Was interrupting wants earlier. I should not have interrupted you. Mr. Hook, reason i interrupted is, i just dont, i dont like being lied to, and said something that you repeated twice, thats been said committee before that i think is completely wrong, that jcpoa, iran deal, one of the reasons it was bad is because it you know d i think that thats false. There are provisions in the agreement that expire, thats correct. O the agreement has a set of provisions, centrifuges and inspections, youre correct, expire the inspections 2030 but to 025, or public o the american the deal is bad because it, spice is just wrong the first paragraph of the deal, preface, i said first sentence, first paragraph, i wrong, fir deal, iran f the reaffirms that under no iran ever es will seek develop or acquire any Nuclear Weapons. Thats permanent. Ever. Under no circumstances. Any. Hats a permanent provision that they have signed to that never expires, unless somebody decides United States to blow up the deal. Second page of the deal, provisions,general, i guess they felt that was important enough that they wanted to repeat it twice. Reaffirms that under no circumstances will iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any Nuclear Weapons. Thats not the only permanent deal. F the well, there are some provisions that expire and free to like or not like those provisions, there that i a provision excess, extra 0, investigation, examination, of provisionsar arsenal expire, but year 30, iran agrees o permanently abide by the Additional Protocol set up by the jcpoa for inspections in the of north korea being caught cheating. I wouldnt dwell on it except administration witnesses have come here and looked us in the eye and said the same thing. To t it that you guys want say the deal was bad. Ut by lying about it, and suggesting that the deal was bad because it expires, you weaken your credibility. I believe that the of nistration backing out the jcpoa was incredibly foolish. Who cares what i think. Im a democrat. The administration cares one wit what i think. Mattis . T secretary how about secretary tillerson . Of about the joint chiefs staff . Im on the Armed Services committee and they appeared when was trying to decide what to do about the deal and they said staying in the states in the united interest. All right. Forget about them. Maybe they dont know anything. European allies begged us to stay in the deal. Who cares about allies, maybe we dont. International Atomic Agency said iran was complying with the deal. Otherwise. Rump felt just like president bush trashed had cpoa when it said iraq a program of weapons of mass destruction. Had some a deal that provisions that did, in fact, expire, provision that is expire ut it was a permanent deal where iran suggested they would never seek ever seek, purchase, acquire, or develop Nuclear Weapons that. Promise was enforceable by anctions, that promise could potentially have given legal justification for military hadon against iran, if they violated the provision, the dditional protocol that was permanent gives the United States not only intel, but intel we everpection data, if needed to take military action we could target it in a more when i cated way, and see the administration coming and telling the American Public e dont like the deal because it expires, it just infuriates me. We should have done what senator said. The administration should have stayed in the jcpoa and then done exactly what you were do. Ing to sanction iran for all the other bad activities that youve to here today. And many of us on both sides of he aisle had supported sanctions against iran for human rights violations, their we ession in the region, should have kept the permanent promise and the additional rotocol being permanent in our pocket, and worked with our european allies to get sanctions gainst iran for those activities, which could you have done by your own testimony except you were asking of additional negotiations the jcpoa itself. The withdrawal has made the region less safe and the much more has made it difficult for you to do what you to get do which is another deal. Because if the deal is being complied with and we backed out do t, why would a country another deal with us . They would think we would back out of it. Backing out of the deal has made much harder to get a deal with north korea. I applaud the president s trying, when north korea sees the u. S. Backing out of a deal that the jcpoa said complying with, it makes it much more difficult. Much more difficult for them to get onboard. So i just wanted to put on the record thats why i was agitated. You can be against the deal, you against the expiration and provisions of the deal but to tell the American Public the because it expires, its just a lie. Thanks, mr. Chair. You. Hank would you like to respond . I would like to respond to that. Aaine will give k rest of his time. It is true that the deal will expire. A material k its distinction to say after all the substance of the deal expires that the deal doesnt expire makes a commitment to never get a Nuclear Weapon. I think thats a misreading and account of the Iran Nuclear Deal. In 2031 misquoted what i just read . Im happy to go through everything that you raised. You ou saying that i think its a misreading . Id i incorrectly state those provisions in the preface and to the deal . Because iran reaffirmed