Given the document below, determine if the summary is factually consistent with the document.
A summary is factually consistent if all statements in the summary are entailed by the document.

Document: President NAME_1 withdrew his opposition to a bipartisan bill that was unanimously passed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. However, a Congressional No vote would not be binding and could be vetoed by Mr NAME_2. An outline agreement on the future shape of Iran's nuclear programme was reached after marathon talks in April. The US, Iran, and five other nations have set a deadline of 30 June to finalise a deal which would ease western sanctions in exchange for restrictions on Iran's nuclear programme. Mr NAME_2 agreed to sign the bill giving Congress the right to reject any forthcoming agreement with Iran. Iranian President NAME_3 immediately attacked the move. "What the US Senate, Congress and others say is not our problem... We are in talks with the major powers and not with the Congress." Some Republicans have argued against the nuclear deal, saying Iran has received too many

Summary: 1. The United States, and other nations have set a June deadline to finalize a deal that would ease Western sanctions in exchange for restrictions on NAME_1's nuclear program.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document?
Start your answer with "Yes" or "No".

Answer:


 Provide your response in exactly 7 paragraphs (separated nearby paragraphs with 3 aterisk symbols ***).
user