrorism. i believe a nuclear agreement should not whitewash the fact that iran remains a stabilizing actor. the iranian revolutionary guard corps could theoretically take advantage of sanctions relief.

how could such relief be structured to minimize any benefits to the iranian revolutionary guard corps? mr. blinken: first, let me say we share your concerns. the abuse of human rights at home. which is why we will continue to oppose those efforts. we have pushed very hard on proliferation activities. terrorism support activities. terrorism designating individuals. working with our partners as we have been for six years to build up their capacity. with regard to any money iran receives as a result of relief from sanctions i turned to my colleagues discuss this. let me just say, what we see is

iran is in a deep economic whole. -- hole. a large part of why the iranian president was elected was a the desire of the people to get out of that hole. money is fungible, and presumably that would free up some resources for the corps. >> let me just say, that is precisely what we are concerned about. iran is in a deep economic hole. by having an agreement and releasing them, helping them get out of the hole, want to make sure and you do as well to make sure that the safeguards are in there. that is what makes me nervous. once you lose that leverage, it

is hard to get back. mr. szubin: thank you. i will say as well, that is a concern we have been keenly focused on. the truth is, the size of the hole iran is in come across any indicator you look at, is far deeper than they really -- the relief that is on the table. we are talking about a hole that could be described as a $200 billion hole, which are the losses we have decided they have suffered since the sanctions. there minister said, they need $170 billion just to regain their footing. the average iran has seen --

iranian has seen declines in purchase power. it is going to be a tremendous effort, a year's long effort for iran to write it self. that is not going to happen overnight. i want to reiterate what that you secretary -- what deputy secretary blinken said. we will continue to pressure any forms of support we see. rep. engel: let me ask you one final question. you mentioned hezbollah. we agree iran continues to support terrorism and sow stability -- instability. the director of national intelligence did not include iranian or hezbollah in the threat assessment of the u.s.

intelligence communities. can you tell me why? that did that make sense to me. we can talk and you can send me a letter about it. mr. szubin: i am happy to get that -- mr. blinken: -- i think the director was talking about the front burner we have with iso-. -- isil. it remains in the spotlight of our efforts. rep. engel: and could not exist if it were not for iran. mr. blinken: that is correct. >> we now go -- >> thank you so much. you had promised senator rubio you and the administration would consult congress on any policy

change to cuba. that turned out to be a falsehood. i worry that the cuba negotiations were a deliberate attempt to keep us in the dark. how did -- keeping us in the dark foreshadows the administration's approach to congress. the administration has made it clear it does not want congress to vote on the iranian deal anytime soon. but you just said to mr. royce the security council will be having a binding vote on the deal. you will be going to the security council to ask for a vote on the iranian deal, yes or no?

mr. blinken: we will be going to the security council because it is an international deal to take note of the deal. rep. engel: -- rep. ros-lehtinen: to vote? no problem. palestinian state would. there have been reports that in order for president obama to continue his temper tantrum toward prime minister netanyahu what we will be doing in the united nations is push in the shadows for a vote on palestinian statehood in order to pressure israel to be at the negotiating table with the palestinians. is that true? is that press report true? mr. blinken: the administration support for israel is unshakable. we have done --

rep. ros-lehtinen: thank you. i'm going to ask you another question on iran. i wanted to ask mr. szubin:. your cuba revisions took a broad view of the ministries and'-- administration'trading with the enemy act. i am afraid they are using cuba as a test case for normalizing relations with tehran. and you will utilize its licensing authority to provide boraroad relief for iran. the u.s. is committed to removing sanctions. as the author of the iran sanctions law, the concept of the nuclear related sanctions on iran does not exist in u.s. law because the sanctions are intertwined with iran's human

rights record, ballistic missile program, and support for terrorism. i ask you, mr. szubin:, which sanctions will you seek to suspend and lift? and what you come to congress to ask for authority? mr. szubin: with respect to the actions we took in the cuba amendments amending regulations, i will note the licensing authority is one that has been drawn on by administration's, democratic and republican, over the past decade. rep. ros-lehtinen: thank you. it is going to take a long time. mr. blinken, iran has been cheating and violating the rules. what mechanism do we have to

enforce any violation? will there be penalties embedded in the nuclear deal? mr. blinken: iran has complied repeatedly according to the iaea? rep. ros-lehtinen: is that all they have said? mr. blinken: they said under the agreement, iran has complied. outside of the agreement, iran of course is seeking4 -- rep. ros-lehtinen: you cherry pick. you should give the totality of what they have been saying and how frustrated the agency has been with iran throw the negotiations. mr. blinken: i want to be clear, to answer your question, they have said with regard to obligations under the interim agreement, iran has complied. you are correct come outside the agreement including the critical question of the military

dimensions of the program in the past or for that matter now, it has not complied with what the iaea is seeking. that will have to be part of any agreement. as to enforcement, it is straightforward. in the event iran were to renege on any commitment, sanctions would snap back in full force. rep. ros-lehtinen: i am sure they are shaking. mr. blinken: that's why they are the table. >> we should remember why we are in this situation. the executive ranch -- branch under the bush administration refused to enforce sanctions. the bush administration prevented congress from passing new statutory sanctions. that does not fit with the image we have of president bush until

you realize at the time the sanctions focused on international oil companies which was not president bush's target of choice. had we continued president bush's policies, during the administration, they went to 5000 installed centrifuges. had we continued the policies, they would have $300 billion more in cash right now because we have frozen 100 billion. 200 billion has been lost to iran and lost whale sales. it is not the executive branch but congress that has had it right for the last 15 years. that is why i take such offense when i hear the administration say, congress, if we have a view we are interfering and undermining. when you read the constitution you will see when it comes to economic sanctions and

international economics, all of the power is vested in congress extcept to the extent the president negotiates a treaty that is ratified by the senate. i fear what the administration is doing is using for an ropes to tie the hands of the u.s. congress -- foreign ropes to tie the hands of the u.s. congress. the foreign minister of iran was able to cite the treaty saying, the u.s. will be in violation of international law if congress does not do whatever the president promises. the administration feet into that when a high official declares, foreign policy runs through the executive branch and not through other channels. i fear we will have a situation where the executive branch comes to us and says, you have to take this action. you are prohibited from taking

that action. you are going to hold the u.s. up to ridicule for being in violation of international law. i would hope that you would look at the memo issued by the carter department of justice. which says congress may enact legislation modifying executive agreements. if that was turned over to the iranian delegation, that would get a support under article 46. i should point out, for the record in 2007 senator clinton introduced with the cosponsorship's of senator obama and senator kerry the oversight of iraq agreements act which dated any status of forces agreement between the u.s. and

iraq that was not a treaty approved by the senate or authorized by legislation would not have the force of law. prohibited funding to implement that. for the record, because i do not have time to give at this moment, i would like to ask whether the introduction of that act constituted and interference -- and interference undermining president bush's policy. i fear you have misled this committee and telling us once iran has the rights of a nonnuclear state subject to the additional protocol, you will be able to stop sneak out. you have said first, while they cannot develop a nuclear weapon because that would be illegal, that is a preposterous argument.