under iran ever ances will develop or acquire Nuclear Weapons that that means this deal never expires. Provisions of the deal expire. Thats a provision of the deal. Its not a provision. E preamble. Its not an operative paragraph. Oratory in. 2031 all restrictions lift on the Iran Nuclear Deal. Except that provision and the agreement to follow the Additional Protocol in perpetuity. To f iran has no intent acquire Nuclear Weapon what were they doing with that that to liberate . Look, if you want to talk about what iran is doing, thats just saying im asking you, why did di not misrepresent it. Deal will expire. It is. Wording stands as im perfectly comfortable to let the people look at the first deal and of the preamble and compare it against this witness statement. Comfortable. Y thats fair, senator kaine and the language of the argued with. t be the opinion as to whether or not provision, ixpiring think, is subject to debate. Some of us feel one way. Another. S feel thats a fair statement. And i t that agitates how it anybody if you try to tell somebody facts are different han what they are but i think there are a lot more important issues here over whether or not that provision was expiring. I think we can go forward with what we have to do about the ituation that we have in front of us, without agreeing on an a provision that agreement thats no longer in effect had a provision that said or that. And again, i get the same when people ou do try to tell me something that i believe differently. Think it event, i would be productive if we did go orward with other parts, and there is no one that can argue with you that the language of the agreement isnt exactly what it is. Senator cruz thank you, mr. Chairman, and let me start by saying that i know my friend from virginia is speaking in good faith when he expresses his support for this deal, but i think the obamaran flawed in every respect, in my opinion. The threat of a nuclear iran is the greatest Security Threat facing the United States, and the Obama Iran Nuclear deal was the most catastrophic agreement since Neville Chamberlain led the united kingdom. It was flawed on multiple fronts. Gave 150ont, it billion dollars to the ayatollah , the worlds leading state sponsor of terrorism. It did so while the ayatollah was chanting death to america and death to israel, literally, as we negotiated the deal. The ayatollah would lead mobs chanting, death to america. History teaches us, when somebody tells you they want to kill you, you should believe them. The deal on its face would have led inexorably to a nuclear iran. It was designed to be unenforceable. On the face of the deal, numerous sites were deemed exempt from inspections. Military sites were deemed exempt from expections, which, of course, means thats naturally where the Iranian Regime would engage in Additional Nuclear research. It also required 21 days advance notice to the regime before any inspection a provision certain , to encourage cheating. And, indeed, in some circumstances, the agreement provided that iran would inspect provision so laughable that the only consequence of the deal is that iran would acquire Nuclear Weapons. We now know thanks to israels heroic work, seizing iranian records, that iran has cheated from day one and continues to cheat, and the only question is, is iran better off with 150 billion or without 150 billion . And i believe pulling out of the obamaIran Nuclear Deal is the single most important decision that the Trump Administration has made, and the maximum Pressure Campaign is exactly the right approach. Listen, iran remains profoundly dangerous but i would much rather it be a weakened iran with billions of dollars of less resources to use to pay terrorists to kill americans and to fund Nuclear Research than an iran flush with cash racing to catch up with north korea and use Nuclear Weapons and icbms to threaten the lives of millions of americans. Now, mr. Hook, you talked about major provisions of the iran deal expiring, major provisions such as the arms embargo and the ballistic test ban expiring and i agree that thats highly troubling. There is an obvious remedy to that, which is under the terms of resolution 2231. You have the snap back now sanctions, and we now have a , situation where irans conduct outline, ran has gotten even on worse. Now even our european allies acknowledge committed a serious act of war in bombing saudi arabia and taking out about half of their Oil Production capability. That act of war merits a real response. Two questions. Does state believe the United States is able to trigger the snapback mechanism, and number two, should we trigger the snapback mechanism . Senator, thank you for your question. I read your letter from july to. I believe secretary pompeo raised this question, and it is something which senator rubio and i discussed earlier, about whether we can and whether we should reimpose use of the 2231 to trigger the snapback of the sanctions. I have raised this with our Legal Advisers office. I know its been in discussion with the nfc legal adviser. Its a procedural question, an interpretation of 2231, that turns around what the definition of some of the various terms, like participant and other things. I think yours is a very plausible reading. Have done since leaving the deal is allow other countries to decide whether to stay in the deal. Theously, i think