moniz: correct. senator: after 15 years what limits do you think will be in place on those things that you just mentioned? mr. moniz: after 15 years they will probably expand their capacity after those restraints. that is why such a key element is the verification measures that we put in place for all time. senator: we are talking about tracking the nuclear material to make sure it is not divergent from the civilian programs. mr. moniz: for 25 years. senator: we are basically just checking in iran's math, correct? mr. moniz: checking the math. we are checking our math, if you like. senator: we are checking our math. mr. moniz: for 25 years we follow the manufacturing. it is the supply chain that we follow. making -- our intelligence people will tell you to reproduce the entire supply chain in multiple places would be very difficult to conceal. senator: we are just looking at of course the declared facilities. mr. moniz: no, we have of course strong measures in the facility's, which by definition rest

secretary moniz? secretary moniz: my opening statement is there are too many familiar faces here now. briefly, to reinforce what was said that obviously, this agreement was focused on the question of nuclear weapons in iran, and the president's commitment and what i will believe will be a commitment a future presidents as well to make it clear that that iran will not have a nuclear weapon. i believe it provides us with a lot of tools to make sure that is the case for it or if it isn't, to make sure that we find out in a timely way to respond. with that, i am open for questions. reporter: i'm wondering if you can clear up whether it's possible that iran -- [indiscernible] secretary moniz: that's really a question for the intelligence committee. i think what they would tell you is we feel pretty confident that we know their current configuration. clearly, the deal, of course, is ultimately based on verification. and as general clapper said earlier this week, while we can never have 100% certainty that w

moniz: everybody is. sen. johnson: he testified yesterday with the former cia director about the threat of emp. one of the reasons i held that hearing is -- nobody knows how this is going to gain out -- but the inevitable conclusion of this deal is that eventually iran will have a nuclear weapon. are you aware of the fact that iran has launched emp attacks? sec. moniz: no, i am not. sen. johnson: they have done that. an emp attack would be conducted by somebody night north korea or iran and can be conducted from a ship using a scud missile and the fact that you as the secretary of the department of energy, are not even aware of the 15 recommendations, things like evaluating quick fixes in the event of an emp attack. the fact that for literally 20-70,000,000 dollars, we could protect -- $20 million-$70 million -- i am highly concerned. if you are not even aware of these recommendations that were made public in 2008, seven years later, in testimony before our committee, we have done nothing, virtually nothing to

secretary moniz:. secretary moniz: thank you, mr. chairman. i do appreciate the opportunity to come here to discuss the agreement. the agreement prevents iran from getting a nuclear weapon, provide strong verification measures that give us time to respond if iran chose to violate the terms, and fundamentally takes note of our options off the table. i want to stress that america's leading nuclear experts and our national laboratories were involved throughout these negotiations. our god, los alamos, oak ridge the pacific northwest, savannah river, all played important roles. these nuclear experts were essential to evaluating and developing technical proposals and support of the u.s. delegation. as a result of their work, i'm confident that the technical underpinnings of this deal are solid and the department of energy stands ready to assist in the implementation. the deal leaves the president objectives -- president's objectives. the jcpoa would extend for at least 10 years, the time that it would take iran to produce just material for a nuclear

secretary moniz, welcome to the foreign affairs committee. thank you all for your dedicated service no matter what side of the issue is on i don't think anyone here doubts your commitment to the united states and the good intentions on this deal. thank you for the time you have taken to engage with members of congress on the proposed deal can and thank you for your testimony today. congress gave itself 60 days to renew this deal. and i sincerely hope my colleagues take full advantage of the time to study this agreement torques ask questions and to make an informed decision when the time comes. we've had many months and hearings to discuss the different aspects of a nuclear agreement with iran. but at this point we are no longer dealing with hypotheticals. we have a specific deal on the table. and we have to decide if that deal advances the national security interests of the united states and/or allies. to answer that question to be fair we also need to ask ourselves what is the alternative? absent this deal or the international sanctions regi

