mr. lew in october you went to the senate finance committee and had a hearing concerning prioritization of payments, you told them at the time that the systems are automated to pay, because for 224 years, policy of congress has been to pay our bills. you went on to say it wouldn't be easy to pay some things and not others, in may of 2014, you gave this chairman a letter saying something slightly different, you said, if the debt limit were not raised and assuming treasury had sufficient cash on hand, the systems would be technologically capable of making principle and interest payments while the treasury was not making other payments, end quote. when did you come to learn that new york fed was technologically capable of making payments set forth in your letter to the chairman of may 2014? >> congressman, i don't remember the exact date. i can tell you the statement i made at the senate in october sdwur the statement to this committee is consistent. what i said in october 2013 is that we make t

welcome, mr. lew. obviously you are the treasury secretary, not the coach of the red sox, and therefore we're not going to ask you questions about their feelings. we would note they're doing better than the brewers which says a lot about the brewers. but if you were the coach, we'd expect you to answer the questions that we have about baseball. and when we ask questions we hope that you wouldn't give us answers about the history of baseball and how it came to be and you could talk about the history of fenway. you would actually answer the questions of what's wrong with the red sox. you've had a lot of questions today about liquidity in the bond market and i think the chairman brought out is this related to vulker or other rules and regulations that are caused banks and other market makers to leave the space. i want to give you a chance to answer that question. is this something that you're looking at, do you think the rules and regulations that have come since the crisis have had any part in the lack o

mr. secretary lew i want to go down a different road.we have heard so many different commentaries about how much of a windfall the sanctions relief would be for iran. we have heard 100, $150 billion and the chairman is speaking of 50 or 60 billion. you tell me if this is correct. basically sanctions relief of what has been withheld is about 100 billion, but in that 100 billion there are contractual obligations of iran to pay some 50 billion, and therefore the net that would approximately come to iran would be about 50 billion. is that somewhere in the ballpark? >> that is roughly correct. i am happy to walk down the numbers -- >> you don't need to. i am trying to get concepts here. >> the one thing i would add there's between $50 billion and $60 billion that is accessible and that money -- >> that's where i wanted to go. that money is sitting in foreign banks, is it not? >> it's sitting around the world in countries like china and india and many other countries. >> china india japan, and even taiwan and uae, those banks? >> correct. >> t

mr. chairman and to the secretaries today for your time and testimony. i wanted to start with the secretary lew talking about a number of individuals who will, by 2023, and companies removed from the u.s. saunksnctions list. what can you tell about mr. fakerzadi. is it correct to describe him as the father of the iranian nuclear program? >> i'd defer to secretary moniz who is the father of the iranian nuclear program. >> that term certainly has been applied to him. >> what about mr. abassi? they blacklisted him for allegedly being an aid to fakerzadi and working onu ran's nuclear and missile programs? >> senator without commenting on each individual if you go through the names of people involved in iran's nuclear program, any step to remove sanctions that are related to the nuclear program will involve individuals and organizations that had been involved in iran's nuclear program. >> okay. and so a german engineer gerard weiser. he supplied to the aku khan black market? >> i'm reluctant to get into individual names. >> why they are listed in there. why would you be have the same characteristic.

i look at this somewhat skeptical because of the -- mr. lew, secretary, i'm not sure what i said was humorous, but -- this will help daushg an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation. 19 4, president bill clinton. president obama, iran will never be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon. president clinton compliance will be sortfied. president obama, what we're going to do is set up a mechanism whereby, yes iaea inspectors can go anyplace. president clib ton, this agreement represents the first step on a road to a nuclear-free korean peninsula. president obama, this framework would cut off every pathway that iran could possibly take to develop a nuclear weapon. i'm settled because we've had bad experiences dealing with bad actors. if i look at this today i hear secretary of state -- i heard you say something i haven't heard you say before. i want to dial into this. we're guaranteeing they won't have a nuclear weapon. i know that's our goal. but i've read every page of this document. i've seen the classified documents. i'm concerned as i rea

