they're not enlisting the irgc for terrorist activities. if they do, at the end of phase two, delist for nuclear, the terrorist sanctions still stays in place. so i think people looking at the document ought to understand what is actually going to be in place after it's in effect. and i think the cooperation with the europeans requires we not distort what they're doing. that i -- they're not taking the rgc off the terrorist list. >> the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, gentlemen. i have received numerous questions from people in texas, and i will submit those for the record. they're pretty simple questions, but i will submit those for you to answer. the -- secretary kerry, this question is for you. following up on chairman mccaul's comments about the secret deal, secretary rice said that she has seen this deal with the iaea and that it will be shared with congress. so if she's seen it, have you seen it? >> i don't believe that susan rice, national security adviser, has seen it. i think -- >> she said she did six days ago. she said six da

but first of all let me call to everybody's attention here the irgc opposes this agreement. so they are not sitting there thinking they are going to get the whole world and be able to do what they want to do. and one of the reasons they oppose this agreement, and i invite you to talk to the intel community about that is that they see themselves losing the cover of the nuclear umbrella that they had hoped to have for their that fair rows activities. there's nothing here to prevent us from bushing back going forward. we're all free to work together to build the pushback against the destabilizing activities. but let me ask you a simple question, is iran empowered more destabilizing the region with a nuclear weapon or stripped of that ability with an international agreement it has to live up to, and us coming in underneath with a whole set of other security arrangements and pushback? i think the answer is crystal cheer. you asked what happens with respect to year 15. under the modified 3.1 code, please focus on what happens. there's not some sudden breakoff at the end of 15 year

should adopt the financial constriction campaign focusing on the irgc, and core elements of the regime that engage in terrorist financing, proliferation of weapons and nuclear technology, and support to militias. this could include the use of secondary sanctions. there should be a recommitment to the elements of a nonproliferation regime and a dedicated strategy focusing on the proliferation risks attendant to any deal with iran. this would include tighter export control enforcement interdictions, and financial restrictions tied to suspect iranian actors and activities, including iranian banks. the elements of the patriot act section 311 action against iran and the central bank of iran should be reiterated and reinforced with a designation of primary money laundering concern against the class of transactions involving any iranian bank. this, mr. chairman, could be amplified with a program perhaps led by the european union, to create a monitoring system through swift, the bank messaging system, akin to what we built in the terrorist financing tracking program. to track and analyze suspe

the conservatives and irgc, the revolutionary guard core with entrenched economic interests want to keep things local and remain the dominant economic - dominantly in charge of the economic institutions and businesses in the country. where does iranian president hassan rouhani, where does he fall in derchens to the two competing sets of oligarchies. >> well, hassan rouhani is pragmatist or a not rate. he does not identify himself as a reformist per se, but his cabinet is made up of technocrats. moderates and some reformists, and he was elected into office with a backing of a large number of reformists. along with a majority of the population. he does stand in the middle and positions himself in the middle as an effort to moderate and balance the competing tendencies. given the way negotiations have gone, where it seems they are stuck on a number of issues, including the arms embargo, do you get a sense to which oligarchies, the inte grayings ris, do you get a sense as to which one is having more influence over iran at the negotiating table right now? >> well, it's hassan rouhani's team,

should adopt the financial constriction campaign focusing on the irgc, and core elements of the regime that engage in terrorist financing, weapons and of nuclear technology, and support to militias. this could include the use of secondary sanctions. there should be a recommitment to the elements of a nonproliferation regime and a dedicated strategy focusing on the proliferation risks attendant to any deal with iran. this would include tighter export control enforcement, financial s, and restrictions tied to suspect iranian actors and activities, including iranian banks. the elements of the patriot act section 311 action against iran and the central bank of iran should be reiterated and reinforced with a designation of primary money laundering concern against the class of transactions involving any iranian bank. this, mr. chairman, could be amplified with a program, perhaps led by the european union, to create a monitoring system through swift, the bank messaging system, akin to what we built in the terrorist financing tracking program. to track and analyze suspect iranian banking trans

but first of all let me call to everybody's attention here the irgc opposes this agreement. so they are not sitting there thinking they are going to get the whole world and be