even French Foreign minister said recently after the attacks on september 14, it is a seminal event, a game changer. I cannot remember exactly how he described it, but it is something we should take another look at, and i appreciate you raising it to our attention. Senator cruz i would certainly encourage you on my reading that we have full authority to vote for the snapback sanctions, and particularly given this recent attack against saudi arabia, i think we should invoke the snapback sanctions. I think that is a natural response. Second question. You and i have had multiple conversations about the civilian nuclear waivers. As you know, another round of waivers is coming up in the next couple of weeks. We have waivers right now, allowing them to continue construction at the underground Nuclear Bunker, that is built into the side of a mountain to build Nuclear Weapons, we also have a waiver allowing iran to continue working on the rat plutonium producing arrector secretary pompeo has rightly said needs to be shut down anyway. Isnt it time to end these waivers and shut down the Nuclear Bunker and the iraq plutonium producing facility . You are correct, that the current there are five restrictions that are currently in place. Secretary pompeo extended those restrictions on june 30. Youre correct. Those are going to expire very soon, on october 29. What we have done over the course of a couple of years, we have tightened the restrictions on Irans Nuclear program. We did sanction the Atomic Energy organization of iran in november 2018. In march of this year, we imposed new sanctions on Nuclear Scientists who were linked to irans wmd proliferation sensitive activities. Secretary pompeo on july 30 extended those five restrictions around a rack, the Tehran Research reactor, and so he will have a decision to make coming up. You have been a thought leader on this subject, and we will make sure that that is all before the secretary before he makes his decision. Cruz i would strongly advise that you do not extend the waivers, particularly given irans spectacular bad conduct. Thank you, senator cruz. Senator markey. On july 23, secretary pompeii the trumpsaid, before administration came into office, violated the nuclear deal, continue to work on their Nuclear Program. Mr. Hook, in your opinion, was iran working on a Nuclear Weapons program during a period of compliance with the jcpoa . It is the case that iran was hiding under armed guard in a warehouse in the heart of teheran half a ton of materials. Were they out of compliance with the jcpoa, in your opinion . I think if iran is housing an keeping itive and from the international Atomic Energy association that they are not in compliance. So you disagree with secretary mattis, secretary tillerson, and general the generals and the joint chiefs of staff that they were not out of compliance with the jcpoa . Case,depends on, in this under, i think, a statute passed by congress, the president had to certify on a fairly regular basis whether i basis whether iran was or wasnt in compliance with the deal. The discovery of the atomic archive happened just a couple of months before the president left the deal. I think that was a factor. With you disagree secretary tillerson and secretary mattis . You believe they were out of compliance. Is that what you are saying . I would have to look at the dates at both secretary tillerson and secretary mattis said that. That is relevant to this, because the atomic archive was discovered on the monday before you think that the inspectors have not found that iran is out compliance and definitely was not out of compliance before Donald Trump Took Office . The iaea does not certify that iran is in compliance. That is something that the Member States do, but i think that the Iran Nuclear Deal set such a load deal for compliance lets separate that from whether or not they are in compliance. Is secretary pompeo correct that they were not in compliance . I would have to see exactly what he said and when he said it. Let me just say this. Secretary pompeos suggestions have consequences because the crown prince of saudi arabia stated in march of 2018 that without a doubt, if iran developed a nuclear bomb well follow suit. That gets into the question of the 123 agreement with saudi arabia, in terms of the United States agreeing that saudi arabia would not have to, in fact, comply with the Gold Standard for securing iranian uranium and tony him on saudi territory, so that we just call into question whether or not the in fact, add in a way that would be reacting to and ran active Nuclear Weapons program. An to an iran active Nuclear Weapons program. Could i speak to that . From my perspective, the goal has to be that the Trump Administration is not saying that there is an active program, that has been certified by the ae ae by the iaea. If thats not the case, it triggers a reaction in saudi arabia thats very, very dangerous. I want to read you one other question, and that is the issue, not whether or not we might differ on the Radio Nuclear deal, but we know that turkey has undermined iran sanctions across administrations. Do you agree with that . I can only speak to the iran file. Turkey has been in compliance with the iran sanctions. You think they are in compliance in . Terms of the key factor on oil, turkey is not importing iranian crude oil. You dont think turkey