yellen, before our committee, including secretary of the treasury mr. lew, said it's only 3% of our gdp. i disagree with that. i was a state treasurer in maine and i can tell you that high levels of public debt caused by long periods of deficit spending can do great damage on our economy because we need to pay the interest on that rising debt therefore, we're not able to spend it to build roads and bridges and educate our kids. this yeeshgs chair yenlllen this year we're spending $230 billion interest payments on that debt. in ten years it's projected to be $800 million, more than we pay to defend our country. can't we agree that's about time you help us and congress gets its act together? >> wshlgsell, i did indicate my concern with the stability of the debt path the united states is on. >> i hope you use your influence in this town chair yellen to make sure -- >> time. >> -- with the administration to make sure -- >> time, time time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank you, sir. >> the chair wishes to nft remaining members that the chair is clearing two

mr. secretary, but secretary lew, let's start with you, were the sanctions -- or are the sanctions that are in play as of today effectively curtailing both the money flow and the economy of iran in a way that has brought them to the table. >> congressman, i think that the sanctions have been very effective at slowing the great of roet in iran's economy making inflation high and the exchange rate on their currency very unfavorable. i don't think it stopped them from doing a lot of other bad things around the world. and they've maintained even in a very difficult set of fiscal challenges blind activities, which we have to stay focused on stopping. >> the question, mr. secretary was did it bring them to the table, or did they just come out of goodwill? >> i believe the sanctions brought them to the table and the sanctions were, in fact, designed to bring them to the table. >> secretary kerry you'd agree with that? >> i do agree with that. i think the sanctions and other strategic designs but essentially the sanctions are what crystalized -- >> classified annex, a long list of ships and aircraf

mr. secretary lew, i'm glad you've talked about how this is power.have a lot of unilateral power with regard to sanctions. so then iran cites paragraph 26 of the agreement. it says iran will treat such a reimposition of sanctions as gronds to cease performing its commitments. deal's over. they are cranking. their economy is cranking. we just sanction them for terrorism and they can legally walk from this agreement. if we ever ever impose so-called snapback sanctions isn't the deal over? where am i wrong on that question? >> senator, we would snap sanctions back once they violated the agreement. >> i'm tacking about -- i'm not talking about violation of the agreement. >> let's tack about -- >> you didn't answer in the closed session and you're not asking -- >> you asked two questions. the first set of questions you asked was about the snapback. does it work? yes, it works. if they violate the agreement our unilateral sanctions we can do. i have the authority to put those back in place. the u.n. sanctions were structured so they'll go back into place.

mr. chairman. secretary lew, i basically understood your answers to my previous question. that you have no intention of seeking reauthorization of the iran sanctions act, an act that in october 3rd of 2013 entitled -- in a hearing entitled reversing iran's nuclear program heralded as critical. negotiation on iran's nuclear program, another hearing, they both said the same thing and talked about the important congressional sanctions. so seems to me that if you want a deterrent, iran has to know consequences. maybe it will never be called into play. that's fine. that's good. hopefully they won't be called into play. but they need to know what the consequences are. and so as far as i'm concerned i think we should be moving to reauthorize the sanctions that congress passed. and that expire next year. and let the iranians know that if they violate those are one of the things they're going to have to go back to. so i'm going to move to reauthorize them because i think it needs to be part of the deter deterrant. do you believe iran will be and should be a regional power? >> do i

we go to secretary of the treasury, secretary lew. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking member and members of the committee. the powerful array of u.s. and international sanctions on iran constitutes the most effective sanctions regime in history. these measures have clearly demonstrated to iran's leaders the cost of flouting international law, cutting them off from world markets and crippling their economy. today iran's economy is about 20% smaller than it would have been had it remained on it pre 2012 growth path. united states government stood the forefront of this effort across two administrations and with the bipartisan support of dock. congress. we created a web to --. international consensus and cooperation to achieve this pressure was vital. the world's major powers have been and remain united in preventing a nuclear armed iran. that the point of these sanctions was always to change iran's nuclear behavior while holding out the prospect of relief if the world's concerns were addressed. accordingly, once the iaea verifies iran has completed ke