secretary moniz: mr. udall: yes. -- secretary moniz: yes. mr. udall: -- given the half-life of uranium and plutonium and the resources needed to construct a parallel interesting capability, which is a it is scientifically possible to hide such work within 24 days and to you believe we have the technical capabilities to determine if enrichment is being done outside the limits of the jcpoa? secretary moniz: well, yes, once again we have the historical example of 2003, easily finding uranium after six months despite major efforts to disguise it. and in addition, we will have all the containment and surveillance for 20 years of all the sensitive parts of every machine that they make. mr. udall: and so people that have used the analogy, like in a drug crime, you flush it down the toilet and we will be able to find it that is, in fact, been proven out. secretary moniz: if they try that, we will find it. mr. udall: good. our nuclear experts at oak ridge, los alamos, they have given technical support throughout these negotiations. i think confident that

secretary moniz: that's a report. if you read further in the testimony, you will see my explicit statement. of course i know about the issue. i happen to know something nuclear weapons, emp is -- senator cruz do you agree that : an emp detonated killed tens -- secretary moniz it's obviously a : very potent weapon. senator cruz could kill tens of : millions of americans, would you agree on that? secretary moniz that would : depend on the specifics -- senator cruz you're refusing to : answer the question. secretary carter, is it correct iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world? secretary carter: i was asked before and i believe that's true, yes. senator cruz do you have any : doubt whatsoever if in excess of $100 billion goes to iran that some of that money will go to jihadists will who will use it to kill americans. secretary carter: i can't say that. i can say their maligned activities about which we're extremely concerned are quite well funded today and it's -- senator cruz: i just have a second le

secretary moniz -- go ahead, secretary. >> yeah, i understand. >> secretary moniz, is it not billions of dollars cheaper to build a natural gas power plant rather than a nuclear power plant? why do you think iranians have gone down the nuclear road? typically a nuclear plant has lower operating costs. >> in this case, the natural gas quoob would be free to them. >> i'm not sure it's free. certainly in the sense -- i'm not arguing one way or the other but just what the argument is is that it's more valuable than as an export product where of course, with lng prices for example, in parts of the world there's quite a bit of rent to be captured. >> yeah, sure, sure. secretary lew, appreciate your patience today. you haven't been called on that much. but in light of the how tantalizing the sanctions have been on this economy, it still strikes me odd that iran would continue to move toward this very, very expensive construction project as opposed to other alternatives. does it seem odd to you? i mean billions and billions -- >> which expense? >> the actual expense of constructing nuclear po

negotiator secretary of state john kerry and energy secretary ernest moniz.emen, welcome to "fox news sunday." president obama and both of you talked about insisting on any time anywhere inspections but what you ended up with is that iran can keep us out of its most secret, most suspicious sites for up to 24 days. secretary kerry, 3 1/2 weeks is not any time anywhere. >> that's not accurate. i never in four years had a discussion about anywhere any time. >> secretary moniz did. >> before he came into this negotiation, he did not. not in the course of this negotiation. >> president obama on april 2nd said this -- >> if iran cheats, the world will know it. if we see something suspicious, we will inspect it. >> that's accurate. >> he didn't say in 24 days. >> chris, don't play a game here. the fact is that in arms control there is no country anywhere on this planet that has anywhere any time. there's no such standard within arms control inspections. there's an iaea process for which we have negotiated a unique ability to bring cloture. the iaea was never able to

i'm sure secretary moniz or kerry can. but it is an important part of the verification of the agreement and obviously verification is an important part of any agreement. let me ask secretary moniz if he wants to add anything on the specifics of the iaea. >> thank you. i could certainly add that first of all, to be honest i would not call them side agreements in that the agreement in the jcpoa is that iran must cooperate for the iaea to complete the process on pmd. then the iaea as is standard, negotiates a document with the country to define the protocols. >> the protocols are very important mr. secretary. are we going to be aware of the protocols because with any agreement with a country such as iran the devil is in the details. >> all i can say is -- first of all, i have personally not seen those documents. >> which is astounding to be honest with you. that is absolutely astounding that you have not seen the documents about requirement for verification. >> all i can say is the agreement requires their cooperation with th

secretary moniz -- go ahead, secretary. >> yeah, i understand. >> secretary moniz, is it not billions of dollars cheaper to build a natural gas power plant rather than a nuclear power plant? why do you think iranians have gone down the nuclear road? typically a nuclear plant has lower operating costs. >> in this case, the natural gas quoob would be free to them. >> i'm not sure it's free. certainly in the sense -- i'm not arguing one way or the other but just what the argument is is that it's more valuable than as an export product where of course, with lng prices for example, in parts of the world there's quite a bit of rent to be captured. >> yeah, sure, sure. secretary lew, appreciate your patience today. you haven't been called on that much. but in light of the how tantalizing the sanctions have been on this economy, it still strikes me odd that iran would continue to move toward this very, very expensive construction project as opposed to other alternatives. does it seem odd to you? i mean billions and billions -- >> which expense? >> the actual expense of constructing nuclear po