obviously they are willing to break the law. the next point is, you have conjured up the idea there will be inspections. the question is, inspections of suspected sites. there is nothing in the protocol that adds to the npt. the npt was in force. it took two years after it was widely suspected that there was a secret site for the iaea to get there. you say it works fine for japan and the netherlands so it will work fine with iran. but it won't let us get in quickly to suspected sites. mr. blinken: first, if iran makes an agreement, it will make it with the full knowledge that if it violates the agreement there will because with his -- there will be severe consequences. the inspections regime we will insist on for any initial

duration. let me finish. beyond that, any country has had at any time in the world. that will, from cradle to grave -- lines, mills, centrifuge facilities career that will create a basis of knowledge of the people, places, documents which will last beyond the provisions. beyond that, obligations. under the safeguard agreement. the additional protocol. all of those taken together will come a with any measures we might achieve on top of that and those remain to be negotiated, give us the confidence the inspectors will have the ability to detect it in a timely fashion, any efforts by iran to break out. rep. sherman: you have an intrusive regime, and then the

blindfold will go on and you hope you can prevent it after that. mr. blinken: the blindfold one beyond, they will be off. >> mr. chairman, it is tiring to be reminded that president bush is responsible for all of our problems. after all this time, they are still blaming president bush. rep. sherman: i blame the executive branch. i have spent four years blaming the current executive branch. >> are we more concerned about the regime in iran having possession of a nuclear weapon versus what we seems to be just talking about the ability to

manufacture a nuclear weapon? do you see that in this debate, mr. secretary? shouldn't we be -- frankly, what we have been hearing here, the american people are being rolled into a false sense of security. if we just prevent them from being able to manufacture the weapon, the crazy mullahs are not going to have their hands on the ability to have possession of a nuclear weapon. mr. blinken: like it or not iran has mastered the fuel cycle. we can't bomb that away or sanction not away. we probably cannot negotiate

that way. >> what a way? mr. blinken: the mastery of the fuel cycle. the issue is, whether the program they have is so limited and constrained, transparent that as a practical matter, they cannot develop material for a bomb. >> whether they can manufacture it or not, couldn't they get one from pakistan or china? or korea? or perhaps some but he sold a couple of nuclear weapons? mr. blinken: your point is well taken. which is why, even if there is an agreement, the sanctions and efforts to prevent iran from proliferating or receiving the benefits of proliferation will continue. >> the only way we are going to prevent these bad guys from

having a nuclear weapon, we keep saying iran. we don't really mean iran. the people are nice. i understand they like americans more than just about any other country in the world. it is the mullah regime. bloody mullahs. they are supporting terrorism around the world. suppressing their people. isn't the real answer making ourselves partners with those people in iran who want a more democratic country? hasn't this administration passed up time and time again the ability to work with the people of iran to free themselves from these mullahs? mr. blinken: i think you are right. the activities in the region are the problem.

which is why, across the board whether supporting those were trying to get greater rights. working with our partners in the region to increase their defensive capacities. pushing back on proliferation through the actions we have taken. that's why we are doing this. rep. rohrabacher: i give you an a plus in terms of focusing people's attention on the negotiations dealing with the ability of them to manufacture a weapon. i would give you an f-when it comes to whether we can get rate of the threat by helping the people of iran institute democratic government there. this administration from day one, in order to -- frankly, the irony is, i believe this administration is bending over backwards not to try to threaten the mola regime in order to get

a nuclear deal which will not make any difference at all because it still leaves them the right to possess and own a nuclear weapon they did not manufacture themselves. mr. blinken: i assure you they will not have that right. >> can go to the ranking member of the sub committee on the western hemisphere. >> thank you mr. chairman. you can understand how concerned we are that we do not seem to be part of any negotiation. we seem to be bypassed. i remember when he secretary was here, we talked about cuba. they said, nothing was going on. now we have a situation similar to what we had in those hearings.

one of the questions i have is, can you speak to how the security council resolutions are being handled? once the sanctions are lifted, i think it is going to be virtually impossible to reimpose them. i don't think russia and china are going to go along. they have veto power. how are we handling this? mr. blinken: on your first point, having been part of this, there have been by our count since the interim agreement was signed more than 200 meetings. rep. sires: we don't get much on those briefings. classified briefings. i can get more information in my district then here. mr. blinken: while negotiations are going on, it is difficult

provide all the details. it's something going back and forth continuously. that said, i would be happy to talk to you further about this. mr. szubin: --rep. sires: the problem is, things look out and we do not know what is going on with the administration. mr. blinken: don't always believe what you read. rep. sires: i don't believe what i listen to when people come in front of me, either. can you talk about the sanctions? mr. blinken: absolutely. i will also invite my colleague to do the same. with guard to you and sanctions -- to un sanctions, we would preserve sanctions regarding iran's behavior. other sanctions would have to it listed in a way that shows iranian compliance.