we go to secretary of the treasury, secretary lew. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking member and members of the committee. the powerful array of u.s. and international sanctions on iran constitutes the most effective sanctions regime in history. these measures have clearly demonstrated to iran's leaders the cost of flouting international law, cutting them off from world markets and crippling their economy. today iran's economy is about 20% smaller than it would have been had it remained on it pre 2012 growth path. united states government stood the forefront of this effort across two administrations and with the bipartisan support of dock. congress. we created a web to --. international consensus and cooperation to achieve this pressure was vital. the world's major powers have been and remain united in preventing a nuclear armed iran. that the point of these sanctions was always to change iran's nuclear behavior while holding out the prospect of relief if the world's concerns were addressed. accordingly, once the iaea verifies iran has completed ke

secretary lew: i think these not back positions -- snapback provisions are extremely powerful. mr. gardner: you are prepared to have a snapback without the iran sanctions back in place to echo secretary lew: i think it would be -- back in place? secretary lew: i think it would be very powerful with or without it. mr. gardner: secretary kerry you stated -- you're it ballistic missile's activities continue under the agreement. how do our sanctions if united states stands alone, slow down the ballistic missile programs? secretary kerry: well, the fact is that, regrettably, they have been pursuing certain things without recourse. and one of our determinations here is to up -- i think the president said this in the east room in his press conference the other day. for instant, they have been transferring weapons for 20 years to lebanon, to hezbollah. and there may be as many as 70,000 to 80,000 rockets. now we all know the threat to israel. we need to, all of us, be engaged in a stronger effort to prevent the movement of these weapons. mr. gardner: by lifting the sanctions in year eight?

mr. secretary, that secretary lew, let's start with you. are the sanctions that are in place as of today effectively curtailing both the money flow and the economy of iran in a way that has brought them to the table? >> congressman, i think that the sections have been very effective in slowing the rate of growth in iran's economy. it makes unemployment high, the exchange rate on their currency very unfavorable. i don't think it is stop them from doing a lot of other bad things around the world. they have maintained even in a very difficult set of fiscal challenges, activities which we have to stay focused on stopping. >> the question though, was did it bring them to the table or did they come out of goodwill? >> i believe that the sanctions brought them to the table, and the sanctions were designed to bring them to the table. >> secretary kerry, you would agree with that? >> i do agree. i think sanctions and other strategic designs -- but essentially the sanctions are what crystallized their timing. >> when i look at the sanctions that woul

lew. >> thank you mr. chairman. members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to speak today about the joint comprehensive plan of action. a foreign policy decision of this significance deserves a thorough review. i am confident a full and fair debate on the merits will make it clear this deal will strengthen the u.s. security and that of our allies. these measures have clearly demonstrated to iran's leaders the costs of international law cutting them off from the world's march etc. and crippling their economy. today the iranian economy is 20% smaller than it would have been had it remained on a pre-2012 growth path. the united states government stood at the forefront with the bipartisan support of congress and this committee. we established a web of far reaching international ansanctions to come to the table. the world's major powers have been and remain united in preventing a nuclear armed iran. that unity of purpose produced four tough u.n. security council solutions and sanctions in many countries. the po

lew. >> thank you mr. chairman. members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to speak today about the joint comprehensive plan of action. a foreign policy decision of this significance deserves a thorough review. i am confident a full and fair debate on the merits will make it clear this deal will strengthen the u.s. security and that of our allies. these measures have clearly demonstrated to iran's leaders the costs of international law cutting them off from the world's march etc. and crippling their economy. today the iranian economy is 20% smaller than it would have been had it remained on a pre-2012 growth path. the united states government stood at the forefront with the bipartisan support of congress and this committee. we established a web of far reaching international ansanctions to come to the table. the world's major powers have been and remain united in preventing a nuclear armed iran. that unity of purpose produced four tough u.n. security council solutions and sanctions in many countries. the po

