. >> who is your counterpart mr. muniz. >> mr. slahe. >> have you read what he said on july 22nd about the side 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 pnd 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 have not read it -- >> i'm going to give it to you. >> second -- >> you don't have to answer. would it be surprising to you that he is 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 that there were no nuclear materials in parchin and this remains to be seen. >> i assume he feels we have reached an agreement that he's okay with. >> i would read it differently -- >> well we don't know what he means. and apparently we don't know what the ayatollah wants. he means they have reached an agreement where they don't have to worry about inspection. and i t

muniz, mr. courts in his testimony today recounts the comments of a state department official explaining the challenge bewe faced with the surge in afghanistan. state was not going to act on any recommendation that would delay getting the contracts awarded and the facilities built. is that a fair statement from your point of view? would you elaborate? >> i think that's a fair statement. i would qualify only that we wouldn't do -- i think you used the word or the quote used the word "any." >> that's right. >> there are some recommendations that we might have considered worthwhile to delay the award of a project. i would put security among the highest requirements but the goal has been to press forward with the construction of the facility. >> my time is running out too. the security situation has deteriorated in kabul not just for us, but for everybody. that's tragic and needs its own examination. in your view, ms. muniz the decisions we made and executed is the compound more secure today than it

and secondly mr. muniz, one of the real problems i see in this is that 24-day problem.is not quite the robust inspection we had hoped to. >> i'm going to be very quick. but it's not speculation it is clear, if congress rejects this iran goes back to its enrichment the ayatollah will not come back to the table. anybody who makes that judgment has not talked to the -- to the intel community, there is no way, given his feelings already about the west and his mistrust of us and his reluctance to even have engaged in this discussion that he is going to reenter. more over the sanctions regime completely falls apart, the folks we relied on to provide a united front here go off, and we will have set ourselves back folks. i don't know how i go to another country, if that happens, and say, hey, you ought to negotiate with us or talk to us about any issue with a reliance that we can deliver? because they will sit there and say, well you have 535 secretaries of state in the united states we don't know who we're negotiating with and whatever deal we make always risks being overturne

. >> and mr. muniz the state department partially terminated the 2009 contract, and i quote in part, due to concerns about contract are performance and schedule delays end of quote can you please explain exactly the concerns were what they were and why was the contractor's why were they terminated? what was the performance issue and schedule delays? >> so the contract included both temporary facilities and permanent facilities, and we knew there was a follow-on contract that would be building on that base and adding permanent facilities. we had concerns that the first contractor was not meet being key milestones and would not be able to meet their original schedule, which was the end of 2012 in a way that didn't interfere with the execution of the fy 10 contract. so the government terminated that contract for convenience. >> and have you experienced challenges terminating this contract or other contracts due contractor delays? >> we do. it's a challenging circumstance. so we want to require contractors

muniz, mr. courts in his testimony today recounts the comments of a state department official explaining the challenge we faced with the surge in afghanistan. quote, given concerns about security in kabul and pressure to get permanent facilities built as soon as possible, the state was not going to act on any recommendation that's would delay getting the contracts awarded and the facilityies built. is that a fair statement from your point of view? would you elaborate? >> i think that's a fair statement. i would qualify only that we wouldn't do -- i think you used the word any or the quote used the word "any." >> that's right. >> there are some recommendations that we might have considered worthwhile to delay the award of a project. i would put security among the highest requirements, but the goal has been to press forward with the construction of the permanent facility, so that statement is generally true. >> my time is running out too. the security situation has deteriorated in kabul not just f

mr. secretary muniz, can you explain to the committee the incite that you, we the united states government will have as a result of this agreement on their uranium centrifuge program, number 1? and number 2 on their plutonium program as a result of the agreement stating there has to be modifications and/or dismantlement of the plutonium reactor? >> yes, senator, on the uranium centrifuges. the iaea will have daily access and the use of advanced technologies to make sure that all of the idle ones are locked up, and used only as replacements for broken ones and they will confirm that they are broken. in addition for 20 years, we will have contain and surveillance of all manufacturing of key centrifuge parts. so it's -- as -- as general clapper said we have tremendously enhanced incite into their program. on the plutonium, they will be required to take out the core part of the reactor, fill it with concrete and with international collaboration, and we will be part of that we will make sure that the replacement reactor is the one that reduces plutonium production by about a factor of ten. so i

muniz or mr. starr to answer from your death of not accepting all of the standards and where you are now. mr. starr: sir, the recommendation to have different standards for temporary structures has always struck us as very strange. >> well, they are different facilities. tags the problem is, invariably, when i have seen a standards for temporary structures, or interim facilities, it is a lowering of the standard. what i am afraid of is that we will, by virtue of the fact that a trailer is a trailer, we will have lower levels of security standards for them rather than striving to meet the real standard. an example is, for many years all we had was construction trailers. over the last 12 years, we have developed a heavily armored trailer that we can now ship in two places. we are using them in a couple places now. that allows us to much more closely meet the actual, real, permanent standard. it is our goal to meet the permanent standards to the extent we can and not watered-down the standards and no