sit down with the two chief negotiators, secretary of state john kerry and energy secretary ernest moniz. >>> is the obama administration trying to skirt congress by sending the deal straight to the united nations? we'll talk with senators ben cardin and john barrasso. >>> and planned parenthood tries to put out the firestorm over this controversial video. we'll ask our sunday panel what it means for the debate over abortion. all right now on "fox news sunday." >>> hello again from fox news in washington. we have a lot of news to cover today. the latest on the investigation into that terror attack in tennessee and the debate over this week's nuclear deal with iran. but we begin with breaking political news. republican presidential candidate donald trump's comments about senator john mccain questioning whether he is a war hero. senior political correspondent mike emmanuel reports from ames, iowa. >> reporter: donald trump escalated his war words with arizona senator john mccain and created a big new controversy. when panel moderator called mccain a war hero, trump seemed to question that.

before he goes he's here secretary moniz. vienna but what can you tell to members of congress who are complaining that first of all, senator cotton and others are complaining that there are secret deals between the iaea and iran that will not even be known to the u.s. and will not be briefed to congress and why are there these side deals? >> well first of all, there are no secret deals. this is the iaea performing its usual function with any country it's about to inspect. of course they have a reputation to defend in terms of making sure they are thorough that the process has integrity. but they are the ones who negotiate the parameters the road map as to how they will carry out the inspections. the key is that we have gained them the access to carry out their inspections. in fact on a pretty short timeline. iran has to perform by october 15th. >> but do you and secretary kerry, will the u.s. congress know what those parameters are? what the iaea is getting, what level of access and what demands iran has made and won, perhaps

moniz? what's his name? >> mr.lahe. >> have you read what he said on july 22nd according to middle east media research institute? about the side deal. on said we have reached an understanding with the iaea, god willing, there will be very positive results. we don't accept the pmd arrangement. we don't agree with that. and we reject the concept. what kind of arrangement has he made to make him feel so positive? >> first of all, i had not red it. >> i'm going to give it to you. >> secondly -- >> you don't have to answer. would it be surprising to you he's telling the iranian people don't worry about this side deal, we're going to get a good outcome? >> i assume what he is suggesting -- >> if you didn't know about it. >> -- is that there were no nuclear deals in gachin. >> i assume he's saying we reached an arrangement we're okay with. that's what i'm assuming. >> i would read it differently just from hearing -- >> we don't know what he means. apparently we don't know what the ayatollah wants. i know what he means. he

you need to go down and meet with secretary moniz and get that answer. i'll also add that we as a nation don't even have a copy. senator cardin and i have asked for this. we don't even have a copy of the agreement to even understand. you'll understand this very quickly in about five seconds for the secretary, but we don't have a copy of the agreement to ascertain on behalf of the american people whether the iaea process, which again, you should go look into this part of it, has any integrity. it's very disappointing. i know senator cardin -- >> this is a very important point. the documents in question are traditional between the country and the iaea and are kept confidential between the country, in this case iran, and iaea, but it is part of the jcpoa in regards to possible military dimensions, which are critical for us to have base line in order to deal with moving forward. so it's a very important part. and from what we can tell if we can get eyes on that document it may answer some of our questions. secretary moniz has raised questions and he's greatl

i did not request the presence of secretary kerry or moniz or secretary lew.i am glad they're here at their desire to do so since this focuses of today's hearing is on the strategic and millitary implications of the iran agreement. what we want to know is how this agreement will affect regional security proliferation and the balance of pow ner the middle east, what impact it may have on iran's malign activities and hedge monic ambitions in the region. what it means for perceptions of american credibility and resolve among or allies and partners. and what the consequences are for u.s. defense policy military planning and force structure. when we consider these broader strategic consequences of the agreement, the second order effects, what is already a bad deal only looks that much worse. do this committee perhaps of most concern about the agreement itself pertains to the verification and monitoring mechanisms has it's been publicly reported that the inspections of iran's facilities will be conduct bdty national atomic agency or iaea. there will be no americans