mr. secretary, but secretary lew, let's start with you, were the sanctions -- or are the sanctions that are in play as of today effectively curtailing both the money flow and the economy of iran in a way that has brought them to the table. >> congressman, i think that the sanctions have been very effective at slowing the great of roet in iran's economy making inflation high and the exchange rate on their currency very unfavorable. i don't think it stopped them from doing a lot of other bad things around the world. and they've maintained even in a very difficult set of fiscal challenges blind activities, which we have to stay focused on stopping. >> the question, mr. secretary was did it bring them to the table, or did they just come out of goodwill? >> i believe the sanctions brought them to the table and the sanctions were, in fact, designed to bring them to the table. >> secretary kerry you'd agree with that? >> i do agree with that. i think the sanctions and other strategic designs but essentially the sanctions are what crystalized -- >> classified annex, a long list of ships and aircraf

senator kerry is a very good presenter, so is jacob lew and mr. >> what do you say when people say this gives away too much to iran. senator corker told us this administration was bamboozled. >> i think that went a little too far. i think it was another senator who said bamboozled. i think fleeced is what corker used. i think those terms are too strong strong. they don't belong in this debate. we need to look at the merits. there are obviously things if i wrote it and did it in different way or a different negotiating team did, but we have what we have. i think it's strong and congress has a strong role to play in the future in terms of implementation, oversight, transparency taking a hard look at this, and making sure that iran really obeys all of the things that they have signed on to. >> senator, as you know, every action has a reaction. concern at all if this deal is accepted that other countries, saudi arabia for example, would decide that they also wanted similar conditions to start their own nuclear program? >> well i think the important th

mr. schauble who turn to jack lew and said, this was the best moment to twitter.eece, go right ahead. we would be happy to take puerto rico as an alternative." hollande say they are serious and credible. we have that followed up by renzi saying a deal would be similar to the one discussed before the vote. that is what jonathan is referring to. this goes back to, are you prepared to move on the vat. what are you prepared to two in terms of pensions? what are you prepared to do in terms of those? mateo renzi saying that the deal will be similar to the one discussed before the vote. the irish for minister says that all eurozone leaders want the greeks to stay in the euro. the euro area summit may not be needed on sunday. the movement is to get a review and get something done and dusted by tomorrow morning. euro's on the move. mark barton having a wonderful time at wimbledon. we will of course, go live to wimbledon gary shilling. the -- very shortly. andy murray and roger federer. richard gasquet and a defending champion novak djokovic. it's a feast of tennis. so, we

mr. chairman, good morning secretary kerry, secretary moniz, secretary lew general dempsey.our -- at the 20 months of negotiations the p 45+1 and iran agreed on the terms. the agreement no matter your position on is historic and if implemented scrupulous low could serve as the strategic inflection point in the world's relations with iran for international non proliferation efforts and for dynamics in the mideast. i commend the president his negotiating team from cabinet officials and nation's scientists for their hard work. in the weeks ahead congress has a solemn agreement to carefully review the details and independently evaluate the agreement will reach our goal of stopping iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. this is part of today's scope. and i welcome you. secretary kerry your work is to be commended. i hope unyou will help us understand why this is a good deal and. secretary moniz you played an important role in the negotiations and you too have been a strong advocate for the comprehensive plan of action throughout. during your testimony i hope you will help us under

mr. corker: thank you very much. secretary lew. secretary lew: thank you for the opportunity to speak today. a foreign-policy decision of the significant deserves thorough review. i confident that a fair and full debate on the merits make it clear this deal will strengthen our national security and that of our allies. the powerful array of u.s. and international sanctions on iran constitutes the most effective sanctions regime in history. these measures have clearly demonstrated to iran's leaders the cost of flouting international law, cutting them off from the world's market and crippling their economy. today, the iranian economy is about 20% smaller than it would have been had it remained on a pre-2012 growth project. -- and with bipartisan support in congress and of this committee. together, we established a web of far-reaching u.s. and international sanctions that ultimately persuaded iran's leadership after years of entrenched in -- entrenching to come back to the table. international consensus and cooperation to achieve this