the niceties will be able to pressure banks and companies into not doing business with the irgc quds force at iran's military forces as well as to facilitate their business. even if the e.u. and the u.n. removes some of these from their list these bad actors and iran generally will find business by made until they correct their own behavior in the eyes of united states. this is due to the direct risk of u.s. sanctions and improvement and international backing since 9/11. a bipartisan effort begun under george bush and continued under barack obama. united states will retain its ability to impose sanctions on those trading with iran as well as with respect to ballistic missiles even after u.n. restrictions lapse. united states can traverse snapback of existing sanctions or even one jcpoa produce a bank can trigger it a review and a vote to continue with relief. u.s. veto power gives us the ultimate freehand to impose sanctions and snapback can be less draconian to deal with lesser violations as as secretary violations as secretary for test drive. this with political cost. many skeptics

brought up the fact that even with the release of $50 billion that that could get funneled into the irgc. what do you make of this debate? >> the word terrorism is a very loaded word. it stops conversation. when you look at really the data what was the terrorism, iran has in the past supported hamas. it doesn't give much support anymore. the saudis are more a supporter of hamas. >> you are saying there is a double standard. >> exactly. >> of course iran is accused of supporting hezbollah. >> okay. hezbollah is the closest, you could say of terrorism. but there are not many countries that recognize hezbollah as a terrorist organization. israel and the united states does but most of the world doesn't recognize hezbollah as a terrorist organization. and however much they may mislike hezbollah and iran supports hezbollah at the moment you have to think in real politics. what is the alternative now in damascus? we may not like assad, or hezbollah, but the gentlemen in congress, would they rather have the jihadist caliphate in damascus? because if there was no hezbollah and iranian support for

they're not enlisting the irgc for terrorist activities. if they do, at the end of phase two, the list for nuclear, the terrorist sanctions still stays in place. so i think people looking at the document ought to understand what is actually going to be in place after it's in effect. and i think the cooperation with the europeans requires we not distort what they're doing. they're not taking the rgc off the terrorist list. >> >> thank you, gentlemen. i have received numerous questions from people in texas and i will submit those for the record. they're pretty simple questions, but i will submit those for you to answer. the secretary kerry, this question is for you. following up on chairman mccaul's comments about the secret deal, secretary rice said that she has seen this deal with the iaea and that it will be shared with congress. so if she's seen it have you seen it? >> i don't believe that susan rice, national security adviser, has seen it. i think -- >> she said she did six days ago. she said six days ago she had seen it and reviewed it

. >> does the irgc or the quds force have more power? probably as the economy improves. but the challenge when it comes to hezbollah, aiming rockets into israel, is not a shortage of resources. lou: congressional critics not convinced in any way. some lawmakers led by democratic senator bob menendez threatening to reauthorize sanctions against iran which are set to expire next year. the administration calls his move premature. >>> president obama became the first sitting american president to visit the african nation of kenya, his ancestral home. much of his schedule, official business with talks on trade investment and counterterrorism but it is also of course a highly personal visit as well. kenyans view him as a native son and many put up signs reading welcome home. fox news white house correspondent kevin corke traveling with the president with our report tonight. >> reporter: president obama made history becoming the first sitting american president to visit kenya. while it was not his first trip to the homeland of his father, it was the first as the leader of the f

the government in power is ayatollah and the irgc. the face that they put out occasionally is prime minister rouhani. and now, the prime minister's arif. does anyone really think that's arif and ronnie are representative of the government? not in the final analysis. as you consider this >> additional lirks the i.e.d. devices that killed hundreds of americans in iraq and also in aphibarnrat, i had two sons in iraq and another in aphibarnrat. they had to -- afghanistan. you brought up about the government-sponsored newspaper in teheran. people needed to know what the exact quote was. one fine day cease to be visible on the map of the world. goodness gracious. what are we facing? and general, by lifting the economic sanctions what'll this do to our efforts to stop the degrading of terrorism? what does this do to the stability of iraq, syria and yemen? >> congressman it just increases iranian capacity across the board. that is an unavoidable consequence of this. it may be something we're willing to pay the price for. i don't think so. bec