that is my concern. >> senator cardin did kerry and moniz persuade you? >> with a congress having 60 days to review the agreement we will take that time in order to understand it and ask our questions and get our answers. the bottom line, whether this agreement prevents iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power? the inspection and enforcement is a very important part of it. we want to understand it better. the question will be, whether this is effective enough? >> there is a 24 days which the secretary ernest moniz said they cannot hide anything in 24 days. are you satisfied? >> we want to look at the covert opportunities. we understand we cannot trust iran and there are many ways to get a nuclear weapon one through covert activities in the military facility. what does the 24 day clean mean -- 24 day delay mean. >> as the top democrat on the senate foreign affairs committee the white house is calling on you to support the bill. are you honestly, are you assure "yes," vote for the deal? >> i will use the review period to understand it. my obligations are t

so that's why i want to quick go back to secretary moniz. i was surprised, i'd say disappointed, that you weren't aware of the recommendations from the 2008 emp commission report. by the way -- again, i guess i caught you by surprise. you weren't expecting that for this hearing. just so you know that was commissioned by the 2001 national defense authorization act. they reported in 2004 and 2008. and this is something certainly i'd heard about before i ever came here and this is "star wars" stuff and couldn't possibly happen. but again you've acknowledged knowing dr. richard garwin correct? a brilliant man. >> yes. >> worked with enrico referred to as one of the true geniuses he'd ever known. >> dick is a national resource. >> he testified. and my ranking member during the hearing said he looked into this and somebody said it was it's a growing threat when you have north korea, potentially a state like iran if this thing turns out like north korea, we have multiple threats of this. particularly in light of the fact we know iran has been testi

you need to go down and meet with secretary moniz and get that answer. i'll also add that we as a nation don't even have a copy. senator cardin and i have asked for this. we don't even have a copy of the agreement to even understand. you'll understand this very quickly in about five seconds for the secretary, but we don't have a copy of the agreement to ascertain on behalf of the american people whether the iaea process, which again, you should go look into this part of it, has any integrity. it's very disappointing. i know senator cardin -- >> this is a very important point. the documents in question are traditional between the country and the iaea and are kept confidential between the country, in this case iran, and iaea, but it is part of the jcpoa in regards to possible military dimensions, which are critical for us to have base line in order to deal with moving forward. so it's a very important part. and from what we can tell if we can get eyes on that document it may answer some of our questions. secretary moniz has raised questions and he's greatl

. >> and again you hear senator john mccain questioning secretaryquestion energy secretary moniz. they're talking about the side deals between iaea and the u.s. has only been briefed on. talk about that if you can some of these details that maybe republicans are trying to capitalize on there. >> absolutely. they say this is a major concern. this negotiated deal that they have access to it, that they're able to read. it's more complicated because it does include negotiations between iaea and iran. now administration officials say that it's typical to not see all of that out in public. that it is confident information and it's not realistic that members of congress be able to read it. but they're push on it. they're saying that it's not just a side deal but a secret deal. something that white house officials john kerry is saying is a complete mischaracterization. this is tough because they can't show it to the senators. they can talk about it in classified briefings but we heard a pained exchange there as they were going down the line and asking every member of the president's team

so that's why i want to quick go back to secretary moniz. i was surprised, i'd say disappointed, that you weren't aware of the recommendations from the 2008 emp commission report. by the way -- again, i guess i caught you by surprise. you weren't expecting that for this hearing. just so you know that was commissioned by the 2001 national defense authorization act. they reported in 2004 and 2008. and this is something certainly i'd heard about before i ever came here and this is "star wars" stuff and couldn't possibly happen. but again you've acknowledged knowing dr. richard garwin correct? a brilliant man. >> yes. >> worked with enrico referred to as one of the true geniuses he'd ever known. >> dick is a national resource. >> he testified. and my ranking member during the hearing said he looked into this and somebody said it was it's a growing threat when you have north korea, potentially a state like iran if this thing turns out like north korea, we have multiple threats of this. particularly in light of the fact we know iran has been testi