lew. >> thank you, mr. chairman ranking member engel members of the committee for an opportunity to be here. this is an important issue one where i think the full discussion we're having where it will be clear this will strengthen our national security and that the our allies. the sanctions on iran constitutes the most effective sanctions regime in history. this has demonstrated the cost of flouting the law and crippling the economy. today the iran economy is 20% smaller than it would have been than if it remains on the pre2012 growth path. the united states stood in the forefront across two administrations and with the bipartisan support of congress. we had international sanctions that persuaded the iran leadership after years to come to the table prepared to roll back the international program. international consensus and cooperation to achieve this pressure was vital. the world's major powers have been and remain united in preventing a nuclear armed iran. that unit of purpose produced four tough u.n. cou

lew. >> thank you mr. chairman. chairman corker, ranking member cardin, members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to speak today about the joint comprehensive plan of action. a foreign policy decision of this significance deserves thorough review. i'm confident that a full and fair debate on the merits will make it clear that this deal will strengthen our national security and thatle our allies. the powerful array of u.s. and international sanctions on iran constitutes the most effective sanctions regime in history. these measures have demonstrated to the leaders the kauft of cutting them off from the world's markets and crippling the economy. toz the iran economy is 20% smaller than it would have been than it remained on a pre-2012 growth path. the united states stood at this and with the bipartisan support in congress and this committee. together we established a web of far-reaching u.s. and international sanctions that persuaded iran's leadership to come to the table prepared to roll back its nuclear p

mr. chairman. welcome back second chair, lew. we received the report of the financial oversight council as required by law, as we all know, this year marks the fifth anniversary of enactment of the dodd frank wall street reform and consumer protection act. it's hard to believe it was just five years ago that we were coming to grips with the magnitude of the financial crisis which caused the greatest loss of wealth in a generation. all told the financial crisis cost our nation more than $13 trillion in economic growth and $16 trillion in household wealth. not to mention the devastation of an unemployment rate topping 10% in many states. the leadup to the crisis, nobody in the private sector or in government was looking at the

mr. president. the much-touted "snapback" provision in the agreement. secretary le wmplet, lew the secretary of the treasury, has talked about how we have a strong snapback provision. these are terms that he has been using in testimony. in many ways i think members of this body, democrats and republicans, see the effectiveness of this entire deal might hinge on this so-called "snapback" provision. but the more i read about our sanctions and how they work in this agreement the more questions i have. because, mr. president to me the snapback provision seems to be an i illusion. it actually seems to be aimed back at the united states. i don't think we should be calling it a snapback provision. maybe it should be called the boomerang provision because it is aimed at us. let me talk a little bit more in detail about it. -- about this. first the term snapback is not in the agreement. it is a good term. it is catchy. sounds good. it's actually a term used in trade negotiations. when a party violates a trade agreement, trade agreements will have snapback provisions where we raise tarif

history, you passed a bill five days before the suggestion was made by jack lew, which presumably coming out of the white house, to mr. reid, the majority leader, five days before that, you passed on this floor a bill which was called cut cap and balance which had sequester as your fallback policy. so you're right, you can't change history. that is history. the gentleman, i said that a number of times, the gentleman has not corrected me. i presume therefore he believes that i'm accurate in that representation of th

history, you passed a bill five days before the suggestion was made by jack lew, which presumably coming out of the white house, to mr. reid, the majority leader, five days before that, you passed on this floor a bill which was called cut cap and balance which had sequester as your fallback policy. so you're right, you can't change history. that is history. the gentleman, i said that a number of times, the gentleman has not corrected me. i presume therefore he believes that i'm accurate in that representation of the timing. but very frankly that history is irrelevant. what is relevant, as the gentleman and i i think both agree, if we don't get to an agreement on a number that is as we did in ryan-murray, we have done this before. we have done this before. my view is we did it because you didn't want to have your members vote on legislation that had numbers that were draconian before the election, but that may be only my personal perspective. but the fact of the matter is, the american people expect us to get their work done. getting their work done at minimum means funding the government at appropriate levels. and ag