the agreement itself raises the sanctions, eliminates the sanctions on the force and on the irgc. one of the interesting things is the force was sanctioned originally for terrorist activity. go back and look at the treasury department press release when it was done in '07. it was because of their material support for terrorism in the form of the taliban. didn't have anything to do with a nuclear program. they are now being taken from the sanctions list as part of this overall agreement, which supposedly doesn't deal with terror. no it just provides a heck of a lot of money for the world's leading terrorist organization to go out and do more of what they've done in the past. >> the israeli ambassador actually analyzed the money. they'll be getting up to $150 billion. iran is $300 billion to $400 billion economy. $150 billion infusion cash into their coffers would be enormous. they'll continue to use it in the terror arena, wouldn't you? >> i would expect so. if we look at their track record over the years. i saw a piece today that estimates the iranians were responsible through pro

so the notion that they're just immediately going to turn over 100 billion to the irgc or the force i think runs contrary to all of the intelligence we have seen and the commitments that the iranian government has made. do we think that with the sanctions coming down that iran will have some additional resources for its military and for some of the activities in the region that are a threat to us and a threat to our allies. a likelihood that they have some additional resources. do i think it's a game changer for them? no. they are currently supporting hezbollah and there is a ceiling, a pace at which they could support hezbollah even more particularly in the chaos that is taking place in syria. so can they potentially try to get more assistance there, yes. should we put more resources into blocking them from getting that assistance to hezbollah? yes. is the incremental additional money that they've got to try to destabilize the region or send other proxies, is that more important than preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon? no. so i think, again, this is a matter of us making a

the government in power is the irgc the face that they put out occasionally is president rouhani and foreign minister. does anybody think they could -- are really representative of their government? no. not in the final analysis. so your question as you consider this agreement because you have to remember who who you are making the agreement with is important. >> devices killed hundreds of americans in iraq and afghanistan. i had two sons serve in iraq and another in afghanistan. they had to face iranian weaponry and for this to be disregarded is incredible to me. i want to thank you, too. you brought up about the government sponsored newspaper in tehran. they predicted the u.s. will one fine day cease to be visible on the map of the world. goodness gracious. what are we facing? and general, by lifting the economic sanctions what will this do to our efforts to stop the degrading of terrorism? what does this do to the stability of iraq, syria and yemen? >> congressman, it just increases iranian capacity across the board. that is an unavoidable consequence of this. it may be something

that is three times their budget for the irgc which is kind of like their special forces and cia together. these are the folks that are exporting terrorism. it's unconscionable that we're going to let that happen. >> then there's also the idea that even if you want to trust the iranians that they are not going to develop -- they're not going to use a nuclear bomb who is to say they're not going to sell it. this is -- they have been supporting terrorists. >> for almost four decades. here is the deal. i would like to see diplomacy happen. there have been no confidence building measures between the united states government and the iranian government that says we can trust them. that's why we should walk away from this deal. what the president and secretary kerry is going to say is that if we walk away that means war, no. when we walk away from the deal it should be continued financial sanctions against them. >> we will be watching. thanks for joining us. we appreciate it. action on capitol hill this past week. a veto threat by president obama. the chairman of the senate judiciary committee,

so the notion that they're just immediately going to turn over $100 billion to the irgc or forces i think runs contrary to all the intelligence that we've seen and the commitments that the iranian government has made. do we think that with the sanctions coming down that iran will have some additional resources for its military and for some of the activities in the region that are a threat to us and a threat to our allies? i think that is a likelihood, that they've got additional resources. do i think that it's a game changer for them? no. they are currently supporting hezbollah. there is a ceiling of of a pace of which they could support hezbollah even more, particularly of the chaos occurring in syria. could they potentially try to get more assistance there? yes. should we put more resources into blocking them from getting that assistance to hezbollah? yes. is the incremental additional money that they've got to try to destabilize a region or send to their proxies is that more important than preventing iran from getting nuclear weapon? no. so i think again this is a matter of us making a

don't have anything to do with prior sanctions, then you say, look, if there is a contract with the irgc or some other element that is now relisted that has to be nullified. perhaps. but i would say in the interpretation of any of these sanctions whether they are related to iran or north korea there has always been slippage of interpretation, especially when talking to the chinese or russians, about what some of these provisions mean. i would imagine at a minimum there would be a fight diplomatically, over what this provision means and what contracts with chinese banks chinese companies, russian banks, russian companies would ultimately mean. i would say, mr. chairman, it is interesting that the russians are a part of this commission in part because they are under and chafing under sanctions regime led by the u.s. and european union. so they are going to have every interest to undermine any capability of thwarting commercial relations that affect their economy as well. senator corker: can i get you to reach at least a degree of agreement, would you say at a minimum that it's highly unusu