they too, in some fashion, would have to be sequenced pending on iran's fulfilling obligations. all of that, including the sequencing, is under negotiation. adam, do you want to add to that? mr. szubin: you are right to focus on the ability to restore sanctions in the event of a breach. that is at the forefront of our mind. is it reversible? it is a trickier question when you talk about security council resolutions. we are not the only member of that counsel. we are very focused on that in negotiations to make sure, if there is a violation, there is not the ability for one country to stand in the way of stepping back the sanctions. rep. sires: have you had these conversations with china and russia? mr. blinken: absolutely, that is very much part of the

conversations we have among the negotiating powers and those with the iranians. >> thank you, mr. chairman. iran has repeatedly violated obligations under the treaty. it has built secret nuclear facilities. it has cured nuclear materials. denied iaea inspectors access. isn't it foolish to trust them now? wouldn't a bad deal be throwing israel under the proverbial bus? because of the missile goals placing the u.s. at risk? i know you will say it is trusting and verifying. there are a lot of us on both sides of the aisle that are not

buying. mr. blinken: thank you, come men. you are right. iran has piloted obligations. that is white the position it is in now. why a they are at the table trying to negotiate an agreement. those violations are what led to our ability to impose the most severe sanctions on iran of any country in history. rep. chabot: we are concerned we are going to end up in a bad deal. president obama has disdain for the winner of the israeli elections. maybe the only group i can think of he might have more disdain for is the elected representatives of the u.s. people, the american congress. since israel will mustbe most

directly affected, how will america repair relations? mr. blinken: in my judgment, no administration has done more for israel's security. if you look at the measures and steps we have taken they are extraordinary. prime minister netanyahu has called them such. rep. chabot: that is the least credible answer i have heard. no president has done more -- mr. blinken: i said security. rep. chabot: security, relations, whatever. there has been more president that has damaged relations more than this. let me go to my next question. one of my concerns has always been proliferation in the region. there is a nuclear arms race with the saudis and the gulf states. turkey and perhaps others. developing enrichment and perhaps nuclear weapons.

there are indications that the saudis are so alarmed, they are already moving in that direction. what is your response? mr. blinken: if there is no deal iran could rush to a nuclear weapon and capacity tomorrow which is what would spark an arms race. the best way to prevent countries from feeling the mississippi to do that -- necessity to do that is to prevent them from getting a weapon. the model is hardly one other countries would want to follow if they decided they needed to acquire a nuclear weapon. the iranian model is a decade of isolation and sanctions. anything that emerges from this agreement will require such intrusive inspections and monitoring, i doubt any other country would want to follow that model. the answer is what we have doing, prevent iran from getting a weapon.

build up their capacity to defend themselves. rep. chabot: our concern is we will end up with a bad deal. they will get nuclear weapons. the other countries will feel threatened. they will end up with them. israel is in the middle. god help us if that is where we end up. what is the difference between the road we traveled down with north korea and the one we are traveling down with iran? other than iran is a more dangerous country than north korea? there are a lot of us that believe, we have seen this movie before, we know how it is going to end? mr. blinken: they are very different cases. the north korean program was more advanced. when the clinton administration was in office, iran had the material. some analysis suggested they

had them. by the time president obama came in, north korea had weapons. iran does not have either. north korea has also tested. they are in different situations. the inspections regime that existed for north korea was far less than what iran faces now under the interim agreement and less than it would face under the comprehensive agreement. rep. chabot: there is great skepticism on both sides of the aisle and i believe for good reason. >> mr. ted deutch of florida ranking member on the subcommittee. rep. deutch: thank you both. . i understand we are now approaching a deadline. i want to express my thanks, as

i have every time i have had the opportunity. as we approach these last days, let me say that raising the issue at this point can no longer suffice. if anyone is to take iran seriously that there is any commitment that they can make that can be at to, the best show of good faith would be to return those americans. i urge you to make that a priority. number one. i have been clear. i know we are not supposed to prejudge a deal. there are things that would concern us in any deal i think it's ok to address. i want to go through a few. straightforward questions. debbieputy secretary blinken >> --

mr. blinken: let me say i agree with your statement about the americans imprisoned. the only issue that comes up a regularly, apart from the nuclear discussions, is the american citizens. we are working on it vigorously. we want to bring them home. with regard to whether the agreement will be made public, certainly the core elements well. i do not know at this stage because we do not know what form any agreement would take, whether certain pieces would remain classified and subject to classified review. which parts would be public. i cannot tell you because we do not know the exact shape. we saw with the interim agreement, it was made public. congress had full access to it. rep. deutch: congress had full

access. the american people did not. does iran remain the most active sponsor of terrorism? mr. blinken: whether it is the most active, it is in the top percentile. rep. deutch: is the administration considering removing them? mr. blinken: no. rep. deutch: whether the centrifuges are reduced, what will happen to the rest? will they be dismantled? will they go into a closet? an attic? with a be readily available for iran at the end of the deal? mr. blinken: that is subject

to the negotiations. you are right to point to the centrifuges. it is important to understand that is not the only component. rep. deucth: i would suggest that if the ultimate deal does not require any of them to be dismantled, it will make it difficult for us to feel comfortable. i think you can understand, and i will not have time to get to my others, i think you can understand the frustration we have when both you secretary blinken, and mr. szubin: talked about phased relief. but then talked about the plan to go to the security council and make clear at the united nations, venezuela malaysia, nigeria may get a chance to vote now.

but congress will have a chance to vote on this perhaps five, 10, 15 years. that is what we are being told. i hope you understand the frustration. how can sanctions relief be reversible if the plan is to go to the united nations to reverse all the multilateral sanctions leaving only the american sanctions in place? mr. blinken: i want to try to make very clear this is, if it happens, in international agreement that has other parties. that is done through the security council. the security council would take note of any agreement and a note it is prepared, once iran demonstrates it is meeting its commitments, because there would be a series of commitments under the deal. at that point to suspend or left international sanctions. our own sanctions would be under our own discretion. congress has to pass judgment on that.

rerep. deutch: if i could just ask for mr. szubin: to provide a breakdown of the $700 million that has been released under the interim deal. and if you have done analysis of sanctions relief to the extent that $10 billion, $20 billion, $50 billion of the frozen money was released at one time where it has gone in iran. where it would go under the permanent deal. where it would go to benefit the revolutionary guard. >> we go to the representative from texas. >> mr. secretary section 123 of

the atomic energy act requires all significant agreements must he accrued -- approved by both houses of congress. last year, congress approved two such agreements. one with south korea and one with great britain, our allies. in this case, what we are dealing with is the leading sponsor of terrorism. the position of this administration is that should not be subject to approval by the u.s. congress. i don't quite understand that distinction. can you explain that to me? mr. blinken: the issue is, what is the best form of the agreement in order for us to have the flexibility we need to make sure iran is living up to obligations and to reimpose sanctions quickly if it is not. what we are seeking -- the issue