secretary moniz. this might be my last question. if i understand the agreement the oil sanctions, which is prohinted iran from exporting oil, that's going to be lifted. is that correct? >> well sanctions are relieved. that would be among those relieved. under this deal, that's one of the ones that will be relieved? >> if the sanctions are relieved, yes. >> now being the secretary of energy, let me ask you this. why are -- why is the united states lifting the sanctions on the exporting of oil on iran but we're not lifting its sanctions on america exporting crude oil like texas sweet crude? >> we don't have sanctions on our exports. we have a congressional law that in the 1970s restricted exports. >> do you support that law being changed? you know that's the question. do you support the law -- >> this time has expired. >> i'll put that in the record. >> we need to go to david sis illini. >> just a point of personal privilege. i wanted to make sure we knew what we were talking about on the record that properly reflects this. susan rice

secretary moniz. this might be my last question. if i understand the agreement, the oil sanctions, which is prohibiting iran from exporting oil, that's going to be lifted. is that correct? >> well, if sanctions are relieved, that would be among those, correct. >> under this deal, that's one of those that would be relieved? >> if the sanctions are relieved, yes. >> now, being the secretary of energy, let me ask you this. why are -- why is the united states lifting the sanctions on the exporting of oil on iran but we're not lifting the sanctions on america exporting crude oil, like texas sweet crude? >> we don't have sanctions on our exports. we have a congressional law that in the 1970s restricted exports. >> do you support that law being changed? you know that's the question. do you support the law -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> okay i'll put that in writing. >> we need to go to david sisillini. >> just a point of personal privilege. i wanted to make sure we knew what we were talking about on -- and the record properly r

secretary moniz, you're the expert here. would you, in your opinion do you believe this deal makes it less likely within the next decade, next 15 years. over a lifetime, for iran to obtain nuclear weapons? >> far less likely. >> okay, great. i don't trust iran. secretary kerry, you said multiple times there's nothing in this agreement that is based on trust. secretary lew, you have said there will be no immediate sanctions relief. is that an accurate statement? >> sanctions relief will only come after iran complies with all the measures to stop the nuclear program. >> in your estimation, is there enough in the verification regime, in this deal, that will allow us to -- >> i would defer to secretary moniz, but i have been persuaded by everything i have read and seen that it is the toughest verification regime we have ever had. >> is that correct? >> and secretary lew there is no signing bonus? >> there is no signing bonus. >> okay, great. you know moving on then, secretary of defense ash carter is not here. but i'll direct th

secretary moniz joins me now. welcome.>> thank you fareed. >> i think marco rubio said the deal is irreparably flawed. which makes me wonder do you think there was any deal that the republicans on hill would have accepted? >> certainly i think the nuclear dimensions of the deal frankly are far stronger than anyone had expected, really bites hard into the iranian nuclear program for quite a long time. i think as you heard in the hearing, a lot of the objection was really directed at the idea that iran would, in fact, get economic relief and concern about non-nuclear dimensions in terms of using those resources. >> so the main objections that i heard to the deal go as follows, that people like alan cooperman who say the centrifuges -- first of all there should have been more centrifuges disconnected, and more importantly, they're not destroyed, but merely disconnected. that iran still has in a storage room somewhere these thousands of centrifuges it could reconnect very quickly and therefore your breakout time scenarios are

moniz, what is his name? >> mr. sull ahi. >> did he read what he said on july 22nd according to the research institute about the deal. he said -- let's see, we have reached an understanding with the iaea, god willing, there will be very positive results. we do not accept the pmd arrangement. we don't agree with that. and we reject the concept. what kind of arrangement has he made to make him feel so positive? >> first of all, i had not read it. >> i'm going to give it to you. you don't have to answer. would it be surprising to you that he's telling the iranian people don't worry about this idea, we're going to get a good outcome? >> i assume what he is suggesting -- >> well if you didn't know about it -- >> is that there were no nuclear deals and that remains to be seen. that is my assumption. >> we've reached an arrangement that we're okay with. but the difference does matter. >> i would read it differently just from hearing it. >> well we don't know what he means and apparently we don't know what the ayatollah wan