has been out of compliance which is important for me to understand. The problem right now is that turkey is endangering u. S. Troops after another rash decision by President Trump, but that is happening near the syrian border, where we reportedly store 50 u. S. Nuclear weapons at the insular airbase inside of turkey, so the , will we, as as country, remove those Nuclear Weapons from turkey . Endangeringght now, u. S. Assets inside of syria. Are at the border. We have Nuclear Weapons, reportedly 50 Nuclear Weapons, on the airbase, and erdogan has become a less and less reliable partner, so the president just moments ago said he is confident that the weapons are secure because they are at a large, powerful air base, but that large, powerful airbase is inside of turkey with , erdogan right now undermining American Security in a way that is almost impossible to fully understand the magnitude right now, the ripple effect. The law of consequences has just been happening and happening and happening, and turkey has previously actually restricted our access to that days during a crisis, so from my perspective, instead of responsibly pulling our troops back from the Turkish Border, President Trump should be pulling our Nuclear Weapons out of turkey instead. Thats the right kind of signal to send. That is an accurate reflection of the reliability of the Erdogan Administration in terms of wholean security, so this dynamic in the Trump Administration has tremendous ripple effects, pulling out of the arabian deal, laying footsie with the saudis in terms of the 123 agreement that has less than the Gold Standard having the saudis say , they are going to pursue Nuclear Weapons, they believe they are, and our administration is saying they are, and that creates a ripple effect, and then turning a blind eye to the turkish aggressive military action along our border that endangers our interests and potentially, if things really go awry, could potentially endanger the security of the Nuclear Weapons inside of turkey that are made in the usa, so all of this is something that basically points to the figure, to the result, for my perspective, is that the Nuclear Weapons of the United States in turkey is a relic of the cold war. They are not necessary. They should not be there, and it is highly unclear that the turks would ever allow us to be using those weapons in a retaliatory strike against russia, with whom, at least ostensibly right now, they are partnering in this effort in syria. It is absolutely a crazy policy. We have got to get those nukes out of turkey and do so immediately. Thank you. Do you want to comment . Could i just say on the first part of the question about saudi, prior to the awry nuclear iran prior to the nuclear deal, weve had many conversations about nonproliferation, advocate for nonproliferation. Prior to the Iranian Nuclear deal the u. N. Security Council Passed resolution 1737 and under chapter 7 article 39 it prohibited iran from enriching. And the Iran Nuclear Deal by the way, that is the Gold Standard. Enrichmentd be no for the worlds state sponsor of terrorism. And i know you like the 123 agreement that was negotiated in the Bush Administration with the uae. That agreement allows uae to have a peaceful program, but they cannot enrich. Unfortunately, the uranian nuclear deal lifted the prohibition of 1737 and then conceded the point that iran can enrich. Once you do that, you will not be able to sign anybody up for a 123 agreement. Youve already breached it and weve been able to the 123 agreement because we had no enrichment, so i think the Radio Nuclear deal has caused all of these countries to ask themselves, why cant i enrich . Its much better to restore, so if you look at secretary pompeos list of 12, at the very top is to restore the standard of no enrichment, and that is the best thing we can be doing. That standard was voted unanimously by china, russia, the p3, all 10 elected members of the council, repeatedly. It was the mr. Chairman, i have been patiently waiting, and could you please put this in writing and i would just say, mr. Chairman, a bad deal with iran should not be justification for a bad deal with the saudi arabians. We should not create that as a bad precedent that allows for a bad deal with russia. Lets turn to senator graham. Mr. Hook, is assad a friend of the United States . No. Do you consider him a war criminal . Yes. Ok. Do you think is he aligned with iran . Iran has been supporting assad. Without iran helping assad he would not be around because hezbollah came to his aid when no one else would. Would you agree with that . Yes. Russia and iran keep functioning. Youre a good man, a good choice for this, so my questions are really not about you and your policies, its about this president s policies. I could not agree more with senator markey. This is the most screwed up decision i have seen since i have been in congress. When the president said today, syria, the invasion of turkey, turkeys invasion of syria is no consequence to us do you know why we sanctioned turkey, if that is true, mr. Hook . The president did threaten sanctions on friday and imposed some of them on monday. And i cheered them on. I do not know how in the world pompeo and pence bring an end to the bloodshed if syria wants to fight for the land, that is up for turkey and syria. I view the situation on the Turkish Border with