here is whether this is a legally binding agreement or not. if it is legally binding, it would be subject to the rules of international law, which can be quite burdensome. having a nineonbinding government gives us the flexibility to step ask sanctions immediately. with regard to whether it is a treaty oryou and rick alyssa whether it is a treaty or not, the vast bulk of -- regardless of whether or not it is a treaty, the vast bulk of the agreements we have made are not treaties and are not subject to the advice and consent of the senate. i can go through the list. we have everything from the missile technology control regime which has been very successful in creating voluntary export licensing. the security guidelines. senator: i appreciate what you

are saying but i think we are treating our allies as different from state-sponsored terror and our people should be waiting in on this deal. icbm's. this concerns me greatly. this has been off the table. the intelligence community and the pentagon in it's an annual report said that as early as 2014 this year they may have icbm technology missile ranges that could potentially reach as far as the united states of america. and the ayatollah supreme leader says that to limit this program would be a stupid, idiotic expectation that they should definitely carry out their program and should mass-produce, why in the world isn't this on the table. does that not concern you about their intent?

mr. blinken: the missile program is absolutely a concern. that's why we have in working vigorously around the world to push back against proliferation. whether there is agreement or not, that effort will persist. sentience will continue. -- sanctions will continue. the scope of this agreement, if there is one, is the nuclear program. that is what has been agreed to. it is not a missile agreement. there are aspects of this that are critical in term of iraq's capacity to make a missile and we are focused on that -- senator maccoll: because that is the delivery device for a nuclear warhead and it makes me question their whole good faith analysis.

when i -- if i can say when i read their own words, the president who you say is taking a different tact and trying to be a peacemaker, he says in a geneva agreement, world power surrendered to the iranian nations. they say the centrifuges are spinning and will never stop. when prime minister netanyahu gave his speech to the joint session of congress, iran was blowing up in mock of the uss nemesis in -- uss nemits in the red sea. you have enter extraordinary challenge but i have to question the good faith on the part of iran. mr. blinken: you are right, it is not a question of good faith -- by the way, whether it is president rouhani or the foreign

minister or any others it's not because we think they are good things -- good guys and like the united states. it's that there are some people who are more pragmatic about what iran needs to do and they believe that negotiating entry agreement and getting some relief is what makes the most sense. not because they like us or have good intentions. the other thing i would say is that there are statements made on a regular basis by iran's leaders on all sorts of issues. in some instances, some of the statements are made for domestic political purposes. we have a tendency to see iran as a country with no politics. it has very intense politics. there is a lot of politics going on right now between those in iran that want an agreement and those that don't. some of the statements you're seeing as objectionable or abhorrent are designed for political consumption at home to

push back. senator mccaul: i hear death to america on an ongoing basis regardless of politics and that is concerning or us. we go now to davidson cellini of rhode island. mr. cellini: thank you for being here and giving us insight on this important issue. i am hopeful that the ongoing negotiations will create an ongoing agreement. and as our chairman and ranking member said many of us have questions about the details of the final agreement. as colleague said, guaranteeing that the actions will guarantee they will behave in a certain way. we have no guarantee of that.

so we want to make sure it is difficult for them to violate the agreement that we can detect it if they do and that we have an opportunity to respond. that is the best we can do other than imagining we can control the decision of a lot of people. last year the defense department released a report that found the u.s. systems for detecting small enterprises or covert facilities are inadequate or more often do not exist. in that context, how will we know and what are we doing to ensure that we will learn if iran is pursuing a covert program after the sunset of a copper heads of agreement? -- of a comprehensive agreement? isn't that a fair question? we are not particularly good in general and with respect to iran in general, what are the protections?

mr. blinken: you make an important point and i'm well aware of the science report. we are factoring in their recommendations as we work on and think about any agreement with iran. i think it underscores with absolute necessity of having the most intrusive, significant monitoring access, transparency regime anywhere, anytime anyplace in the world. in terms of what happens in perpetuity it is about the very least, the combination of the additional protocol. the storehouse of knowledge that will be built up by the exceptional transparency measures we believe that all of those things taken together will give us the ability to detect efforts by iran. to break out or sneak out. the report underscores the

absolute essential nature of the components. rep. cicilline: would you speak for a moment about what you see as the scenario if no agreement is reached? there has been a lot of discussion about the urgency of additional sanctions. to the extent that that happens do you foresee that would prevent the development of the nuclear weapon? the goal here is not to impose pain on iran, but to impose conditions such that they don't develop a nuclear weapon. i wonder if you would speak to the alternative of a good comprehensive agreement. what do you likely see even if additional sanctions were imposed? do we prevent a nuclear iran? mr. blinken: it prevents how -- depends on how an agreement is not reached. if it is clear that iran is not

able and will not make a reasonable agreement, then clearly that calls not only for sustaining existing pressure but adding to it. to rethink that unfortunate position and to bear down on all fronts in its effort to acquire technology for a nuclear program and the resources. if on the other hand, we are at the end of march, very close with an agreement on many key elements and not all of them, we cannot put the whole thing together. i can see a circumstance where it might be useful to take the time we have until june. we have to see where we are. the third possibility is that for whatever reason, we are perceived as having been responsible for the failure to reach entry agreement. or at least there is enough mud in the water to create that

impression. for that to happen, which cannot and must not, that would make it more challenging. not only to add more sanctions and pressure but to sustain the sanctions we have. it is important to keep remembering that this is not just about us. the power and the efficacy of the sanctions that congress has produced and that we have been incrementing. it is exponentially magnified. if that goes away the power of the sanctions will. rep. poe: i have a lot of questions and i think you can answer many of them with a yes or no. they are not gotcha questions but unless i ask you to explain please don't. the 10 year agreement, or however long it will be, is the

deal that the sanctions and penalties will be lifted after the agreement is over? or do the penalties come to an end? mr. blinken: congressman, it would be phased. iran demonstrate in compliance in certain sanctions might be suspended, not ended. and after more compliance sanctions would be ended assuming congress agreed. on the international front, we would be looking at demonstrated compliance by iran. if iran didn't do what it was supposed to, we would have snapped back provisions here and internationally. rep. poe: the purpose of this is to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons. would you agree that israel is concerned about iran in the united states?