mr. chairman. good morning, secretary kerry, secretary moniz, secretary lew, secretary carter, general dempsey. your parts before the committee comes a little more than two weeks after the world woke up to the news that after 20 months of negotiations the p5+1 and iran agreed on the terms of the joint comprehensive plan of action. the agreement no matter your position on it is historic. and if implemented scrupulously could serve as a strategic inflection point in the world's relations with iran for international nonproliferation efforts and for the political and security dynamics in the middle east. and i commend the president and his negotiating team for their persistence and hard work. in the weeks ahead congress has a solemn obligation to carefully review the details of this historic agreement and to independently validate that the agreement will meet our common goal of stopping iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. today's hearing is part of that obligation and i look forward to your testimony. secretary kerry, you were the key architect of this agreement and your willingness to take on wh

mr. chairman. >> welcome to the committee, gentlemen. >> welcome to the committee indeed. secretary kerry moniz and lew hill today having a hard time defending the deal. doubts about iran remain high as the president's salesmen are struggling to deliver their pitch to the house foreign affairs committee. >> what this agreement is supposed to do is stop them from having a nuclear weapon. now, i want to hear somebody tell me how they're going to do that without this agreement? i'd like to know how you're -- >> we're going to go to to mr. william from massachusetts. the gentleman's time is expired. >> what's the next step for the united states? nobody is answering that question. >> secretary kerry was responding to questions from republican congressman mike mccall just moments ago. he joins me now. chair of the homeland security committee committee. thank you for being here. >> thanks, andrea. >> this has been rough but it wasn't even nearly as rude as the senate hearing last week when the secretary of state returned to his familiar grounds in the senate. what are your concerns? because you had an exchang

that will be the jack lew argument when he meets with his counterparts. then meets with mr.-- in berlin tomorrow. we'll see how he follows up swapping puerto rico for greece. brendan: david gora, where you are in athens -- we just had this news that the deputy finance minister resigned. is this a one-off or a start of a larger flight? reporter: i have heard from a lot of people that we will see a lot more reshuffling within the cabinet. that well prime minister tsipras has managed to consolidate people are not happy with the crowd around him. i will say that this is something i have heard from a lot of people. last night in his interview he said that he wanted to put to rest rumors that he would sit down and perhaps after this vote he will be staying on. the reshuffling is not a surprise. tom: thank you so much. the distinction here is that this is a minister who is not the oxford grad or the dashing professor. she ran a hotel in crete. she was a member of the left and the communist efforts in greece. brendan: it is important to remember that part of the providence of the sy

secretary lew also making comments yesterday. so mr. what? we'll swap the u.s., we'll take puerto rico, you take greece. [laughter] that's because the debt of greece is about five times that of puerto rico. so there you go. we are waiting, hours to go. it'll be one a.m. here locally, six p.m. eastern, before we know whether that report has been filed. one would hope it would, but this is greece and you never know. charles: ashley webster, thanks a lot. back to the really big story yesterday, and that's the technical issues yesterday. the new york stock exchange "wall street journal," united airlines, sparking the conspiracy theories. let's bring in heritage foundation's james carafano. i just want to ask, do you think these events were really unrelated, or was there something to it? it just seems too coincidental. >> well, look we don't have any solid evidence that they are and, you know -- charles: i'm not just saying from the gut, from the gut, from the gut, though, from the gut. >> well, look i -- okay, from the gut, i wake up every

mr. chairman, thank you for convening this hearing. secretary kerry, secretary lew. 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 alte

mr. cheryl. i will be careful when i say secretary. secretary lew, would the sanctions or the sanctions in place as of today effectively curtailing both the money flow and the economy of iran in a way that has brought them to the table? >> congressman i think that the sanctions have been very effective at slowing the rate of groemg in -- the growth and the inflation high and the exchange rate of the currency unfairable. i don't think they have stopped doing bad things around the world and maintain fiscal challenges and malign activities which we have to stay focused on stopping even we have an agreement. >> but the question was did it bring them to the table or did they come out of good will? >> no. i believe the sanctions brought them to the table and the safrpgs were -- the sanctions were designed to bring them to the table. >> secretary kerry, you agree with that. >> i do agree with that. i think sanctions and other strategic designs but i think essentially the sanctions crystalized the timing. >> and when i look at the sanctions lifted under thi