it has already increased its budget allocation for the irgc that could force another element of its security infrastructure. there's no doubt in my mind that they are going to use some of the relief and actual flow of capital to support their proxies. as i said in my testimony, from the golan to yemen. there is no doubt in my mind. i don't know what the percentage will be. but it's going to be significant. senator corker: i don't have additional questions, but i think other members may and we would be glad to entertain those for a moment. i don't want to let the war thing hang. i hope you are not trying to indicate that there's some of us who would like to see a war. chairman zarate: no. let me be real clear what i meant about that. you are -- mr. chair, if you don't mind, you are absolutely right, the inspections in iraq were the gold standard. this deal is not at that level. but the inspections in iraq flowed from our winning gulf war one. there was a war. we won. and then it set a pattern of an inspections regime in iraq that we used the inspections to bomb iraq in the late 1990's. but th

the government in power is the irgc. the face they put out occasionally is prime minister rouhani or president rouhani and now in negotiations the foreign minister zrkszarif. does anybody think zarif and rouhani are representative of their government? no, not in final analysis. as you consider this agreement, you've got to remember who you're making the agreement with. it's very important. >> in additionally, the ied explosive device thaszs that killed uns in iraq and afghanistan -- i had two sons serve in iraq and another in after kbanghanistan. they effaced iranian weaponry. for this to be disregarded -- i want to bring up the government sponsored newspaper in teheran. people need to know the exact quote. they predicted the u.s. quote will one fine day cease to be visible on the map of the world, end of the quote. goodness gracious, what are we facing? by lifting economic sanctions, what will this do to our efforts to stop the degrading of terrorism in -- what wha does this do to stability of iran, syria, yemen? >> con

so the notion that they are just immediately going to turn over 100 billion dollars to the irgc or thes force. i think runs contrary to all the intelligence that we've seen and the commitments that the iranian government has made. do we think that with the sanctions coming down that iran will have some additional resources for its military and for some of activities in the region that are a threat to us and a threat to our allies? i think that is a likelihood. that they have got some additional resources. do i think it is a game changer for them? no. they are currently supporting hezbollah. and there is a ceiling, a pace at which they could support hezbollah even more. particularly in the chaos that is taking place in syria. so can they potentially try to get more assistance there? yes. should we put more resources into blocking them from getting that assistance to hezbollah? yes. is the incremental additional money that they have got to try to destabilize the region or send to their proxies, is that more important than preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon? no. >> and let's br

imposed sanctions, so the notion that they are just immediately going to turn over $100 billion to the irgc or the quds force i think runs contrary to all the intelligence that we've seen and the commitments that the iranian government has made. do we think that with the sanctions coming down that iran will have some additional resources for its military and for some of the activities in the region that are a threat to us and a threat to our allies? i think that is a likelihood that they have got some additional resources. do i think it's a game-changer for them? no. they are currently supporting hezbollah, and there is a ceiling, a pace at which they could support hezbollah even more particularly in the chaos that's taking place in syria. so can they potentially try to get more assistance there? yes. should we put more resources into blocking them from getting that assistance to hezbollah? yes. is the incremental additional money that they have got to try to destabilize the region or send to their proxies, is that more important than preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon? no. all r

so the notion that they're just immediately going to turn over $100 billion to the irgc or -- i think once contrary to all the intelligence we've seen and the commitments that the iranian government has made. do we think that with the sanctions coming down that iran will have some additional resources for its military and for some of the activities in the region that are a threat to us and a threat to our allies? i think that is a likelihood that they've got some additional resources. do i think it's a game changer for them? no. they are currently supporting hezbollah. and there is a ceiling, a pace at which they could support hezbollah even more, particularly in the chaos that's taking place in syria. so can they potentially try to get more assistance there? yes. should we put more resources into blocking them from getting that assistance to hezbollah? yes. is the incremental additional money that they've got to try to destabilize the region or send to their proxies, is that more important than preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon? no. all right. so, i think, again, this is