mr. blinken: yes. rep. poe: the icbm issue is not even being discussed as this agreement? mr. blinken: that is correct. rep. poe: the supreme leader has said he wants to get rid of israel and then take on us. he calls us the great satan. one way to get to us is icbm's. mr. blinken: that is correct. rep. poe: they are not needed to illuminate israel they have others that can already do that. mr. blinken: that is correct. rep. poe: we are not talking about trying to prevent icbm's. all we are trying to do, if i understand, is to keep them from getting technology. mr. blinken: what we are trying to do -- rep. poe: is that correct? mr. blinken: the contours of this agreement go to the nuclear

program and united nations resolutions regarding that program. in part from that, we are working very hard to prevent iran from getting the technology. rep. poe: that's what i asked you, yes or no. isn't it true that iran is pursuing the development of icbm's in their country? mr. blinken: i'm sure that is true. rep. poe: so they are building the missiles and we are not trying to stop them except we don't want them to get the technology? mr. blinken: that is what they need to develop it. rep. poe: reclaiming my time. they are developing intercontinental listing missiles? mr. blinken: they are trying to do so, correct. rep. poe: we are not dealing with the issue at all? mr. blinken: we are, it is just not part of -- rep. poe: excuse me sir.

we are trying to prevent nuclear weapons and at the end of the day if this agreement is signed and delivered, they will get them eventually. and then they may have the capability to send them to us. i think this is a long-term threat to the world. especially the united states and israel. iran gets nuclear capability. assume this. would you agree that saudi arabia would get it next? turkey? egypt? who else knows, to balance the power? mr. blinken: it significantly increases the likelihood which is why we are trying to prevent them from getting one. rep. poe: just a couple more questions. the 2015 worldwide threat assessment, put out by the director of national intelligence you said that this report focused on isis. if it is a worldwide assessment.

worldwide. wouldn't you think it would mention as the law -- hezbollah? mr. blinken: it remains designated and a focus of our activities. rep. poe: but it is not mentioned as a worldwide threat in this report. that confuses me. if the federal government has a report that reports on a worldwide threat assessment of terrorism. we leave off the state sponsor of terrorism iran and we leave off their puppet causing mischief, hezbollah. this seems confusing. would you recommend that the intelligence agency have enter a denton to this worldwide report -- have an addendum to this worldwide report? mr. blinken: i can recommend we are pushing back every single day -- rep. poe: you think they ought to add to the report that hezbollah and iran are terror

threats to the world? mr. blinken: i need to go back and look at the report. >> thank you for being here today. it does sound like the one thing we agree on is iran should not get nuclear weapons. i have a couple questions. if i could i will state them and then you can answer. my first question is, if there is no deal how long would it take iran at this point to have a nuclear weapon? mr. blinken: it is interesting -- rep. frankel: i hear the frustration of summary of my colleagues about not trusting iran. i think no one trusts iran. if we do not get a deal, is the realistic determinative a military operation? what would that look like?

if there was a military operation, how long would that delay iran from getting a nuclear weapon? what do you think would be the interim collateral damage? i'm sure you have discussed this, what is the scenario of not having a deal? just to add to that, you have said if there is no deal then we will increase sanctions. i am assuming that you have made the calculation that we have taken them -- this is the time to get a deal. you can respond to those. mr. blinken: thank you and i think you raised important questions. with regard to the breakout time this is something we can best deal with in a classified setting or i can tell you broadly. currently, the breakout time is a matter of a few months if

everything went just right. of course, even under the interim agreement we would see that immediately. that is where we are. if there is no deal, that is where they would be. under various scenarios, they would then speak to increase the number of centrifuges and increase the other capacity, move forward and iraq. because of all of that the breakout time would drop even further. what are the alternatives? i think that is a critical question. at the end of the day, any agreement reached, people will have to decide whether the agreement holds up, makes sense advances our security. it will also be important for those who would oppose the agreement, if there is one, to say what the alternative would be and how it would be achievable.

those are important questions because we are not operating in of vacuum. a lot of it depends on why there would be no deal. if it was clear that iran would not make an agreement, and the communities recognize that, we would be in position not only to sustain the sanctions but increase pressure and sanctions. if that didn't happen. if iran started speeding to a weapons capacity and bomb, then the military option has always been on the table and would remain on the table. if military action were taken it could set back iran's program, but again it is important to understand that because iran has the knowledge we cannot bomb that away or sanction that away, at some point they would resume their activities and would probably go underground. we would loose the benefit probably of the international sanctions, regime and pressure.

it would be worse than it would under an agreement. rep. frankel: what would be the ramifications -- especially interested region, if all of a sudden there was a war with iran? what will be the consequences to israel? mr. blinken: first of all, if iran were in a position where it was rushing to a nuclear weapon. many of the concerns about what other countries would do would be front and center. it would be very tempting for other countries to feel they needed to pursue a nuclear weapon to protect themselves. that is one of the reasons we are trying to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. in terms of israel, it faces an x essential threat. one of the reasons we are -- it faces an existential threat.

that is one of the reasons we're trying to -- rep. frankel: would you expect it? mr. blinken: i think they would feel further emboldened to take action and wrote region, including against israel. >> mr. duncan is recognized. rep. duncan: thank you madam chair. yesterday we had a hearing as well. do you believe that iran is present and active in the western hemisphere? mr. blinken: yes. rep. duncan: do you believe their influence is steady and increasing as general kelly may say or is it not? mr. blinken: i think they are trying in various parts of the world to position themselves and take advantage of the openings that they have. the state department has report that says the threat is waning. are you aware of that? mr. blinken: i am. rep. duncan: are they still on

the state-sponsored terrorist list? mr. blinken: yes. rep. duncan: they are still aiding and abetting organizations like hezbollah? mr. blinken: yes. rep. duncan: what's going on there in terms of this agreement? mr. blinken: nothing. rep. duncan: so we are negotiated with the country that is refusing to quit exporting items to terrorist organizations? mr. blinken: we are negotiating to prevent the development of a nuclear weapon which would further embolden those activities and whether or not there is enter agreement it will take actions of those agreements you cited. rep. duncan: iran has continually violated obligations and sanctions, what makes us think they will not violate this? mr. blinken: because of the penalties they would have to pay. rep. duncan: do we all of a sudden think it will be legally binding on them? how do you think they view that