syria to be for the United States strategically brilliant. I do not see anything brilliant about this. You believe the kurds are safer today than they were before turkeys invasion . That is a question for ambassador jeffrey. I understand im the special representative for iran. Fair enough. I can answer the iran questions on syria. Ok. Do you see iran moving in to take the oil fields in syria if we withdraw all of our forces . I have not seen any intelligence on that yet, but that doesnt do you think that would be a logical move for ran if america abandons syria . Rands interest in syria are mostly around supporting aside and creating assad andorting creating if we withdraw all of our forces and abandon the oil fields, iran would surely go and sees the oil fields, and our friends in israel will be in a world of hurt. Do you agree with this . If iran gets stronger, it is a detriment to israel . Yes. Do you agree it is in our National Security interest to make sure we have a partnership in syria that will contain irans ambitions . Yes, a that is our strategy, to reverse irans power projection and to deny them revenues. Do you agree with me that if isis comes roaring back, it will be very difficult to contain . The kurds will have a hard time fighting turkey and taking care of the isis prisoners . Thats a bad spot for the kurds to be in, do you agree . In terms of the position the kurds are in, it is a question for jim jeffrey. Yes, who would be the biggest winner of a breakdown in syria . Would it be the irradiance . If there is a vacuum created by the american withdrawal, you see iran as a potential big winner . This isnk we need to an obviously very fluid situation. We do not want anything done in syria to be to the detriment of our iran policy. Iran policy is to contain iran, reduce their ability to project power, and create a people, do you agree with that . I didnt hear the last part . Create upheavals. Yes, were trying to minimize irans ability to do that. Do you agree if they seize the oil fields in syria they will be stronger and have more resources, not less . I dont know the odds of iran taking the oil fields but i can say what weve tried to do is that iran yes, a they did. It is a simple question. If they did seize the oil fields in syria, would it help their regimes in terms of their capability . If they are able to get more revenue it is always a bad thing. All i can say is it is not a hard question. The answer is yes. My view is that the biggest winner of this decision by the president , if he follows through with it to abandon syria, will be iran, isis, and the biggest losers are going to be our kurdish allies, who has fought bravely with us, our friends in israel, and do you see turkeys actions going into syria as undercutting our policy towards iran . Our diplomacy, i would say our troops in the northeast are there to ensure the enduring two of isis. Our diplomats working on syria are there too lets just talk about the troops are there to ensure the defeat of isis by partnering with the kurds. Is that correct . Syrian Democratic Forces . Beyond the isis mission and how its accomplished but we arent there in large enough numbers. Were there in hundreds. Its the thousands of kurdish fighters and arab fighters and the syrian Democratic Forces that we rely upon, do you agree with that . Thats a question, i think, for the person i am the u. S. Representative 4 never mind. I will end this. I asked you a very simple question. Does erdogans invasion of kurdish alliesur at risk, driving President Trump out of syria in terms of our military presence, do you think over time that will go to the benefit of iran . I believe the strategy that we have put in place will accomplish our objectives to deny iran does your strategy include allowing erdogan to slaughter the kurds . Thats not part of our strategy. Does your strategy include leaving the oil fields in syria for the taking by iran . Ive not heard any proposal to enable iran to take oil fields in syria. Ok. Thank you very much. Senator menendez. Menendez i just associate myself with senator graham is line of questioning, and it is a very legitimate line of questioning, and it is a very serious one. Mr. Hook, you reference to the e. U. Actions, some of which you read, are nowhere in line with the sanctions that we have levied against iran. Thats a fair statement, right . No, its not true because the eu have said i am sorry. The e. U. Unfortunately, and this is one of the weaknesses of the deal, is that the European Union, i think mr. Hook, im sorry, youre an excellent lawyer and youve developed the expertise of the state department to go on and on without being specific to an answer to a question. I have a very simple question. Do the e. U. Sanctions line up with our sanctions against iran . Yes or no . Yes. They have all the sanctions we have i didnt they are not as strong as the United States sanctions. You before heralded that our sanctions were more powerful and more consequential than when we had the e. U. With us, the e. U. Sanctions are not the same as ours. But they are, i think, complementary, because i did not ask you if they are complementary. I ask you if they are the same as ours. What is so difficult about that . I never said they are the same. I never you can read the transcript. There are a series of e. U. Sanctions, you sanctions and actions, that have i