mr. bellhouse up, one of our public trustees. >> i would like to begin, first of all by thanking secretary lew, secretary burwell secretary perez acting commissioner colvin. most of all, i want to thank my colleague for whom i have learned and continue to learn a great amount. i also want to thank the many expert and hard-working staff many of whom are present in this room right now. my conondrum as much as i want to single people out, my fear is if i try to name individuals, i will leave occupant someone who is very very deserving. clearly special thanks are due to paul stammic, steve goss, mike linicio at ssa. i would also single out the treasury department staff who have done such an exemplary job leading this. they have made this process as good as it can be. and i would like say a few more words about that process before turning to the substance. as we all know, there's no shortage of criticism of government processes. certainly a healthy skepticism of government, as with any authority, is a good thing. but too often it does attend to evolve into cynicism. and participation in the trustee's process these last few years cer

lew said fairly directly the answer is yes. depending on the circumstances if we condemn and it's related to terrorism. mr. chairman, i asked similar questions to the representatives of your office that were here this week because we know that it's going to require ultimately five of the eight votes in the commission that oversights this. and their response was similar o what secretary lew said in all fairness, i'm just relaying what they said to me. but i am tempered by the language of the jcpoa. after all, that's what we agreed . to i said frequently, i'm more interested in what's in the jcpoa than what the iranians say is in there or for that matter our own administration's words. because we are bound by the language in the jcpoa if we go forward with it. the e.u. -- it says section 29, the e.u. and its member states, the united states, insistent with the respective laws, will refrain from any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect normalization of trade and economic relations with iran. that then it says in paragraph earnings u. -3, e. plus 3, will not respect entities for engagi

mr. chairman and to the secretaries today for your time and testimony. i wanted to start with you, secretary lew, talking about a number of individuals who will by 2023 and companies removed from u.s. sanctions list and i hope you could discuss several of them. what can you tell this committee about mr. fakarzady? is it correct to describe him as the father of the iran nuclear program? >> i would defer to secretary moniz as to who is the father of the iranian nuclear program? >> that term certainly has been applied to him, yes. >> what about mr. abassi? was he black listed in 2009 for allegedly being an aide to fakarzady and working on the programs >> without commenting on each individual, if you go through the names of people who have been involved in iran's nuclear program, any step to remove sanctions that are related to the nuclear program will involve individuals and organizations that had been involved in iran's nuclear program. >> so german engineer who was convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison by a south african court in 2007 for his role in supplying centrifuge components to the

mr. chairman, thank you very much for convening hearing. i want to thank secretary kerry, secretary many is and secretary lou. -- moniz and lew. we thank you very much for your dedicated service, your hard work, and your service to america. the iranian nuclear agreement review act that senator corker referred to, that passed earlier this year, was an effort by the members of congress to set up appropriate review for a potential deal with iran. we are extremely print -- pleased that after difficult negotiations we were able to get the unanimous vote of this committee and the support of this white house. we believe we accomplished two major objectives in staffing that said -- statute. first of course, we set up the appropriate review for congress. it allows us to take action, or we don't have to take action. it recognizes the fact that the sanction regime was passed by congress, and that we have a role to play in regards to implanting any agreement, as we now see. conga federals play. it has set up an orderly process. this hearing is part of that process. it took you two years to negotiate this agreement. it's took you two month

look forward to discussion. >> secretary lew. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman, rank member and members of the committee thanks to talk about the comprehensive plan. a foreign policy decision of this magnitude deserves review. i am confidant the review will show this will strengthen our national security and allies. the powerful array of sanctions on iran constitute the most effective sanctions regime in history. they demonstrated the cost of fluting international law and cutting them off from the world's market and crippling their economy. it the iranian company is 20% stronger had it remained on the pre-2012 growth. the administration has received bipartisan support of this committee and together we established a web of far reaching international sanctions that persuaded iran's leadership to come to the table prepared to roll back its nuclear program. international cooperation to achieve this pressure is vital. the world's major power is watt is keeping a nuclear iran from developing. there are national level sanctions in american countries and adhere