statement? mr. blinken: i think the issue is not whether it is legally binding, the issue is whether it is clear and it is be, that if they violated there will be consequences. sanctions will come back and total force. rep. duncan: north korea has the same sanctions and they violated those. they have the bomb. mr. blinken: with regard to iran, the reason they are at the table is they spent years by letting their obligations and thanks to congress we exerted significant pressure and now faced with the pressure are seeking to make an agreement. rep. duncan: i think the pressure worked and the sanctions worked. mr. szubin talked about that. the obama administration said they would consult with congress about the final agreement and he says, we would be obligated under the law and what we do will have to pass muster with congress. with testimony of the deputy

secretary and undersecretary colin indicated that the obama ministration would not submit a potential agreement to congress for a vote. so what is the difference between what secretary kerry said in 2014 and what is being said now? mr. blinken: i don't think there is a difference. the secretary is exactly right. in our judgment with consulted extensively throughout the duration at more than 200 hearings, meetings, calls everything's. if there is -- calls and everything. if there is enter agreement we will go to that in great detail with congress. as we have been clear all along, the agreement at some point will require the lifting of sanctions and only congress can decide whether to do that. so congress will have a vote. keeping that sort of damocles hanging over the -- swoard rd of

damocles, hanging over their head we think will make sure they are good on their commitments. -- rep. duncan: i don't have a lot of questions. they have been asked. >> thank you so much, although there is a vote the subcommittee and full committee will come back, that we would never break without the opportunity of recognizing mr. connolly for his five minutes. rep. connoly: unfortunately i have to begin by chastising my friend. my friend, the chair, who is truly my friend, referred to the president having a temper tantrum about prime minister and yahoo! and my friend from ohio said there is no president who has done more to damage the u.s.-israeli relationship. i cannot let that go by.

a foreign leader has insulted the head of state of the united states government. it is not a temper tantrum. it didn't start with president obama it started with bibi netanyahu. you can decide for yourself whether it was appropriate for him to speak to a joint session. the process is beyond dispute. it was an insult to us government. friends don't act that way. i would say to my friend from ohio, it would come as news to perez, the outgoing president of israel, who gave president obama the highest award the israeli government can give for his support of israel, at some point does the partisan rhetoric stop? where are your loyalties with respect to the prerogatives of this government and our country? the shameless way that mr.

netanyahu has conducted himself deserves reproach and i think the president has shown restraint. i say this as somebody with a 35 year record of unwavering support of israel. i'm not a critic of the israeli government by am a critic of how this president has treated my president. everyone's president. i cannot sit here and listen to the waiting away of bad behavior that is an insult to my country. we have one president, whether you like him or not, whether you want to take political issue or not. fair game. when a foreign leader insults and that should not be for game and should never be apologized away. it damages relationships long-term.

it puts a divide where there was never a divide in public opinion in my country and i worry about that long-term. let me say, mr. deputy secretary , it seems to me there are five issues that congress has to be concerned about. the broad ax essential -- exis tential question, -- he would like zero centrifuges a complete rollback so there is no nuclear capability and so what i. -- so would i. i don't know anyone who can achieve that realistically. the only option is what has euphemistically been called the kinetic option. i'm not sure the american people support that.

you agree with that echo -- that? mr. blinken: i would agree that as we said earlier iran has knowledge of the fuel cycle. they can make the bomb if they choose to do it. we cannot bomb that away, it is knowledge. i think -- rep. connolly: i think there are five issues. we need an agreement and we need to seek the best agreement we can. with respect to my colleagues an congress, there are five issues that have to be addressed. the administration will have to convince us that you have grasped -- addressed efficaciously. number one, what capabilities are left in place? some we can live with and some to worry about. two, cheating.

the inspection regime is all-important. if there are holes and drove the inspection regime i don't see how you will get confidence union agreement -- in an agreement. how to we face the limits, assuming an efficacious agreement and how expeditiously can we impose them? the worry is we might be ok but our allies may not. fourth, a time frame. there is a lot of legitimate concern that it is too fast. that iran can quickly rush to nuclear capability under the reported terms of the agreement. finally the expiration of an agreement. the timeframe that people are concerned about. it is almost an open invitation. thank you madam chairman. madam chairman: it is not my

temper tantrum to cut you off, we are out of time. rep. connolly: i know. madam chairman: we will get to the most amount of members we can get to before the witnesses to part. with that the committee stands in recess. >> we will be adjourned and go to tom from minnesota. rep. hemmer: just a couple of questions because you have been pretty much running the range today in front of the committee. but first thank you for being here again and thank you for your service. your opening

remarks were assuring to somebody like me who wants to see the branches as they were constructed, work the way they are supposed to. i just want to confirm, it is article one section eight that says it is the sole responsibility of congress to enter into agreements with foreign nations which would include treaties or agreements such as the one we have been discussing. i believe you confirmed that this morning. it will be congress's obligation to ratify any negotiated agreement. mr. blinken: sorry, backwards. because congress imposed and legislated the sanctions. if they are ever to be lifted, congress must be the one to do it. only congress has the authority. rep. emmer: that is what is already in place. that part aside.

any agreement with the details that the ministration is participating in the negotiations right now, it is congress -- i think your words this morning will play a very important role, which indicates to me there will be much communication once this framework is reached by the end of this month, once that is reached it will be significant communication? mr. blinken: absolutely. rep. emmer: after that, assuming you can arrive at the final details by the end of june, i want to make sure that i understand your position on behalf of the state department is that congress will have to approve or will not any final agreement? mr. blinken: no congressman, that is not our position. this would not be a treaty that would be subject to the advice

and consent of the senate. this would be an agreement that as i said before for its terms to be a fermented assuming -- to the implemented, assuming congress would have to play that role in the sections would be lifted, you are right that just as we have sought to control fully throughout this process in hearings and meetings and briefings and phone calls, you are right that if there is an true agreement we would consult intensely with congress on that agreement. every aspect of the agreement -- rep. emmer: but all you are going to ask for based on your testimony this morning is that congress lift the sanctions. you are not going to ask for congressional approval of the final agreement? mr. blinken: that is correct. rep. emmer: so if it is not legally binding, as secretary of state kerry has discussed, what

do you believe you're getting out of it? let me add -- i am trying to be very measured. it disturbs me greatly to have people talk about giving an organization that is not interested in piece around the globe but is being an aggressor and trying to rile up problems, we will give them all kinds of hard currency. explain how this is a good idea. mr. blinken: two things. regards of whether it is legally binding or not, if this is a question of international law if you make a legally binding agreement it is subject to various levels of international law which makes it more difficult to do things if iran violates the agreement. there are all sorts of treaty law formalities we would have to go through if we said iran is