said european. Let me finish. I didnt say e. U. I get to ask questions, you get to answer them. Ill be happy to. The e. U. s actions do not equate to the sanctions that the United States has levied against iran. Is that a fair statement, is it not . Can you repeat it so i understand it precisely . The e. U. Actions do not equate to the sanctions that United States has levied against iran, is that fair . They dont equate and i never that. Fine. Now, you also said that a rand has a history of coming to the table because you said that ton has a history of coming the table because of sanctions. I was the author of most of those sanctions. The reality is, however, those liesions were multilateral by the European Union and others, and therefore, multilateralized by the European Union and others, and therefore, the magnitude of the consequence was greater. That brought them to the table, but your sanctions unilaterally have not brought them to the table. You talked about having diplomatic leverage in syria to deal and thwart iran from where we want them. Made asident just statement that russias expansion after the u. S. To parts is fine, and all theyre fighting over there is a lot of sand. Well, when you have 14 thousand to 18,000 isis fighters, when you have another 10,000 that were imprisoned by the kurds that may be released, several hundred have already been released and regrouped with them, that is about more than a lot of stand sand. When you create a land bridge for iran to come into syria and attack our allies in the state of israel, thats about a lot more than sand. So i dont know what leverage youre referring to that we have in syria, because we have outsourced syria to russia. And talking about reconstruction funds as our leverage, not only is it years away, but im sure others will fill the void economically with syria when and if that time ever comes, because they already have a big stake in it. I. E. , russia, just to mention a few. So we do not really have any leverage in syria. That which we have we just expended, so my question is, at what point, if iran continues to enrich and do all of the things that you admitted they were doing as a result of them feeling like we walked away, and they have no obligation anymore, if they continue to do that, at what point will the size and nuclearcation of irans program forced the administration to consider whether military action is necessary to restrain Irans Nuclear program . I think that question is probably best left to a classified briefing. Well, without getting into any specifics, have you come to some such determination . A determination of what . As to what is the size and sophistication of rands Nuclear Program that would force the administration to consider military action of Irans Nuclear program that would force the administration to consider military action . We have without getting into what it is, have you come to a conclusion . In an unclassified setting, i cannot have that discussion. It is a simple answer that has nothing to do with classification. It does, because you have asked how close is iran to a Nuclear Weapon, and you have also asked that is all a matter of public information. I do not need you to testify to that. Or to speak to it. I am not asking you about that. I am asking you, have you come to a conclusion that if a ran reaches x dimension and x sophistication that will cause the necessity for military action since sanctions have not worked . Were always prepared for a military thats not the answer. You agree that the full enforce. Of sanctions on iran is incredibly important, right . Correct, yes. And our sanctions regime is weaker when people figure out how to evade them to the benefit of iran, is that not a fair statement . Correct. Do you believe those that seek to evade the u. S. Sanctions should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law . That is our policy, yes, well sanction any sanctionable behavior. In the case of who ran the biggest sanctions invasion scheme in recent history in which turkish gold was traded for iranian oil, you paid off turkish government officials as well as firms at the to facilitate the transactions, erdogan, who was the Prime Minister at the time reportedly knew about the scheme. So he was arrested march 2016 by u. S. Authorities and then hired Rudy Giuliani and former attorney general Michael Mukasey to represent him. You testified here that attorney general mukasey asked you to come, to come see you. When he asked to come see you did you know that Rudy Giuliani would accompany him . I do not recall if that was mentioned. I just know he was there. He was there. He just showed up. He came the second time, did you know he was going to accompany mr. Mckay z . I may or may not have. Forst honored the request the meeting, and i did the meeting, and then no action was taken. Well, the price must have been right, because both were willing to put their reputations on the line to represent someone who worked so hard to undermine u. S. National security interests. Are you familiar with report that the Washington Post had giuliani and mr. Thesey directly appealed to president to Exchange Prisoners for imprisoned americans in the fall of 2017 in an Oval Office Meeting that included secretary tillerson . I have not read the post story, and i am not aware of the meeting. Mr. Tillerson never spoke to you about that