we appreciate the senators and secretary moniz and lew being here. for the record, i did not request the presence of it secretary kerry or moniz or secretary lew. i'm glad they are here, as their desire to do so. since this focus is today's hearing it's on a strategic and military implications of the iran agreement. what we want to know, among other things, is how this agreement will affect regional security proliferation, and the balance of power in the middle east, and what impact it may have on iran's maligned activities and hegemonic ambitions in the region. what it means for perceptions of american credit ability and resolve among our allies and partners, and what the consequences are for u.s. defense public hearing -- defense, policy. we concerted these broader strategic consequences of the agreement. what is already a bad deal only looks that much worse. to this committee perhaps the most concern about the agreement itself pertains to the verification and monitoring mechanisms, as has been verbally recorded,-- there will be no americans allowe

secretary moniz, welcome to the foreign affairs committee. thank you all for your dedicated service no matter what side of the irkssue is on i don't think anyone here doubts your commitment to the united states and the good intentions on this deal. thank you for the time you have taken to engage with members of congress on the proposed deal can and thank you for your testimony today. congress gave itself 60 days to renew this deal. and i sincerely hope my colleagues take full advantage of the time to study this agreement torques ask questions and to make an informed decision when the time comes. we've had many months and hearings to discuss the different aspects of a nuclear agreement with iran. but at this point we are no longer dealing with hypotheticals. we have a specific deal on the table. and we have to decide if that deal advances the national security interests of the united states and/or allies. to answer that question to be fair we also need to ask ourselves what is the alternative? absent this deal or the international sanctions re

secretary moniz, you're the expert here. would you, in your opinion do you believe this deal makes it less likely within the next decade, next 15 years. over a lifetime, for iran to obtain nuclear weapons? >> far less likely. >> okay, great. i don't trust iran. secretary kerry, you said multiple times there's nothing in this agreement that is based on trust. secretary lew, you have said there will be no immediate sanctions relief. is that an accurate statement? >> sanctions relief will only come after iran complies with all the measures to stop the nuclear program. >> in your estimation, is there enough in the verification regime, in this deal, that will allow us to -- >> i would defer to secretary moniz, but i have been persuaded by everything i have read and seen that it is the toughest verification regime we have ever had. >> is that correct? >> and secretary lew there is no signing bonus? >> there is no signing bonus. >> okay, great. you know moving on then, secretary of defense ash carter is not here. but i'll direct th

secretary moniz -- go ahead secretary. >> i understand. >> secretary moniz is it not billions of dollars cheaper to build a natural gas power plant rather than a nuclear power plant? why do you suppose the iranians have gone down the nuclear road when they're so carbon rich? they've got a trillion gallons of reserves in natural gas. wouldn't it have been much cheaper for them if the idea was just peaceful electricity to have gone that route? >> well, a natural gas power plant has lower capital costs, but typically, a nuclear plant has lower operating points. >> but at this point the natural gas would be free to them. >> i'm not sure it's free. certainly in the sense -- again i'm not arguing one way or the other. but just what the argument is that it's more valuable thanes a an export product where of course with lng prices for example, in parts of the world, there is quite a bit of rent to be captured. >> yeah sure, sure. secretary lew, i appreciate your patience today. haven't been called on that much. but in light of how penalizing the economic sanctions have been on this economy, it s

secretary moniz, welcome to the foreign affairs committee. thank you all for your dedicated service no matter what side of the irkssue is on i don't think anyone here doubts your commitment to the united states and the good intentions on this deal. thank you for the time you have taken to engage with members of congress on the proposed deal can and thank you for your testimony today. congress gave itself 60 days to renew this deal. and i sincerely hope my colleagues take full advantage of the time to study this agreement torques ask questions and to make an informed decision when the time comes. we've had many months and hearings to discuss the different aspects of a nuclear agreement with iran. but at this point we are no longer dealing with hypotheticals. we have a specific deal on the table. and we have to decide if that deal advances the national security interests of the united states and/or allies. to answer that question to be fair we also need to ask ourselves what is the alternative? absent this deal or the international sanctions re

secretary moniz, i hope i'm pronouncing this correctly. a form deputy, we talked about the agreement that they've entered into to that has not been disclosessed to the committee or iran reduces detection where the system is weakest, detecting undeclared facilities and missile, is he wrong? >> well, a 24-day is for undeclared facilities and i've already explessed use of nuclear materials in those facilities, we are very confident. we have to know where to look. that's, of course, the traditional roleea of intelligence and those of our allies and friends. >> mr. chairman. >> senator murphy. >> thank you very much mr. chairman, thank you for spending so much time with us here today. one comment on the issue of nuclear sanctions and then two questions, the iranians are worried that we are going to reimpose nuclear sanctions under the cover of some other excuse. thus your discussion about the sensitivity about when we may reauthorize iranian sanctions act. i just note that what we're talking about here then is motive, whether or not we are agai