mr. michael courts, director of international affairs and trade at the united states government accountability office. appreciate the work you and your staff do. we're pleased to have lydia muniz. we appreciate you coming before our committee again. the honorable gregory starr assistant secretary of the diplomatic bureau. we appreciate your participation here today. mr. blanc. the honorable donald hays senior inspector at the office of inspector general. and mr. michael gulino. welcome all. witnesses are to be sworn before they testify, so if you will please rise and raise your right hands. do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. please be seated. let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. we appreciate if you would limit your testimony to five minutes. your entire written record will be made part of the record. with that, we would like to begin with mr. courts. you're recognized for five minutes. >> good morning, mr. chairman. this testimony is based on a gao report dealing with a subject that we issued in may of this year. this work is part o

mr. chairman. secretary muniz i'd like to follow up on what senator blumenthal was asking you about with regards to the broadcastout time. time. what are some of the factors when you calculate that breakout time? >> the key factors are the enrichment capacity and stockpile of emissions uranium. there are many other factors which come in such as the rate at which additional capacity could be built in during a breakout time. all of this comes in to our national laboratory evaluation. >> that would include the number of centrifuges as well correct? >> correct. >> after 15 years of this agreement, what limits do you think will be in place on those things you mentioned? >> after 15 years, they will probably expand their capacity after those restraints. and that's why such a key element is the -- are the verification measures we put in place for all time. >> we're talking about tracking the nuclear material to make sure it's not diverted from a civilian program. >> and that's 25 years. >> correct. we are basically just

mr. chairman. secretary muniz, i'd like to follow up a little bit on what senator blumenthal was asking you about with regards to the breakout time. what are some of the main factors that you consider when you calculate that breakout time? >> well the key factors are the enrichment capacity and the stockpile of enriched uranium but there are many other factors as well which come in such as the rate at which additional capacity could be built in during a breakout time. so all of this comes into our national laboratory evaluation. >> that would include the number of centrifuges as well, is that correct? >> correct. >> after 15 years of this agreement, what limits do you think will be in place on those things that you just mentioned? >> well after 15 years, they will probably expand their capacity after those restraints. and that's why such a key element are the verification measures that we put in place for all time basically. >> so we're talking about tracking the nuclear material to make sure it's not diverted fro

mr. chairman thank you for convening this hearing, secretary kerry, secretary lou, secretary, muniz, welcomethe committee. thank you all for your service. i don't think anyone here doubts your commitment to the united states and your good intentions on this deal. thank you for the time you have taken over the last week to engage with members of congress on the proposed deal and thank you for your testimony today. congress gave itself 60 days to review this deal and i hope my colleagues make full advantage of this time to study this agreement, ask questions, and make an informed decision when the time comes. we have had many months and many hearings to discuss the different aspects of a nuclear agreement with iran but we're 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 our allies. to answer that question to be fair we also need to ask ourselves what is the alternative? absent this deal with the international sanctions regime and the p5-plus-1 coalition hold togeth

mr. chairman and thank you all for joining us. thank you for your intense work on all of this. secretary muniz you and i had a very long conversation about nuclear details, and what i would like you to discuss with the committee, specifically is the nuclear capabilities that iran have today are considerable and most experts have given it a two to three-month time frame to have enough material for a nuclear bomb. if left unchecked how quickly can they ramp up greater production to more highly enriched uranium, and then i would like you to describe what the ramp-up time would look like post 10 years. because i understand that you spent a lot of time identifying what can be changed and modified in the three existing facilities so they don't run a military risk, and so i would like that more fully described and obviously -- and the last point i want you to address -- is my constituents are very concerned about clandestine operations i would like you to address how you detect a clandestine enrichment facility during the agreement? >> quite a few questions, senator. the -- in terms of the current ca

mr. chairman and ranking member cummings, this concludes my prepared remarks. >> thank you. ms. muniz. am i pronouncing that right? >> yes. >> close enough. >> close enough. >> you're now recognized kpaktsly how i should say it? >> muniz. >> i will improve. thank you. you're now recognized for five minutes. >> chairman chaffetz ranking member cummings and members of the community, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the u.s. department of state's construction projects in kabul, afghanistan. from the beginning the goal has been to deliver secure facilities in those working in afghanistan. the united states reopened its embassy in afghanistan in december of 2001. in 2005, obo completed a new office buildings, three new residential buildings, and support facilities to support the needs of the facility. obo awarded two contracts to provide additional capacity. the projects included additional classified and unclassified office buildings, residential and support facilities, as well as security and infrastructure upgrades. they provided nonpermanent facilities

mr. starr? >> no, i certainly don't. >> i want to ask you just one more time. contractor indicated any intention to request an equitable adjustment. ms. muniz? >> i've answered this question a number of times. >> i'm going to ask it because i obviously know something about this, and i want you to be direct and complete with -- you act as if it's your money and there isn't going to be some sort of consequence here. there's obviously a lot of information i have at my disposal, and i want to know if you're going to be truthful and honest with us because you have yet to show or demonstrate to the united states congress that you can produce a project on budget on time that is safe and secure. it hasn't happened. we keep seeing overrun after overrun after overrun. mexico city, mozambique zimbabwe jakarta. the list is pretty long. london. >> i can go through -- if you want to have another hearing. >> oh, we're going to. you're going to be a regular visitor up here. no doubt about it. >> i'm happy to do that. >> then provide us the documents we ask. and be forthright in your comments. ? we have provided you with over 60,000 pages. >> i want to know