effort . No. The october 10th report also says, as youve stated before, that mr. Giuliani, in addition to mr. Mukasey, met with you to discuss the case at the state department. Is that true . There were two meetings early administration. Zarrob. T was about i have not said that. First of all, a counselor issue is about visas, its about whether or not a visa has been given for work, visitor permit, that is a counselor issue. Youre trying to hide behind the term, the conseil are consular issue, when this was a meeting about someone who was in prison, seeking to evade u. S. Sanctions on iran through turkey. That is not a consular issue. The meeting did concern a notular proposal, it was acted upon. I think anyone who knows me knows that i rigorously enforce all sanctions against iran. When we have the highest office in the land empowering people to seek to make a deal when you have the biggest violator of u. S. Sanctions on iran, it is hard to believe that we have a universal message on iran that our sanctions will be vigorously enforced and preserved. In thereaks credibility end. I do not see how it does. We have had in place there is no administration in history a consequence of those two meetings. Mr. Zarrab was the biggest violator of u. S. Iran sanctions, of any single individual. Is that not true . In the prior ministries and, yes, and he is in jail. The bottomine line is it wasnt the prior ministry should who was letting free agents go to make a deal to let him lose. Come on. Come on, stop with that Prior Administration stuff. No, this is a question this is a question that you met with them, not the Prior Administration. You met with them. And then took no action, so we are in full agreement on this, that we need to vigorously enforce our sanctions, and we have. Thank you very much, gentle man, and that will conclude our hearing, and a sincere mr. Hook. Thank you to you mr. Hook. , i said at the beginning of the hearing that you are the right man for the job, and you certainly have proven that to the case. I thank you for your service to the country. I think you have been an excellent witness as far as describing how we are attempting to handle a very difficult situation, and i want you to know that the appreciation of the American People is there for you, so thank you so much for the information. The record will remain open until the close of business on friday, and we would ask, mr. Hook, if you get questions to respond as properly as possible, and those responses will be included in the record. The committee is hereby adjourned. [captions Copyright National cable Satellite Corp 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] have a good day. Thank you. Appreciate it. Announcer here is a look at our live coverage thursday. On cspan, the house is back at 10 00 a. M. Eastern for general speeches. On the agenda, a bill requiring the security and Exchange Commission have testing on proposed sec Disclosure Rules considering investment. In the evening, President Trump holds a rally in dallas as part of his 2020 reelection campaign. In cspan2, the senate is back at 10 00 a. M. And will override the president ial veto overturning his Emergency Declaration at the border. Senators will also consider a resolution from democrats that will reverse the new epa rule on Carbon Emissions standards for power plants. And in the morning on cspan3, the house ministries and subcommittee on elections holds a hearing on Voting Rights the House Administration and subcommittee on elections holds a hearing on Voting Rights. This saturday, political the influence of american cartoons in world war ii. , they putand robin their hands up in the v for victory sign, and they have you buying bonds for stamps. The anniversary of the 1944 president ial campaign, the animated short hellbent for election. Dimes look at to at todays timetable. Only one of these things can get through to washington. It is a single track, you know. Yes, but arent the American People on board . And during the annual Army Heritage days in carlisle, pennsylvania, we visited an army battalion. This is a mobile emergency room, and like any emergency room, what we do is we assess, we treat, we stabilize, and then we get them out, get them out of the yard. Announcer and it 8 00 the presidency, interesting contributions of first Lady Pat Nixon 50 years later. This are very conscious of burgeoning womens movement, and she is putting leah student and realized that republicans were losing some ground on this. Thingsts were proposing and were there to support women, and she worked closely with the white house to help get more appointments of women in the federal government. Announcer our nations passed on American History tv, every weekend on cspan3 our nations past on American History tv, every weekend on cspan3. Congressional leaders were at the white House Wednesday for a meeting on syria, following the recent withdrawal of u. S. Troops in the region. The meeting took place on same day that the house passed a bipartisan resolution opposing the decision by the administration. Democratic leaders left the meeting sooner than expected and spoke to reporters about their interactions with the president. U. S. Troops from syria. Ms. Pelosi thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. We were invited to a meeting with the president that comes at a very difficult time for him