violating the agreement. we would have to present a legally defensible reason. we might get into a debate with our international partners if they don't agree. rep. emmer: i will run out of time -- with all due respect. i think that this is the problem that the administration has had and now that the administration and congress are having, this breakdown in an understanding of respectful positions in the process. the idea that this administration will get approval from the un security council as opposed to coming to congress is not only disturbing but wrong. mr. blinken: thank you congressman. can i just mention, we will have to go if there is enter agreement, to both. there are sanctions pursuant to the united nations security council so they will have the authority and decide whether to lift them or not. similarly, our own sanctions

have been imposed and legislated by congress and only congress can decide whether to end them. the vast majority of the international agreements we strike around the world, key to our foreign policy, are nonbinding. rep. emmer: i will not yield back but i want to make the comment that it is amazing that this administration puts congress and the u.n. on the same level. >> if the derailment will yield i am not sure it is on the same league -- level because the u.n. vote will come immediately. rep. emmer: i was trying to be measured. >> you were being measured and i appreciate that. i do think it will be a considerable a lot of time under the calculus that the administration is working under when they intend to come to congress for the vote. that is very concerning. but, i appreciate the gentleman raising this issue.

we go down to brian higgins of new york. rep. higgins: secretary, is this the most complicated negotiation the administration has been involved with internationally? mr. blinken: i think the answer is yes, i'm searching my mind for anything that rises to a higher level. arguably the new start agreement was collocated but this tops the list. rep. higgins: it is still an agreement and you hear varying reports that 90% is done. the bottom line, it is still very fluid. those issues that remain will also be the most critical because it is difficult to find mutuality on. but clearly the fields of enrichment capacity are

essential and inspection and verification. how many pounds of enriched uranium is iran thought to have currently? mr. blinken: they have a stockpile of low enriched uranium at 3.5%, that as i recall is about 7000 kilos. is that correct? rep. higgins: under the current draft framework, what would become of that 3.5% of enriched uranium? mr. blinken: you understand i cannot get into the details, this is subject to negotiation. one of the details that is important in figuring the breakout time is the available stockpile of material they have to work with. the number of centrifuges is one component, the configuration is a second and a stockpile is a third. depending on how you put them together, you determine the

breakout time. rep. higgins: the proliferation of centrifuges 10 years ago under rouhani there were less than 200 and now there are 19,000. we are talking about advanced centrifuges. next generation centrifuges. as you mentioned in your response, knowledge that you cannot destroy. is it plausible, is it realistic to accept the iranian argument that they need so many centrifuges to sustain a civil peaceful nuclear program? mr. blinken: obviously we are skeptical of that argument. the fact of the matter is they had military operations for that program through 2003. that is certainly the assessment that our intelligence community

made at the time. of course, so many aspects of this program strongly suggest they have been seeking a nuclear weapon capacity. their argument, for what it's worth, is that they do want to build a nuclear power program for the country. they have vast oil resources, so why they need it is a good question. they say they want to develop oil exports and have the nuclear program for domestic programs. they talk about post-carbon for the future. all of that said, their activity suggest the opposite. if that is really what they were focused on, they could presumably buy nuclear fuel abroad instead of producing. rep. higgins: what percentage of iran's nuclear power is nuclear? mr. blinken: it is very diminutive, i will get you the

exact number. what they report to be looking at is a more significant the southern domestic energy program provided by nuclear. that is the argument they make for why they would need significant enrichment capacity and for the future. mr. blinken: we're. we're certainly skeptical of that. rep. higgins: within the context of what iran is engaged in today , sue the money is on the graph -- sulimani is on the ground today, probably directly leading the shia militia in iraq to defeat isis. he saved al-assad in the 11th hour to secure syria's land bridge to lebanon which acts as a proxy for iran, and yet here we sit with them face-to-face in

negotiations. i do understand the complexity of diplomacy and the fact that you use diplomacy with your enemies more -- this is a very hard thing. not only technically, but from the standpoint of a negotiator. we appreciate your efforts. politically as well. it is a hard thing and america is an extraordinary superpower. even in the end, we have to exercise a military option. because negotiations failed i do think we have to demonstrate to the international community that every diplomatic avenue was exhausted before that could happen. that is unfortunately the responsibility of america being an indispensable world power. i yield back. >> we are to mr. ted yoho in florida. rep. yoho: i'm not sure where to

start, i have so many questions. the best way to start is there is a quote from president dwight eisenhower, 60 years ago when he announced that the atoms for peace program, one lesson is clear that civilian nuclear programs flourished only through openness. secrecy and isolation are typically signs of a nuclear weapons program. i don't think that is different. we look at iran over the last 30 years. i'm sure you have read the john bolton books, surrender is not an option. iran has been moving steadily in this direction since then. they have played the cat and mouse game and lied and deceived. it is a clear game of sophistry. sophistry, as we all know, is a game of deception and misdirection. we call that a lie in the country.

i see that going on with nuclear negotiations. i mean that in the sense that i think it is great we are negotiating to prevent nuclear arms. i think we all agree they will get them. i have sat here for two years we have had expert after expert that said iran -- within six months, when i first got here, within six months to one year will have enough physical material for five to six bombs. that has been over a year, i can only assume because experts like you have told us they will have that. for us to say, no they are not -- then you look at iran has prevented the iea to inspect. we have evidence they detonated a nuclear trigger in a region. but they won't let the ie a go

in and going back to what president eisenhower said, if they will not be forthright and honest and open, is it prudent for the united states of america to go forward with this, versus backing up from the negotiation table and say when you are serious, let us know and we will take the sanctions off. mr. -- mr. szubin you brought up that it would take -- yesterday, in the western hemisphere meeting, we had the report that the state hartman set -- state department that said iran and hezbollah have had the most activity since 2009. iran is working with iraq to be isis. their funding a war in iraq and have funded the takeover of yemen. is that the status of the nation that is in crisis?