mr. mccain: i see no reason to foresee it, and i see them now with about $50 billion to $60 billion with which to pursue those activities. i hear secretary lew and others say don't worry, they will use it for domestic purposes. they are doing it now with the assets they have. one can only imagine what they would do with 60 billion additional dollars. i know the witnesses have very busy schedules. i am grateful you sought to testify before the committee today in order to help us understand this issue, and i thank you. senator reid. mr. reid: thank you very much. you indicated in your statement that the united states has not given up military options with respect to the iranians. it has also not given up any military intelligence or national intelligence with respect to iran. those intelligence operations, i would presume, would be focused in great detail on potential violations of this treaty. is that your sense? >> yes, without going into detail here, it certainly is that we have intelligence activity focused on the uranium nuclear program. but on everything else they are doing. malign activity, cuts force ballistic missiles, arms transfers,

mr. zarate, i have a question for you. under the terms of the nuclear agreement, we talked a lot at the hearing with secretary lew about thebusinesses that were dedesignated, delisted. one of the companies set to be delisted is controlled by the supreme leader khomeini. designated in 2013 as the -- known as the eiko a group of companies, includes gray investment company, a couple of banks, and their investment arm which is the investment arm on the tehran stock exchange. this eiko was initially listed to those under executive order 3159, which was not a knew leer related sanction but it was a sanction addressing desiptive financial practices and the risk they posed to the integrity of the international financial system. in 2013, the u.s. treasury designated along with 37 subsidiaries, stating that they continue to generate and control massive off the books investments shielded from the view of the iranian people and international regulators. we've also talked about the amount of money that will be freed up to iran. it's been characterize being between $100 billion to $150 billion. secretary lew spent time at the hearing la

mr. president ahead of tomorrow's hearing in the foreign relations committee with secretaries kerry moniz and lew on the president's announced nuclear deal with iran, i wanted to take a few minutes to address just how far the administration has moved its open goalposts in terms of this purported deal. over the last few years, the administration has made extensive public statements about what would and would not be acceptable in a final deal with iran. and today it's clear that the final deal falls short not necessarily of other people's expectations but of their own standards and their own stated expectations. so as senators consider this proposed deal and whether it should be approved or disapproved, i think it's important to have a good understanding of where the president and his team did not meet their own expectations. from the early stages of the negotiation, the obama administration made clear that a key part of any, -- quote -- ," good deal, would be dismantling iran's nuclear infrastructure. before the house foreign affairs committee, secretary kerry noted back in december of 2013, he sa

history, you passed a bill five days before the suggestion was made by jack lew, which presumably coming out of the white house, to mr. reid, the majority leader, five days before that, you passed on this floor a bill which was called cut cap and balance which had sequester as your fallback policy. so you're right, you can't change history. that is history. the gentleman, i said that a number of times, the gentleman has not corrected me. i presume therefore he believes that i'm accurate in that representation of the timing. but very frankly that history is irrelevant. what is relevant, as the gentleman and i i think both agree, if we don't get to an agreement on a number that is as we did in ryan-murray, we have done this before. we have done this before. my view is we did it because you didn't want to have your members vote on legislation that had numbers that were draconian before the election, but that may be only my personal perspective. but the fact of the matter is, the american people expect us to get their work done. getting their work done at minimum means funding the government at appropriate levels. and ag

reimpose those types of sanctions and secretary lew said the answer is yes depending on the circumstances if we can demonstrate it is related to terrorism. mr. chairman, i asked similar questions to the representatives of europe that were here this week because we know it is going to require ultimately five of the eight votes in the commission that oversights this. and their response was similar to what secretary lew said in all fairness. but i am tempered by the language of the jcpoa. that is what we agreed to. the eu and members and units insistent with the respected laws will refrain from policy that will adversely affect trade and economic relations with iran. and on paragraph 30 the eu plus three will not apply sanctions or measures to entities engaging in activities covered by the lifting in this jcpoa. i hope the discussion today will talk about if we are out of compliance with the jpcoa and what type of pressure is on the united states and we were told we should be aggressive to holding iran to high standards. what type of pressure is on us to impose the sanction to prevent iran from their non-nuclear nefarious activities. the secon