so the notion that they're just immediately going to turn over $100 billion to the irgc or the quds force, i think runs contrary to all the intelligence that we've seen and the commitments that the iranian government has made. do we think that with the sanctions coming down that iran will have some additional resources towards the military and for some of the activities in the region that are a threat to us and our allies? i think that is a likelihood. do i think it's a game-changer for them? no. they are currently supporting hezbollah, and there is a ceiling -- a pace at which they could support hezbollah even more, particularly in the chaos that's taking place in syria. so can they potentially try to get more assistance there? yes. should we put more resources into blocking them from getting that assistance to hezbollah? yes. is the incremental additional money that they've got to try to destabilize the region or send to their proxies, is that more important than preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon? no. so i think -- again, this is a matter of us making a determination of what

it's the irgc, qods force and their leadership. the theu iranian people, this -- the iranian people, this would lead them to hope that there's some hope that it would place them into the international community. we are vary muscular. we have a muscular posture in the region right now. for the most part, it will stay the same, but it will shift the activities a little bit. senator tillis: secretary carter, chairman dempsey, i'm trying to get my hands around the thought process that would make the saudis less likely to acquire nuclear weapon that is capable of delivering a pakistani warhead. why would any of the leadership in saudi arabia -- you only need one to spark other nuclear proliferation -- if we are talking about a nation that has violated a number of treaties and agreements, the possibility that that could occur and nation that -- and a nation having to prepare to have their own deterrent, where's the logic in this agreement preventing them from moving forward and having a keep ability themselves? secretary carter: the agre

>> by the way -- >> before moving to senator shaheen, while we haven't lifted our sanctions on the irgc which has the nuclear file and is the entity that carries out all of the terrorism on behalf of iran what we uniquely did was we lifted saunkss on all the financial institutions they deal with. they'll be the number one beneficiary of the sanctions lifting. we didn't lift sanctions on them. it's looikike not lifting sanctions on a holding company but on the entityies that feed them the money. through economic growth and shipment of money and all the things they do will empower them. this is almost chump change compared to what will happen over the next decade. senator shaheen? >> could i just respond? we are not lifting sanctions on a bank that was sanctioned for reasons related to terrorism. we've retained the ability -- >> but many other banking entities and others they rely upon have. >> if they violate the terms of our sanctions and regime for sanctions on terrorism could be sanctioned. we have not said that any of those institutions are protected. and in terms of the step back, t

>> by the way -- >> before moving to senator shaheen, while we haven't lifted our sanctions on the irgc which has the nuclear file and is the entity that carries out all of the terrorism on behalf of iran what we uniquely did was we lifted saunkss on all the financial institutions they deal with. they'll be the number one beneficiary of the sanctions lifting. we didn't lift sanctions on them. it's looikike not lifting sanctions on a holding company but on the entityies that feed them the money. through economic growth and shipment of money and all the things they do will empower them. this is almost chump change compared to what will happen over the next decade. senator shaheen? >> could i just respond? we are not lifting sanctions on a bank that was sanctioned for reasons related to terrorism. we've retained the ability -- >> but many other banking entities and others they rely upon have. >> if they violate the terms of our sanctions and regime for sanctions on terrorism could be sanctioned. we have not said that any of those institutions are protected. and in terms of the step back, t

so the notion that they're just immediately going to turn over $100 billion to the irgc or the qods force i think runs contrary to all the intelligence that we've seen and the commitments that the iranian government has made. do we think that with the sanctions coming down that iran will have some additional recourses for its military and for some of the activities in the region that are a threat to us and a threat to our allies. i think that is a likelihood that they've got some additional resources. do i think it is a game changer for them? no. they are currently supporting hezbollah. and there is a ceiling, a pace at which they could support hezbollah even more particularly in the chaos that's taken place in syria. so can they potentially try to get more assistance there? yes. should we put more resources into blocking them from getting that assistance to hezbollah? yes. is the incremental additional money that they've got to try to destabilize the region or send other proxies, is that more important than preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon? no. all right? so again, this is a