they are starving and on their last dollar? would they be investing money into that or their own country? what are your thoughts? >> if i could take the last part of your question and then i will defer to my colleague. rep. yoho: i have another one to ask you so go ahead. >> i did not say they are on their last dollar, what i talked about were the indicators of the economic strain on their society and it is massive. that doesn't mean they don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide to the various actors in the region or latin america and unfortunately some of this activity comes cheap. rep. yoho: and their goal is, we hear it over and over again am a ayatollah said we have a common enemy in america and our goal is to bring it to its knees.

with the narrative coming out of there and the rhetoric, it is like chairman rice, death to america you can pick up a paper every week and find it in their. -- there. to move forward and think we are stopping them -- even henry kissinger said moving forward from proliferation to managing it. i think we can say they are going to have a nuclear weapon. we should put emphasis on what will they do the data they do that? you already see egypt wanting to run a nuclear program. will we monitor them and say no you cannot, at what point do you intervene? i appreciate you going through this, but we are putting emphasis on something to say we are trying to prevent it and we know they will not prevent it. mr. szubin: i would say first of

all in most things president eisenhower is very wise -- mr. blinken: i would say in most things, first of all president eisenhower is very wise. we want to proceed with a program that the world has called them out and exhibited extraordinary pressure on them and that is why they are at the table. the only reason they are there is to relieve some of that pressure. the fact that the pressure could be reimposed is a strong incentive to make good on the agreement. i would note that on the terms of the agreement and make good for its duration. going forward, we have to have, and we will have for there to be an agreement, the most successful intrusive monitoring access to the regime that has ever existed. that is the only thing that will give us confidence. we are not trusting iran's word we are looking at its actions. that is what this is about. at the end of the day -- by the

way, we don't accept the proposition they would get a nuclear weapon. the entire effort we are making is to ensure that they don't. if there is no effort, there is a good chance they will rush to have the capacity to make one. rep. yoho: does that make all those experts previously wrong? mr. blinken: i would have to go back and see what they said. i think they were talking about their capacity. where are they in terms of capacity should they choose to do it. we are pushing that timeline back. and saying if they decide to do that we would see it and would do something. rep. yoho: my time has ike's -- expired. i appreciate it. >> i think the gentleman and i think secretary blinken and mr. szubin. i want to remind you about the

points we make here and in the opening statements. i implore you to convey those views, if you would, to secretary kerry and the negotiating team. to yield the deep concerns over the sunset provision, that it is only 10 years. over the verification itself. and whether iran is going to be required to reveal its clandestine i'm work -- clandestine work and trying to develop a nuclear weapon in the past. you cannot have real verification unless you have that revealed to the iaea. there are concerns about the previous military activities and previous testing. what went on on sites they will not give us access to. as well as their vast ballistic missile program that is underway as we speak.

and about congress's role in this. there are a number of other issues raised as well. i hope you can convey that there are profound, bipartisan concerns that need to be heard. a deal may be announced any day. while the hearing was taking place, there is news breaking from switzerland that a draft is circulating among the parties. in that draft, iran would have 6000 spinning centrifuges for the next decade. i know the committee is frustrated to read the press about drafts circulating. it does say something about the administration's commitment to transparency when the press has the information and we read it up the newswire. mr. blinken: to that point, my understanding is that there is no draft and that report is erroneous and our spokesperson

clarified that. rep. yoho: that is good news -- >> that is good news. we appreciate that. when there is a draft, please share it with the members of this committee and with congress. we thank you for your testimony and we stand adjourned. mr. blinken: thank you mr. chairman. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> coming up, chris van hollen. after that the budget committee markup. on the next washington journal john hills and wrath discusses the federal reserve and what could happen if interest rates rise. and the current proposals for the secret service. plus, we will be taking your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. former maryland governor martin o'malley will be speaking tonight at the scott county iowa democratic party.

we bring you live coverage from the event in davenport. on c-span two book tv's on afterwards, pulitzer prize-winning historian eric on the efforts of free black and white abolitionists to help fugitive slaves. sunday night at 10:00, abu dhabi-based journalist on the rise and leadership of isis drew the middle east. saturday morning, starting at 9:00 est and throughout the day american history tv joins historians and authors at the abraham lincoln symposium. sunday evening, a visit to the national museum of health and medicine. to view items from the civil war

collection related to president lincoln's assassination. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org. call us. e-mail us. send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. the ranking member of the house budget committee and other democratic members voiced their opposition to the republican budget plan. they held a press conference on the steps of the capitol. rep. hollen: thank you very much for joining us.

many organizations across the country will be hit hard by the republican budget that passed this morning. it wasn't that long ago, in fact after the last election, that speaker boehner and the republican senate leader mitch mcconnell wrote in an op-ed piece that they would start looking out for the middle class. that is what they said. they were worried about wage stagnation. they were working hard but feeling like he wouldn't get ahead. the problem is their budget makes it much harder on working families around the country. in fact, it would make life more difficult and make it harder for people to get ahead. i think it is important to look at what it actually does. one of the things it does is green light the way for the

romney-ryan tax cut plan for the very wealthy. that plan would drop that plan for millionaires by a full one third. if you are doing great the republican budget is good for you. but everyone else gets those tax breaks at the expense of everyone else in the country. the groups represented here today know what the impact will be. it raises taxes on working families. they get rid of the higher education tax credit altogether. they get rid of the pump up for the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit. they wipe out all the affordable care act tax credit to help people get affordable health care. they make life more difficult for working families. for students, they cut from pell

grants which help lots of students go to college. then, they increase the cost of student loans for students by starting to charge interest in college. so students who are working hard and are already settled with big debt will get even bigger debt. and for seniors, prescription drug costs will go up immediately. they will have more co-pays and preventive health services. and if republicans are serious about repealing the affordable care act. a great budget if you are already on top of the economic ladder, but for everybody else, it will make it harder to get ahead and it will be more squeeze on working families. i am pleased to be here with my colleagues and you will hear from kathy castor who has been a

great advocate on all of these issues for working families. and this republican budget disinvests in america's future -- in our kids, in our innovation, in modernizing our infrastructure. without further ado, cathy caster. rep. cathy caster: thank you chris. i want to thank ranking member van hollen for his advocacy on behalf of all american families and businesses. the economy's getting better but this republican budget puts the economic recovery at risk. look at what's happened just over the past few years with democratic leadership in the white house. unemployment is low. it's down about 5.5%. you've got low gas prices that we know is going to put over $700 in the pockets of american families on average. and if you're lucky enough to be in the stock market, you're doing very well. people's retirement accounts