negotiators, secretary of state john kerry and secretary of energy ernest moniz. we'll hear from prime minister benjamin netanyahu a top critic of the deal. a shooting rampage at marine recruiting center takes five lives. we'll talk to the top democrat on step at intelligence committee about these type of lone wolf terror attacks. donald trump goes on the defensive after he criticisms former pob. >> he is a -- because he was captured. we'll have analysis ton that all the news it's all ahead on "face the nation." captioning sponsored by cbs we're going to start this morning with historic deal between united states and iran limit that country's nuclear capabilities. congress has 06 days to review the deal and vote on it. friday we sat down with secretary of state john kerry and energy secretary earnest moniz who kale face. >> mr. secretary iran is sworn enemy of the united states. why should americans within they see iranians dancing in the street why shouldn't they be suspicious. >> everybody should be. we're suspicious. which is why we negotiated the deal that is

. >> i want to direct our questions to secretary moniz and i'll be boring here. but very technical question when i asked the white house and the president specifically he directed it to you saying that you're the top ten experts in the world on this. with that build up there was a report six days ago in "the new york times" that really question this issue of the 24 days. and there are some that as you said earlier look, 24 days is not exactly like you're flushing a whole program down the toilet. that certainly wouldn't be enough time to hide illicit behavior. the former deputy director of the iaea contradicted that and said while it's true with some of the larger scale operations some things such as manufacturing uranium components and triggers could be covered up in the 24 days. i'm trying to get a clear answer on this issue because i think it's one of the key components when trying to look at this in an intellectually honest way to see if we have a verifiable deal. >> i've spoken with mr. hinanen. he's up the river at harvard these days, but the issue i want to

take what secretary moniz said about being able to detect nuclear activity. that may be true where there's nuclear activity but in the weaponization area you don't associate the radioactive material the high-enriched uranium, with the explosives and put it into a device unless you intend to test it because you don't want it to go off accidentally. so it means that iran's weaponization activities at parchin or elsewhere i think can be cleaned up by the iranians and they know it and their hidden nuclear facilities are not anywhere near the sites that we know about. they are in the zagros mountains, maybe they are in nk. you know this confidence about the perfection of american intelligence and international inspectors is going to go down in history i think as such a gross overstatement that it will be hard to recover from. >> and u.s. inspectors are barred from those military sites. ambassador john bolton. always good for your analysis. thank you, as always. >> thank you, eric. >> much more on the deal. republican senator jerry moran of kansas will join us and

in the hot seat secretaries kerry, moniz, and lew. they'll be facing tough questions from a skeptical congress. last night in new york thousands jammed into times square urging congress to kill the deal. let's get the latest from capitol hill and luke russert. luke, good morning. what's going on here? a big headline in the "washington post." secret deals become the latest congressional complaint about the iran deal. >> good morning. that's front and center and expect that headline to be front and center at the senate foreign relations committee hearing with kerry, moniz and lew, and these senators want to get to the bottom of look, in the context of this agreement with iran regarding their nuclear program, were there side deals made by the state department regarding iranian military facilities and other matters? tom cotton of arkansas someone who has been very outspoken about the deal, alleged the administration has misled the public by not being fully open about the side deals. listen to what he had to say. >> unless congress gets th

along with secretary moniz, along with treasury secretary jack lew. while the agreement struck by president obama may have been applauded by the united nations, i think he faces serious skepticism on capitol hill, says john boehner. he cited comments made by democratic senator robert menendez of new jersey. the biggest democratic critic. it preserves iran's nuclear program. that's from the hill this afternoofpblet we'll bring you any other comments from members, etc., as they hear from secretary of state john kerry and ernest moniz. the house itself should gavel back in around 4:00, maybe a bit after to resume debate -- begin debate on coal ash legislation and amendments to follow as well. we will -- as we wait we'll take you back to some more of today's "washington journal." we are back with congressman tom rice, republican, south carolina. he sits on the transportation and infrastructure committee. the senate is trying to work through a six-year highway funding bill. the house passed a five-month extension. the current funding stream expires next we