so the notion that they're just immediately going to turn over $100 billion to the irgc or the quds force, i think runs contrary to all the intelligence that we've seen and the commitments that the iranian government has made. resou do we think they have resources for the activities in the region that are a threat to us and our allies. i think that is a likelihood. do i think it's a game-changer for them? no. they are currently supporting hezbollah, and there is a ceiling -- a pace at which they could support hezbollah even more, particularly in the chaos that's taking place in syria. so can they potentially try to get more assistance there? yes. should we put more resources into blocking them from getting that assistance to hezbollah? yes. is the incremental additional money that they've got to try to destabilize the region or send to their proxies, is that more important than preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon? no. so i think -- again, this is a matter of us making a determination of what is our priority. the other problem with the argument that folks have been making about,

so, the notion that they're just immediately going to turn over $100 billion to the irgc or the kurds force, i think, runs contrary to all the intelligence that we have seen and the commitments that the iranian government has made. do we think that with the sanctions coming down that iran will have some additional resources for its military and for some of the activities in the region that are a threat to us and a threat to our allies? i think that is a likelihood. that they have got some additional resources. do i think it's a game changer for them? no. they are currently supporting hezbollah. and there is a ceiling, a pace at which they could support hezbollah even more particularly in the chaos that's taking place in syria. so can they potentially try to get more assistance there? yes. should we put more resources into blocking them from getting that assistance to hezbollah? yes. is the incremental additional money that they've got to try to destabilize the region or send other proxies, is that more important than preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon? no. all right? so i t

it's the irgc qods force and their leadership. theu iranian people this would lead them to hope that there's some place for them in the international community. our posture changes on the basis of these areas we've agreed to work with our partners both israel and gcc nations. we're very muscular. we have a muscular posture in the region right now. it will stay the same but may shift the activities a bit. >> secretary carter chairman dempsey, i'm trying to get my hands around the thought process that would make the saudis less likely to acquire nuclear weapon. probably acquire nuclear weapon most likely from pakistan a warhead and ballistic missile from china capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. you only need one to spark other nuclear proliferation. why on earth if we're talking about a nation that has violated a number of treaties and agreements, a possibility that could occur and a nation prepared to have their own deterrent, where's the logic preventing them from going forward and having that capability themselves? >> the a

but your assessment is that all of the sanctions on the irgc are being lifted as part of this. i just want to make sure i understood correctly what you said. >> and my response to mr. de san tis' question i said the framework of this agreement is many of the sanctions passed under varying authorities security council, are being lifted as part of the overall agreement. it's a lot of -- it's a -- there are multiple types of sanctions in here. that was my answer. >> okay. i appreciate that. i yield back. thanks, mr. chairman. >> thank you. as we conclude, i want to thank each of you for being here today. your insight has been very helpful. we're certainly concerned for the security of the american families. and you have expressed that. and you can see it's bipartisan the level of concern and participation. i'm very, very grateful for everyone participating today. i know that many of us are just so hopeful for democratic change, actually in iran. with that, we are now adjourned. . . . >>> president obama announced the nuclear agreement with iran this morning at the white house. her

has already increased its budget allocation for the irgc that could force another element of its security infrastructure. there's no doubt in my mind that they are going to use some of the relief and actual flow of capital to support their proxies. as i said my testimony from the golan to yemen. there is no doubt in my mind. i don't know what the percentage will be. but it's going to be significant. senator corker: i don't have additional questions but i think other members may and we would be glad to entertain those for a moment. i don't want to let the war thing hang. i hope you are not trying to indicate that there's some of us who would like to see a war. chairman zarate: no. let me be real clear what i meant about that. you are -- mr. chair, if you don't mind you are absolutely right, the inspections in iraq were the gold standard. this deal is not at that level. but the inspections in iraq flowed from our winning gulf war one. there was a war we won. and then it set a pattern of an inspections regime in iraq that we used the inspections to bomb iraq in the late 1990's. but there was

so the notion that they're just immediately going to turn over $100 billion to the irgc or the quds force, i think runs contrary to all the intelligence that we've seen and the commitments that the iranian government has made. -- activities in the region that are a threat to us and our allies. i think that is a likelihood. do i think it's a game-changer for them? no. they are currently supporting hezbollah, and there is a ceiling -- a pace at which they could support hezbollah even more, particularly in the chaos that's taking place in syria. so can they potentially try to get more assistance there? yes. should we put more resources into blocking them from getting